I was referring to mid-Empire, not late Empire. By the late stages of the Empire, the wealth had been largely squandered, and administration of the Empire had suffered by the corruption and chaos in attaining what little wealth was left (the constant changes of Emperor, with more than a few reigning for as little as months, or weeks created an instability issue, as well...)
the infowarrior
Well the causes of Rome's fall is one of the great puzzles of history -- it's always fun to kick it around for while, but I am not about to argue with Gibbon about it at this time (he was wrong, of course.)
Watching the History Channel a couple days ago, they discussed the Ottoman Empire, and their "system" of succession. Enthusiasts boast of ten successive strong rulers. Well, you might - if you are willing to go with their system.The Calif had a harem, of course - but he serviced a given member of it only until she had a son (half of the harem, logically, would have had only one child; half of the rest, only two). It was considered unfair to any given son to have any full brothers, since all the Calif's sons were mortal enemies. When the Calif died, there was a power struggle among all his sons - and the victor of that struggle made sure that he was the only one who survived it.
The Spartans culled their own herd via infanticide, but the victorious Ottoman sultans culled their fathers' progeny from dozens of sons down to one. Pretty much assuring that the top dog was a ruthless SOB.
The similarity of the Ottoman Empire to the Roman and the Carthagenian is in the fact that their armies were a major profit center. A system which was unstable, and which was either expanding its borders and seizing booty or else was in trouble internally. Basically a cancerous system.