[untenured]

Rome was larger, far more populous, and wealthier in A.D. 400 than in 146 B.C. -- but far more unsure about what it meant to be a Roman, and confused about whether being Roman was better than, or merely different from, being German or Persian.

What an interesting, if unevidenced, claim. Was there a trend toward what we would now call cultural relativism among the leaders and thinkers of late imperial Rome?

[CatoRenasci]

Oh, the first part of it, better off materially and confused about what "Roman" really meant is surely true, read Gibbon, Mommsen or Grant or any of the authors on the late Empire. On the other hand, I'm skeptical of the claim they thought it was just different from the various barbarians. Rome was busy admitting barbarians to citizenship in exchange for guarding frontiers, not looting, etc. and 'civilizing' them.

[Seydlitz]

The key difference between 146 B.C. and 400 A.D. vis-a-vis Roman power was that by the latter date Rome's system of taxation had all but collapsed. Even the most cultured and sophisticated nation on earth could not support an army without adequate funding.

Pas d'argent, pas des Suisses

The second big difference is that the cadres of the old Roman army were wiped out in the battle of Adrianople (378 A.D.) and never replaced. Instead of turning barbarian recruits into good Roman soldiers, Rome now had to resort to hiring barbarian tribes wholesale for defense. The results are plain to see.