> A team of archaeologists, historians, and climate scientists have constructed a history of Rome’s lead pollution, which allows them to approximate Mediterranean economic activity from 1,100 b.c. to 800 a.d.

I think that better explains the broad span of time. Then again, if you were writing for an audience 1300 years in the future with little to no genuine knowledge of our time period (other than popular myth and oral tradition) that probably wouldn't be a bad year to start with, since that's not terribly long after major explorations to the West from Europe (Columbus "discovered" the Bahamas around 1492).

Edit: formatting of the quote

Okay, let me rephrase that: A lot of the territory Rome ruled was conquered in Caesar's lifetime (Gaul, most of their core Asian possessions). Most of Rome's noteworthy cultural achievements happened after Caesar was dead. Caesar laid the groundwork for Augustus's form of government, which would survive in some form for nearly 1500 years. So starting an article about Rome's decline with Caesar is like writing an article about the decline of computer science and starting it with Turing.

1527 is not at all a bad starting point--the year Ferdinand I became king of Croatia, later to rule as Holy Roman Emperor and contesting the Ottoman Empire, who at that time began their great advance into Europe. Also when the Protestant Reformation began picking up steam, the Sack of Rome, and the death of Niccolò Machiavelli.

And it’s around the discovery of America as well, which would also be useful to explain to an audience 1300 years in the future.

Explaining the settlement of america, the type of people that moved over (which are not just a random sample, but certain religious and social groups), and the slave trade are all important factors for the election of Trump later on.

So, yeah, I agree, for a reader a millenium later, it’d be a great starting point.