>So elites get all the resources secondly they give out to affiliates (Roman's debts forgiven, discount wheat for Romans, land to 75k Romans) then it becomes unsustainable because it has giveaways have no solid economic foundation, then affiliates become strong, then make everyone Roman so as to dilute power and then the former affiliated secondary elites
All of these events happened around the end of the Roman Republic. Blaming them for the "Fall of Rome" that happened around five hundred years later is just ridiculous. A rough equivalent would be blaming Columbus for America's current problems.
While this is broadly true, it's like saying Alexander Graham Bell is responsible for me dropping my cell phone. Yes, if Columbus had acted differently we might not have these problems, but there are countless other situations since then where a different choice may have alleviated though problems.
The point being that it was a long process that took centuries during the last few of them was irreversible. That long process and its subsequent conclusion was perceived as positive event for most of its subjects, and in some important aspect it really was.
All of these events happened around the end of the Roman Republic. Blaming them for the "Fall of Rome" that happened around five hundred years later is just ridiculous. A rough equivalent would be blaming Columbus for America's current problems.