What attracts you to Late Rome?

[Robert Vermaat]

When I first began reading about the Late Empire in the 1970s and 80s it was still common to find the claim that when Theodosius died in 395 he left behind a strong and united empire. It is only more recent work that has demonstrated that by 400 the empire was already in 'terminal decline'.

I disagree. By 400 'the Empire' was by no means in terminal decline. The East did not even have too many problems, in fact surviving almost intact into the 6th century when their crisis really began.
Even the West could have been in better shape had it not been for the vicious in-fighting between them and the East.
In that aspect I agree with your analysis of Stilicho: had he not been pushing for domination of the Eastern part as well as the West, things could have been much better.

Consider some differences if Stilicho had not been pushing for the guardianship of Arcadius after Theodosius died in 395?
There would have been far less problems between both capitals.
Illyricum would have posed less of a problem.
The Visigoths would have been dealt with as an internal problem and not as a source of rivalry between East and West.
No battles between the western armies and Alaric 9who would in all likelyhood have been suppressed in Greece).
No sack of Rome in 410.
Perhaps the Gildonian rebellion would not have occurred.
Rome would not have been fixed on the East and would have concetrated more on keeping order in Gaul, which would have been far more satisfied with rule from Rome.
The invasions of 406 would have had far less of an impact on Gaul, it's unlikely that Vandals would have settled in Spain, let alone Africa.
Britain may not have rebelled at that point.

It's pure speculation of course (one of the things I like in this period) but I say a case can be made for a Western Empire in a much better shape to receive the Huns in the 440s and 450s. Of course, no statement can be made about other, new, problems, or even the impact the Justinian plague would have had if the Western Empire had still been present in the 6th century. Also, the Roman system of succession (or better: the lack of such a system) would still have been a problem that could have created other instabilities. There's no telling whether Stilicho as a 'man behind the throne' would have set the same precedent as he did, or that Honorius would have become a stronger emperor after all. Likewise, the economic crisis of the 5th century would crtainly have played a part, but not as severe as it did with the west falling apart. With no Goths settling and fighting in Gaul, or Vandals in Africa, the Western military possibilities would not have eroded so fast as they did between 400 and 430, and the growth of the Frankish lands would have been much slower, or perhaps the Franks could even have been assimilated.

I think Stilicho, like Theodosius, has a lot to answer for.