FatFucknRetard

There are some who take a highly economic view of Roman power and say that during the decline of the Western Roman Empire, the empire was doomed to fall after the loss of 'such-and-such' valuable territory at some date (usually said to be when North Africa was lost to the Vandals around 430 AD). But even in 450 AD the Western Empire ruled over far more territory than it did 670 years earlier, before Rome leveraged the manpower of Italy to become hegemon over the entire Mediterranean world. And at that time much of the Mediterranean was not ruled by a powerful ally in the form of the Eastern Empire, but by overwhelming opponents—the Carthaginian and Hellenistic empires—which were far superior in their capabilities to wield and mobilize armies and resources compared to the insipid barbarian kingdoms. So why could Rome not retake its territories and do in the 450s what it had already accomplished using fewer resources against far tougher opponents in 220 BC? Not only was this not accomplished, but in the end they could not even defend themselves against the Ostrogoths and even lost Italy. Something was just wrong; they didn't have it in them.