[Stalker]

Originally Posted by Winters_Sorrow

Romans weren't renowned horsemen in either case - they mostly used cavarly auxilla and more often than not, used allied horse rather than romans as such.

Precisely! All ancient people used cavalry as auxiliary troops. That's no wonder - they didn't know stirrup! Remember, they weren't renown seamen either untill such a necessity arose during Punic wars against Carthagenians.
In the second centurt AD, however, they started shoing interest in cataphracts - Ancien analogue of heavy cavalry, but, again, those lacked stirrup.

Originally Posted by Winters_Sorrow

And my point was, that when Rome was top dog many people wanted Roman citizenship & associated benefits (it was the only way to get power & wealth for many) but once the rot set in - not many stuck around to be part of the losing side. Hence the abandonment of all elements of "Roman-ness" (sp? ) and the loss of learning and education that went along with it.

That was my point why I chose 2nd century AD. The peak of Rome both as military and cultural power, and after that there was only regress. So, the logic chain was: stirrup - Roman military aristocracy transforms into Chivalry (Land aristocracy) - Roman castles all over Europe - establishment of new cultural and trade centres on barbaric lands that gradually transform into new national cultural centres - splitting of Roman Empire into several national (Roman speaking) kingdoms no later that in 4th century. Christianity is adopted by major parts of these kingdoms no ooner as in the end of 4th, or early 5th century.

Originally Posted by Winters_Sorrow

The bigger issue I think was that, because there was no-one to replace the Roman Empire when it fell (the barbarians often fought each other as much as they did Rome) the state of pretty much constant low-level warfare did not allow the luxury of time or learning to be pursued. Indeed, even in "Roman Britain" which was fairly isolated and in theory should have survived, there was a loss of control and things disintergrated into feuding warlords again.

The cultural succession of Rome - the only thing that could have prevented or diminished Dark Ages is total literacy. As you probably know, Rome could boast by almost total literacy (about 75% of population in old provinces). That's a critical point. New kingdoms that arose on the ruins of Rome had population that spoke a strange mixure of Latin and local barbaric dialects - these were not langualges untill 10th centuries and thus could not be expressed by letters. Latin as a literate language preserved only in small Christian anclaves of culture (monasteries) and those were NOT enouch to keep all small fragments of knowledge remaining from Rome.

Originally Posted by Winters_Sorrow

A bigger what if could have been - what if Roman Britain had remained united and organised after the fall of Rome. It could have withstood the viking invasions and possibly the Britons would have remained Celtic rather than Anglo-Saxon as later...

Ha! When the 6th legion left England, nobody could protect Hadrian's wall and the hordes of uncivilised Picts poured into Britons' lands. King Arthur and his champions were simply unable to last long. Not without Romans! Saxons also knew that and in early 6th century envaded Britain, then Juts and Angles - everybody wanted to have his piece of a Christmas pie which was Britain! But for the Roman troops' departure, Britons would have had enough time to build the kingdom of their own.