i've addressed this topic before but i'm returning to the end of the roman empire

some historians try to define it as going beyond the fall of the west (476) and ending sometime between emperor justinian and emperor phocas (530-615ish)

this is bizarre

the logic of the argument is that what matters is not political continuity which would lend itself to 1453-70 end date

but rather some 'character of romanness' which was not lost in the east in the 5th century when the west fell, but was by some time in the 6th

we definitely do see an evolution in the structures and culture of the empire in this period, things become decidedly more feudal, the mentality moves from universalism to survival etc.

but to suggest that constitutes the end of the empire is bizarre

it assumes some static identity as having existed prior which is simply not true

the rome of 400 would be unrecognisable to the rome of 200 let alone 50ad

the reforms in the economic structure and state that the empire went through in the 3rd century culminating in the diocletian reforms and the conversion of the state to a monotheistic one were far larger breaks than anything that happened in the 6th century

yet no one suggests that rome ceased to exist in 275

because that is absurd

and yet

some people would argue it did in 560???

i'm imagining if as historians we decided to consider britain after the loss of the major colonies (1776) as a different country

after all the industrial revolution would change the economic character fundamentally

so lets call britain from 1800 'the londinium empire'