Yes, ancient Rome's bureacracy (government) did become too top heavy. The Roman government kept hiring soldiers for the military. When this happened, the soldiers had to be paid, so taxes would increase. Eventually, causing Rome's government to become too top heavy and collapse.
Emperor Diocletian made administrative changes which greatly increased the size of the imperial bureaucracy so as to gain a more autocratic control over the empire. However, Constantine I trimmed the bureaucracy as it had become grossly oversized, too expensive and undermined the cities as many of their administrators had left the cities to join the imperial bureaucracy.
The size of the army was a financial burden, but it did not lead to collapse as such. The collapse of the empire was due to a complex range of factors.
A large army was needed to defend the vast frontier of the empire which stretched from France all the way to Syria. The Romans found it difficult to cope with this and a pattern of legions sent to areas under attack leaving other areas vulnerable to raids developed. Barbarians near the frontier raided the areas left exposed and would withdraw or get defeated by the returning Roman legions. To deal with this situation more efficiently, emperor Galienus developed a cavalry-only force which acted as a rapid deployment force to be sent to the troubled areas. When the pressure on the empire grew again towards the end the western empire, the Romans resorted to enlisting Germanic soldiers or hiring Germanic mercenaries in order to cope
One historian sees the size of the army as having contributed to the fall of the empire by leading d to a tax burden that weakened the peasantry. Another historian sees the political power of the army and the many civil wars between leaders of different legions as the contributing factor, rather than size as such. I am inclined to take the latter view as an army succesful in battle could provide the revenue of loot. The number of times the Roman army was defeated increased in the final period.
The bureaucracy of the Roman Empire did become top heavy. However, it did not cause the empire to collapse onto itself. The western part of the Roman Empire fell under the weight of the invasions by the Germanic peoples. The eastern part of the Roman Empire was not affected by these invasions and continued to exist for nearly 1,000 years.
as all empires of that era are destined to fall, the Byzantines would fall right after it great conquest and economy collapse only to be save by the next empire.
Christianity
For a while 4 under the tetrarchy (293-313) instituted by emperor Diocletian. Then two when Theodosius created the empires of the west and the east.
New York as an Empire lives on. The British Empire ended because Britain could no longer afford to keep it.
There weren't empires in 476 in Europe. It was complete chaos and people were raided by the Vikings and other tribes. Charlemagne had conquered most of France, but for the most part it was the Vikings invading and tribal disputes causing constant war.
It did because they were not good empires
Its defeat and takeover by Alexander the great.
The empires that fell were the roman empire since they fell in 407 Ad
Military problems an political issues
The Russian Empire, The Austro-Hungarian Empire and The German Empire
marshal plan
as all empires of that era are destined to fall, the Byzantines would fall right after it great conquest and economy collapse only to be save by the next empire.
Christianity
Revolt or economic collapse as shown by the empires of the past where the leader did have that exact power.
Carthage was a self-governing city-state. Eventually it was conquered by Rome.
Centralized authority was provided by the sultan. He ruled with the help of an elaborate bureaucracy, run by viziers, headed by the grand viziers and provincial governors' byes and pashas.
Ethnic groups conquered and united lands, forming empires and states which eventually morphed into countries.