Asnwer these Questions: Define "defense-in-depth" and "barbarization." In your opinion, what role did both of these, as incorporated into the Roman army, have on the fall of the Western Roman Empire?

Defense-in-depth was based upon the assumption that the outer frontiers could not be made impenetrable, and, since they would eventually be penetrated, a small reserve army that traveled to the point of attack would be insufficient should an attacking enemy penetrate more than one frontier area at one time. Such an invasion could only be stopped if the frontier defense was realigned with strong forts that were built in a deep band, that is, staggered …

…the Empire--such as, drill, discipline, and organization--an independence that quickly fueled dissention among the Roman troops. After too long an exposure to the barbarian armies, the Roman army's qualities that had for centuries made it great, now lay in ruins, and by 440, the Roman army had, in fact, become little more than a barbarian army in itself. "As Rome became barbarianized, it lost its tactical superiority, and Rome fell to the onrush of barbarianism" (Ferrill, 169).