Exchanging territory would have betrayed weakness and hastened the end IMHO.What Diocletian did actually helped prolong the empire IMHO.Rome's navy was still the strongest in the world even that late in the game, but the navy wasn't going to stop the Barbarian hordes.

I don't know why giving portions of the Empire to Barbarians in exchange for things in return would have been any more detrimental than what it did anyway in the early 5th century when it began withdrawing troops.  It likely did so out of necessity, and all I'm saying is that if Rome read the tea leaves soon enough it could have gotten something in return for this land.  I don't see how this would have "betrayed weakness" but would have been a shrewd move to strengthen what was left of the Empire.As for rejoining East and West...I forgot that this had already been done under Constantine until (I think) Thedosius, whose reign ended in 395.As for the navy thing....perhaps instead of focusing on military might it could have focused on commercial might in the Mediterranean, kind of the like Phoenicians had done before and the Venetians would do later on. 

Yes, it was too large to handle for the generation of rulers beginning in the latter half of the 4th century.  Rome could have cut its losses in hopes of preserving what was left - most importantly the Italian Peninsula.  It might not have preserved the Empire forever, but could have bought itself some more decades or even a century. 

This is a great example of counterfactual speculation like we've been discussing in Historical Theory.  There is absolutely no academic value to the "what if?" part, but by analyzing this we can understand why the empire eroded in the first place.  So long as we use our speculations to better understand why history played out the way it did, then we can gain from such exercises.  From a logical standpoint, Rome lasted a very long time in one form or another, and the fact that Rome was able to change over the course of time is the very reason it endured so well.  Intellectually, we cannot say the Romans weren't willing to try new things.  The point where the Romans lost their way was when they ceased believing in Rome the concept.  Christianity eclipsed the concept of Rome and pushed its institutions to the side which began a process that inevitably led to social change and subsequent political decay.  What remained was the last Roman institution....the universal church....the true inheritor of Rome's legacy. 

Lol, yes I realize the thread may be the kind of speculation we were looking down upon in that other thread (though speculation rooted in plausibility, IMO).  Then again, we're just having a good time here by applying reason to past events to question "what if?".  It's not like we're in a scholarly setting where such things might be frowned upon.  I don't think there's harm in it.  🙂As to your point about Christianity pushing aside Rome's institutions....which institutions (aside from religious) are you referring to?  Rome's legal, monetary, and at least some of its cultural institutions continued well after 476 A.D. through the Goths and even to the Franks, not to mention other peoples. 

True, but perhaps just the things that were not useful.  For example, the Roman ideal of feeling esteemed in the eyes of the world was subverted by the Christian ideal of humility.  The Roman ideal of philanthropy as a means of glorifying the giver was changed into the Christian ideal of charity to share God's love with mankind.Offhand I'm not sure which of the "good" Roman institutions were lost.  Perhaps the Roman military (administration, strategy, tactics, etc.)?  I'm not sure if such concepts were taken up by the Barbarians that came after Rome fell.  Perhaps someone here knows.