IMO the primary reason for why Rome fell was due to an inability to adequately perform regime succession without debilitating civil war. Even when they didn’t have a civil war to decide the next emperor it was too often a precarious strength sapping situation for the new emperor.
Yeah, there are a bunch of good theories with evidence behind them. That’s what historians are supposed to do.
>> IMO the primary reason for why Rome fell was due to an inability to adequately perform regime succession without debilitating civil war. <<
Is this not sort of agreeing with the historian? Why was regime succession so difficult? (The ONLY thing American democracy has proved successful at it is regime succession; since the 1930s, not one major political move was accomplished through democratic means, as opposed to by judicial fiat or executive refusal to obey the law.)