Changes

#Economic stagnation—Roman wealth, especially in the west, deteriorated over time so that by the 4th century the barbarian tribes outside the Empire were often just as wealthy as the Empire itself.

#Economic stagnation—Roman wealth, especially in the west, deteriorated over time so that by the 4th century the barbarian tribes outside the Empire were often just as wealthy as the Empire itself.

#Barbarianism of the Roman military—Roman legions were populated more and more by barbarians and less and less by Romans, including many of the generals.  Over time the barbarians learned and were trained in Roman tactics as well so that the distinction between Romans and barbarian armies became blurred.  Near the end of the Empire, barbarian and mercenary armies had become an integral part of Roman military protection.

#Barbarianism of the Roman military—Roman legions were populated more and more by barbarians and less and less by Romans, including many of the generals.  Over time the barbarians learned and were trained in Roman tactics as well so that the distinction between Romans and barbarian armies became blurred.  Near the end of the Empire, barbarian and mercenary armies had become an integral part of Roman military protection.

#Military despotism—While the early Emperors still had to deal with the senate, later Emperors ruled through military strength alone.  Civil wars were common, especially during the age of 30 tyrants when the Empire was in a constant state of internal warfare and chaos.  That the Empire didn't fall during this time is a testament to the ongoing discipline of their legions at that point in their history.

#Military despotism—While the early Emperors still had to deal with the senate, later Emperors ruled through military strength alone.  Civil wars were common, especially during the age of 30 tyrants when the Empire was in a constant state of internal warfare and chaos.  That the Empire didn't fall during this time is a testament to the ongoing discipline of their legions at that point in their history.[[File:Rome-barbarians.jpg|thumb|400px|Barbarian threat appears by 400 AD]]

[[File:Rome-barbarians.jpg|thumb|400px|Barbarian threat appears by 400 AD]]

#Military advances—Changes over centuries began to give cavalry a more prominent role than it had previously been capable of.  In other words, the Roman legion (which was the mainstay of Roman power) lost some of its dominance.

#Military advances—Changes over centuries began to give cavalry a more prominent role than it had previously been capable of.  In other words, the Roman legion (which was the mainstay of Roman power) lost some of its dominance.

#The Roman Empire was always in danger of fall.  [[Spartacus]] and his army of freed slaves came close to overcoming Rome as did [[Hannibal]].  Eventually luck ran out for Rome.  

#The Roman Empire was always in danger of fall.  [[Spartacus]] and his army of freed slaves came close to overcoming Rome as did [[Hannibal]].  Eventually luck ran out for Rome.  

Goldsworthy (2009) sees steady decline and rejects Heather's arguments that the later empire was prosperous or strong. The Persians and various barbarian tribes were not especially stronger, either in numbers or organization, than Rome. Instead Rome's greatest enemy was itself. The constant civil wars fought after Marcus Aurelius destabilized Roman society and weakened the borders, allowing otherwise weak enemies to exploit Roman instability.  Goldsworthy notes that senators were excluded from military command in ordder to strengthen the emperor, but this weakened the army. Tensions between the civil bureaucracy and the army, and the use of smaller and smaller units to prevent any opponent getting a power base reduced the empire's ability to quickly counter any foreign invasion. An increasing number of foreigners were allowed to occupy the land, thus depriving the West of needed tax revenue, which in turn weakened the army and bureaucracy, and so encouraging more infiltration and forced settlement and thus into a downward spiral.<ref>See  Adrian Goldsworthy, ''How Rome Fell: Death of a Superpower'' (2009)</ref>

Goldsworthy (2009) sees steady decline and rejects Heather's arguments that the later empire was prosperous or strong. The Persians and various barbarian tribes were not especially stronger, either in numbers or organization, than Rome. Instead Rome's greatest enemy was itself. The constant civil wars fought after Marcus Aurelius destabilized Roman society and weakened the borders, allowing otherwise weak enemies to exploit Roman instability.  Goldsworthy notes that senators were excluded from military command in ordder to strengthen the emperor, but this weakened the army. Tensions between the civil bureaucracy and the army, and the use of smaller and smaller units to prevent any opponent getting a power base reduced the empire's ability to quickly counter any foreign invasion. An increasing number of foreigners were allowed to occupy the land, thus depriving the West of needed tax revenue, which in turn weakened the army and bureaucracy, and so encouraging more infiltration and forced settlement and thus into a downward spiral.<ref>See  Adrian Goldsworthy, ''How Rome Fell: Death of a Superpower'' (2009)</ref>

== The actual "Fall" ==

== The actual "Fall" ==