AD455 - the fall of the Roman west?

[Nathan Ross]

it was a testament to Aetius' ability that after his death it only took 22 years for the Empire to collapse.

Or less than ten months, if you follow my theory above!

All nations rely on leadership.

That's the general assumption. The 'strong man' theory of history would suggest that without Stilicho, Aetius and Ricimer the empire would perhaps have fallen a lot sooner. I'm not so sure though - doesn't it depend on who's doing the leading?

The rise of the magister utriusque militiae centralised a dangerous amount of military - and also civil - power in the hands of a man who was not the emperor. You could argue that this destabilised imperial authority. If the emperors tried to rein in their overmighty generals they risked mutiny, and when they killed them they effectively chopped off the head of their own armies.

With the magister dead, and so many of the army commanders, as his appointees, deposed or under suspicion, military morale and discipline was bound to suffer; Rome's enemies could take advantage of this. No surprise, perhaps, that the death of Stilicho was followed by the sack of Rome by the Goths, and the death of Aetius by the Vandal sack.

The earlier practice of using several magistri would not have this effect - as far as I know, single supreme magistri were not appointed in the east either.

So could we say that the power of the magistri utriusque militiae in the west, rather than holding the empire together, might rather have contributed to its fall?