[Adder]

including the tired old hypothesis that it was rampant lead poisoning that led to the downfall of Rome -

Yeah..that one was never true. 200ad saw the peak of Rome in my opine...the true pinnacle of the Pax Romana.

My favorite reason for the decline of sucha mighty empire is the “lack of interest” in the institutions and work ethic it took to make Rome great...the fire no longer burned and they descended into a long slide of power struggles in a small world of courtly affairs, and a populace that was owed a living.

[Now where have I heard that mentioned before????]

[stuartcr]

I like favorite reasons myself.

[stuartcr]

I like favorite reasons myself.

[Kalam]

Adder, unknowingly your observations do indeed support the lead poisoning theory. The “no internal fire burning” comment speaks to the lethargic aspects of lead poisoning. The bitter “in fighting” is dealing with the outright irritability displayed toward everyone and every thing with lead poisoned individuals. The list of observable effects that show lead poisoning is much longer, but this will at least show you how some symptoms correlate.

[Erasmus]

Historian Peter Heather makes an interesting case for external influences. Rome was essentially overextended at the height of its empire, and exogenous tribes finally learned how to circumscribe Rome's territorial prerogatives in several ways.

Among these ways were: Raids on nominally Roman territories, either to capture land or to settle it; demanding tribute from Rome, a form of bribe not to make trouble; and, finally, sweeping across western Europe and then eastward across north Africa to capture the essential agricultural lands that fed Rome.

In this activity, the Huns were the main instigators (cf. the short but brutal career of Attila), and Rome was regularly distracted by incursions of the Persians and others in the east.

Eventually, Rome simply ran out of resources to deal with all of it, and evaporated into the mists of history.

Anyway, that's Mr. Heather's thesis in a nutshell.