I listened to 8.5 hours of The Fall of the Roman Empire by Nick Holmes. Some striking similarities in bullet-point format from someone who’s understanding is at a kindergarten level:
The Roman Empire was a quasi faux-Republic - candidates preselected to some extent, then elected by a minority of the population to give the impression of a republic.
It went from a republic, to something of an empire / kingdom with selfish power-hungry aspiration for authoritarian control.
The beginning of the downfall started with a lax attitude/laziness in the military.
Understanding the origins of the term “crossing the Rubicon” allows you to retroactively digest the first, second impeachment, Russia-gate hoax, January 6. Julius Caesar understood that when he crossed the Rubicon river, he was performing an irreversible act.
The Roman empire had international allure. People wanted to be part of the Roman Empire because of what it represented.
The beginning of the end was exemplified by the Empire having to concede Empire land embarrassing defeats.
The empire ended up fighting internally, and was divided internally.
Another definitive point of the decline was debasing the value of Roman coins.
Spreading yourself, too, thin globally, not being able to support a military, financially or through rigourous training.
The Roman empire effectively paying off those who would otherwise threaten them/invade them. Not much different than US global expenditures today.
That about sums up my summary understanding. Food for thought.