Re: 1 Rome had plenty of strong leadership, sometimes too strong.
Re: 2 Sure, when the central government fell because it could no longer levy sufficient troops or depend on its governors because they couldn't be trusted to act with the interests of the State, it became disunited. I think part of it is the familiar problem of the people no l longer trusting their leadership.
But how do you suppose they got to the stage that there was a crisis in confidence about the leadership, and the inability to levy troops in sufficient numbers? Again, part of the problem is that their birthrate was so low, they had to depend on foreigners and mercenaries to man their armies. Even their Generals, like Stilicho, were Germans or foreign nationals.
I'll submit to you that the low birthrate was partly a result urbanization and the public dole, but primarily the moral decline of the civilization as a whole. Roman Society no longer had that firm agrarian Latin peasant with a religious piety for the land and a patriotic fervour for Rome and her institutions, he had left the lands and gone into the cities because the agricultural production was done primarily by slave labor, while the numerous foreign wars fought by the Empire displaced him too. Also, many Romans settled in far-flung areas to the East and West, forming the basis of the Latin Civilization which survived the Roman Empire in time. So, the old Roman Legions were no more because the immorality of Roman society led to the decay of family life, the displacement of Romans from their traditions. And since the family had deteriorated, you no longer had a stable place for Roman citizens to be born, no virtuous young women to be suitable brides for virtuous young men to be the building blocks of the State as a whole; sounds familiar.
Rome the city had no strong leadership from the death of Constantine -- the Western Emperors were uniformally weak. Rome the Empire (Constantinople based) had wark emperors from the death of Theodosius I in 395 AD until the rise of Justinian.
Sure, when the central government fell because it could no longer levy sufficient troops or depend on its governors because they couldn't be trusted to act with the interests of the State, it became disunited.
Not completely correct -- the disunity was caused by various generals all declaring themselves to be concurrent Imperators.
But how do you suppose they got to the stage that there was a crisis in confidence about the leadership, and the inability to levy troops in sufficient numbers? --> because of two reasons:
Again, part of the problem is that their birthrate was so low, they had to depend on foreigners and mercenaries to man their armies. Even their Generals, like Stilicho, were Germans or foreign nationals. -- the birthrate was not "so low" -- don't forget that the Romans spread over Dacia, to Britannia and their blood is to be found in all of these places. The "foreign nationals" you call were Roman citizens, Roma did not care for your birth ethnicity. They even had a Semitic Emperor and probably a black/Berber (confused information on that) one too. It did not matter, they were Roman
primarily the moral decline of the civilization as a whole -- no proof of that at all after the Empire adopted Christianity. If anything, morals improved and were better in 410 compared to that under Elagabulus
. Roman Society no longer had that firm agrarian Latin peasant with a religious piety for the land and a patriotic fervour for Rome and her institutions, he had left the lands and gone into the cities because the agricultural production was done primarily by slave labor, while the numerous foreign wars fought by the Empire displaced him too. -- incorrect, the Latin peasant was still around, he also had farms in gallia, aquitania, belgia and Dacia and iberia. The foreign wars fought by the Empire did not displace him in any way as the wars were initially fought outside the boundaries of the empire and when won, the land was given to legionnaries to settle down and make roman in culture -- which they did
And since the family had deteriorated, you no longer had a stable place for Roman citizens to be born, no virtuous young women to be suitable brides for virtuous young men to be the building blocks of the State as a whole; sounds familiar. nice take from Gibbons, but not factual. As I said, morals actually improved in the 300s compared to the 200s.