Why did the Western Roman Empire fall? Could it have been delayed?

The real question isn't why the Western Ronan Empire fell, but how it managed to survive for so long.

As it is, most Civilizational Empires roughly last for a single Spenglerian Minor Cycle- roughly 250 years. Exceptions are few, but they exist. The Western Roman Empire, judging from this view, wasn't as great an anomaly as it's Eastern Counterpart was- which chugged along for, not two or three, but an incredible six- seven, if you accept the nonsensical 1450 CE date for the end- Minor Cycles.

But let's stick to the WRE for now.

Three basic reasons.

1- Roman Law and Custom was, simply put, a massive Schelling Point in an otherwise barren Cultural milieu- a state of affairs that partly arose since the Romans themselves- some of the worst slavers and mass-murderers around- had wiped out any potential Civilizational seeds. The Tang some distance away, in contrast, didn't really do such things - which was a possible reason for their later predicament.

As such, successors of the Western Roman Empire were based on Roman Schelling Points. Compare with what happened in Persia.

2- The Mediterranean. Nice warm-water ports with zero big storms. I can't think of a single natural feature on Earth to equal it. Bharata Empires wept blood to get the easy Transportation facilities the gods just poured out for Rome. Go on Twitter and see the picks of Satavahana highways MT posts. 1st Century CE Telugu engineers basically had to chop down a mountain range in the middle of what's virtually a desert.

We know from Sultanate records that water Transport cost a stunning 30 times less than its landed counterpart. Even considering the better highways in Classical times, it's a differential so great, you can very well see why the Deccan falls off the Gupta agenda after the destruction of their Fleet in the Kamarupa campaign. And even during their best days, Indian Seas are all but innavigable storm-wrecked death traps for four months out of twelve. Until Steam Power, there were only three real waterways in the entire Continent, none of them interconnected and all walled off by mountains, making even large canals worthless.

Compare with the Mediterranean. Huge fertile valleys, zero storms, galley transportation. Rome was basically the Mediterranean; no wonder Europe in general had the wind knocked out of its sails after Arabs took North Africa.

3- People underestimate the importance of Civilizational Legacy. Let me elaborate.

From the 6th Century BCE to 8th Century CE, Indian history primarily comprised of either a Bihari ruling the Continent, a Bihari trying to rule the Continent, or a Bihari being attacked by former vassals in revenge for trying to rule the Continent. From the establishment of Pataliputra by the Emperor Udabhadra Haryanka to its destruction in the 7th Century CE, it was the defacto capital of the Continent for nearly 600 years.

The Haryanka, Shishunaga, Nanda, and Maurya continually ruled over an area larger than Western Europe for over 500 years. Madhyadesha was, barring an interregnum of 200 years, united for over a thousand years under basically the same Bureaucractic system.

So why is the Roman Empire- which frequently changed masters, often crumbled into a mass of warring principalities, and at two points- effectively vanished off the map for decades until the likes of Aurelian or Diocletian came around - considered a cohesive entity but not the Magadha states of Pataliputra?

Legacy.

Rome - or the ideal of it- is THE Schelling point for Western Civilization. In India, the educated classes mock Raja Bhoja- whom Hindu rulers from Kangra to Karnataka for a millennium tried to emulate- and deny that Vikrama or Shudraka ever existed.

Rome is an ideal, and it's a wonder it isn't timeless already. In contrast, Nalanda is a ruin, Patna a joke, and most of Magadha a Naxalite-haunted wilderness.

If you think Rome is special, trust me- you don't know special until the Chinese finally build up enough soft power to really start history.