When did the Roman Empire fall (your thoughts)?

[Theodosius the Great]

My point centers on Roman complacency,

Fair enough. Complacency tends to take hold when things seem stable. So, wouldn't this complacency have taken hold during the Pax Romana? I think this was more or less Gibbon's view. So, why does Roman complancency start with Constantine in your view?

the rise of the Church and exorcism of Paganism,

I can't see how religious movements had any effect on the course of military events of the fourth century. If anything, I think Christianity blured the distinction between Roman and barbarian. Christian Romans would not view the pagan Goths/Germans as inherently inferior or savage. They would see them as fellow human beings who needed to become evangelized.

and a gradual take-over by the Goths (and Vandals, Heruli, etc.) in key military positions, to the point that Romans were a 1% minority on the battlefield.

This happened to a large extent in the Eastern army and was successfully reversed there. So, this wasn't necessarily fatal to imperial rule.

We have first-born sons cutting off their thumbs to avoid service

Conscription was a perennial problem going all the way back to Augustus. Diocletian greatly increased the size of the army as far as various scholars are able to discern. But you're saying conscription became more difficult under Constantine?

second-born sons becoming monks

There's no kind of hard data we possess to suggest the extent monasticism took hold. We can, however, say for sure that it was far more prevalent in the eastern provinces which survived for another thousand years. So, how does this square with your view about Constantine or the fourth/fifth century?

and sisters (Placidia-types) who willingly marry Athaulfs

I wonder how willing she was given she was abducted.

We have the Council of Nicea

Arianism enjoyed imperial support long after Nicea until the Council of Constantinople (381) - three years AFTER Adrianople - when it was finally condemned. So, the Goths could not point to religious persecution as justification for aggression.

a recognition of the Church as the ONE and ONLY official religion, even irking the Goths and Vandals all the more for sticking with an Arianism now outlawed into the Hinterlands yet flourishing.

Is that why the Goths killed Valens, a fellow Arian? Again, the Goths were not persecuted. They became persecutors of the native Nicene-Christians (i.e. Catholics)

Fact is, Constantine was a poor excuse for a human and even less a Churchman

Agreed. So, I guess he doesn't stand out much from his predecessors. :whistle:

and Theodosius was called "The Great" due to his Church-licking, for he certainly wasn't much of a general, even getting canned and sent back home with his tail between legs.

Most of the eastern field army gets destroyed because of Valens. Theodosius is left with raw recruits, barbarian allies, and soft garrison troops. Yet, he manages to outmanuvre the Goths and submit them to his authority. And the eastern empire goes on to endure for a thousand more years. But he isn't much of a general? By what standard are you judging his generalship?

As for his sons, they were still minors when he died. I can't think of any child-emperors who turned out to be competent rulers in their own right.

Frankly, I think the Romans deserved what they got

Agreed. I believe this is because of their endless civil wars, not religious movements, idiot emperors, or even foreign invasionn (including the fourth Crusade, btw).

Well, Rome did revive pretty well by the end of the third century. Whereas from Constantine on, it was pretty much downhill.

I'm not sure how that view squares with the facts. Subsequent to the defeat of Decius the Romans eventually abandoned the province of Dacia. A totally unprecedented act to my knowledge - a long established and wealthy province was ceded to barbarians. Whereas Constantine actually recovered part of Dacia battling against the Goths. Everyone seems to overlook that part about Constantine.

Julian's campaigns demonstrated that the Roman army was still very formidable, able to launch offensive campaigns on all the frontiers. So, I don't see things going downhill until after Adrianople.

~Theo