[ryanjb2]

"However, the titanic economic devastation incurred (such as superinflation and Diocletian's edict essentially terminating the free market) by centuries of warfare against the Germanic barbarians had long since doomed the Roman Empire,"

Warfare against the Germanic "barbarians" is insufficient to explain Rome's economic collapse. The most financially devistating wars the Romans experienced were civil wars between various Roman factions and the endless wars with the "civilized" forces of Partia and Persia in the Middle East. Not to mention the wars with the Huns.

"years before the hordes themselves finally broke through and physically destroyed places like Aquileia, Cologne, and Rome."

They looted Rome, but did they physically destroy the city? Or was it due to the Byzantines attempting to reconquer the country?

"That the Germanic barbarians used Roman forms to preside over the civilization they had destroyed is not surprising. To pretend that what they ruled was still Roman civilization, however, is erroneous."

Roman civilization was long dead before the German "barbarians" took over. It it wasn't, they would have put up a fight.

[U S Army EOD]

Rome had already been taken over by the Roman equivalent of the the Socialist and Democrat allowing the Barbarians to invade. An experiment we need avoid here.

[Antoninus]

They looted Rome, but did they physically destroy the city? Or was it due to the Byzantines attempting to reconquer the country?

Actually, it was the Gothic king Totila who was primarily responsible for the ruin of the city of Rome and the destruction of its civic life. He would have levelled the city completely once it was in his power had he not received a scolding letter from the Byzantine general Belisarius which logically explained to him that the destruction of a great city like Rome would ill-serve his reputation either in victory or defeat.