No Vandal Sack of Rome

[Unconsensual]

And how do we know exactly what the noble rural pleb thought?

Simple deduction, if administration was local and taxes were mostly transfers to the provinces what merit would a local man see in the empire? Especially an empire that constantly taxes, pillages, and levees for civil wars.

I wonder how then the Gauls were still importing African wheat and amphorae stuffed with products from NA. Trade did decrease but not to some sudden red light going off; only Vandal piracy.

Trade breaking down is not the same as no trade what so ever, but the amount of trade conducted was meager in its effect. Take the number of shipwrecks as a net fraction of all ship traffic and you can see the decline that never stopped from the 3rd century.

I wonder then if the campaigns of Constantius III, Aetius, Majorian, and Anthemius were all for some pretender.

Reconquest of rebellious or lost provinces do not add more to the system as a whole, just damaging it and further the need for a standing army that helped caused the problem in the first place.

I thought invasions played no major part in this. Also the legions ...were integrated into the province they were stationed in...

I said they were a symptom and a stressor, not that they were ineffective. Also the reserves were called into action by desperate claimant rivals for many succession crisises, succession crisises that occurred on a regular basis.

But what would make them then resent Romans dominance at this precise moment? Why keep quiet for so long?

Ugh no... It's been pretty consistent, Rome throughout its history had always had to deal with internal revolts and breakaway provinces. Nothing new, just the timing and intensity. The main evidence would probably be that instead of legal threats like the early empire the late empire had to use the threat of military force to collect taxes. That it couldn't rely on it's prestige but rather on it's tenuous monopoly on force.

On the other hand why the Gauls, Spaniards, heck even the Britons if you want to believe it, call on the Roman Emperor, whomever he happened to be, to "relieve them from the barbarians" when the Germans were all over the provinces?

Because imperial authority in the provinces was weak anyways? And the alternative is more pillaging by foreigners? Nothing here said that they wouldn't revolt against the emperor later.

As I stated earlier, the inactivity of Honorius and Valentinian III, yielding about 60 years of absolutely doing nothing, coupled with Ricimer killing all the other Emperors that tried to salvage some of the situation,during a small window of 15 years, did it for the WRE.

You can't just say: the solution must be that we have no bad leaders. A good system can cushion the effect of bad leaders for a while, a good system has bureaucrats that make sure things still run well. Rome was never just one man, it was always the strongman that along with a weak system brought it down.

 

[M79]

Are the ships getting bigger between in the Med as the centuries pass as well or is it a fairly constant ship size?

 

[Unconsensual]

Are the ships getting bigger between in the Med as the centuries pass as well or is it a fairly constant ship size?

They peaked in the 2nd century, there were super galleys with 6-7 rows of paddling but they were the exception and not the norm.

 

[Pururauka]

I never said they weren't damaging, I said that they were minor problems relative to the empire's dysfunction which allowed the barbarians to do damage. It's the same old problem; poorly paid soldiers and ambitious generals in the frontier and provinces decided to seize the throne leaving their areas undefended. Not only was the army responsible for guarding the frontier but improving/maintaining local infrastructure and policing.

“Minor problems” is an understatement. And a big one at that. If there are no tribes then the civil wars wouldn’t threaten the existence of the state.
The rest of your statement is accurate.

Ugh huh, so understrength forces for the task at hand counts as a serious attempt? Abandonment is not about intention but actual commitment. Under your definition no Roman emperor abandoned the empire's boundaries but reality clearly didn't reflect that.

Understrength forces? And what would the reference point be to make such a claim? The fact that they did not succeed? I thought that they “abandoned” the province; so let’s evaluate commitment:


“Majorian even attempted to cross over to Libya with a great force, after he had collected about three hundred ships” Priscus claims. Even if you cut the number by half it’s pretty impressive if you consider that before him, the WRE had no navy to speak of.


Anthemius launched not one, but two expeditions. The first one: “An expedition to Africa that had been organized against the Vandals was recalled because of a change in circumstances and the unsuitability of the weather” (Priscus); this would have been launched in late 467, the year of his accession. The very year of his accession!


But you must know about the last attempt before Belisarius.
"The emperor Leo equipped and sent a great expedition against Gaiseric, the ruler of the Africans who, after the death of Marcian , had committed many terrible depredations against the lands under the sovereignty of the Romans, pillaging and enslaving many men and demolishing their cities. Therefore, the emperor, aroused to anger, collected from all the eastern sea 1,100 ships, filled them with soldiers and arms, and sent them against Gaiseric. They say that he spent 1,300 centenaria [130,000 lb.] of gold on this expedition" (Priscus.)


"Leo, who ruled after Marcian, lavished limitless money on the expedition against the Vandals. For, as those who administered these things reveal, 47,000 pounds of gold were raised through the prefects, 17,000 pounds of gold through the count of the treasury, and 700,000 pounds of silver, apart from adequate amounts raised from the public funds and from the emperor Anthemius" (Candidus.)


"And the emperor Leo, wishing to punish the Vandals was gathering an army against them, and they say that this army amounted to about 100,000 men. And he collected a fleet of ships from the whole of the eastern Mediterranean, showing great generosity to both soldiers and sailors, for he feared lest from a parsimonious policy some obstacle might arise to hinder him in his desire to carry out his punishment of the barbarians. Therefore, they say, 1,300 centenaria were expended by him to no purpose" (Bellum Vandalicum, Procopius.)


"As general and commander of the expedition [Leo] appointed Basiliscus, the brother of the empress Verina. When no small force from the east had been collected, he engaged frequently in sea fights with Gaiseric and sent 340 of his ships to the bottom" (Priscus.)


"Now, there was in Dalmatia a certain Marcellinus, one of the acquaintances of Aëtius and a man of repute, who, after Aëtius had died no longer deigned to yield obedience to the emperor, but beginning a revolution and detaching all the others from allegiance, held the power of Dalmatia himself, since no one dared encounter him. But the emperor Leo at that time won over this Marcellinus by very careful wheedling, and bade him go to the island of Sardinia, which was then subject to the Vandals. And he drove out the Vandals and gained possession of it with no great difficulty" (Bellum Vandalicum, Procopius.)


"And Heraclius was sent from Byzantium to Tripoli in Libya, and after conquering the Vandals of that district in battle, he easily captured the cities, and leaving his ships there, led his army on foot toward Carthage "(Bellum Vandalicum, Procopius.)


"The legates that had been sent to the emperor returned announcing that, under his authority, a very immense army under three carefully chosen generals had been sent by the emperor Leo against the Vandals, and that Marcellinus likewise had been sent by the emperor Anthemius with an immense force allied to Leo's army, and that Ricimer had been made the son-in-law of Anthemius and patrician (Hydatius.)


I am still missing the lack of commitment...

And look what happened, the system that he tried to change was more powerful than he is. In fact it's the same system that grew more entrenched over time and was never changed that encouraged pretenders to gather forces while the emperor was out . He has the ideas but certainly not the ability or luck. Also you are ignoring the underlying conditions that changed: Rome was no longer vastly militarily superior , there is no rich neighbor left to pillage, localized identities and administrations from the 3rd century never went away,and it's social stability has been severely weakened by a massive wealth divide.

He had the ideas and the skill. What he lacked was the “luck” as you term it. With a viper like Ricimer who could have?
The regionalization point is still not valid…
Rich neighbors? Gaul, Spain, Raetia, Moesia, Germany, Illyricum, Thrace, Mauretania, Moesia, Britain, Libya, etc. before Roman arrival were not mighty centers of opulence such as Egypt, Asia, Macedonia…

The east still had enough farmer soldiers of medium wealth to maintain their military system, the west depleted it's rural poor long ago and the system it was built upon reflected that in it's instability. Augustus did not have to deal with a situation as severe as the 5th century, tax collection and trade were in much better health in the 1st century...etc all the points I said before about different conditions of the 5th century.

I thought that the West was more rural than the East, which contributed to its collapse. True, the largest parts of the West had been monopolized by senators and their slaves, hindering the tax base, but although that did away with large parts of “peasants” the empire’s own manpower shouldn’t have been affected. Economically was the lack of taxes that crippled the ability to better finance the armies, along with the devastation of the tribes. Again to reinforce this point, the latinfundia states of the senators had begun growing ever since the first century, but the “barbarian crisis” had never before reached the levels of the 5th century, there is no parallel to the Huns forcing all of these tribes on Rome.

 

[Pururauka]

Simple deduction, if administration was local and taxes were mostly transfers to the provinces what merit would a local man see in the empire? Especially an empire that constantly taxes, pillages, and levees for civil wars.

Deduction, or total guess?

Trade breaking down is not the same as no trade what so ever, but the amount of trade conducted was meager in its effect. Take the number of shipwrecks as a net fraction of all ship traffic and you can see the decline that never stopped from the 3rd century.

Long range trade no longer occurred anywhere near the level of the 2nd century.

Trade did decline, no doubt about it. And accordingly there would have been repercussions. You are correct it was a factor. But, taking your graph, it was decline ever since total Roman control was established throughout the Mediterranean. Also how do we account for overland trade?
And just playing devil’s advocate, do our wrecks include just merchant ships, or all ships?

Reconquest of rebellious or lost provinces do not add more to the system as a whole, just damaging it and further the need for a standing army that helped caused the problem in the first place.

Military actions no longer meant loot and slaves like the early empire, just more levees and taxes for the next pretender.

I wonder then if the campaigns of Constantius III, Aetius, Majorian, and Anthemius were all for some pretender.

No talk here about conquests. Just demonstrating that military actions were not only channeled towards overthrowing the reigning emperor.

I said they were a symptom and a stressor, not that they were ineffective. Also the reserves were called into action by desperate claimant rivals for many succession crisises, succession crisises that occurred on a regular basis.

Due to constant civil wars and invasions, military forces are often deployed away from their home provinces at its expense. Locals who did not benefit saw this as an unjustified tax.

[FONT=&quot]I thought invasions played no major part in this. Also the legions were deployed all over during the early empire, and were integrated into the province they were stationed in, with legionaries intermarrying the locals much of the time. During the late empire, this practice was cemented with the limitanei; the reserves armies played no part, since they were not permanently deployed.[/FONT]

All I was saying was that military forces were always deployed and integrated in the areas where they were deployed, civil wars or not. “Locals who did not benefit saw this as an unjustified tax” seems IMO again, a wild guess.

Ugh no... It's been pretty consistent, Rome throughout its history had always had to deal with internal revolts and breakaway provinces. Nothing new, just the timing and intensity. The main evidence would probably be that instead of legal threats like the early empire the late empire had to use the threat of military force to collect taxes. That it couldn't rely on it's prestige but rather on it's tenuous monopoly on force.

Please list any breakaway provinces that rejected their Romanitas, and choose their provincial identity instead. Now, we are talking about imperial provinces breaking away; not newly conquered lands. The revolts in Pannonia during the last decade of the first century BC would not qualify for example.
And to force and coercion to have it their way, I think the early Empire was on a par with late Rome.

Because imperial authority in the provinces was weak anyways? And the alternative is more pillaging by foreigners? Nothing here said that they wouldn't revolt against the emperor later.

What? They call for help because imperial authority is weak, and they want to be saved from the barbarians? That is wildly self-contradicting!

You can't just say: the solution must be that we have no bad leaders. A good system can cushion the effect of bad leaders for a while, a good system has bureaucrats that make sure things still run well. Rome was never just one man, it was always the strongman that along with a weak system brought it down.

I am not saying that the solution is no bad leaders. During the crisis of the third century, you had revolt after revolt, civil war after civil war; but you did not have the barbarian problem at 5th century levels. You did not have two sloths on the throne that did nothing except shift around in their seats as the provinces were devastated for 60 years. After such a period of neglect, when you finally get leaders, real men at the helm, they get killed by their “magister” who could care less about the empire, only his personal power. There is no similar analogy to such a king maker, during the previous crisis.
The bureaucracy was there and continued to run; it provided the Germanic kingdoms with enough bureaucratic efficiency to become established.
If I am to say something it would be: you can have any kind of leader, good or bad, but one who is surrounded with loyalists to Rome, whether they are Roman, like Aetius, or not, like Stilicho. If Majorian had done away with Ricimer, like Leo did with Aspar…I just gave you a great idea for a new TL.

 

[Unconsensual]

snip

Alright, fair enough . You made your point , it does seemed liked they tried but weren't able to succeed.

He had the ideas and the skill. What he lacked was the “luck” as you term it. With a viper like Ricimer who could have?
The regionalization point is still not valid…

No, he lacked the skill. It wasn't a matter of luck, every emperor had been handicapped by the fact that granting generals power meant the same as granting potential usurpers the means to overthrow him. The only solution was to lead the army himself and even then it just meant that his enemies will gather power at home while he was gone. Only the very skilled avoided this, it's not luck: an emperor's enemies will gain strength in the emperor's absence no matter what. The institutions to guarantee loyalty/ remove the army from politics simply wasn't there.

Rich neighbors? Gaul, Spain, Raetia, Moesia, Germany, Illyricum, Thrace, Mauretania, Moesia, Britain, Libya, etc. before Roman arrival were not mighty centers of opulence such as Egypt, Asia, Macedonia…

And how would pillaging those provinces of the empire help fund the army past 5 years? There wasn't any non-Romans left for this.

I thought that the West was more rural than the East, which contributed to its collapse. True, the largest parts of the West had been monopolized by senators and their slaves, hindering the tax base, but although that did away with large parts of “peasants” the empire’s own manpower shouldn’t have been affected. Economically was the lack of taxes that crippled the ability to better finance the armies, along with the devastation of the tribes. Again to reinforce this point, the latinfundia states of the senators had begun growing ever since the first century, but the “barbarian crisis” had never before reached the levels of the 5th century, there is no parallel to the Huns forcing all of these tribes on Rome.

Oh geez don't get me started on Roman tax systems.

There wasn't one, the system was essentially highway robbery that contained more exceptions and laws dating from the date of conquest to great a ****fest of irregular and inefficient taxation. Taxes varied by region not for any real difference in wealth or intention except the magistrate's politics and inherited legal status. Taxes jumped from tariffs in a region to a percentage in another to a lump sum of animals and grain in another.Taxes and civil servant salaries weren't adjusted for inflation, which meant chronically underfunded civil servants who added to the problems by stealing and simply performing poorly, that in addition to a constantly inflating tax base .

The system was setup for local officials to collect taxes for prestige, something that went out the window as soon as the value of court politics decay with imperial prestige. Chronically underfunded armies are supposed to be supplied by locals often resorted to extorting/pillaging , this severely depleted the economy in borderlands and wherever claimants fought. It was common practice for generals to squeeze out merchants by buying "at discount" and selling their goods on way to their destination.

This stuff isn't anything new, it was chronic since the days of the early empire. The only two alternative income sources were minting and conquest, but seriously what are they going to pillage? Lost provinces of the empire? Germanic tribes?

Deduction, or total guess?

Considering accounts of the late empire's citizenry's status yeah. Roughly about 5% of the populace was rich/powerful enough to be exempt from taxes and laws in all but name: I can't see how this will go well for the rest.

Trade did decline, no doubt about it. And accordingly there would have been repercussions. You are correct it was a factor. But, taking your graph, it was decline ever since total Roman control was established throughout the Mediterranean. Also how do we account for overland trade?

Unlike the sea land trade routes requires maintenance and patrolling of roads and outposts. Also just like modern logistics, draft transport in horribly inefficient. It takes about 10% of cargo weight for every 50 km of transport, it doesn't cost much to float and hire galley slaves.

And just playing devil’s advocate, do our wrecks include just merchant ships, or all ships?

Net aggregate, the Roman navy hasn't seen serious action in the Mediterranean since the days of Anthony.

No talk here about conquests. Just demonstrating that military actions were not only channeled towards overthrowing the reigning emperor.

Fair enough, but the original point still stands. The civil wars/disorder was very damaging.

All I was saying was that military forces were always deployed and integrated in the areas where they were deployed, civil wars or not. “Locals who did not benefit saw this as an unjustified tax” seems IMO again, a wild guess.

No it's not, throughout the empire's history there was always net transfer payments to Rome. It still didn't go well with locals, and like I pointed out the frequent civil wars meant that the armies will be on the move constantly.

What? They call for help because imperial authority is weak, and they want to be saved from the barbarians? That is wildly self-contradicting!

They call for imperial authority despite it's weak administration since the alternative is pillage and slaughter by nomad settlers who are planning to stay. As soon as the immediate threat is over things are back to usual, the province will try to avoid taxes and fund local pretenders.

Please list any breakaway provinces that rejected their Romanitas, and choose their provincial identity instead. Now, we are talking about imperial provinces breaking away; not newly conquered lands. The revolts in Pannonia during the last decade of the first century BC would not qualify for example. And to force and coercion to have it their way, I think the early Empire was on a par with late Rome.

How is a province that claims to be the true authority for Rome that like every other ambitious man of the time in anyway different from a revolt?

I am not saying that the solution is no bad leaders. During the crisis of the third century, you had revolt after revolt, civil war after civil war; but you did not have the barbarian problem at 5th century levels. You did not have two sloths on the throne that did nothing except shift around in their seats as the provinces were devastated for 60 years. After such a period of neglect, when you finally get leaders, real men at the helm, they get killed by their “magister” who could care less about the empire, only his personal power. There is no similar analogy to such a king maker, during the previous crisis.

Except the barbarians weren't an exception, Rome's heavy infantry tactics and technology simply wasn't cutting edge anymore. It no longer guaranteed victory in head on combat nor was it mobile enough for the needs of the time. And I will restate, a good system with stable institutions won't be reliant on the whims of a single man.

The bureaucracy was there and continued to run; it provided the Germanic kingdoms with enough bureaucratic efficiency to become established.

See above about the civil servants.

If I am to say something it would be: you can have any kind of leader, good or bad, but one who is surrounded with loyalists to Rome...

You mean the emperor had armies stationed in Rome? How many emperors were killed by their own men? How many claimants started in the country side?

Anyways I think we are being sidetracked from the original argument . Rome fell due to it's inefficient system that led to frequent civil wars ,poor revenue, and dissent that collapsed when outside forces were present.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

or not, like Stilicho.

Stilicho was very much a Roman. He was brought up in the empire. His mother must have been an influential figure for him to have rose high in the ranks so quickly, and to have even been given the chance to be in the military command to begin with.

 

[M79]

Without Stilichio or some other potent general alive to maintain control over the army the WRE is doomed in short order anyway. Alari'c siege on Rome was the 4th one in a few years and the internal organization/control of the Empire simply was not there. Whoever is left should also to prevent Gaul, and possibly Brittania, from completely breaking away from Rome. Organize a defensive line in the Pyrennes following Gaul incursions but try to leave a Roman in charge of Britain. And regardless of all of the above, without serious addressment of the internal trade decline and revenue that would generate, all this does is delay things for a generation at best. By 400 AD I do not think the WRE can be reasonably saved on its own though if parts of it can linger in better shape perhaps the ERE can help them out later on.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

By 400 AD I do not think the WRE can be reasonably saved on its own though if parts of it can linger in better shape perhaps the ERE can help them out later on.

I'd move it more to 407. The failure to address the barbarian invasions in late 406 (they really weren't that large when they started, they just snowballed as they gained momentum and gained followers) and the subsequent crossing into Gaul of Constantine was a major blow.

 

[Pururauka]

Stilicho was very much a Roman. He was brought up in the empire. His mother must have been an influential figure for him to have rose high in the ranks so quickly, and to have even been given the chance to be in the military command to begin with.

I will confess ignorance on his provenance. However, I was using him as an example of someone devoted to the Empire and its idea, regardless of his ethnic background.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

I will confess ignorance on his provenance. However, I was using him as an example of someone devoted to the Empire and its idea, regardless of his ethnic background.

I realized that, just wanted to point it out. It wasn't necessarily directed against you, just in general.

 

[Pururauka]

No, he lacked the skill. It wasn't a matter of luck, every emperor had been handicapped by the fact that granting generals power meant the same as granting potential usurpers the means to overthrow him. The only solution was to lead the army himself and even then it just meant that his enemies will gather power at home while he was gone. Only the very skilled avoided this, it's not luck: an emperor's enemies will gain strength in the emperor's absence no matter what. The institutions to guarantee loyalty/ remove the army from politics simply wasn't there.

I’m sorry but luck was one of the qualities you first brought up. Majorian was certainly skillful; no one after Aetius, and certainly after himself, were able again to bring the Visigoths to heel; pacify Gaul once again, and seriously scare Gaiseric (with the exception perhaps of Leo’s later expedition.) Aside from the already mentioned novella, which were addressed to many of the points that you have already brought up: corruption, taxation, etc. Once again, the principle is the same as the “African question” we just finalized: just because he was not successful in the end does not mean that the man did not see the problems and tried to address them. He was cut short just like many of his successors would, by the traitor Ricimer. All of them by the same guy; not 20 rebels or pretenders, but the same m-effer.

And how would pillaging those provinces of the empire help fund the army past 5 years? There wasn't any non-Romans left for this.

It wouldn’t. The taxation issue needed to be addressed; I am not disagreeing with you on that point. Just mentioning those lands as a counterpoint to the issue of “early Rome only got away by plundering everything.”

Oh geez don't get me started on Roman tax systems.

There wasn't one, the system was essentially highway robbery that contained more exceptions and laws dating from the date of conquest to great a ****fest of irregular and inefficient taxation. Taxes varied by region not for any real difference in wealth or intention except the magistrate's politics and inherited legal status. Taxes jumped from tariffs in a region to a percentage in another to a lump sum of animals and grain in another.Taxes and civil servant salaries weren't adjusted for inflation, which meant chronically underfunded civil servants who added to the problems by stealing and simply performing poorly, that in addition to a constantly inflating tax base .

The system was setup for local officials to collect taxes for prestige, something that went out the window as soon as the value of court politics decay with imperial prestige. Chronically underfunded armies are supposed to be supplied by locals often resorted to extorting/pillaging , this severely depleted the economy in borderlands and wherever claimants fought. It was common practice for generals to squeeze out merchants by buying "at discount" and selling their goods on way to their destination.

This stuff isn't anything new, it was chronic since the days of the early empire. The only two alternative income sources were minting and conquest, but seriously what are they going to pillage? Lost provinces of the empire? Germanic tribes?

First, let’s not fall into the “time-centric” category of bigots. Opinions and adjectives (essentially highway robbery; great a ****fest) are unnecessary. Let’s remember that witch hunts were perfectly logical in their time, and we’ll perhaps be looked upon as troglodytes 300 years from now.
That being said, there was no better alternative to what was in place. At the time, from China to the Atlantic taxation involved the “taking,” for lack of a better word, of taxes. Different areas would have different produce, not all could pay in money, which would be turned in to the state. NOW, and please read this carefully: Yes, there was crippling corruption. Honestly barely any money made it to the state coffers, BUT that was not imperial policy; the mistake of the central government was to delegate the collection to individuals who were seldom, if ever, monitored, and were allowed to keep their pay from the collected taxes. Who was to say they were not just their “rightful” payment?
So once again, I am in agreement with you that taxation needed to be addressed.

Considering accounts of the late empire's citizenry's status yeah. Roughly about 5% of the populace was rich/powerful enough to be exempt from taxes and laws in all but name: I can't see how this will go well for the rest.

I am sorry but guesses cannot be seriously considered. The peasants in Russia “must have hated” Stalin’s industrialization, but did it change anything?

Unlike the sea land trade routes requires maintenance and patrolling of roads and outposts. Also just like modern logistics, draft transport in horribly inefficient. It takes about 10% of cargo weight for every 50 km of transport, it doesn't cost much to float and hire galley slaves.

Fair point.

Net aggregate, the Roman navy hasn't seen serious action in the Mediterranean since the days of Anthony.

Continuing in my role: Wouldn’t you just say that there were fewer ships, of all kinds, around then, period?

Fair enough, but the original point still stands. The civil wars/disorder was very damaging.

True.

No it's not, throughout the empire's history there was always net transfer payments to Rome. It still didn't go well with locals, and like I pointed out the frequent civil wars meant that the armies will be on the move constantly.

Armies will march, sure. But we cannot make the inference that the locals “hated the Empire” because of it. There was not a single popular, (not tribes trying to reestablish independence,) actual, revolt during the Imperial age. Roman rule was still better than the other option.

They call for imperial authority despite it's weak administration since the alternative is pillage and slaughter by nomad settlers who are planning to stay. As soon as the immediate threat is over things are back to usual, the province will try to avoid taxes and fund local pretenders.

You are in fact reinforcing my point then. This is not regionalization; only citizens who want to be left alone; the pretenders they might fund don’t call themselves “Emperor of (fill in the blank) and abandon the idea of empire.”

How is a province that claims to be the true authority for Rome that like every other ambitious man of the time in anyway different from a revolt?

See above.

Except the barbarians weren't an exception, Rome's heavy infantry tactics and technology simply wasn't cutting edge anymore. It no longer guaranteed victory in head on combat nor was it mobile enough for the needs of the time. And I will restate, a good system with stable institutions won't be reliant on the whims of a single man.

The military aspect is true; other peoples caught up. Add the barbarian question and you have a real mess: men who were almost at the same military level as Rome’s and in greater numbers than ever before (pushed on by more fearsome savages, the Huns.)
With regards to the system, we’d have to go back to Augustus himself and ask him not to leave the sticky mess he did. Rome was never a clear cut monarchy; technically everyone had a shot.

You mean the emperor had armies stationed in Rome? How many emperors were killed by their own men? How many claimants started in the country side?

I meant men that were loyal to the idea of Rome, perhaps not to a particular Emperor, but to the state: Stilicho was one, Constantius III, was one, Aetius was also one. Their loyalties to their Emperor might have been dubious, arguably, but never to Roman interests. Ricimer, the man that filled their shoes and made and unmade rulers, was not like them, no matter how you look at it.

Anyways I think we are being sidetracked from the original argument . Rome fell due to it's inefficient system that led to frequent civil wars ,poor revenue, and dissent that collapsed when outside forces were present.

I concur. We’ll have to agree to disagree on some of the points. Rome did have obvious problems, you’ve listed some of them, and they were real problems. But the house could have stood longer, as it already had with the very same problems, if it hadn’t been swept away by the flood from the north.

 

[Magnum]

The military aspect is true; other peoples caught up. Add the barbarian question and you have a real mess: men who were almost at the same military level as Rome’s and in greater numbers than ever before (pushed on by more fearsome savages, the Huns.)

Regarding this, I remember, when I went to Cologne (Koln) in Germany two year ago, I went to the history museum (which is almot entirely dedicated to Roman history) and listened to the local historian. He showed us weapons the Franks and other Germanics used around the time they finally broke through the Rhine, and compared them to Roman weapons of the same time.

Conclusion: While Germanic weapons were arguably much better than in centuries past, Roman weapons and armour were still of much better quality.

In his opinion, the fact that the Roman state was like "an empty shell" and "constantly at war with itself" had everything to do with Germanic succes, not weapon quality.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

The Romans were still very much superior to the barbarians as far as military discipline and weaponry and armor goes. The Romans still one the vast majority of their pitched battles with the barbarians. The reason they tried to avoid pitched battles was due to manpower problems, and how hard it would be to replenish losses, not due to them not being able to win them.

People forget that at Adrianople, the Roman forces, despite being extremely tired, hot, and having the battle all but lossed, fought on doggedly for quite some time after any chance of winning was gone.