When did Rome lose its identity? When was Rome quintessentially Roman and what are some watershed moments between 753BC and 1453AD when it shed that Romanness?

For me, it was Diocletian’s reforms. From then on in, the polity resembled more of a medieval state than an ancient one.

The overthrow of the Roman monarchy

>>17870684 (OP)
It was obviously when it became Christian. The most defining moment was to me when Julian died, but Constantine making Christianity the most privileged religion in the empire is another defining moment, as was the emanation of the Codex Theodosianus that declared Paganism against the law and the only lawful religions to be Christianity and Judaism. The death of Theodosius and the definitive division of the empire into east and west may be another defining moment. These moments are also all better dates for the end of Antiquity and the start of the Middle Ages than the fall of the western empire.

>>17870689
If by “Roman monarchy” you mean the Byzantine court and by “overthrow” you’re referring to the conquest of Constantinople by the turks, then you’re right

>>17870684 (OP)
>When did Rome lose its identity?
Rome lasted two thousand years. Keeping the same identity the entire time of its existence would've been impossible.

>>17870684 (OP)
>For me, it was Diocletian’s reforms. From then on in, the polity resembled more of a medieval state than an ancient one.
How is that? I can't see it

>>17870818
Correct. All states evolve over time and the “Byzantine” empire was just what the Roman Empire naturally evolved into.

>>17870914
How is Byzantium an "evolution"?

>>17870946

>>17870689
This. Rome died with Lord Superbus.

>>17870684 (OP)
>When was Rome quintessentially Roman
punic wars - crisis of the 3rd century, very broadly

>>17870684 (OP)
When soldiers stopped carrying their own equipment and relied on slaves for that

>>17870914
So if Britain fell than Canada would be considered the successor to the British Empire even when it was majority Hindu Indian?

>>17870684 (OP)
>From then on in, the polity resembled more of a medieval state than an ancient one.
If you think the empire of Diocletian resembles a medieval state you are insane

>>17870684 (OP)
3rd Century and the trasition to Principiate to Dominate

>>17870684 (OP)
prior to sulla at the latest

Rome is an anomaly.

>>17871162
If there was a strong British identity then yes. Also consider that India used to be a port of the empire as well.

>>17871162
>So if Britain fell than Canada would be considered the successor to the British Empire even when it was majority Hindu Indian?
The analogy would be if Canada was recognised as the same state as the British Empire, had the same culture, same religion, same government and composed of mostly the same people.

>>17870914
Byzantines stopped being roman after Belisarius and Justinian.

Belisarius was the last roman general to recieve a triumph and after Justinian died there was no longer an identity of Rome being the protector of the continent of europe.

Byzantium became a rump ampire after this time.

>>17871243
>was no longer an identity of Rome being the protector of the continent of europe.
There never was in the first place. The Roman state only served itself.

>>17871243
>identity of Rome being the protector of the continent of europe
Ironic given how they protected the entirety of Eastern Europe from Islam.

>>17870684 (OP)
The definition of Roman identity changed multiple times in history.
Early republic: Just the city
Mid republic: The city, its colonies and few of the other Italics.
Late republic: Most of the Italy
Early Principate: Italians, Italian colonizers and selected noblemen from the other provinces.
Late principate (Caracalla's edict): All free men in the Empire

>>17871242
The empire of Constantinople did not have the same religion as Rome.

>>17870845
>>17871205
Diocletian made professions hereditary and tied peasant to the land, which laid the foundation for serfdom. By this time, the wealthy landowners had retreated from civic city life and were building fortified cities across the empire in response to the germanic threats.

>>17871379
Rome did not have an official religion until like 5th century

>>17871986
But Byzantium became anti-feudal as fuck. The place for nobility was Constantinople, that's where all the money and titles came from instead of owning land.

>>17870684 (OP)
For me it was definitely
509 BC – End of the Roman Kingdom, beginning of the Republic
88 BC - Sulla marches on Rome
49 BC - Caesar marches on Rome
27 BC – Transition from Republic to Empire under Augustus
212 AD – Edict of Caracalla
284 AD – Diocletian’s reforms, transitioning from Principate to Dominate
313 AD – Edict of Milan
330 AD – Constantinople established as the new imperial capital
395 AD – Division of the empire into East and West after Theodosius I
476 AD – Deposition of Romulus Augustulus
565 AD – Death of Justinian I
610 AD – Heraclius becomes Basileus
1204 AD - 4th Crusade sacks Constantinople
1453 AD – Fall of Constantinople
1806 AD – Dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire
1870 AD – Capture of Rome ending Papal States

>>17870684 (OP)
Everything is Rome and it is eternal

>>17873810
Based. Rome stopped being a place and started being an "idea" long before it even "died".

I'd say Rome lost it's identity when it claimed Judea as a province.

the transitioning of the western capital from Mediolanum to Ravenna was when Rome terminally lost it's vital essence

>>17870684 (OP)
I hate how people always post this turboblob map when these borders didn't even last 1 year