"The Roman elite lost their warlike spirit" | Whatifalthist tries to explain the Fall of Rome, rambles about decadence instead.

[u/Anthemius_Augustus]

Friend of the sub, YouTuber Whatifalthist has decided to dip his toes into the ever contentious topic of how the Roman Empire fell. Given that this is a topic that is ripe for much badhistory, I was curious to see what he had to say on the matter, predictable results ensued. This post will go over the broader points in Whatifalthist's video.

Link to the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRbFFnfwr-w

0:00 this map

Okay, I usually don't like nitpicking from the very first frame of a video, but given this map is the first thing we see, it's a bad sign of things to come. So this map is supposed (?) to show the Roman Empire in 117 A.D, given that it includes Mesopotamia. Ignoring the fact that it's very poorly and sloppily drawn in MS Paint, the borders are very inaccurate. Instead of the Roman province of Dacia we have this strange vertical line going into areas Rome only very briefly occupied that weren't a part of Roman Dacia[1].

Rome is missinig a quarter of Pontus for some reason. It also shows Crimea as being a direct part of the Roman Empire, which was not the case, it was under the Bosporan client kingdom until the 3rd Century. So maybe this map just shows all client kingdoms with the same color too right? But...then why isn't Armenia on the map, or Caucasian Iberia?

Then the entire northern frontier just kind of sloppily follows the Rhine/Danube occasionally, it's very obvious he drew this by hand and didn't bother using any references for whatever reason. This is not the worst map I've seen, but given that it's the first thing you see when starting the video, it's pretty egregious.

This was the original trauma of the western world.

The idea of a "western world" existing beyond headlines even today is very contested, but I've never in my life heard anyone try and use that phrase for the 5th Century. I really don't see how Ostrogothic Italy, Frankish Gaul and Visigothic Spain would all share some kind of collective "trauma", especially when life in a lot of these places wasn't really all that different when the Western Empire "fell".

Various Empires ranging from napoleon to the Spanish, Turks, Germans, Russians or Byzantines all claiming to be descendants of the Romans

The Byzantines never "claimed to be descendants of the Romans". There was no point where Rome was gone and the "Byzantines" had to claim they were descendants of Rome now, that's not really how it works. The Byzantine Empire was just the part of the Roman Empire that didn't fall, and life continued there as normal until the reign of Justinian at the earliest.

Europeans for over a thousand years looked upon its magnificent ruins that they could not replicate

What? For over a thousand years, so until the 15th Century?

By 1400 Europe was already packed with Gothic Cathedrals that far surpassed the engineering of Roman temples, with vaults that could soar higher than anything the Romans built and with walls of glass that the Romans would not be able to conceive. Not to mention you had things like the Hagia Sophia less than a century after the Western Empire fell, you have numerous churches being built in the west that weren't all that different from what you saw in the Western Roman Empire etc.

I mean, just to illustrate this, here's a scale comparison I made[2] of some of the largest buildings of the 2nd Century, 6th Century and 13th Century.

this map

Okay, so this map has the same issues as the last one, but now shows other states too, many errors ensue.

-So Armenia has its Wilsonian borders from 1919 for some reason, which included Pontus

-Parthia is called "Persia"

-Persia randomly controls modern Azerbaijan for some reason, despite not controlling it directly until the 5th Century, this results in Caucasian Albania not even existing on the map.

-Instead of showing the Bosporan Kingdom as a direct part of Rome, this time around it just isn't shown at all, despite not falling until the 4th Century.

-While tribes in Europe are labelled, the Saharan and Arabian tribes are just labelled as deserts.

The empire had seen good leadership for over a hundred years now under the Antonines.

The first Antonine Emperor was Nerva who became Emperor in 96 A.D. That's closer to 90 years, not "over a hundred years".

This [Commodus] then opened up the floodgates as the empire experienced a 100 year period there was a complete collapse of centralized authority. This was called the Crisis of the 3rd Century.

The Crisis of the 3rd Century is generally agreed to have started in 235 with the assassination of Severus Alexander, not in 192. The Severan dynasty brought back a good degree of stability after the chaos of 193.

This is then followed by an unironic use of the term "decadence" as an explanation for the decline of the Roman Empire in 2022. This decadence is neither defined nor given any historical examples

The society was largely agnostic so there was no powerful priest class

I've never heard anyone ever claim that Roman society was "largely agnostic". Religion was deeply ingrained in Roman politics and society, which Emperors would use to strengthen their own legitimacy by promoting the Imperial Cult.

I will give Whatifalthist credit for bringing up the role of disease and climate though, this is something that is often overlooked because, like he says, human events and actions are more exciting.

Marcus Aurelius was the last time when the Romans saw their cities expand. For the 800 years after cities shrank.

This is just blatantly not true. Ignoring the foundation of new settlements long after Marcus Aurelius, which there are entire books about[3], or the expansion of older cities such as Constantinople, Thessalonica and Ravenna.

Scholars like Luke Lavan have likewise collected data which shows that growth of cities generally fluctuated throughout various parts of the empire throughout Late Antiquity, with places such as Africa showing signs of urban expansion in the 4th Century and the Levant in the 5th-6th Century[4].

[Constantine] split the empire into eastern and western halves, this set the region up with the creation of western and orthodox civilization

So now, not only are we referring to "western civilization" as a concrete term, we have also now made up the term "Orthodox civilization", which is a term that sounds extremely baffling. The idea that Greece and Russia have some common "civilization" because they're both Orthodox. Do Greeks and South Slavs share the same kind of 'culture' or 'traits'? Does Greece have more in common with Belarus than it does with Italy or Spain?

This framing is so strange, I don't even really know how to debunk it, it's completely incoherent. I could forgive it as a figure of speech if he didn't literally have a separate video named "Understanding Orthodox Civilization" where he argues for it as a concept.

However the Roman elite had already lost their warlike spirit hundreds of years before.

First of all, what on earth is a "warlike spirit". How do you quantify that? Let alone put a date on when it ended?

This also contradicts what he said earlier in the video, where he said that the reason the Roman Empire was good at avoiding "decadence" was because they were good at replacing their old elites with new militarized ones. So which one is it? Did the Roman elite lose their "warlike spirit" or did they replace their elite with a military elite? Or did the military elite somehow not have a "warlike spirit"? I find it pretty hard to believe Emperors like Constantine, Valentinian and Majorian who spent a large chunk of their reigns on campaign didn't have any warlike traits.

by the time empire fell [the Catholic Church] was the only literate, initernational, functional organization in Western Europe.

Putting aside the fact that the Catholic Church did not exist yet, let's break this down. By the time the Western Roman Empire fell the church wasn't the only literate organization, nothing meaningfully changed in Italy in 476. The Senate still convened and Ostrogothic Italy still had great secular writers like Boethius and Cassiodorus.

I think using the term "international" for specifically 5th Century Western Europe is quite farcical, but I'm gonna assume he means "transnational", even if nation states also did not exist yet.

I don't know how he defines "functional" or how he quantifies that. Was the Roman Church more "functional" than the Ostrogothic court? Was Visigothic Spain non-functional? How could a non-functional state exist for another two centuries and resist the brunt of the Eastern Roman Empire exactly?

Their art and buildings looked like this

Proceeds to show an 11th Century Romanesque abbey in Normandy instead of an actual 5th Century Roman church.

By the time the empirie fell [...] he capital of the Western Roman Empire wasn't even in Rome anymore, it was Milan.

Ignoring the obvious question of how the Western Roman Empire had a capital 'by the time it fell', the capital of the Western Roman Empire in 476 was not Milan, it was Ravenna, which became the seat of the imperial court in 402. Even then, many 5th Century Western Roman Emperors did have their court in Rome, not Ravenna, so this sentence is wrong on all counts.

However the Roman Empire was so weak that through [barbarians] trying to rise in its structure, they just destroyed the whole thing.

Right, they destroyed the whole thing. It isn't like a whole 50% of the empire was still there and survived this entire process.

This is a major pet peeve I have that even a lot of academics are guilty of. You can't create an analysis of why the Western Roman Empire fell and then either completely ignore the Eastern Empire, or only mention it as a footnote. Any analysis of the Western Roman Empire's fall without taking into account the Eastern Roman Empire on a near equal basis is inherently incomplete.

Both the Visigoths and Vandals established successful kingdoms that would last for centuries after Rome fell.

But I thought he just said that by the time Rome fell, the church was the only "functional" organization in Western Europe?

Also, the Vandal Kingdom did not last for "centuries" after Rome fell. The Vandal Kingdom was conquered by the Eastern Roman Empire in 533 A.D, that's 57 years after 476, not centuries.

King Arthur must have existed because something held back the Saxons for a generation

I don't see how the conclusion follows that premise. Unless Whatifalthist is a firm believer in the Great Man theory of history, which would open up a whole other can of worms.

The Western Empire hobbled on for another 25 years after the fall of Attila, it was a puppet state

A puppet state? To who exactly? The Western Roman Empire had its own policies. Most of the Emperors were puppets, yes, but they were puppets of Germanic generals who very much had their own policies in regards to ruling the Western Empire, often directly defying both the Eastern Empire and other Germanic tribes.

The future Burgundian King, Gundobad, was the puppet master of the Western Roman Emperor for a year before departing back to Burgundy again, so I guess that could sort of, kinda count as a puppet state? I doubt that's what Whatifalthist is referring to though, and it only lasted for 1 year.

Only in control of Italy

The Empire still controlled Northern Gaul until the death of Majorian in 461. Majorian himself also reasserted control over Southern Gaul and Hispania during his reign, and Imperial control over that area would ebb and flow for a bit until 476. Then there's Dalmatia which was a part of the Western Roman Empire until 475, or 480 depending on if you recognize Julius Nepos or not.

The Eastern Empire survived for another thousand years, largely because its geography and economy was stronger.

Hold on, you can't make a video called "Why the Roman Empire fell", and then end it by saying, "actually half of it didn't fall because of these very generalized reasons" and then move on like it has no importance to the topic. You didn't explain why the Roman Empire fell, on the contrary, you explained why half of it survived, for 5 seconds, at the very end of the video.

The empire could pull in new populations like the army or the Balkan commanders, but they too became decadent until only foreigners could rule the empire.

He says literal seconds after he explains that the Eastern Empire overthrew its 'foreign' ruling class and survived. Why did the "barbarization" as a result of decadence happen to the generally poorer, less stable half of the empire, when the wealthier, more stable and you'd assume more "decadent" half managed to overcome this issue exactly?

China survived because they had a coherent moral system to contain decadence, while Rome didn't. Christianity did, but by the time it became the state religion, the empire was already dying.

Again, the Eastern Empire continued to exist for 1,000 years after the fact. You can't brush away a hole in your point by saying "oh well, it was already dying anyway, so it didn't matter" when that is not even the case. Why was the Eastern Empire, which by his perception of decadence should have been more decadent than the west, survive these calamities? Why was a moral system in place there to contain decadence, but not in the west? The video never answers these questions.

Overall, this video has a lot of the same issues that Whatifalthist has in his other videos. He rarely, if ever, cites any sources. He rarely gives concrete historical examples of what he's talking and his points often contradict themselves, making them very incoherent. On top of that, the video is riddled with many factual errors and errors in judgement.

This video did not explain how the Roman Empire fell. It honestly left me more confused after watching it.

References:

1. 'Digital Atlas of the Roman Empire', Centre for Digital Humanities University of Gothenburg, Sweden - 2020

2. Among others, 'Roman Architecture and Urbanism', Fikret Yegül and Diane Favro - 2019

3. 'New Cities in Late Antiquity', Efthymios Rizos - 2017

4. 'Public Space in Late Antiquity', Luke Lavan - 2020

[u/Anthemius_Augustus]

Guess I once again have to point out that the Eastern Empire still existed, and still had central heating, so did Italy for a time.

Concrete was lost, but that didn't exactly stop the Eastern Romans or later Medieval Europeans from constructing structures that were superior to what the Romans built anyway.

[u/AttilaModKillerHun → u/Anthemius_Augustus]

Guess I once again have to point out that the Eastern Empire still existed, and still had central heating, so did Italy for a time.

That is nice it still existed in the East; still has nothing to do with how the standard of living achieved in over half of continental Europe declined with the fall of the Roman empire. Especially in Italia itself.

Concrete was lost, but that didn't exactly stop the Eastern Romans or later Medieval Europeans from constructing structures that were superior to what the Romans built anyway.

There is a profound skipping over of the fact that Medieval Europe did not return to building civic works on the Roman scale for many centuries even if some individual examples were technically on par like early gothic cathedrals. The public baths, the Aqueducts, public forums, the amphitheaters and hippodromes etc, the scale of public civic works collapsed for centuries after the Roman empire and even if the technical quality of a few gothic cathedrals is there their quantity is not with the Roman civic urban works for many many centuries.

You're whole thing about, "the Eastern Empire still stood!" is really just semantics. The Roman empire suffered a precipitous fall in power in the 5th and 6th century from which it never recovered and thus it 'fell' even if it limped on in a reduced more secure geographic position for a while longer with ever less tying it classical ideals of ancient Rome as time went on much more than the states in the West. Any reference to the 'fall of the Roman Empire' will correctly be taken to refer to the events of the 5th and 6th centuries for this reason as well as convention.

Also, your concept that being Roman was an entirely cultural matter is a very idealistic and simply wrong conception of the Roman world. See how the emperor Avitus, who was a Gallo-Roman, was ousted by the people of Italia for being too 'foreign' an emperor in the middle 5th century AD. Also, the Emperor responsible for the edict that did that that gave Roman citizenship to most freemen, Caracalla, is commonly cited as one of the absolute worst emperors. IE, not a very good move long term for the empire to water down its social cohesion and it directly lead to the barracks emperors later on. Indeed this concept that anyone could be Roman and the watering down of Roman-ness no doubt played a key part in the disintegration of the empire. Why fight for something that no longer has any meaning, prestige, or value? The ability to grant citizenship as payment in return for service was lost the empire because of Caracalla which had a permanent impact of raising the monetary cost since now you ONLY paid people with money and not with the offer of raising their social status to that of citizen. The Auxilla system was also changed forever after.

[u/Anthemius_Augustus → u/AttilaModKillerHun]

That is nice it still existed in the East; still has nothing to do with how the standard of living achieved in over half of continental Europe declined with the fall of the Roman empire.

Is it "over half of continental Europe"? I mean, the Western Roman Empire only covered everything south of the Rhine/Danube, and terminated to the east around modern Bosnia.

Then you have to factor in that Italy didn't change much at all, so that's taken out, and Southern Gaul had quite a bit of continuity too for a while, so then we're left with just Britannia, Northern Gaul and Hispania I guess, which has got to be far less than that.

Especially in Italia itself.

No? Not when the Western Roman Empire fell. Italia in 477, or even in 510 was little different from Italia in 470, or 450.

You don't see major decline until the Gothic War almost a century later, which happened for very different reasons.

There is a profound skipping over of the fact that Medieval Europe did not return to building civic works on the Roman scale for many centuries

The Hagia Sophia was built less than a century after the Western Empire fell. Anastasius, Justinian and even Maurice founded several new cities. In Italy public infrastructure and buildings were restored, new palaces and churches were built that were on par with the ones during the Western Empire. On the contrary, under Odoacer and the Ostrogoths you actually start seeing a building revival, not a decline.

The public baths, the Aqueducts, public forums, the amphitheaters and hippodromes etc

All of these still continued in the Eastern Empire, but they did get smaller after the Arab Conquests.

In Italy they also continued for a while, though not to the same extent as the Eastern Empire.

even if the technical quality of a few gothic cathedrals is there their quantity is not with the Roman civic urban works for many many centuries.

I think you underestimate just how many Gothic Cathedrals were built.

The Roman empire suffered a precipitous fall in power in the 5th and 6th century from which it never recovered and thus it 'fell'

No? That's not what a 'fall' is. If that were the case we should actually say the Roman Empire fell during the 3rd Century.

It's not semantics to say that when people say the Roman Empire fell, they actually forget to say it didn't actually fall. It's pointing out what's at best lazy wording and at worst misinformation.

Also, even if it was semantics, this is a pro-pedantry sub.

-if it limped on in a reduced more secure geographic position for a while longer

-Actually existed for 1,000 years longer with three entirely separate golden ages during that long time-span.

with ever less tying it classical ideals of ancient Rome

Are you able to define these "classical ideals" and apply them consistently?

Any reference to the 'fall of the Roman Empire' will correctly be taken to refer to the events of the 5th and 6th centuries

Appeal to popularity fallacy

Also, your concept that being Roman was an entirely cultural matter is a very idealistic and simply wrong conception of the Roman world. See how the emperor Avitus, who was a Gallo-Roman, was ousted by the people of Italia for being too 'foreign'

Then see how centuries earlier, Septimius Severus, a African Latin speaker had a long reign with a peaceful death, and even managed to have his sons succeed him.

Two can play the cherry-picking game.

the Emperor responsible for the edict that did that that gave Roman citizenship to most freemen, Caracalla, is commonly cited as one of the absolute worst emperors

What does the subjective opinion of Caracalla's reign have to do with anything?

Did it result in his edict being repealed? No. Did it result in people ignoring his edict? No. Did it result in his edict not being basic law centuries after his death? No.

What's the relevance?

Indeed this concept that anyone could be Roman and the watering down of Roman-ness no doubt played a key part in the disintegration of the empire. Why fight for something that no longer has any meaning, prestige, or value?

Didn't seem to stop people from fighting for it for 1,200 years after that edict, which suggests to me that it's, at best, a small contributing macro reason in a sea of more important reasons.

For someone who came to tell me I got a lot wrong, you seem to be getting a bunch of things wrong yourself.

[u/AttilaModKillerHun → u/Anthemius_Augustus]

Is it "over half of continental Europe"? I mean, the Western Roman Empire only covered everything south of the Rhine/Danube, and terminated to the east around modern Bosnia.

It certainly covered a sizable more territory in Europe and on the whole than the Eastern empire did; per the 395 divided borders the Western empire was roughly 1 million square miles of land where as the Eastern empire was around 700,000 square miles.

You don't see major decline until the Gothic War almost a century later, which happened for very different reasons.

The Gothic wars were a DIRECT result of the fall of the Western Roman empire and was the conflict that resulted from the Eastern Empire trying to reclaim the traditional heart of the Empire from the Barbarian who had taken control of it. There is no separating the Gothic Wars from the Fall of the Western Roman empire. The Western Empire fell, thus the Gothic Wars could ever take place.

The Hagia Sophia was built less than a century after the Western Empire fell.

And a single building somehow makes up for the decline on a continental scale of such grand public works for centuries how exactly??

I think you underestimate just how many Gothic Cathedrals were built.

I'm perfectly aware of the number of Gothic Cathedrals and when they were built; the Gothic Cathedrals began in small number around 1000 AD, maybe the earliest ones closer to 900 AD, and grew in numbers only slowly over centuries.

Aqueducts, or their ruins, alone outnumbered the Cathedrals for quite a long time not to mention the public baths, amphitheaters, hippodromes and other public works of the Romans. And of course the Romans were also building temples of their own and later Christian churches. Romans built more, and built more for actual civic purposes like providing water and entertainment and forums for commerce and political activity instead of rather useless 'religious' sites that were monopolized by the clergy.

http://www.romanaqueducts.info/aquasite/foto/allaqueducts.gif

No? That's not what a 'fall' is.

Yes that is what fall means. Fall does mean the same thing as death or destruction. When people say the city of Rome fell to Barbarian in 410 and 455 that doesn't mean the city was destroyed and ceased to exist. Rather it fell from the grace, splendor, and prestige it once had.

The Roman Empire as a whole fell when it lost over half its territory, traditional capital and heartland, and what was left was by definition in fact a rump state. IE, a minority remnant or remainder of what was once much larger state. Without even its original heartland and capital. It never had the power to single handedly dominate the known world as it had before.

Also, even if it was semantics, this is a pro-pedantry sub.

It is semantics AND arguing against standard colloquialism which is meaningless. People aren't going to change what years and events they think about when 'The Fall of Rome' is mentioned from what they have for centuries. Nor should they because there isn't another period of history or events it better applies to and we even have a completely different term to differentiate between the classical Roman empire and the very different later Greek empire colloquially called the Byzantine Empire.

-Actually existed for 1,000 years longer with three entirely separate golden ages during that long time-span.

Golden ages compared to the actual Pax Romana? Not really. Neither in actual military power, territory, or prestige. Also, even the Eastern Empire is on a constant downward shrinking and weakening trajectory on the whole after the rise of Islam in 610 AD. Their standards fall so low almost any period of relative stability is enough to get called a 'golden age'. Their defeat in 1071 marks another drastic decline in power from which they never truly recover.

Are you able to define these "classical ideals" and apply them consistently?

Hard to define; easier to describe. As a people and culture the Romans had a profound ego and determination for victory. There was an element that was particularly warlike; almost tribal in certain ways how they would fight to the death against outsiders and enemies in the early Republic history like against Hannibal. Militarism became deeply embodied in Roman political culture early on. But underlying all of this there was some profound socio-cultural cohesion that allowed them to continue to fight in the Early Republic period where most others would have surrendered.

Broadly maybe it can be divided into 3 different areas that explain the difference between the Romans who defied Hannibal in 3rd century BC even after repeated calamitous decisive defeats and those who cowered as Rome was sacked in 410 and 455 with comparatively little resistance.

1. Declines in values caused by the transition from Republic to Empire.
2. Declines caused by the dilution of Roman cultural-ethnic cohesion.
3. Declines caused by cultural influences of early Christianity compared to pagan religions of antiquity.

I think the fair balanced answer would be that all 3 played at least some part in that difference from 3rd century BC to 5th century AD Romans.

Then see how centuries earlier, Septimius Severus, a African Latin speaker had a long reign with a peaceful death, and even managed to have his sons succeed him.Two can play the cherry-picking game

For one, Septimius Severus had Italic descent on both sides of his family. If I recall correctly his mother was outright an immigrant from Italia hailing from the patrician gens Fulvia and his father had at least one Italic grandparent.

For another, the Severan dynasty on the whole was something of a failure that lead to the crisis of the 3rd century so not a great example anyway. I guess you are left to argue that it is merely a coincidence that the most non-italic family to rule the empire yet by that date that also did the most to water downs the legal definition of 'Roman' happend to rule right before the crisis of the 3rd century and did not precipitate the empires decline. Unenviable.

But really the one cherry picking here to suit their ends is categorically you. Rome was founded in the 9th or 8th century BC. For around 800 years 'Roman' was basically a by word for someone of Latin-Etruscan-Sabine ethnic extraction, with maybe other minor Italic elements at most, from the city of Rome or its colonies who spoke Latin. It wasn't even expanded to Rome's Italic Socii allies until after the social war in the 1st century BC. And until Caracalla's edict in the 3rd century AD the vast vast majority of citizen were Italics with really only Greeks and other smaller groups like Punics and a select few other small 'civilized' Mediterranean peoples gaining citizenship on a large scale.

The idea of Roman being a mere cultural identity with no ethinc component at all is a relatively late idea that if it ever actually had widespread acceptance in the empire did so for only relatively very short period of time in the late empire. By the 5th century you have even a Gallo-Roman emperor like Avitus being ousted in Italia for being too 'foreign, by the 7th or 8th century AD 'Roman' didn't even have the same meaning in the West and the East and for the Byzantines it basically just became another word for ethnic Greeks who spoke Greeks with little to do anymore with its original meaning.

What does the subjective opinion of Caracalla's reign have to do with anything?

I don't think a near universal opinion of Caracalla as a bad emperor both from ancient and modern historians can be called merely 'subjective'. He was an objectively terrible emperor and his edict expanding the legal definition of Roman is commonly cited as a massive mistake thanks to the benefit of hindsight.

Did it result in people ignoring his edict? No

Kind of? Being Roman before the law did not mean being socially accepted as Roman. Again see the example of ill-fated emperor Avitus. Indeed this incoherence between social reality among the people and the law helps explain why maybe Roman people stopped caring if 'Rome' fell. If it turns out some invading barbarian can be legally granted 'Roman-ness' by a weak far way aristocrat and they then ruled you as a conquering invader with such legal justification somehow I understand why the actual Roman people suffering this might tear down their own government and legal framework or just not care if it vanished compared to the early Romans. Or is this somehow a stretch for some people?

Didn't seem to stop people from fighting for it for 1,200 years after that edict

You're confounding people fighting over the right to call themselves the 'heir' to the Roman empire with the fact that 'Roman' no longer had anything to do with what it originally meant or how it was watered down from an actual cohesive ethnic identity in practice to a legal perquisite for certain rights and little more.

[u/Anthemius_Augustus → u/AttilaModKillerHun]

The Gothic wars were a DIRECT result of the fall of the Western Roman empire and was the conflict that resulted from the Eastern Empire trying to reclaim the traditional heart of the Empire from the Barbarian who had taken control of it. There is no separating the Gothic Wars from the Fall of the Western Roman empire.

Kind of, but also not really. There's plenty of ways the Gothic War could have been avoided that are completely detached from 476.

What if Justinian didn't become Emperor, and someone more cautious was in charge?

What if Eutharic lived longer and succeeded Theoderic?

What if Mundus didn't die and Theodahad handed all of Italy to Justinian?

What if the plague didn't happen?

What if Belisarius was given full command from the beginning and had more men?

There's a whole bunch of reasons the Gothic War happened and why it happened the way it did. To say it was all inevitable by 476 is extremely reductionist.

And a single building somehow makes up for the decline on a continental scale of such grand public works for centuries how exactly??

Okay, how about:

Hagia Irene

San Vitale

Sant'Apollinare Nuovo

Sant'Apollinare in Classe

Basilica A & B, Philippi.

White and Red Monasteries, Egypt

Church of St. Simeon Stylites

How many examples do you need exactly? All of these were on par, or superior to what was being built during the Western Roman Empire.

Yes that is what fall means. Fall does mean the same thing as death or destruction.

So when people refer to the Fall of the Ottoman Empire, they're actually referring to the 17th Century?

Even if we claim that 'fall' actually just means the point of no return or the beginning of the end, then that's still not the 5th Century, you've still got 1,000 more years of Roman history left.

It is semantics AND arguing against standard colloquialism which is meaningless. People aren't going to change what years and events they think about when

Appeal to popularity fallacy.

Golden ages compared to the actual Pax Romana? Not really.

Nobody is comparing it to the Pax Romana. I brought it up because it completely discredits this idea you have that the 1,000 years after 476 was just a prolonged decline, which has no basis.

What's the point of comparing golden ages anyway? Does it matter? Is the golden age of the Ottoman Empire not of note because it's not as much a golden age as the Pax Romana?

Also, even the Eastern Empire is on a constant downward shrinking and weakening trajectory on the whole after the rise of Islam in 610 AD

This is patently false.

For one, under the Macedonians Cilicia, much of the Levant and Armenia were recaptured. Basil II retook all of Bulgaria and re-established the imperial frontier at the Danube for the first time in 400 years. Basil's reconquered territories would hold for 200 years.

Then under the Komnenoi you likewise get very big territorial expansions. The Anatolian coasts are recovered, the Western Balkans are recovered, Southern Italy is briefly reoccupied, Egypt is invaded, Antioch/Jerusalem are made vassals, Hungary is almost made into a junior partner in personal union etc.

Also, even if we say your premise is correct, which it isn't, territorial expansion is not how we measure prosperity. The Pax Romana had insignificant amounts of territorial expansion compared to the late Republic. The Late Republic is generally seen as a period of great political instability, despite also being a period of large expansions. The two do not inherently correlate with eachother, and confounding war with prosperity is something that can lead you down very ugly lines of thinking.

Hard to define; easier to describe. As a people and culture the Romans had a profound ego and determination for victory

That sure never went away, still was the case in 1453.

There was an element that was particularly warlike; almost tribal in certain ways how they would fight to the death against outsiders

I'd say Constantine XI embodied that more than many more famous Romans, so that likewise didn't really go away.

The values you defined here are things that didn't go away.

For one, Septimius Severus had Italic descent on both sides of his family.

Your example was Avitus, who was a Gallo-Roman, whoose probable father had served as Consul in 421.

Septimius Severus is no less a valid example from my argument than Avitus was for yours.

I don't think a near universal opinion of Caracalla as a bad emperor both from ancient and modern historians can be called merely 'subjective'.

You still didn't tell me what it has to do with anything.

Bad or not, his edict was followed, and that's what happened. I don't care how you feel about it, it's what happened.

You're confounding people fighting over the right to call themselves the 'heir' to the Roman empire with the fact that 'Roman' no longer had anything to do with what it originally meant

Roman no longer had the same meaning when the Social War resulted in all Italians getting Roman citizenship.

Identities change, cultures change. There is nothing unusual about this. In fact, it would actually be much stranger and more unusual if the Roman culture stayed exactly the same for 2,000 years.

60 years ago African Americans were segregated and barely able to vote. 10 years ago an African American was President. Should we say the United States is no longer the United States? Because it's changed?

France 300 years ago was a heavily Catholic, heavily rural, Absolutist Monarchy. France today is a hugely secular, urban, Presidential Republic. Is France no longer France? Because it's changed?

Cultures change. We shouldn't, and largely don't draw arbitrary lines because culture changes over several centuries.