This article is so poorly written because it attempting to cater, and it misses several key facts.<p>The best example is this gem<p>> The ultimate consequences of allowing the Italians to become full roman citizens was nothing. There were no consequences. Rome just became Italy and everybody thrived, and they only did it after this hugely destructive civil war that almost destroyed the republic right then and there.<p>This is incorrect.<p>Citizenship ( and subsequent Military outsourcing) was devalued in imperial times because citizenship was liberally granted . "Barbarian" tribes on the borders would be granted citizenship. Even the Apostle Paul was reputed to be a citizen. This dynamic led the eventual collapse of the Roman work ethic, and the filling of Rome with destitute populations depending on handouts (bread & circuses). The cultural loss of Roman-ness<p>Would this cavalier attitude come back to bite them?<p>Of course it did. Many times, but foremost is the name Arminius [1]. Yes, the same Arminius, a barbarian child, became a Roman citizen, and later on as an officer, led Roman legions to the great debacle of the Teutoborg Forest [2]. Because he knew Roman tactics inside & out, it enabled him to destroy completely three legions (17th, 18th, and 19th legions, three cavalry detachments and six cohorts of auxiliaries) - Some of the auxiliaries may have become part of the ambushing force. Later on, this became so rampant that even words to describe the outsourced military to barbarians became synonomous with the barbarians themselves. When they eventually threw off their labors, conquering Rome was easy, as many of the barbarians were the standing military of Rome at that time.<p>Similarly, it was also Alaric of the Visigoths that sacked Rome, having become familiar with Roman tactics after working for them for years. After several shakedowns, he finally just took Rome.<p>Of course, I am not talking about other key points such as currency devaluation & Inflation/Hyperinflation<p>" Nero was one of the first emperors to devalue the denarius, and by the time Gallienus took the throne in 253 AD, the coins contained approximately 5% silver and consisted of a bronze core with a thin layer of silver. By 265 AD, the denarius contained 0.5% silver; the result was inflation of up to 1,000% across the empire. By this time, Rome had no more enemies to steal from so taxation was raised. The resulting mess completely paralyzed trade. By the end of the 3rd Century AD, the vast majority of trade was localized with barter methods used instead of the exchange of currency." [3]<p>I recognize the fully irony of the military outsourcing of the Romans, and ours, with Blackwater and the other associated Private Military Companies. Our currency debasement, and more recently, inflation, just to name a few. There are many more parallels.<p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminius" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminius</a><p>[2] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Teutoburg_Forest" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Teutoburg_Forest</a><p>[3] <a href="https://historycollection.com/downfall-5-reasons-roman-empire-collapsed/" rel="nofollow">https://historycollection.com/downfall-5-reasons-roman-empir...</a>