Ave!

[Nathan Ross]

I don't agree with the 161AD. This can easily creates the idea that the peak of the Roman Empire can be seen in the 161

The whole point of the early/middle/late division is that it doesn't suggest any kind of 'peak'. It's a purely chronological split, with variable parameters, and no implications of relative value.


Just as a further illustration of the difficulties of determining where artifical breaks in chronology should fall, the University of Oxford School of Archaeology divides the Roman imperial era into three periods:

Early Imperial, 30BC-AD 120
Middle Imperial, AD 70-250
Late Antiquity, AD 280-650

You can read their rationale for this on the webpage above. The 'middle imperial' dates seem a bit odd, but the other two act as decent brackets for the era, I think.

There is quite a good reason for placing the early-middle division around the accession of Hadrian though - the end of Rome's expansion and wars of conquest, and the shift to static frontiers and defensive wars, with power steadily flowing outwards from the centre towards the peripheries.

Almost everyone seems to begin the 'late empire' era around the reign of Diocletian though, and it's easy to see why - definite changes in imperial power structures, administration, provincial organisation, army structure, miliary equipment, art and architecture and religion, leading very soon to the beginning of Christianisation.