When was Rome doomed?

[Mediolanicus]

Here's my take on things:

(1) The Rome we are talking about was never a fixed thing.
(2) Rather, Rome was continually reinvented as a different thing (if you look at it closely enough) with the same name.
(3) 'Rome', in this sense, ends whenever we (now, looking back) deem the new invention of it to be TOO different to justifiably call it 'Rome'.
(4) The doom of this 'Rome' is whatever proximal event precipitated the new 'non-Rome' reinvention (whether this is Augustan reforms, too many barbarians, Attila or whatever).
(5) Rome, as the notion that it is a cohesive thing, is doomed to change, from inception.
(6) You will never get anything other than a mish-mash of pretty much everything can be plausibly linked to have doomed 'Rome'.
(7) But that is not what you want to know.
(8) What you want to know are specific things like:
What stopped making it possible for groups of men (wearing red and Lorica ______ta) to be organised and fight other people for the defense of boundaries on a map? Or,
What stopped making it possible for certain acts to be procedural sanctioned through a codified set of laws in southern France? Or,
When was it no longer possible for caartographers to draw maps that included a huge red chunk covered with "ROME"? Or, whaterver.
(9) Each of these questions will have complex answers, but answers they will have.
(10) When was Rome doomed depends on how Rome is defined, and the more complex this definition (eg. all of the above) the more complex the answer.
(11) Hence there are many wonderful stories to answer 'When was Rome doomed'
(12) And life is about stories after all, and this is a good thing.
(13) Thanks for the question.

I totally agree with Shaka Joszen here. Especially with points 6 and 12!

I highly doubt there is a definitive reason for the fall of Rome. Many factors were contributory and we're not going to find those factors either, because even the most trivial of things could have had a major influence on the faith of Rome.

But let the stories and theories be, it's fun and interesting to read and some people earn their money with them...

[Jolt]

Rome was doomed when the last Roman Emperor was deposed. >_>

[Marcus Ulpius]

3) WHO DAMNLY CARES about barbarization?? Until the fought for the empire, barbarians were a resource, it's ludicrous to adhere mindlessly to ancient authors and their outdated moralism... see Stilico, or the half Hun Aetius

Sorry, I can't agree with nearly anything you said in your post. I've decided to quote only this part because in my opinion it is a huge mistake and lack of understanding of the importance of culture and religion in historical process. The "state" is much more than just the assembly of different official titles, bureaucracy and army. Quite obviously different states live by completely different laws, what is acceptable in one state is unimaginable in another. Decision-making processes that are traditional in one state are unacceptable for another. According to your theory that culture (and here I mean religion, traditions, common language and ideology) is not important, how could you explain those differences?

When Roman and romanized population of the Empire began to dwindle (and there's no doubt that depopulation process was under way in late antiquity in those parts of the world), it was gradually replaced by the influx of not romanized barbarians. The empire could not romanize them unlike early empire which successfully romanized most of it's conquered population. Interesting question that I can't answer is why that happened, why Gauls, Iberian tribes and many others were gradually romanized and in time become true "citizens" of the empire, while 4-th, 5-th century invaders were not. In any case, the result was that vast areas of the empire were populated mostly by non-Romans, again not merely by ethnicity, but by language, traditions and religion and it's very hard to sustain a Roman Empire without Romans. The issue is very complex, but I hope the bottom line is clear.

What you write about the Byzantians is only partially true. Yes, they still called themselves Romans, but for the most part of its history Byzantian Empire had very little in common with the Roman Empire of the ancient era. In one of the books about the Byzantian Empire I've even read that it ceased to be "Roman" after Arab sieges of Constantinople. I don't know Byzantian history well enough to comment on this with some authority, but the author says that after Arab wars the empire had undergone deep changes that made anything Roman Byzantians still had no more than just a "heritage".

P.S. There are several great posts by cmacq, but after reading them I still couldn't find out what was the cause for the depopulation, which also in my opinion was one of the main reasons for the decline of the WRE.

[Starforge]

Sorry, I can't agree with nearly anything you said in your post. I've decided to quote only this part because in my opinion it is a huge mistake and lack of understanding of the importance of culture and religion in historical process.

I agree with your statement here but would interject that if you filter your views through a modern intolerance with certain religions or cultures then you can draw conclusions quite easily.

Cmaq - well reasoned, informative posts as always.

[Gazius]

I will admit straight out I'm not enormously knowledgable about Roman History, and due to classes lately it's been a while since I've been able to enjoy my history. However maybe those who've actually studied the subject could reject this academically, but what about the inheritance of Pergamum? I've gotten the impression that even when they controlled part of Asia Minor, it was more of a vassal state than anything else. Only once it became a full Roman territory did it seem to lead into further expansion into Asia, and with this increasing load on governing larger distances, this to me seems like it left a lot of room for new wealth to be acquired and to raise a new class of politician that was capable of exploiting the republican system as it stood. But then maybe I'm way off my mark here, it's approaching the third day of nearly no sleep as I try to finish up assignments that taking much longer than they should do a shitty connection that keeps falling offline.

[KozaK13]

Perhaps Rome became doomed (in the barbarian department anyway) when they stopped splitting up "barbarian" settlers like the Goths under Alaric, Burgundians under Gundobad ( i think) and Franks under Clovis (i probably i have the name wrong, i can't remember who origionally lead the Franks into the empire). Also anti barbarianism (eg. Stilicho's case) probably played it's part in alienating "barbarians" within the Empire (like the goths who joined Alaric) and putting them off Romanisation, why become like those that hate you?
Plus ofcourse by the time of the fall many many "barbarians" had nice shiny roman equipment from victories on the battle field and serving in the army( as auxilia and later foderati) since the empire's inception.
Hope this is clear enough to get my point across, that Rome created formidable enemies.

I realise there was a multitude of other problems and reasons

[Uticensis]

cmacq: The environmental theory for depopulation is an interesting one. I’ve only heard of a few historians who advocate it, so if you have any good articles to refer me to, I would love to read more about it. However, I generally have found it unconvincing. For one, I’m wary about projecting modern problems, such as the effects of climate change, on the ancient world. Additionally, I’m deterred by Occam’s razor: it seems like its an unnecessary factor. There were enough problems that could effect Rome’s population and economy (major plagues, especially in Italy and Gaul in the third century; barbarian invasion, which hit the northern provinces around the Rhine pretty hard; over taxation, leading to abandonment of the land), and not enough concrete evidence, especially in the primary sources, of things that would one would expect from climate change (severe droughts happened, but no more frequently than I think can be expected).


Marcus Ulpius: I think you overstate the problem of barbarization. Its one of those old ideas of Rome’s decline that goes make to Edward Gibbon and his “triumph and religion and barbarism.”

You say you can’t understand why the barbarians of the 4th-5th century did not want to become Romanized like the Iberians and Gauls of earlier time, but they actually did. There is a famous quote about Athaulf, the founder of the Visigothic kingdom in Gaul and Spain: “I longed for [The Roman Empire] to become Gothia, and Athaulf to be what Caesar Augustus had been. But long experience has taught me that the ungoverned wildness of the Goths will never submit to laws, and that without law, a state is not a state. Therefore I have more prudently chosen the different glory of reviving the Roman name with Gothic vigor, and I hope to be acknowledged by posterity as the initiator of a Roman restoration.”

The barbarians still looked at Rome as the ideal. The difference was, how one participated in being Roman had changed, not the desire of outsiders to become Roman. Before the barbarian invasions hit really hard, the Germanic tribes on the other side of the Rhine tried to emulate Roman ways, and archeology as shown a lot of Roman style in their material culture. But by the fifth century, becoming Roman was no longer about submitting to the Roman state like it had been in the times of Caesar and Trajan: the central state was too weak for that to be an attractive option. Instead the barbarians, as far as they wanted to be Roman, wanted to be the defenders of Roman culture. Just look at how Alaric, as he was supposedly trying to take down Rome, kept trying to accumulate Roman military ranks, even on the eve of his sack of Rome. Or how Theodoric governed the Ostrogothic kingdom of Italy: maintaining Roman culture to an incredible degree, but with the Goths as a separate, semi-Romanized military class. Indeed, the barbarians did want to become Romanized, and many barbarian states adopted Roman language, law, customs, ect. Think about it: almost no Gothic survives to this day (and much of what does comes from the mid-fourth century, before the Goths entered Roman territory), and French, the language of the Frankish conquerors of Gaul, is a Romance language, not a Germanic one. Even Arianism, which became the “Germanic Christianity” for a while, gave way to Roman Catholic Christianity when the barbarians wanted to align themselves with the Roman way of life.

Edit On the issue of whether Byzantium was Roman or not (thus, whether Rome fell in 476 or 1453), I would say it fell somewhere in between. I generally consider the Arab invasions and the Byzantine Dark Age the events that separate an Eastern Roman Empire from a Byzantine Empire proper. However, as with most judgments in history, the line is subjective. In fact, one can say Rome fell in 1806 when the last Holy Roman Emperor abdicated. I wouldn't agree, but it's all about what you happen to think makes a state "Roman."

[Majd il-Romani]

We all know Rome ended blah blah AD, but at what point was it truly finished as in never going back to its former glory?

When Constantinople was sacked by the Ottomans in 1453

[KozaK13]

About Byzantium, surely we can't judge weather the true descendants of rome were roman or not? They didn't just claim to be roman, they were roman, even if they were hellenised. Cultures evolve, roman culture is no exception, the roman empire finally fell when it's last great city fell, Nova Roma.

Technically the roman empire may have died with the Ottomans, as they claimed to be the new roman empire..as did the russian empire aswell.

[Aper]

Sorry, I can't agree with nearly anything you said in your post. I've decided to quote only this part because in my opinion it is a huge mistake and lack of understanding of the importance of culture and religion in historical process. The "state" is much more than just the assembly of different official titles, bureaucracy and army. Quite obviously different states live by completely different laws, what is acceptable in one state is unimaginable in another. Decision-making processes that are traditional in one state are unacceptable for another. According to your theory that culture (and here I mean religion, traditions, common language and ideology) is not important, how could you explain those differences?

Uticensis explained well what I mean for "barbarization" : germanic meatshields for the army. Despite what ancient (or modern until late XX century) reactionary authors thought, culture/administration of the empire was NEVER "barbarized": actually, all the barbarian kings who ruled west tried to present themselves as "heirs" of the western roman empire, I'm thinking in particular at Theodoricus, the ostroghotian king of Italy: roman population under his rule almost couldn't sense the difference with the previous regime.

Barbarians more often than not wanted desperetely to be part of the roman world, not to destroy it: simply, the WRE was not ready/strong enough to control this huge mass of people: but even after the end of WRE as a political entity, its cultural strenght was unchanged, proved by the fact that barbarians continued to romanize themselves, leading to that huge fake called Holy Roman Empire; the descendants of the germanic conqueror of europe looked for all middle-ages at roman empire as a "paradise lost", as the ultimate political and sometimes cultural goal to achieve.

So the entire meaning of my post was that roman culture was most important for the survival of the state, but roman culture doesn't mean that of republic/principate only!!! The attitude of isolate supposed golden age from supposed dark age is a degeneration of the academic/scientific attitude, and reflect prejudices of the author more than actual facts.

Anyway I'm very interested in critics if you want to tell me what else you don't agree with, you are welcome

EDIT: congrats to Uticensis for that clear and informative post, you explained very well what I have in mind but I can't write because of my poor english

[Atraphoenix]

Rome was doomed when Constantine wiped out Roman Paganism (that was rome's original identity) and abolished "Forward policy" with defensive reserve fighting sytem; I am sure you know better than me the Field Reserve Army, and frontier troops, the comitatentes and limitanei things.
also this sytem created strong general cos in german limes and in the limes of Balkan peninsula a general can get more than 4 legions, and historically that resulted in Strong General usurpers who fought with emperor for crown that triggled endless destability....

Technically the roman empire may have died with the Ottomans, as they claimed to be the new roman empire..as did the russian empire aswell.

Ottoman Sultans even claimed themselves as the successor of Roman Empire, although it is another debate, I can say that SPQR was pagan Rome, Byzantines were Christian Rome and who knows maybe Ottomans were Muslim Rome.

I read all of the histories of that 3 Roman or claimed to be ones, They have common standing armies, their geoghrophical epansion nearly same, they all fought endless battles with persians,
and interestingly their standing armies became corrupted and triggered their doom...

P.S. also Pagan romans deified their Emperors, Byzatines accepted many emperors as saint, and also many ottoman sultans were accepted as Avliyah (same discorce as saint in islam) ...

just a speculation you know I do not want to divert the topic.

[Macilrille]

Well thing is, just as those scholars who are real experts, we cannot arrive at a conclusion as to what/when the Roman Empire really fell or was doomed. In fact probably the most accurate one was the Voltaire quote.

However, we see in the preceeding discussions much of the difficulty of making conclusions in history, many of the contributing factors, and lo and behold, we see that there was probably no single fact. IE no single time. Even if we ask questions of things that are happening now, we cannot necessarily say for certain, how could we then be able to do so for past events?

Anyway, there are good points here, I just do not think we will ever know why, when might be ascertainable. I would reiterate my claim that it was New Year's Eve 406, it was- after all- those same invaders who later took North Africa, but NVM, for who is to say that Belisarius' reconquests in the 6th Century could not have lasted had things gone different?

Byzantium... they called themselves Roman, they thought of themselves as Romans, how then dare we sit here today, knowing next to nothing of what was compared to those who lived in it, and say they were not Romans? That is on par with saying I am not a Dane cause I do not till my own farm, worship The Old Norse Pantheon and sail around looting in the rest of Europe. The time span between them and me is the same. I do inhabit the same geographical location, w and I am their descendant,hich the Byzantines did not and might have been, but I hope you get the point of the comparison anyway. Being that things evolve. I doubt Cincinnatus or Lucius Junius Brutus would have recognised many people of Constantine's Rome as Romans (nor the city itself). And as someone else said, Russia and the Holy Frankish-German Empire called themselves Roman far into modern times. These two latter I would judge both so culturally, demographis and geographically removed from the mediterennean world that was Rome's that they can hardly have been counted as such. They wanted to be though, for various reasons, but...
That means the question also becomes, what constitutes Roman?

It is an interesting point though that though it has for long been in fashion to claim that Islam was the upholder of learning and Greek-Roman science and knowledge through "the dark of the Middle Ages", fact is that most of what we got we got directly from its source in the Byzantine Empire which was still around with the knowledge at hand. I am no Islamophobe (though I do subscribe to Jyllandsposten when I can afford it), but credit where credit is due, political correctness where it is due- ie where the sun does not shine...


India, point taken, it has been united before, but never under one dynasty. But as for China, I reitareate my point. For the following reason, no matter who has headed the Cinese State as such, the state apparatus/administration never changed much. The vast size and complexity of this, combined with the need to keep it running smoothly in order to actually keep such a large population from squalor and starvation has made it well-nigh impossible to change, no matter who held the throne. This is indeed, I think, basic Chinese history, but I freely admit I know not much more beyond that and the Landes- Frank debate of 9-10 years ago. Should I be misinformed I would not mind enlightenment (though probably by pm or another thread as China has little to do in EB). My speciality is Danish Viking - High Middle Ages, Roman, Danish Iron Age, Middle Ages in General, French Decolonisation, WWII and Military History in general. Those are my specialities, and I shall gladly e-mail whoever told me quite rudely to read some basic history, a copy of my Master's Dissertation on Power Politics in 12th Century Denmark. It contains enough new scholarship that some twat just got a Ph.D Stipend largely by copying it :-( It is in Danish however, so I expect that most will gain little from it, but if you want, you can have it.


Anyway, I ramble, my point is that historical processes of such magnitude as this are complicated matters and probably irresolvable. But as someone else said, it puts bread on some peoples' tables and enlightenment is good. I want to thank for the Climactic change abstract, I knew it in basics, your abstract has shed some more light on it and I must admit that though it was probably a contributing factor, I am not convinced at all that it was the reason.

[Ludens]

I believe the initial stress was stagnation followed by a slight decrease in economic productivity, primarily agricultural, over an extremely long period.

Thanks for the information, cmacq. That is very interesting indeed. Would the initial economic decrease be a consequence of climate change or are there other causes?

[Atraphoenix]

rome became a symbol of power so it is normal for the later states to claim a successor of them.

and I think sembolically Rome is still alive....

[KozaK13]

The romans believed that aslong as the empire was believed in, then there was a roman empire.

Did Moussolini claim to be rebuilding the roman empire at any point? cus i get the suspicion he may have.

Also don't forget Napolean...toga, leafy crown thing, empire, triumphal arches, emperor...

Infact rome may have contined in the guise of:
the "Barbarian" kingdoms, ottoman empire, Holy roman empire(lesser extent obviously), Muscovy, Russian Empire, Napolean's empire, Moussolini's Italy and even the third riech...all aspired to be like the roman empire, perhaps aslong as that ideal lives there will be roman empires.

Romans were not even a distinct ethnic grop, anyone could have been a roman citizen, from the army or being a freed slave.

Perhap rome has yet to fall....aslong as there is the potential to recreate it then it is still there.

Sorry for being abit off topic and maybe completely wrong aswell.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well it can be argued that the Roman Empire still exists in the form of the Roman Church. This is one institution which has continuity from before the fall of the Empire up to the present day. The administration of the Church is in many ways similar to that of the Empire, especially geographically.

Leaving that aside, however, something which has not been discussed a great deal here yet is the Roman psychology. I had a very specific point when I said that Rome was doomed from the time of Marius. From Marius onwards it ceased to be "For the Glory of Rome" and became "For the Glory of the General". Once you understand that the Emperor was merely the greates General the precarious nature of his position become obvious. The rebellion against Nero answered the question, "What do you do when you have another, better, General?" then when Vespasian's troops declared him Imperator on the Rhine the system was in a dive.

The insistance of Augustus that he was not King, merely high priest, Supreme Commander and People's Champion, meant that the "Emperor", as we understand him today, never existed constitutionally. This led to an instability, particually when more competant and charismatic generals were around.

Various fixes to the system were tried. Nero and Domitian killed all their relatives and rivals; Marcus Auralius tried to great a dynasty, which would have restricted legitimate claims; Diocletian tried old fashioned Roman Virture; Constantine a fusion of three new religions; and Justinian old Roman piety.

They all failed and none of the answers they tried survived them. The closest was Constantine, but the Church became too powerful and eventually excomunicated the Emperor in the East.

[Fluvius Camillus]

I totally disagree that after Marius Rome was lost. Good emperors expanded, the only problem was not all emperors were good but some were dangerous madmen or selfish glory hunters.

I think after Adrianople disaster/goths break through, the western half was lost. I would say Eastern/Byzantine Empire was lost after Manzikert or the plunder of Constantinople of Venice.

[Macilrille]

Fluvius (should that not be Flavius, "The Blonde"?), I love that endquote, it is so correct. I wish someone would do the same for MTW II.

Phillipus, I beg to differ, a state exists as long as its administrative apparatus does and runs it, whoever is head of the state. So no matter that there were struggles for the throne, Rome carried on. Something else killed it.

The bane of the Republic though, was definately its own city state constitution that could not cope with the challenges of empire, but the Roman empire continued after that, so that is another story.

[Olaf Blackeyes]

We can guesstimate, speculate, and argue all we want. The State that called itself the Roman Empire that was centered around the City of Rome fell in 476AD when its last emperor was deposed. The Eastern part of that empire which had broken away nearly 150 years earlier to form a separate empire outlasted its western counterpart for a good 1000 years further due to having more population, a better tax system, have reformed its military apparatus, and the fact that more than half of its holdings were protected from the "barbarians" that mauled the west by a single city with titanic defenses. This eastern Empire still called itself Roman until its fall in 1453AD to the Ottoman Turks, after centuries of neglect, military disasters, religious unrest, its trade moving to other places and a gradual erosion of its institutions by foreign powers, but we know it in our modern version of world history as the Byzantine Empire. THESE ARE THE POLITICAL FACTS!

Now as a symbol of culture, as a legacy, as a thing to look back on and try to recreate, the Roman empire is still with us today and will be here as long as Western Civilization exists.

[Atraphoenix]

I agree no one can deny that modern western civilization was willed from Roman cradle.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Phillipus, I beg to differ, a state exists as long as its administrative apparatus does and runs it, whoever is head of the state. So no matter that there were struggles for the throne, Rome carried on. Something else killed it.

Rome had no throne, an Emperor is not a king. I cannot stress this enough, constitutionally Rome remained a Republic until the dissolution of the Consulate in the 6th Century. This was the central problem, the Princeps was an apointed Proconsualr magistrate, who used his household staff to run his provinces. This meant that the "State" as you call it had two arms, the Senate and the Palace, except the Palace was just a "Domus", house.

As the Empire progressed the fiction of senatorial control gradually disolved, but that was as much because of general dissolusion as anything else. The Emperor was technically an extra-constitutional personage, and not supposed to be part of the state at all. To put it another way, the Principate was a fiction of a Republic, and like all fictions was very difficult to maintain.

The longest period of peace in the Principate is between Nerva and Marcus Auralius, and it is bracketed by toment, bloodshed and madness. The foundations of the Empire were rotten from the off and only the weight of the whole edifice kept it up, as soon as a big enough wind came along it toppled.

Then, I suppose I'm biased; given that my own nation died about 950 years ago as far as I can see.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

"Your own nation"?

And I beg to differ: the bureaucratic structure and hierarchy remained cohese long after the IIIrd century. Technically, Rome did not fall on 476, but on 1453. That alone is a testament to the capability of the Roman Empire to adapt and regenerate through the countless wars and turmoil it went through.

[Cambyses]

I must join those others who have expressed discomfiture with the idea of Rome being doomed from the point almost before it became a true empire, ie 2nd Punic War / Marius etc. Of course great problems for the basic Republic were created then and to some extent where never solved, but the amount of time that passed between these events and the abdication of Romulus Augustus in 476 is surely so much as to discredit this argument in its infancy. I mention 476 as its the traditional date given for the passing of the WRE and although clever arguments can maintain the Roman Empire persisted in various forms after that point, inarguably from a military perspective it had fallen from its birthplace, in the West.

Moreover, one could argue that it was part of the basic nature of the Roman Empire that intense power struggles existed between key individuals at (almost) all times througout its existence. In fact this competitive element is a key reason as to why Rome was driven from a city state to Empire in the first place. Especially as true Romans did not just feel they were in competition with their contemporaries, but often with their ancestors as well. Societal ancestors that is, ie not personal.

If the ultimate reason for the empire's eventual failure is to be one of the same reasons for its success, then I think we have drowned ourselves in a sea of overcomplication and a morass of academic cleverness.

[antisocialmunky]

"Your own nation"?

And I beg to differ: the bureaucratic structure and hierarchy remained cohese long after the IIIrd century. Technically, Rome did not fall on 476, but on 1453. That alone is a testament to the capability of the Roman Empire to adapt and regenerate through the countless wars and turmoil it went through.

The Eastern Empire was really more of a matter of geography and money.

[Olaf Blackeyes]

The Eastern Empire was really more of a matter of geography and money.

This is true, cuz Constantinople really did protect nearly ALL of the ERE from the barbarian invasions.

[Subotan]

R
Ottoman Sultans even claimed themselves as the successor of Roman Empire, although it is another debate, I can say that SPQR was pagan Rome, Byzantines were Christian Rome and who knows maybe Ottomans were Muslim Rome.
.

This.

[Marcus Ulpius]

Actually, I think the right answer to the title question would be: during the reign of Honorius or shortly afterward. The question "why" is much more difficult.

Even in this thread there was a wide variety of theories starting from climate change to ethnogenesis (i.e. natural deterioration of old civilization that achieved everything it could, the deterioration that was not stopped or slowed down by good leadership at certain critical points of later Roman history).

But there's also a tendency to an unnecessary complication of the question "when" Roman Empire had really fallen. There's only one certain date that we know - 476 AD the year of abduction of the last Roman Emperor. Byzantine Empire could be called a successor to the Roman Empire but only up to the certain point in its history (Byzantian-Arab wars in my opinion), after that there was very little in common between the two. As for others claiming to be Roman heirs, those were just claims made to justify their political ambitions. There was very little in common between the Roman Empire and the HRE, even less between Romans and Russians (btw, I suspect that claim was made to mark Russia as a successor state to declining Byzantine Empire and not to the Roman Empire proper) and Ottomans had nothing in common at all with the Romas or even Byzantians.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

"Your own nation"?

And I beg to differ: the bureaucratic structure and hierarchy remained cohese long after the IIIrd century. Technically, Rome did not fall on 476, but on 1453. That alone is a testament to the capability of the Roman Empire to adapt and regenerate through the countless wars and turmoil it went through.

I'm English, and that was not to be taken entirely seriously (though there remains to this day a discourse which identifies the aristocracy as invaders. That's another topic though.

My arguement stems from a belief that the Roman system after Marius was effectively rotten, and that the Empire persisted mainly because there was no one strong enough to destroy it.

[KozaK13]

Byzantine Empire could be called a successor to the Roman Empire but only up to the certain point in its history (Byzantian-Arab wars in my opinion), after that there was very little in common between the two.

What stops the Eastern Roman Empire being roman?

Perhaps the title qestion should be taken as when was the Western Roman Empire doomed.

[antisocialmunky]

When they divided the empire into East and West as the West was dirt poor compared to the East.