OldNewYork: “But it doesn’t seem to have saved Rome.”
SunkenCiv: “Roman Empire in the west (including Britain) only endured for another 250 years, and in the east until the fall of Constantinople in 1453. /s”
The historical “tell” as to what was really going on just has to be Constantine the Great’s moving his capital from Rome to Byzantium. Why?
Whatever other reasons, it must be the Empire’s wealth, trade routes, surpluses of food & other vital materials were heavily weighted in the East, whereas costs of maintaining the Western Empire often exceeded revenues.
So under extreme pressures, the West was not financially viable, which explains why their troops eventually didn’t get paid & faded away.
Result: when barbarians overran the West, they faced a Roman Army a mere shadow of what it had been in earlier centuries.
Of course, nothing like that could ever happen these days, right?
Sorry, inadvertently left you off the above post.
Thanks BroJoeK. There's also geography that doesn't work in favor of Europe -- the same geography that resulted in most of the Central Powers' resources being deployed in the east during WWI -- and there were a series of epidemics/plagues (hard to believe those weren't one result of the continual introduction of migrating groups). Roman control of the western territories as well as Rome itself did fall apart, but it wasn't replaced with nothing -- the new arrivals set themselves up, taking advantage of the local resources, intermarrying, and at least as often as not, converting to Christianity. Conversion of Wales and Scotland came from Ireland, which hadn't been brought under formal Roman control but was well within the commercial network. In Britain, so-called "Dark Ages" settlements that have been excavated turn up plenty of evidence of continued trade with the eastern Empire.