What attracts you to Late Rome?

[sonic]

I disagree. By 400 'the Empire' was by no means in terminal decline. The East did not even have too many problems, in fact surviving almost intact into the 6th century when their crisis really began.
Even the West could have been in better shape had it not been for the vicious in-fighting between them and the East.
In that aspect I agree with your analysis of Stilicho: had he not been pushing for domination of the Eastern part as well as the West, things could have been much better.

OK, maybe I overstated my case a little. :twisted:

Having said that, I think by 400 all of the necessary factors were in place FOR the terminal decline: the Emperors were minors, meaning that 'rule' passed to senior 'ministers', resulting in said ministers concentrating too much on their own survival against other ministers rather than on strengthening and maintaining the Empire.

Consider some differences if Stilicho had not been pushing for the guardianship of Arcadius after Theodosius died in 395?
There would have been far less problems between both capitals.
Illyricum would have posed less of a problem.
The Visigoths would have been dealt with as an internal problem and not as a source of rivalry between East and West.
No battles between the western armies and Alaric 9who would in all likelyhood have been suppressed in Greece).
No sack of Rome in 410.
Perhaps the Gildonian rebellion would not have occurred.
Rome would not have been fixed on the East and would have concetrated more on keeping order in Gaul, which would have been far more satisfied with rule from Rome.
The invasions of 406 would have had far less of an impact on Gaul, it's unlikely that Vandals would have settled in Spain, let alone Africa.
Britain may not have rebelled at that point.

It's pure speculation of course (one of the things I like in this period) but I say a case can be made for a Western Empire in a much better shape to receive the Huns in the 440s and 450s. Of course, no statement can be made about other, new, problems, or even the impact the Justinian plague would have had if the Western Empire had still been present in the 6th century. Also, the Roman system of succession (or better: the lack of such a system) would still have been a problem that could have created other instabilities. There's no telling whether Stilicho as a 'man behind the throne' would have set the same precedent as he did, or that Honorius would have become a stronger emperor after all. Likewise, the economic crisis of the 5th century would crtainly have played a part, but not as severe as it did with the west falling apart. With no Goths settling and fighting in Gaul, or Vandals in Africa, the Western military possibilities would not have eroded so fast as they did between 400 and 430, and the growth of the Frankish lands would have been much slower, or perhaps the Franks could even have been assimilated.

I think Stilicho, like Theodosius, has a lot to answer for.

I agree that, without doubt, Stilicho has a lot to answer for.

The only problem with the 'what if' approach is that there are too many variables to predict what would have happened "if only things had been different". For example, Illyricum would almost certainly have remained a problem: after all, it had been a major recruiting ground for the army and had been allocated to the East only after the Battle of Adrianople. Wouldn't the West still have a case for its return, especially after the manpower losses following the civil wars of the late-fourth century?