Quote Originally Posted by Dayve View Post
I know when Rome was doomed... When dynasties were established. When the man with the most power was allowed to pick his successor and not have his decision questioned.

When men were allowed to be emperor because of who their father was, rather than put in that position due to merit and their actual abilities.

When the senate could no longer declare an emperor (or any member of government) an enemy of state because they had to tread on eggshells around a (usually) maniacal emperor who was quite probably insane due to inbreeding.

I believe Rome was born when it gained independence from the Etruscan kings and was doomed when it ceased to be a republic and power was in the hands of a single man rather than hundreds of men in the senate house.
What you say, is that the Rome declined since the Julio-Claudian dynasty? It wasn't always father-son, but the first emperors where chosen by family connections (Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero). Furthermoore, most emperors in the first century after Augustus where not chosen by the senate, but by the pretorian guard.

The Flavian dynasty put men in charge that put Rome in an economical hight, so I'm not sure if your statement is differse enough.

Even Gibbon's "Five good emperors" were not adopted because they thought it might be a good idea to give people power who can actually handle it, instead of a spoiled brat of a son. They simply had no sons but had to regulate the next ruler.

Generally speaking, while there are some very interessting and valid theisis to the decline of the western roman emperors, I read a lot of vague and unspecific stuff that reads more like speculation.
I am also surprised that hardly anyone mentions the Migration Period as a serious destabilizing factor of the time.