Much of the unique function of the Roman Empire was predicated on the central position of the city of Rome - the ascension of Diocletian was a decisive break with that idea. Diocletian shifted the Principate into the Dominate - the Late Empire is an entirely different beast from what came before it. A more dynastic outlook, the shift away from Latin culture, the destruction of the legitimizing role of the Senate, the move of the capital away from Rome itself, the effectively monarchial despotism and court functions championed by all Emperors thereafter.
After Diocletian, there is still an empire - but it’s only dubiously Roman.
Alright, I’ll bite, could you expand a bit on your choice of 284? I don’t think I’ve seen that one suggested before.
Much of the unique function of the Roman Empire was predicated on the central position of the city of Rome - the ascension of Diocletian was a decisive break with that idea. Diocletian shifted the Principate into the Dominate - the Late Empire is an entirely different beast from what came before it. A more dynastic outlook, the shift away from Latin culture, the destruction of the legitimizing role of the Senate, the move of the capital away from Rome itself, the effectively monarchial despotism and court functions championed by all Emperors thereafter.
After Diocletian, there is still an empire - but it’s only dubiously Roman.