Why the Roman Empire fell and the East survived

[christos200]

I was referring to the migrating "barbarians", but I have the sneaking suspicion that I'm about to be told it wasn't all that different in the late 3rd century onwards than it was in the 1st and 2nd centuries.

Since the era of Julious Ceasar, Rome had to face Barbarians. The Barbs did not just came in the 3rd century AD. For reasons I posted, the Western Part was not able to face the Barbs in the 3rd century as it did in the 1st or 2nd.

 

[Antilogic]

Stupid American schools and Luttwak! All right, time to do some reading.

 

[Dachs]

Oh, don't worry, it's not just American schools, it's everybody's schools, and even a significant portion of higher academia.

 

[LightSpectra]

It's apparently worse in England because people who ought to know better are using the "barbarians flooded into the Roman Empire and dismantled their civilization" rhetoric to justify anti-immigration extremism.

Which is ironic since the English people are descendents of those so-called barbarians.

 

[Lord Baal]

Since the era of Julious Ceasar, Rome had to face Barbarians. The Barbs did not just came in the 3rd century AD. For reasons I posted, the Western Part was not able to face the Barbs in the 3rd century as it did in the 1st or 2nd.

Rome was sacked by the Gauls four hundred years before Caesar was born, dude.

 

[Tee Kay]

Somepony's been playing a little too much Civ

 

[Phrossack]

Somepony's

No. Just no.

 

[H4run]

I'm not expert on the subject just to be honest, but I think Christo has make a very good point also in his article, regarding to he being a greek nationalist and boasting up his ancestor it is not my concern but the things, is even not a whole but there are some good point that he make up.

It will be good to see someone who is knowledgable in this issue come to aid his proposition he might conclude it well but comparing to other who is oppositing his argument he cannot defend his.

Like the point that ERE in position are relatively more strategic than western Rome as it have Sinai that can build a trade route with India, also they have an access to Silk Road, also their position are make them able to trade with the economically strong Sassanid empire, it just make them drastically more richer than western Rome, even the comparison of the Western Rome City were arguably comparable to Eastern Rome City but still this variable just give them a huge difference advantages that the Western Rome don't have.

Also the argument that the eastern Rome are face larger and more threatening enemy than the Western Rome because they fighting the un-organize, poor equip Germanic and English tribes as they been known as Barbarian (and some of them also been effected by Latin and speak Latin also, not whole of them were Germanic tribes). It just make his notion stronger that the reason of the Western Rome fall was because they were economically weaker than Eastern Rome, it just put more possibility and reason that what Christos point out is right.

Don't get me wrong here, I just here out of curiosity, I might just need more detail explanation. So if Christos was wrong what is the cause of western Rome to fall while the east are survive? At least after the negation there are alternative explanation, I just see his article been deconstruct without any reconstruction and I remind clueless what happen backthen.

 

[sophie]

Don't get me wrong here, I just here out of curiosity, I might just need more detail explanation. So if Christos was wrong what is the cause of western Rome to fall while the east are survive? At least after the negation there are alternative explanation, I just see his article been deconstruct without any reconstruction and I remind clueless what happen backthen.

Hi.

Read this:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=431647

 

[Dachs]

Also the argument that the eastern Rome are face larger and more threatening enemy than the Western Rome because they fighting the un-organize, poor equip Germanic and English tribes as they been known as Barbarian (and some of them also been effected by Latin and speak Latin also, not whole of them were Germanic tribes). It just make his notion stronger that the reason of the Western Rome fall was because they were economically weaker than Eastern Rome, it just put more possibility and reason that what Christos point out is right.

This seems to me to be an unreasonable interpretation.

Yes, the Western Empire was less urbanized, less populous, and possibly less rich than was the contemporary Eastern Empire. So what? The Western Empire was still an extremely large state that could mobilize hundreds of thousands of skilled fighting men and had millions of solidi in revenue every year. The East's riches were slightly greater than the West's, not enormously greater. If the ERE's yearly revenues were about 8 million solidi, the WRE's might have been around 6 or 7. (Educated guess on the first one, ass-pull on the second.)

By comparison, the Western Empire faced a relatively negligible number of "barbarians" who were invariably less well-armed than its own soldiers and, most importantly, were rarely organized well enough to be a serious military threat. The Emperor Iulianus made his name by defeating a force of "Alamanni", described as the most serious invasion of Gaul in decades, that numbered less than twenty thousand, and probably little more than ten thousand. This was not the stuff of imperial conquest. By comparison, the Sasanian Empire could raise multiple armies of twenty thousand at the same time without breaking a sweat. These armies were armed just as well as Rome's armies were, were quite well trained, and were led by the closest thing that the late antique world had to professional soldiers.

The military threat that the East faced was so disproportionately large compared to that the West faced that it is prima facie ludicrous to explain this gap via a minor revenue disparity and an incremental urbanization deficiency.

 

[H4run]

Hi.

Read this:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=431647

Hi

I finish read the whole article after you give me, nice read, thank you.

This seems to me to be an unreasonable interpretation.

Yes, the Western Empire was less urbanized, less populous, and possibly less rich than was the contemporary Eastern Empire. So what? The Western Empire was still an extremely large state that could mobilize hundreds of thousands of skilled fighting men and had millions of solidi in revenue every year. The East's riches were slightly greater than the West's, not enormously greater. If the ERE's yearly revenues were about 8 million solidi, the WRE's might have been around 6 or 7. (Educated guess on the first one, ass-pull on the second.)

By comparison, the Western Empire faced a relatively negligible number of "barbarians" who were invariably less well-armed than its own soldiers and, most importantly, were rarely organized well enough to be a serious military threat. The Emperor Iulianus made his name by defeating a force of "Alamanni", described as the most serious invasion of Gaul in decades, that numbered less than twenty thousand, and probably little more than ten thousand. This was not the stuff of imperial conquest. By comparison, the Sasanian Empire could raise multiple armies of twenty thousand at the same time without breaking a sweat. These armies were armed just as well as Rome's armies were, were quite well trained, and were led by the closest thing that the late antique world had to professional soldiers.

The military threat that the East faced was so disproportionately large compared to that the West faced that it is prima facie ludicrous to explain this gap via a minor revenue disparity and an incremental urbanization deficiency.

Thanks and I appreciate the explanation, but still is hard for me to accept how can the ERE only slightly richer than WRE while the ERE control a vast fertile area, and connected with trade route that can provide them rich spices, silk and tons of other commodity to trade. It is like the WRE get both riches city and act as a key for the rest of Europe to be able to have access to Eastern commodity. They have Sinai, border with Persia, access to silk road, also Constantinople.

Will you give me a link that direct me to an essay or article that explaining the condition of WRE economy it will be better if the article act as a comparison between WRE and ERE economy. Or maybe you can explain it yourselves how can they only slightly better?

 

[christos200]

Yes, the Western Empire was less urbanized, less populous, and possibly less rich than was the contemporary Eastern Empire. So what? The Western Empire was still an extremely large state that could mobilize hundreds of thousands of skilled fighting men and had millions of solidi in revenue every year.

Wrong. Wrong. Because a state its large, it does not mean that it is rich or has a very good army. The Ottomans in the 19th century were large. So, by your logic, they were very rich in the 19th century and had a strong army, right?

By comparison, the Western Empire faced a relatively negligible number of "barbarians" who were invariably less well-armed than its own soldiers and, most importantly, were rarely organized well enough to be a serious military threat. The Emperor Iulianus made his name by defeating a force of "Alamanni", described as the most serious invasion of Gaul in decades, that numbered less than twenty thousand, and probably little more than ten thousand. This was not the stuff of imperial conquest. By comparison, the Sasanian Empire could raise multiple armies of twenty thousand at the same time without breaking a sweat. These armies were armed just as well as Rome's armies were, were quite well trained, and were led by the closest thing that the late antique world had to professional soldiers.

The Sassanids were never a major threat. They fought Byzantium mainly for Mesopotamia and Armenia. Only in the 6th century, when ERE was really weak they tried to take over a large part of the Empire.

Meanwhile, the Barbarians did not fight for a province. They wanted to settle inside the Empire.

 

[sophie]

Meanwhile, the Barbarians did not fight for a province. They wanted to settle inside the Empire.

Who are these "Barbarians"?

 

[christos200]

The Various Germanic Tribes, like Franks, Goth, Alamanni.

 

[sophie]

The Various Germanic Tribes, like Franks, Goth, Alamanni.

Why would these "Various Germanic Tribes" all operate under this mutual zero-sum hivemind whose sole objective is the wholesale destruction of the Roman Empire, as you seem to be ascribing them?

What real people think that way?

This is leaving aside that whole "tribes" can of worms.

 

[christos200]

Because the Huns took the land of many Germanic Tribes, and those moved towards Roman territory.

 

[sophie]

Because the Huns took the land of many Germanic Tribes, and those moved towards Roman territory.

Huh? Are you referring to a relatively small chunk of land in the Balkans? How would that translate to various, disparate (linguistically, politically, and geographically) Germanic-speaking confederations packing up, leaving their homelands, and devoting every fiber of their beings to destroying the Romans? This doesn't make any sense.

 

[christos200]

We should not forget that in the eyes of the barbarians, the Roman Empire was a wealthy land with many opputunities. Something like what the immigrants who came to America in the 20th century though. However, Rome overtaxed them, the Barbs revolted and when they saw the weakness of Rome, they started many, many invasions demanding more land and money.

Meanwhile, the WRE was forced due to many problems to hire Barbs in the army, but those barbs were loyal to their chief not Rome.

 

[sophie]

We should not forget that in the eyes of the barbarians, the Roman Empire was a wealthy land with many opputunities. Something like what the immigrants who came to America in the 20th century though. However, Rome overtaxed them, the Barbs revolted and when they saw the weakness of Rome, they started many, many invasions demanding more land and money.

I'll leave aside the other ridiculous assertion about "barbarized armies" which I have already addressed earlier in the thread, and instead focus on this one. Nobody is disputing that barbarians migrated into the Roman Empire. What we have been saying, however, is that this wasn't an exclusively 4th or 5th century thing. Quite the contrary, in fact, as the Romans had been settling barbarians in Roman territory for centuries.

The thing I think you are failing to realize is that packing up everything and moving into a region of which you have absolutely no knowledge is very difficult to do, especially in those days before particularly useful, easily accessible maps. Moving to a new region requires logistics, an incredible amount of planning, supplies, but most important of all it requires some kind of assistance from the region to which you are travelling. One can't simply pack up, vaguely wander westward and just "arrive" at your rich destination. Migration required either a contact, such as a friend or family already living in the area who could direct you where to go and find accomodation for you when you get there (invariably this would only be feasible on the small scale anyway) or it was done through cooperation by the Roman Empire (much more feasible on the large scale).

It's interesting that you likened this to migrations to America in the 19th century as the former example I listed is often how those American "migrations" occurred, and moreover, relatively few of those who traveled to America ended up staying. Often it would be a man from a family traveling to America with the intention of earning a good amount of money, and then bringing that money back to their original country to help their family.

Frankly I'm just having a very difficult getting a handle on your narrative here. Did the Barbarians revolt or did they invade? Because when you say revolt that kind of implies that they are already within the Empire, so why would there be any kind of need for invasion if they are already in? Frankly I don't even know why I'm persisting with this, since you clearly haven't done any actual (recent) reading on the matter.

 

[christos200]

It's quite simple:

1) The Romans let the Barbs inside the Empire.
2) They steal the Barbs with their many taxes.
3) The Barbs get angry and revolt.
4) They crush the Romans and demand that the Romans pay them gold.
5) Then the Barbs demand more gold and also demand land.
6) A Roman Emperor decides to play it hero (or he is bankraupted) and he either faces the Barbs ot does not pay them.
7) The Barbs get again angry and raid the Empire.
8) The Barbs in roman territory start creating their own Kingdoms.
9) Rome falls. ERE survives.