What if the Roman Empire had never fallen?

[ComradeMan]

I was thinking about how history can change totally because of little things like someone forgetting to close the gates of Constantinople or how the mud and rain played a large part in the defeat of Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo etc.

Okay, so here's an historical thought experiment.

There are many differing theories as to why the Western Roman Empire fell, and some argue whether it did indeed fall at all or if there wasn't actually some continuity etc... but anyway, on August 24th in the year 410 AD Alaric and the Goths sacked Rome. The pathetic Emperor Honorius could do nothing and this is traditionally considered to be the end of Roman power in the West culminating in 476 with the last Emperor.

What if.... the Romans had smashed Alaric's forces and Rome had not fallen.....?

How would the rest of history worked out?

What would this have meant for class relations and struggle? Could an industrial revolution have occurred around the year 1100?

[Havet]

I was thinking about how history can change totally because of little things

What if I had never been born?

[Dimentio]

MmeWxGhGdqs

The sack of Rome of 410 and the deposition of Romulus Augustulus in 476 were not directly related, but were a part of the same overall "trend", with Germanic farming communities immigrating into the Roman Empire, some allying with the Empire and becoming Foederati while others had a more ambivalent relationship with the Empire.

There were many blows to the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century. There were constant usurper wars in Gaul, the abandonment of Britannia, the Vandal conquest of Africa, the Hunnic invasions in the 450's and the troublesome relations with the Eastern Empire.

From the 4th century, power had shifted steadily eastward, first to Nicomedia and then to Constantinople, as the eastern half of the Empire was wealthier and better organised than the West. That trend was probably inevitable.

The structural problems with the Late Roman Empire was over-centralisation, over-extended borders and a geographic disposition which did not favour the geography of a unified state. China, India and Persia, three civilisations that also underwent upheavals during that era, survived and would survive well into the 18th and 19th centuries somewhat unmolested (Iseul would claim that slavery was the cause, but I disagree with her on the basis that Rome by the 5th century was already largely feudal).

Secondly, the Roman Empire did not fall in the fifth century.

It fell on the 29th of May 1453 with the Turkish conquest of the Imperial Capital of Constantinople.

I do not regard the Roman and the Byzantine Empires as separate civilisations. To some extent, they had even more continuity than the various Chinese dynasties, which usually have been separated by periods of Jürchen, Mongol and Manchu rule over parts or all of China.

The Byzantine Empire was the legitimate Roman Empire. By as late as the 11th century AD, the Roman Empire was the largest and most populous and developed state in Europe. The Byzantines never called themselves Byzantines, it is a 19th century invention.

Instead, they called themselves Roumanoi, meaning "Romans".

Yes, their culture was somewhat different from that of the "Classical", 2nd Century Roman Empire. But 4th and 5th century Roman culture was different from the Classical Roman Empire too, and Chinese culture was different between the Han and the Tang dynasties too.

How come when we talk about China, we don't claim the Empire has ceased to be whenever an Emperor is moving the capital of the Empire? If the United States moved it's capital to Los Angeles after losing the Eastern States, would it cease to be the United States of America?

The Roman Empire survived, and even re-captured Italy and Rome in the 6th century, but was then struck both by the Justinian Plague and a long protracted war with the Persians, a war which would end Persia's independence (temporarily) and mean the loss of Egypt and Syria.

For about 550 years (650-1200), the Roman Empire was chiefly consisting of regions in the Balkans and in Asia Minor. In 1071, the Empire received a debilitating blow in Manzikert, and in 1204-1261, Constantinople was occupied by the crusaders. From 1261-1453, it was a minor power which eventually succumbed to Turkish conquest.

One interesting thing, is that from China's perspective, the Roman Empire never fell as a civilisation.

Why do we call China China, when the people of China call it Zhongghuo? We call it China because the dynasties of Qin and Qing, which reigned 221-210 BCE and 1644-1911 CE.

The Han Dynasty used to send trade expeditions westward on the silk route. In the far west, the Chinese knew, there was a kingdom called Dajin, which was so large that it encompassed a sea, had several hundred cities, roads and even artificial rivers. It was ruled by a wise king named Antun (Antoninus Pius) and a council of elders (the Senate).

The Chinese are still using that word, when they describe...

http://www.europemapofeurope.net/europe-map-of-europe-nightlights-satellite-woodleywonderworks.jpg

[Rottenfruit]

I was thinking about how history can change totally because of little things like someone forgetting to close the gates of Constantinople or how the mud and rain played a large part in the defeat of Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo etc.

Okay, so here's an historical thought experiment.

There are many differing theories as to why the Western Roman Empire fell, and some argue whether it did indeed fall at all or if there wasn't actually some continuity etc... but anyway, on August 24th in the year 410 AD Alaric and the Goths sacked Rome. The pathetic Emperor Honorius could do nothing and this is traditionally considered to be the end of Roman power in the West culminating in 476 with the last Emperor.

What if.... the Romans had smashed Alaric's forces and Rome had not fallen.....?

How would the rest of history worked out?

What would this have meant for class relations and struggle? Could an industrial revolution have occurred around the year 1100?
I think the industrial revolution would have happend no matter what,it might have happend later or maby earlier who knows?. But it would have happend anyway. The main difference i think is that Christianity and the abrahamic relegions might have never gained any foothold if the roman empire had not fallen, not sure what that would have done to the course of history and that is a subject that is pretty interesting

[Dimentio]

I think it would have happend no matter what, christanity might have never gained any foothold if the roman empire had not fallen.

Yes it would, probably even faster.

The Roman Empire was a Christian Empire, from Theodosius (late 4th century) and onward.

When we think of the Roman Empire and Christians, we subconsciously think of Christians thrown to the lions. But from Constantine, the Christians were a privilegied community.

The strongest centres of Christianity in the Roman Empire were Asia Minor and Egypt, and there were also large Christian communities in the Persian Empire (Iraq had a majority-christian population).

If the Roman Empire had never "retracted", North Africa, Egypt, Syria and Asia Minor would never have become Muslim areas, and the centre of the western world had never moved to the north of the Alps.

[ComradeMan]

I think the industrial revolution would have happend no matter what,it might have happend later or maby earlier who knows?. But it would have happend anyway. The main difference i think is that Christianity and the abrahamic relegions might have never gained any foothold if the roman empire had not fallen, not sure what that would have done to the course of history and that is a subject that is pretty interesting

I think it may have happened earlier.

Reason?

The ancient seats of learning and the knowledge of the classical period would have been better preserved and there would have been no "dark ages", hence the "Renaissance" which led to the Enlightenment etc would probably have not happened but the Enlightenment built on that knowledge may have occurred far earlier leading to the developments of the modern world.

[Dimentio]

I think it may have happened earlier.

Reason?

The ancient seats of learning and the knowledge of the classical period would have been better preserved and there would have been no "dark ages", hence the "Renaissance" which led to the Enlightenment etc would probably have not happened but the Enlightenment built on that knowledge may have occurred far earlier leading to the developments of the modern world.

In that case, why did the IR not happen in China? The Song did have an entirely mechanised library in the 11th century.

Ultimately, the IR was a consequence of two developments. The transition from feudalism to early capitalism, which was characterised by the Wars of Religion (from religion as a collective framework towards religion as a personal experience), and the colonisation of the Americas.

A Roman Empire still existing and covering most of Europe and the Middle East in the 15th, 16th or 17th centuries wouldn't have an impetus to expand westwards, as it would have an available sea route to India.

It would also probably look a lot more like the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire than the Classical Roman Empire, in short, a theocratic, oriental despotism.

Rome's accomplishments are actually way overrated. The Abbasid Caliphate had an equal amount of technological accomplishments as Rome, and it did only exist for like 150 years before falling apart.

Almost all scientific achievements in the Ancient world were caused by the Classical Greeks, especially in Athens and Syracuse. That culture flourished in Alexandria during the Roman Empire, but was eventually stomped out by Theodosius (which is ultimately the greatest adversary to development, centralisation).

RbuEhwselE0

What was unique with the Greeks was that they thought about examining things which they did not have any immediate economic interests in, and which contradicted established religious norms and cultural values.

[ComradeMan]

In that case, why did the IR not happen in China?

Ultimately, the IR was a consequence of two developments. The transition from feudalism to early capitalism, which was characterised by the Wars of Religion (from religion as a collective framework towards religion as a personal experience), and the colonisation of the Americas.

A Roman Empire still existing and covering most of Europe and the Middle East in the 15th, 16th or 17th centuries wouldn't have an impetus to expand westwards, as it would have an available sea route to India.

It would also probably look a lot more like the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire than the Classical Roman Empire, in short, a theocratic, oriental despotism.

Rome's accomplishments are actually way overrated. The Abbasid Caliphate had an equal amount of technological accomplishments as Rome, and it did only exist for like 150 years before falling apart.

Almost all scientific achievements in the Ancient world were caused by the Classical Greeks, especially in Athens and Syracuse. That culture flourished in Alexandria during the Roman Empire, but was eventually stomped out by Theodosius.



What was unique with the Greeks was that they thought about examining things which they did not have any immediate economic interests in, and which contradicted established religious norms and cultural values.

The industrial revolution could not have happened without the technological developments that finally replaced slaves and serfs as manpower. I don't know about China so much but I have heard it said that given China's human resources, enormous, there was little need to develop industrialised, i.e. labour saving, machinery.

The Arabic/Islamic civilisations os the Mediterranean built a lot on the knowledge of teh Greeks that they preserved, especially in the fields of mathematics, that had been lost in the West.

Of course, you have to imagine a situation in which some developments and contact would have occurred anyway. Roman contact with Northern Europe and superior ocean going shipping would have inevitably led to someone crossing the Atlantic and so on.

In terms of the late Roman Empire(s) it's pointless to divide things into Greeks and Romans because at that stage there was a Graeco-Roman civilisation, consequence of the fusion that had been going on over centuries. To say the Greeks were responsible for most of the achievements of the classical world is a little chauvinistic in a sense because it negates the influence of other cultures such as the Phoenicians- who brought their system of writing to the Greeks, without which.... ?

You also neglect to mention Roman engineering and machine technology. The key obstacle that the Romans failed to overcome was the energy problem although steam power was known to them.

[Dimentio]

The industrial revolution could not have happened without the technological developments that finally replaced slaves and serfs as manpower. I don't know about China so much but I have heard it said that given China's human resources, enormous, there was little need to develop industrialised, i.e. labour saving, machinery.

The Arabic/Islamic civilisations os the Mediterranean built a lot on the knowledge of teh Greeks that they preserved, especially in the fields of mathematics, that had been lost in the West.

Of course, you have to imagine a situation in which some developments and contact would have occurred anyway. Roman contact with Northern Europe and superior ocean going shipping would have inevitably led to someone crossing the Atlantic and so on.

In terms of the late Roman Empire(s) it's pointless to divide things into Greeks and Romans because at that stage there was a Graeco-Roman civilisation, consequence of the fusion that had been going on over centuries. To say the Greeks were responsible for most of the achievements of the classical world is a little chauvinistic in a sense because it negates the influence of other cultures such as the Phoenicians- who brought their system of writing to the Greeks, without which.... ?

You also neglect to mention Roman engineering and machine technology. The key obstacle that the Romans failed to overcome was the energy problem although steam power was known to them.

By the Early Roman Empire, they utilised slavery. Hence no interest in developing steam power beyond automatised doors in temples and automats.

In the late Roman Empire, trade had basically collapsed, and every large estate was self-sufficient. Hence, no capacity to develop much at all.

[Viet Minh]

I heard somewhere the romans had started to experiment with electricity just before the fall of the roman empire, can't b assed googling it though its all a bit tl;dr

[Dimentio]

I heard somewhere the romans had started to experiment with electricity just before the fall of the roman empire, can't b assed googling it though its all a bit tl;dr

I don't know about the Romans, but I know the Greeks somehow managed to construct batteries in Iraq during the Parthian Era. Also, look at the Ancyra mechanism.

[ComradeMan]

By the Early Roman Empire, they utilised slavery. Hence no interest in developing steam power beyond automatised doors in temples and automats.

In the late Roman Empire, trade had basically collapsed, and every large estate was self-sufficient. Hence, no capacity to develop much at all.

I think we are moving away from the topic, we know the late Western Empire did indeed collapse and there are many reasons, "barbarian" invasions are only a part- albeit the one most famously cited. Another reason was the plague(s) that decimated populations in Western Europe- however, let's imagine it hadn't collapsed...... What would 2011 be like? Or should I say, 2764 AUC :D?

[Rooster]

The roman empire was not a static thing throughout all of it's history. The productive forces and the economic and social structure kept changing all the way through it's history. It was already going through a long decline over many centuries and I'm pretty sure that the small land owning estates would have still evolved into the feudal system. As to whether the industrial revolution would have arrived sooner? I doubt it. The roman's never actually invented anything, at least nothing I can think of, and instead borrowed all of their ideas from other cultures.


let's imagine it hadn't collapsed...... What would 2011 be like? Or should I say, 2764 AUC :D?

I'm pretty sure there's a couple of Star Trek episodes like that.

[manic expression]

The roman's never actually invented anything, at least nothing I can think of, and instead borrowed all of their ideas from other cultures.
They innovated a few things. Widespread use of concrete, the dome, the groin vault, the arena, man-made harbors, skyscrapers (they built apartment blocks up to 12 stories, 1 higher than the first "modern skyscraper"), the legionary fighting method, sculpture drilling (to create realistic hair on portrait statuary, I'm pretty sure Romans did that first).

I mean, they did borrow heavily from other peoples...but almost everyone did after a certain point. The Greeks got tons of what we think of as "Greek" from Egypt. The Romans borrowed, but they did everything bigger, stronger, better.

[Rooster]

They innovated a few things. Widespread use of concrete, the dome, the groin vault, the arena, man-made harbors, skyscrapers (they built apartment blocks up to 12 stories, 1 higher than the first "modern skyscraper"), the legionary fighting method, sculpture drilling (to create realistic hair on portrait statuary, I'm pretty sure Romans did that first).

I mean, they did borrow heavily from other peoples...but almost everyone did after a certain point. The Greeks got tons of what we think of as "Greek" from Egypt. The Romans borrowed, but they did everything bigger, stronger, better.

Yeah but, what have the Romans ever done for us?!

[Omsk]

..
The Romans done what Greeks could not,they went together and conquered the known world,thus spreading Greek science and culture,+ their own version.
Not to mention the roads,aquaducts,military tactics,law,(roman law) art.
The Greeks were split into many little city states and weak regions,so they didnt expand too much,they were spending most of their time fighting themselves,only to unify in cases of great danger (Persian invasion,for instance).
On the other hand,the Romans conquered the known world implementing their own culture and ways into the regions they controled.
Rome was responsible for the shaping of today Europe.

[Dimentio]

I think we are moving away from the topic, we know the late Western Empire did indeed collapse and there are many reasons, "barbarian" invasions are only a part- albeit the one most famously cited. Another reason was the plague(s) that decimated populations in Western Europe- however, let's imagine it hadn't collapsed...... What would 2011 be like? Or should I say, 2764 AUC :D?

Even if it hadn't collapsed, it would most likely have turned feudal.

Also, it did not collapse man!

It lasted 27 BCE - 1453 CE.

The fall of Rome 476 was not the fall of the Roman Empire. The fall of the Roman Empire was the fall of Constantinople on the 29th of May year 1453 CE, about 40 years before Columbus discovered America.

[Robespierre Richard]

Well as Marx and Engels say in the Manifesto, the industrial revolution happened because of the invasion of the Americas and the appropriation of that continent's surpluses which led to major manufacturing centers in the Netherlands and later Britain, the latter of which went from manufacturing to large-scale industry due to technological advances and the rest of Europe followed with British capital at the lead.

Also some people consider Russia to be "Third Rome" because of Kiev and later Muscovy's close ties to Constantinople including dynastic lines, so the Roman Empire actually collapsed in 1917. I've heard this in both Russia and America tho I don't think it really means much.

Anyway, lastly, the Roman Empire was really characterized not by its territory but its mode of production - slave latifundia. The states further out simply supplied Rome with their surpluses which was administered through the Roman Cities that were built.

[Omsk]

Well,there was this Holy Roman Empire,which was "Neither Holy, nor Roman, nor Empire"
:)
But the Roman emperors from Germany (the HRE ones) liked to believe that they were the sucessors of the Roman emperors that hailed from Italy.

The fall of Rome 476 was not the fall of the Roman Empire
It was the fall of the western part,which a lot of people find less significant that the eastern empire.

The fall of the Roman Empire was the fall of Constantinople on the 29th of May year 1453 CE
That was the fall of the Byzantine Empire,which is another name for the Eastern Empire,and i cant say i consider it the 'roman empire'.
Here is a good map showing the 'split'
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Theodosius_I's_empire.png
The last chance for another great Roman Empire was during the rule of Justinien 527-565
http://apworldhistorywiki.wikispaces.com/file/view/byzantine-empire.gif/162595495/byzantine-empire.gif

[Rooster]

..
The Romans done what Greeks could not,they went together and conquered the known world,thus spreading Greek science and culture,+ their own version.

Oh really?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/40/MacedonEmpire.jpg/800px-MacedonEmpire.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/40/MacedonEmpire.jpg/800px-MacedonEmpire.jpghttp://library.thinkquest.org/10805/media/alexmap.gif


Not to mention the roads,aquaducts,military tactics,law,(roman law) art.The Romans weren't the only nor the first, ones to have roads, aqueducts and I'm not sure why we should hype military tactics (which was based heavily on the Greek phalanx and celtic weaponry and armour) nor whatever you mean by Roman law.


The Greeks were split into many little city states and weak regions,so they didnt expand too much,they were spending most of their time fighting themselves,only to unify in cases of great danger (Persian invasion,for instance).False. See above map. Also, Plato described the Greeks living round the Aegean "like frogs around a pond". There were Greek colonies all over the area that the Roman Empire then took over.


On the other hand,the Romans conquered the known world implementing their own culture and ways into the regions they controled.
Rome was responsible for the shaping of today Europe.I'm still not too sure what you people are going on about when you speak of Roman culture. It lasted for over a thousand years. It's like saying that the culture of the Anglo-Saxons is the same as the culture of modern day English people.

[manic expression]

Oh really?
If you want to count the Macedonians as Greeks, that's fair, but Alexander never went west or into non-Egyptian Africa. Roman expansion into Gaul, the British Islands and Africa changed history forever.


The Romans weren't the only nor the first, ones to have roads, aqueducts and I'm not sure why we should hype military tactics (which was based heavily on the Greek phalanx and celtic weaponry and armour) nor whatever you mean by Roman law.
Roman road construction was unprecedented in quality and quantity. Roman aqueducts far surpassed any previous efforts, and took up a more important role as far as supplying populations. By the Punic Wars, Roman military methods weren't phalanx-like except on the most superficial of levels, the legion had developed a completely different structure, fighting style and emphasis (there was no phalanx equivalent for the principe-hastati-triarii system, nor for pila).


False. See above map. Also, Plato described the Greeks living round the Aegean "like frogs around a pond". There were Greek colonies all over the area that the Roman Empire then took over.
Colonies which had trouble uniting. The Greek colonies in Grecia Magna fell to Rome after the Pyrrhic Wars, and the colonies in Iberia allied with Rome when Hannibal came to town. At the same time, the Alexandrian successor states, although old and frail when Rome was ascendant, were both Hellenistic and politically centralized.


The fall of Rome 476 was not the fall of the Roman Empire. The fall of the Roman Empire was the fall of Constantinople on the 29th of May year 1453 CE, about 40 years before Columbus discovered America.
I don't buy that. A Roman Empire that didn't include Rome for most of its history? Questionable at best. Why stop at 1453? Why not say Mehmet II was the next Roman Emperor?

[Dimentio]

Well,there was this Holy Roman Empire,which was "Neither Holy, nor Roman, nor Empire"
:)
But the Roman emperors from Germany (the HRE ones) liked to believe that they were the sucessors of the Roman emperors that hailed from Italy.

It was the fall of the western part,which a lot of people find less significant that the eastern empire.

That was the fall of the Byzantine Empire,which is another name for the Eastern Empire,and i cant say i consider it the 'roman empire'.
Here is a good map showing the 'split'
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Theodosius_I%27s_empire.png
The last chance for another great Roman Empire was during the rule of Justinien 527-565
http://apworldhistorywiki.wikispaces.com/file/view/byzantine-empire.gif/162595495/byzantine-empire.gif

If we say that the United States lose all land to the east of the Mississipi, relocate it's capital to Los Angeles and becomes a predominantly Hispanic/Latin-speaking country, would it then cease to be the United States?

[Omsk]

If we say that the United States lose all land to the east of the Mississipi, relocate it's capital to Los Angeles and becomes a predominantly Hispanic/Latin-speaking country, would it then cease to be the United States?
Well,yes,a name change should be adequate. (as the eastern empire slowly changed to Byzantium,and all the people started to call it like that,in popular culture.
The great Roman Empire ended with the split.

The Romans weren't the only nor the first, ones to have roads, aqueducts and I'm not sure why we should hype military tactics (which was based heavily on the Greek phalanx and celtic weaponry and armour) nor whatever you mean by Roman law.
They had the best roads and infrastructure,including public baths,while the Greeks usually kept their invention in the palaces and temples.
The Roman Legion was more advanced than the phalanx ever was,and it functioned better,+ it evolved,while the phalanx remained similar.

Oh really?
Alexander was not Greek.His father was a sworn enemy of the Greeks,and,by they way,the lands he fought against all ready had a certain level of devealopment.

nor whatever you mean by Roman law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_law
read the wiki article for starters,if you want i can recommend some good books about the Roman law.

[Dimentio]

It was historians who gave the Eastern Roman Empire the name "Byzantium" in the 19th century, beginning I believe with Gibbon. The East Romans always called themselves "Roumanoi" while the Empire in Medieval Europe was called simply "Greece" (Machiavelli for example talks about the mistake of the "Emperor of Greece" when he invited Turk mercenaries).

Historians are therefore so split up on when the Roman Empire ended.

Some claim 330 AD, some 395 AD, some 476 AD and some the 7th century AD (when Greek replaced Latin as the administrative language). I also think the last Roman Emperor who reigned from Rome was Gallienus (253-268 CE). The next Emperor who had a permanent seat of power as Diocletian, who reigned from Nicomedia in today's Turkey.

I think all such divisions are imaginary. By all extent, the Senior Emperor was always sitting in Constantinople. And Odoacer sent the crown of the Western Roman Empire to the Emperor in Constantinople.

[Omsk]

It was historians who gave the Eastern Roman Empire the name "Byzantium" in the 19th century, beginning I believe with Gibbon. The East Romans always called themselves "Roumanoi" while the Empire in Medieval Europe was called simply "Greece" (Machiavelli for example talks about the mistake of the "Emperor of Greece" when he invited Turk mercenaries).
Well,maybe in the west,but in some countries,the term Byzantium was known long before that,during the times of Emperor Constantine IV,and the old greek city of Byzantium,on which the magnific new rome was built - Constantinople.

(when Greek replaced Latin as the administrative language)
Not so sure,although it is worth mentioning.

The next Emperor who had a permanent seat of power as Diocletian, who reigned from Nicomedia in today's Turkey.
He established new administrative centers in Nicomedia, Mediolanum, Antioch, and Trier, closer to the empire's frontiers than the traditional capital at Rome had been.
So i would consider him a inovationalist,although he was a good emperor.Diocletian's reforms fundamentally changed the structure of Roman imperial government and helped stabilize the empire economically and militarily.Diocletian later retired,and abdicated.(he lived his last years in his palace,which eventually formed the city core of modern Split.

I think all such divisions are imaginary. By all extent, the Senior Emperor was always sitting in Constantinople. And Odoacer sent the crown of the Western Roman Empire to the Emperor in Constantinople.
Well,naturally,since the western empire was in a state of decline,its legions now consisting of half barbarians and romans,its emperors weaker and its economy in shambles,while the many barbaric people lived in the outlying lands of the empire,as a human shield against possible invasions.

[Dimentio]

The reason why Nicomedia and later Constantinople became administrative centres could be seen as a natural shift towards the eastern, wealthier part. Moreover, the division between a Western and Eastern Roman Empire solved the problems of the 3d century. The Usurper Wars had really been a conflict over military policies, where the eastern armies favoured offensive campaigns against the Parthians and later Persians, while the western armies favoured a strong defensive line alongside the Rhine.

You could compare with the conflict between Paleo- and Neoconservatives in the USA, where the first want to focus the military against "invasions" from Mexico, whereas the later want to focus on taming the Middle East and the former puppet states of the Soviets.

Already in the 4th century, Constantinople was the main capital of the Roman Empire and the centre of the ideo-religious worldview. All the important cultural, political and religious impulses came from the East, for example the church councils. Already by year 400 CE, the West was basically an appendix to the East.

If the Roman Emperors had stayed in Rome, the Roman Empire could have survived as a regionally important power in Italy, Dalmatia, Gaul and Spain perhaps, since there would have been economic and political interests in achieving those results.

[Omsk]

If the Roman Emperors had stayed in Rome, the Roman Empire could have survived as a regionally important power in Italy, Dalmatia, Gaul and Spain perhaps, since there would have been economic and political interests in achieving those results.
Hmh,the barbarian hordes were really close to the borders at all times,and the legions were at a certain time few,so i wouldn't consider that the defense of these regions would be possible.

Already in the 4th century, Constantinople was the main capital of the Roman Empire and the centre of the ideo-religious worldview.
Well,it was the cultural and political centre,but religion had its impact both in Rome and Constantinople (later,Rome represented Catholicism and Constantinople the Orthodox faith.-after the split ) The Church within the Roman Empire was organized under metropolitan sees, with five rising to particular prominence and forming the basis for the Pentarchy proposed by Justinian I. Of these five, one was in the West (Rome) and the rest in the East (Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria). Even after the split of the Roman Empire the Church remained a relatively united institution (apart from Oriental Orthodoxy and some other groups which separated from the rest of the Church earlier). The Church came to be a central and defining institution of the Empire, especially in the East or Byzantine Empire, where Constantinople came to be seen as the center of the Christian world, owing in great part to its economic and political power.
Although,Rome had a better position,and it remained a valuable factor.

The Usurper Wars had really been a conflict over military policies, where the eastern armies favoured offensive campaigns against the Parthians and later Persians, while the western armies favoured a strong defensive line alongside the Rhine.
The offensive was crucial,considering that the empire needed new lands and cities,but,in the same way,the defensive tactic used by the military leaders in the west was also needed,considering the constant threat from Germanic people (who all ready defeated the Romans once) -

You could compare with the conflict between Paleo- and Neoconservatives in the USA, where the first want to focus the military against "invasions" from Mexico, whereas the later want to focus on taming the Middle East and the former puppet states of the Soviets.
Im not familiar with the history of the US,but i do get your point.
And one more thing,the people liked living in the east,it was safer,while the life in the west was hard,especially during the times of the barbarian attacks.

[Dimentio]

The barbarians did really not "attack". A few of them did that during specific times. Most really wanted to live inside the Roman borders and earn Roman citizenship. There was the Teutoburger Forest defeat, which was due to the Romans trying to subjugate Germania. There were also Germanic rebellions under Domitian.

Then we had the Goth Wars in the 260's.

The great problem was started around 370-400 CE when the Huns drove before them other tribes which entered Roman territory en masse.

[Omsk]

I think that was the origin of the fall of the empire,while the legions could defeat an barbarian army,they simply couldn't go against the many thousands who were running from the Huns.These people in fact,saved them.

Most really wanted to live inside the Roman borders and earn Roman citizenship
That was a hard mision,considering that a lot of the romans had their doubts about their new neighbours from the outlying provinces.

There was the Teutoburger Forest defeat
That was a chrusing defeat,hence the famous : 'Quintilius Varus, give me back my legions!' -

Another problem was also the many rivalries between the Roman leading top,the many assassinations and the style of life in the west,they thought that the empire their ancestors created in blood and steel would uphold itself,that it would last without their personal interference.

[Dimentio]

That was a hard mision,considering that a lot of the romans had their doubts about their new neighbours from the outlying provinces.

Yes, there was an Anti-German pogrome in year 408 following the downfall of Stilicho, across all of Ialy. It was mostly wives and children of German soldiers in the Roman army who were murdered on order of Emperor Honorius, for no other reason than that his advisor Olympius saw the barbarians as the reason for all the problems of the Empire.

At the same time, I think it should be viewed like we today view Minutemen and other detestable groups.

The Germanic tribes were not directly exploited by Rome of course, but they were definetly living under the imperial shadow for a long time.