Ugh, ok, so here is what I tried to say last night.

I realize there were many changes in the balance of authority between centralized and decentralized authority.  Whats important to me is the general trend of weakening central authority, not the yearly, or monthly changes. 

At any rate, given what you are saying in your responses I think that using the word evolution to described what happened may have led you to assume some incorrect things about what I am saying.  I am a microbiologist (specifically virologist actually) and thus when I read or see gradual change my mind instantly goes to evolution.  That is because a gradual change in an organism is all evolution is.  It is not good, or bad, it is just a change.  The environment the change takes place in governs whether the creature evolved in a beneficial or harmful way.  In my view, the gradual change of Rome from a Republic, to Dictatorship, to Empire, to Feudalish society (Byzantine Empire) screams evolution, albeit one that in the end doomed the organism of Rome.  I wanted to clarify that.  I have not been saying that Rome changed on purpose to a better fit, better running "organism."  No, what I am saying is that due to changes in religion, economics, the military, and the social constructs of the time, the Empire went through a number of different appearances.  What I read in Necromancers post that forced my response is that it implied that all of Rome, its many years and storied history, not just the Imperial Ages, fell rapidly and suddenly, which frankly did not happen. 

Now, on to the actual post and such and off of the semantics. 

I must disagree with the idea that Gov't run amok is what led to the steady deconstruction of the Empire.  In my mind it was rampant non-gov't, if not sheer outright neglect.  Economic and a social collapse of sorts did occur in the core due the waste of the treasury on a succession of wanna-be Emperors fighting over control of Rome.  It was a cascade effect: as more of the treasury was spent fighting one another instead of actually running the country the Civilian Bureaucracy of Rome which was once quite powerful and influential was slowly, but steadily wore down from lack of money and a crisis of authority.  The problems of funding are obvious: with no money to pay the bureaucrats they most likely walked off the job.  The problem of authority was that as a Civilian you had no army backing you.  During the many civil wars only words backed by the sword really held any sway, after all why should the people listen to you at all if you will most likely be deposed the first time you piss off a General?  The Civilian Chain of command had just as many levels as the military chain of command, but no actual military backing.  When push came to shove the military simply superceded the Civilian gov'ts and they faded away from poor funding and no real way to enforce their authority.  Interestingly as the bureaucracy died of slowly of cancer the Catholic Church took up the responsibilities it left behind on the grass roots level.  Things like keeping track of property, helping the poor, even conflict disputes.  It is in part because of this transistion of power from gov't institution to religious institution that the Catholic Church was so powerful in the medieval period. 

The rampant militarization and warring in the Core during these periods doomed Roman influence on the frontiers.  This was entirely a direct result of the emptying of the treasury in the civil wars.  Soldiers stopped receiving their pay, so they either walked off the job or went to the local King, probably of the same or similar culture anyway, and got work there.  If the soldiers weren?t receiving their pay then the civilian gov'ts weren't either.  Thus, they withered and died in the exact same way as those in the core.  The end result of this transformation was a militarized society with a strong church with loyalties centered around local leaders.  It was the perfect entry point into Feudalism. 

I don't see an ultra-Fascist gov't in the above description. It is similar given the absolute power of each successive "Emperor" but the civil-wars were happening precisely because there was no unifying element of nationalism, a key ingredient I believe in Fascism.  The above transformations happened over the course of several hundred years eventually ending in the Byzantine Empire.  The Byzantines actually referred to themselves as Romans, not Byzantines, right up until the Turks conquered them. 

We are  basically in agreement, though disagree on the terms.  We both agree there was an Economic and Social Collapse (well, in the Social Institutions anyway) as a result of Over-militarization.  You call it Facsism, It seems to me the Feudalification (is that a word?) of Rome.  I simply stress that they were extremely slow processes.  This slow, but undeniable change, is why the term Evolution fits so perfectly.  Revisionist is a harsh word that I do not think represents what it is I have been saying.