I'm all for revisionist views of Adrianople. My best impression currently is that the ongoing schism between east and west led to bad miscommunications and the

I'm all for revisionist views of Adrianople. My best impression currently is that the ongoing schism between east and west led to bad miscommunications and the eastern emperor rushing ahead into a flanking ambush that resulted in the near-destruction of the western army of the Eastern Empire. With the late-late empire, I believe that doom came from the fall of the Libyan breadbasket to the Vandals, though that doesn't explain why Egypt (East but still Roman) couldn't provide food to Roman Italy, since it was yet to fall for another 200 years... Let's see what this book tells me... thanks for the link. The biggest question I have re: the Roman fall is how did the East stay stable while the West collapsed, though I'm also interested in the process by which a single Patriarchy in Rome managed to gain temporal authority while the Patriarchates in Constantinople, Alexandria, and Jerusalem remained bound to separate political organizations.