When did the Roman Empire fall (your thoughts)?

[Theodosius the Great]

To me, the introduction of Franks, Goths, Vandals, Heruli, and Alans, into key/high military positions in BOTH the East and West placed authority with men who had other agendas beyond the traditional Roman one. We cannot say these men were only in the East, not when we have Sarus, Saul, Gainus, and even Alaric and Athaulf in the West.

Agreed. I didn't say or mean to imply that these appointments were an Eastern phenomenon - only to point out that it wasn't unique to the Western provinces. Sure, appointing foreigners to positions of power is never desirable. The Eastern court in Constantinople managed to maintain a balance by appointing loyal Romans. Obviously, the Western court was not so successful in dealing with the problem.

Was Theodosius a good general? When he failed to stop the "Sarmatians" (we now know they were a fusion of Iazyges and Roxolani), he was canned and sent home to Spain.

Since we lack details there's no way to know if the failure was his own. He may have been the fall guy for Valens who, as emperor, was ultimately responsible for defeats or victories.

But let's assume that the failure was the fault of Theodosius for a moment. Why, then, would Gratian recall Theodosius from his retirement in Spain to deal with the Goths after Adrianople? Recalling a disgraced general to assume responsibility for the eastern provinces sounds like a totally irrational act. So, Theodosius' recall alone casts doubt on such speculation. My understanding is that he fell into disfavor due to his father's downfall.

In his dealings with the Gothic War, he was almost captured-- in his own tent!-- by Fritigern's forces. The huge battle of Ad Salices was a draw. And the war continued in stalemate until (most likely) both sides made overtures for the 382 treaty.

All true it would seem. My question is why you attribute the outcome to his generalship rather than to the composition of the army which he had to rebuild from scratch (as I described in my last post). It takes time to build up an army, especially after a crushing defeat. Think of Fabius Maximus "the delayer" who refused to risk battle with Hannibal with an army of raw recruits. He wisely engaged in a war of attrition instead. The Gothic War was similar in that it was a war of attrition. Theodosius basically starved the Goths into submission by outmaneuvering them and hoarding the food supplies of the provinces, thus denying them to the enemy.

Was he a strong emperor? No. He lay prostrate before a churchman who wasn't even the Pope! "When you rule the king, you rule the kingdom."

He committed a terrible act and sought to redress it in the eyes of God and his subjects. To regain some respect he needed to appease both. And recognizing his place as a mere layman he sought forgiveness from the most prominent churchman of the day. (BTW, my last post warned against anachronisms when thinking about the papacy.)

The Roman avoidance of military duty increased during reigns of the Constantines, although (as you noted) it was an older problem.

I think this true in the sense that the civil wars he fought created demand for new recruits. However, the last ten years of his reign were free of civil wars. So, the problem must have subsided somewhat.

In short, the Romans gave up their "right to rule" to outsiders and a festering Church.

Really? The eastern emperors usually meddled in church affairs, always appointing the Patriarch, deposing Popes who didn't toe the line, and manipulating church councils. (See Caesaropapism)

I look at the Vandal persecution of the Orthodox (Catholic) Church as a backlash.

A backlash? The Goths and Vandals were never in a position to be persecuted for their Arianism. They were always on top. Arianism was basically an eastern heresy. It had almost no adherents in the western provinces.

I don't understand your position on Christianity's supposed contribution to Roman decline. First you started off by saying it waters down virility. Then the last thing you said was that it made men into bloodthirsty, murdering crusaders. So, which one is it? It makes you weak or makes you a savage killer? Both can't be true. If it's the latter then it should have increased virility!

As for me, I think peace and prosperity saps virility. This probably led to the downfall of the Greeks as well, IMO.

It was only a province for about 150 years and too exposed to attack.

Only 150 years? What is that, like six generations? That's quite a while to me. Besides, the symbolic value of it must've been high - Trajan's crown jewel. It wasn't too exposed to defend through most of the third-century crisis. On a map it may look deceptively exposed but the terrain must have made it very defensible. If it became too exposed I think it was because of the huge defeat of Decius. The army needed years to recover.

IMO no analysis of the fall is complete or intellectually honest if it omits christianity...

Who's omitting Christianity? Every time it's cited as a cause or contributor to decline the facts repeatedly fail to support that assertion. Christianity was far more entrenched in the eastern provinces. The Roman West was still very pagan in the fourth century and early fifth century. Yet the East continues for 1,000 years after the conquest of the Goths and Vandals.

Both the Goths and Vandals were Christians. So, if Christianity was so detrimental to Roman resolve why did it not have the same effect on their Christian conquerors?

~Theo