When did the Roman Empire fall (your thoughts)?

[Marcus Julius]

I doubt many historians would concur.

However, the OP asked for our thoughts. He didn't ask us to regurgitate what historians have already said.

The creation of Tetrarchy rule meant there was no longer a single ruling Emperor. Then in the ensuing civil wars, when Constantine conquered all, it was a victory of Christianity over polytheism and paganism, with a new emperor and a new capitol in the East. Rome wasn't conquered by the Goths, it was conquered by Constantine and his Christians.

Sure it was a big change. But Gibbon saw it as paving the way for the fall, not the fall itself. Down to fifth century there was still too much continuity with the past to speak of a fall.

Precisely. Which is why I gave the other extreme opposite view that continuity and authority continued through the church. This thread was initiated with an inquiry about opinion. I gave what I viewed as the two most extreme examples (although I had considered mentioning Caracalla's Constitutio Antoniniana which Neutra brought up, as the "beginning of the end" point as well), with the understanding that a majority of opinions will fall somewhere in between. As I said in the beginning of my comment. It depends on what each individual person defines as the Empire. When do you consider Rome to longer be Roman.

Just as a few others have since said, it was more of a gradual process, than a single event. What finite date you choose, comes down to is whether you want to view death as the first ring of the death bell, or the as the final reverberations fade from the valley. Is it the appearance of the very first cancer cell, or the point at which the last brainwave stops?