The Fall of Rome - was it complexity?

[Tiberius Clodius Corvinus]

I'll just point out the relevant factors from the article

thanks for that ;-) )

Hi Tiberius
it can and has been argued that complex societies have greater resources and are more flexible and resistant compared to simple rigid societies that fall apart if one essential ingredient is damaged.

... its certainly right that complex societes have more ressources, but the point seems to me, whether these ressources can be combined and directed effectively towards an single goal. Further an result of organisational research is, that the bigger (hierarchical) organisations are, the more ineffective they become. so it sounds not unreasonable to me, that an state of over-complexity can be reached, that is part of the collapse of the Roman empire, mainly by weakening the empire internally.

[...] but do the authors explain how the Empire was more "complex" in 400 Ad than in 200 AD or 100 AD or earlier ?

In social science texts complexity is widely - very simplified said - understood and measured by a) the amount of a people who lives in cities and have an urban (more rational) lifestyle (i.e. are no peasants), and b) the amount of division of labour (specialisation). both points are complementary and are usually accompanied by a loss of social control on the individuals. It would be interesting to check the development of the Roman law, as this could be a good indicator for complexity.

One problem I have always had with "explaining" the fall of the Roman Empire is that the problems were different, but no more complex than earlier.

yes, the challenges are partially the same and had surely a similar amount of complexity, but I don't think, that MacKenzie writes about the complexity of the problems but more about complexity of society. A more complex society hasn't the same "tools" as a less organised one has to deal with the same problems.