Quote Originally Posted by Macilrille View Post
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.