It is interesting to see the attempt to draw an analogy between
the U.S.A and the Roman Empire. The implication being that the U.S.A is headed
the same way ...... but much faster. Absent from the discussion was any clear attempt
to set forth the reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire. This was a shame because it
could have proven interesting and possibly illuminating.

There is room for debate about what caused the fall of the Roman Empire
but among the reasons which historians set forth are the following:

1) Weakness of leadership due to indecisive leaders and dilution of powers.
Leaders were strong enough to achieve and hold on to power.....but not strong enough
to adequately defend the Empire.

2) Weakness of the Roman Army.
The Roman Army was actually quite small when viewed as a percentage of the population.
They enjoyed great success due to better organization and military tactics.....but
they were not unbeatable. They enjoyed great success by running over thinly distributed populations.

3) Weakness of the population itself. The Roman Army had trouble recruiting
suitable candidates (put simply, too many romans were fat dumb and happy. Sound familiar?).

4) Appeasement of the Barbarians. Contrary to popular belief...the Barbarians
were not out to get Rome...... they just wanted a better life for themselves.
They entered into treaties with Rome to help defend Rome in return for land concessions.
This gave aspects of the Empire a porous quality.....allies with questionable allegiances (sound familiar?)

5) Early small victories by warring tribes which went unanswered gave confidence to others that the Roman's could be challenged (sound familiar?)

While most would agree that the western Roman Empire fell......
the eastern Roman Empire morphed into what is referred to by historians as Byzantium. And this survived very well until it was overrun by the Ottoman Empire (I honestly would be curious to know about what contributed to its
longevity vs. the West ....... but I don't have time to google and I've used
what free time I had writing this).

Contrary to what some may want to believe......the Roman Empire did not crumble from within. They did not fail because they were trying to "make the world in their own image". There is in fact ......strong evidence that Rome assimilated and adopted much ..... especially from the Greeks.

.... what insights into the issue did you gain from reading his work?

...and sometimes I worship it.

[link|http://www.essaybank.co.uk/free_coursework/3086.html| Why did the western empire fall when the east survived?
]

"The Eastern Empire had many intrinsic advantages over its Western counterpart. It was agriculturally more fertile, more populous and had a far shorter frontier, and in this period was relatively free from external attack. Indeed, the East only fought its traditional enemy, Persia, twice in this period. However the East shared many of the political, social and economic problems of the west, but perhaps to a lesser extent. So why did the West fall? We must surely point to the presence of foreign tribes within the empire as the primary reason. These tribes not only fought the Empire, but their presence reinforced and added to existing internal problems. The west\ufffds need for extra military strength placed a huge burden on the peasantry and caused a decline in output, whilst persistent internal problems added to an unstable political climate. In contrast the Eastern Empire never housed any foreign tribes. It is therefore reasonable to suggest that the presence of barbarian tribes was the primary reason for the Western Empire\ufffds decline."

-Mike

Granted...one opinion.
It's also a decent read on the fall of the West.