When did the 'Dominate' of the Eastern Roman Empire end?

When did the 'Dominate' of the Eastern Roman Empire end?

  • Reign of Justin I (518-527)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Justin II (565-578)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Constantine IV (668-685)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Irene (797-802)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Michael II (820-829)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Basil I (867-886)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Constantine X Doukas (1059-1067)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Alexios I Komnenos (1081-1118)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Michael VIII Palaiologos (1261-1282)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    63
The Dominate, inaugurated by Diocletian, succeeded the Principate of Augustus following the Crisis of the Third Century. The reforms of Diocletian and his immediate successors, notably Constantine, marked major changes in the internal organization of the Empire that made the Dominate differ so strongly with the quasi-republican Principate.

We see this, for example, in the introduction of new administrative divisions like the diocese, and the tendency to divide the empire between multiple emperors such as in 364 with Valentinian I & Valens and in 395 with Honorius & Arcadius. The city of Rome also became more of a ceremonial capital than the sole focal point of the empire. The empire became less of Empire of Rome and more of Empire of the Romans.

In the west, the empire ceased to exist following 476 with the deposition of Romulus Augustulus (or in 480 with the death of Julius Nepos who had nominal control over the west). But in the east, the empire survived for many centuries afterwards.

For some time, the eastern empire retained the reforms, administration and infrastructure left over from the original Dominate. But over time, intense changes (e.g. adoption of Greek as sole official language, loss of the eastern provinces, introduction of theme system) occurred to transform the empire into more of a Byzantine Empire, for lack of a better word.

It is with these intense changes in mind that I pose this question to the board. When did the Dominate end in the Eastern Roman Empire?
 
The position of Emperor evolved to become very strongly linked with the church, but there's no real need to describe the later Eastern Empire as having from dramatically departed from the dominate in terms of political structure. If anything linked the late Roman Empire with the ancient one it is the retaining of old Roman political structures, with all the problems this created. The loss of territory changed the scale of the Empire, but not necessarily the political substance.
 
Didn't it continue right up to the end of the Empire in 1453?

It's area shrank, but afaik its "constitution" remained the same from beginning to end, ie despotism tempered by revolution..
 
Didn't it continue right up to the end of the Empire in 1453?

It's area shrank, but afaik its "constitution" remained the same from beginning to end, ie despotism tempered by revolution..

Technically is right. We went gradually from Dominus to Autocrat, which essentially is the same meaning. But in a Christian Empire, the only Dominus could be only God, so...
 
The Dominate, inaugurated by Diocletian, succeeded the Principate of Augustus following the Crisis of the Third Century. The reforms of Diocletian and his immediate successors, notably Constantine, marked major changes in the internal organization of the Empire that made the Dominate differ so strongly with the quasi-republican Principate.

We see this, for example, in the introduction of new administrative divisions like the diocese, and the tendency to divide the empire between multiple emperors such as in 364 with Valentinian I & Valens and in 395 with Honorius & Arcadius. The city of Rome also became more of a ceremonial capital than the sole focal point of the empire. The empire became less of Empire of Rome and more of Empire of the Romans.

In the west, the empire ceased to exist following 476 with the deposition of Romulus Augustulus (or in 480 with the death of Julius Nepos who had nominal control over the west). But in the east, the empire survived for many centuries afterwards.

For some time, the eastern empire retained the reforms, administration and infrastructure left over from the original Dominate. But over time, intense changes (e.g. adoption of Greek as sole official language, loss of the eastern provinces, introduction of theme system) occurred to transform the empire into more of a Byzantine Empire, for lack of a better word.

It is with these intense changes in mind that I pose this question to the board. When did the Dominate end in the Eastern Roman Empire?

1204 With the 4th Crusade.
 
Why are you Stopping at Empress Irene?I dont Think anything especially changed during her Reign and there had been women empresses before,the usurpation of the imperial crown was not that unusual as well,so what is the difference?
 
Last edited:
Why are you Stopping at Empress Irene,I dont Think anything especially changed during her Reign and there had been women empresses before,the usurpation of the imperial crown was not that unusual as well,so what is the difference?
Probably because of Charlemagne’s coronation.
 
Technically is right. We went gradually from Dominus to Autocrat, which essentially is the same meaning. But in a Christian Empire, the only Dominus could be only God, so...

Yet is not the Dominate generally considered to have continued under Constantine and his successors?
 
Last edited:
Why are you Stopping at Empress Irene?I dont Think anything especially changed during her Reign and there had been women empresses before,the usurpation of the imperial crown was not that unusual as well,so what is the difference?
Thanks for the feedback. I added eight more possible selections to the poll to reach the max possible of 20.
 
It is with these intense changes in mind that I pose this question to the board. When did the Dominate end in the Eastern Roman Empire?
I voted one and seems people have the general idea, Heraclius was the last one with most power, after that, was a downhill spiral
 
The question is when does the Dominate becomes the Basileus. Certainly there is a similar reverence for the Emperor's personage but the Basileus was wrapped in Christianity. Especially after the lost of the Eastern provinces
 
The political attributes of the title of roman rules changed steadily over time (just like the overall state organization below them), but if we really want to pick a specific date for the end of the dominate, I would choose March 21st 629, when Latin titles were dropped in a law and the term Basileus (βασιλεύς) was used instead of the classical Caesar Augustus Imperator (Kaisar Sebastos Autokrator or Kaisar Augoustos Autokrator ).

However, like the other dates, this is a matter of choice, as Latin forms continued to be used in one way or another long after and there is no indication, that "Basileus" became Heraclius's "primary" title. Furthermore the title was also sporadically used before this date (ex, in a letter to the Persian Shah in 628 alongside the Latin form).

In a broader way, it makes sense to put the end of the dominate during Heraclius I reign, as during this time there were massive changes in the political landscape of both the Empire (lost of Syria and Egypt, recognition of Greek as sole official language, beginning of the theme system) and the Mediterranean world at large, with the fracture between the northern and the southern coasts in a Christian and Muslim "worlds", the end of late antiquity an the beginning of the Middle age.
 
Last edited:
Top