Why the Roman Empire fell and the East survived

[christos200]

(After reading many books about Rome, I decided to write a history article about my opion why the WRE fell, while the East survived)

Why the Roman Empire fell and the East survived

Prologue:

For more than 500 years, the Romans were able to rule an area that streched from Britany to Syria and from Gaul to Egypt. They had the most advanced civilization in Europe and the most well trained army in the world. Yet, in 476 A.D Rome fell. Italy, the heartland of the Empire, was taken over by Barbarians. However, in the East the Romans survived for more than 1,000 years, and not just because of luck. But why the West fell and the East survived? Were the Barbarians the only reason that Rome fell? Or the reasons that Rome fell are far more complicated?

The Economic Power of the East and the Economic weakness of the West:

One of the reasons that the Western Roman Empire fell while the Eastern survived, it is because the East was far more richer than the West and it had a far more developed economy and thriving cities. But why the East had a better economy than the west?

First of all, let's see this map:

(Sorry for the quality of the map. I could not find an other map of this period)

Trade is the very importand to develop an economy. Trade allows the creation of trading centers that develop into thriving cities and bring wealth to the Empire. As you can see in the map, the East borders with the Sassanid Empire and also has control of the Sinai Penisula. What this means:

1) It has access to the Silk Road, so it can trade with China.
2) It can have trade relations with the wealthy Iranian Sassanid Empire.
3) Because it controls Sinai, Byzantine ships can sail to India and develop trade relations with India.

Trade means more money. It also means the creation of many cities and the development of new Ideas.

Meanwhile, the West has no one to trade with. With who will the West trade? With the German Barbarians or the British Tribes? So, the West is under-developed. It has no Great cities in Western Europe, except for Italy where there are many Great cities. Also, Western Europe is a more farming economy and has neither the population not the wealth to overcome those economical problems.

Why the West is under-developed? If we put aside the trade factor, one of the reasons that the West is under - developed while the East is more developed is because of the Ancient civilizations in those areas. What I mean:

In the East, many Ancient civilizations thrived. The Mesopotamians and the Egyptians, the Persians and the Greeks, there were many Great and wealthy Empires in that area. The Phonicians, the Greeks and the Egyptians created many trade centers in the Mediterranean. The Persians united the Mediterranean and India, by creating wealthy cities and trade between those areas. Alexander the Great and his successors, built many great and rich cities: Antioch, Alexandia and many others. The trade and those cities allowed the development of culture and new Ideas.

Meanwhile, in the West, Gaul, Iberia and Britany were divided between many tribes. Those tribes cared little about trade and culture. They were never united, except when they had to fough a common enemy. They did not attempted to colonize new Areas. They prefered strong men who were good warriors over cultured and educated people. Their cities were small. They fought each other and they prefered farming economies over trade. So there were not many rich cities, were culture and Ideas could be developed.

And that bring us to a question: If Western Europe was weak, how it survived the Barbarian Invasions for more than 400 years? The answer is simple: it was finaced by the Eastern part of the Empire. The wealth of the East went to protect the West from the Barbarians. That's why when Rome was divided, the West fell very fast while East survived.

The Germanization of the Western Roman Army and the Army of the East:

Because many Romans died in the defeats of the Western Roman Army by the Barbarians, and also because of economic weakness, many Germans joined the Roman Army as mercenaries. Those Germans were brave and the adopted the Roman tactics. However those Germans were more loyal to their leaders and Kings than to the Romans, and when the Romans were unable to pay them, they revolted against Imperial Rule and they destroyed the few developing cities in Italy.

In the East, although and there many Soldiers of the Roman Army were German mercenaries, because of the wealth, they were able to create a strong Roman Army loyal to Rome.

The Barbarian Invasions:

The next major problem was that all the German tribes migrated into Rome at once. The army of the fourth and fifth century could have managed to defeat each of the invading tribes, but that would only be if they came one at a time. The fact that they all came at the same time, thinned an army that was already dangerously over extended.

Meanwhile in the East, the Roman Emperors had a better Army that could defeat those Barbarians, they used more effective diplomacy (since it was more wealthy) and turned the Barbarians to the West.

Epilogue:

Those are but a few of the reasons why the Western Roman Empire fell and the East survived. Feel free to post your opinion.

 

[Flying Pig]

I'll leave actual scrutiny to those who know the subject much better than I do, but would caution that people have written huge works on this question: I can't help but feel that any explanation which fits into that much space will inevitably be lacking.

 

[LightSpectra]

tl;dr for everybody else, a really abbreviated Peter Heather's theory on the Sassanian empire combined with outdated and now-refuted Edward Gibbon Decline and Fall narrative.

 

[sophie]

This is just the best thing.

I honestly wouldn't know where to start with this jumbled mess of Greek nationalism and out-of date historiography/pop-history.

For one I'd recommend you start by giving Guy Halsall a read. He is a scholar of Late Antiquity, specializing in Northern Europe, and has a lot of interesting things to say about the notion of "barbarians". Although Dachs tends to not like him so much, the counter-point to Guy Halsall is Peter Heather, who is more in favor of the notion of barbarians as "a people on the move", and is nice as a reference point to Halsall. An important distinction to make about "germanized armies" is that they aren't really all that German culturally. Halsall points this out in Barbarian Migrations, but a lot of the "Germanic elements" of the Roman armies weren't really all that Germanic. The example Halsall makes is with the Zouaves in the French military or the Highland Regiments in the British army. Just because the Highland regiments wear the tartan, or the Zouaves wear the (incorrect) "moroccan" costume, doesn't necessarily mean the soldiers in these divisions are Scots or Moroccans. In fact in both cases these aren't really traditional costume for either culture at all. Rather, they are respectively English and French interpretations/stereotypes of what these cultures dress like, and these uniforms are adopted as a means to add a blend of uniqueness or tradition to the regiment to build morale and a sense of fraternal unity. Halsall sees these "Germanized regiments" in the Roman army in much the same light, as many of the accoutrements of these regiments had little to no bearing on the modern day soldier from across the Rhine. The notion that the adopting of "Germanic" customs somehow weakened the Roman army or its unity is outright false; in many cases in the Late Roman Empire the "Western" Roman army proved perfectly capable of handling its foreign enemies.

The other particular aspect of this article I wanted to point out to you is the notion of urbanization (or lack thereof) in the Roman empire. It's a popular misconception that the Western Empire (apart from Italy) was this barren wasteland, devoid of anything notable or of any use to anybody, and that the East, on the other hand, was this rich, cosmopolitan mega-empire flowing in riches. This is false. The Western Empire had a great bevvy of urban centers. Hell, for parts of the later Western Empire the capital was located in Trier/Lyons, notably outside the common purview of what is understood as "Italia". In addition to Trier and Lyons, there were a number of urban centers such as Eburacum (York) in Britain. Additionally the Western Empire actually played home to quite a bit of trade. The grain trade from Carthage to Rome was particularly vital to the later Empire (this would actually cause quite a bit of strife later on when outside interests in control of Africa wished to place pressure on Rome).

As for the "causes of the fall of the Roman Empire" and the notion of "barbarian migrations", I'd have to defer to someone who is better versed and more eloquent at phrasing the matter (such as Dachs, if he decides this thread is worth his time). Hopefully this thread proves not to be a total waste of time.

Well, that's my first attempt trying to dip my toe into this rather ubiquitous subject, I hope I didn't embarrass myself too much.

 

[christos200]

I honestly wouldn't know where to start with this jumbled mess of Greek nationalism and out-of date historiography/pop-history.

What Greek nationalism? I do not see any Greek nationalism.

This is false. The Western Empire had a great bevvy of urban centers. Hell, for parts of the later Western Empire the capital was located in Trier/Lyons, notably outside the common purview of what is understood as "Italia".

So you are saying that Lyons at that time was as rich and populous as Antioch or Alexandria?

 

[Dachs]

Lugdunum was not the capital at any point in Imperial history. By the later Empire it wasn't really that important - still a reasonably large city, but eclipsed by other places in the general area such as Augusta Treverorum, Mediolanum, Ravenna, and Arelatum.

 

[sophie]

Lugdunum was not the capital at any point in Imperial history. By the later Empire it wasn't really that important - still a reasonably large city, but eclipsed by other places in the general area such as Augusta Treverorum, Mediolanum, Ravenna, and Arelatum.

Hmm. I thought I read that in Halsall's book. I guess I was mistaken. Obviously Mediolanum and Ravenna were the more important cities; I was trying to list urban centers outside of Italy.

 

[christos200]

Hmm. I thought I read that in Halsall's book. I guess I was mistaken. Obviously Mediolanum and Ravenna were the more important cities; I was trying to list urban centers outside of Italy.

You cant because there were not. There were some importand cities, but not at the scale of the cities in Italy and the East.

 

[Dachs]

It's not really contested that the Eastern Empire was more urbanized than the Western Empire in the fourth and fifth centuries. It seems to me, though, that it's not really relevant. In terms of external enemies, the West did not have to fight against a rich, urbanized polity with a large population and professional military forces. It had to deal with, in total, a small number of warriors with poor equipment, no centralization, no professionalization, very little amounts of money or agricultural surplus, and no urbanization. The West's external enemies were not a threat.

The West's level of urbanization and wealth was, while smaller than that of the East's, at least comparable to it. But the West's external enemies were incredibly weak, while the East's were extremely powerful and nearly on a par with the East's resources and military capability. Relative to the power and wealth of their societies, the East faced a greater threat than did the West by far. Explaining the fall of the West in terms of a serious external threat with which it was badly equipped to deal compared to the threats that the East faced is therefore not borne out by even a simple thought experiment, not to mention basic historical fact.

 

[Flying Pig]

Were the Persians really that aggressive? In my head the two just sit next to each other and occasionally have a war almost for the sake of it, but neither really represents an existential threat to the other, nor has any wish to be so.

 

[Dachs]

Were the Persians really that aggressive? In my head the two just sit next to each other and occasionally have a war almost for the sake of it, but neither really represents an existential threat to the other, nor has any wish to be so.

The Sasanians didn't pose an existential threat to the Roman Empire for the most part, no. Not until the perfect storm of the war of 602-628. But the Romans' wars with the Sasanians were generally large and bloody wars that the Romans could, theoretically, lose, and even ones that they could, theoretically, lose with very serious consequences. Rome's wars with the so-called barbarians on the other side of the Rhine frontiers were not either of those things.

 

[Phrossack]

Didn't the Sassanids briefly capture the Levant, Syria, Egypt, and a lot of Anatolia?

 

[Masada]

Yes, hence the 602-628 reference.

 

[Lord Baal]

You cant because there were not. There were some importand cities, but not at the scale of the cities in Italy and the East.

Massilia, Cartago, Londinium, Eboracum and several other cities outside of Italy were very large, important cities. The East was more urbanised, yes, but it was also more urbanised prior to it becoming part of the Roman Empire. The Western Empire was still easily the most urbanised area on Earth outside of the Eastern Empire, Eastern China and Northern India at the time.

Also, the "Greeks" never had an Empire of their own. There were various pseudo-Greek kingdoms set up by Alexander and his successors, such as the Seleukids and the Ptolemies, but there was never an honest-to-goodness "Greek Empire." In fact, Greece was just as disorganised as the British and Gallic tribes you mention. Possibly more so, as the Britons and Gauls did unite to fight off Caesar and Nero, whereas the Greeks continued to focus on fighting each other rather than the Romans.

 

[Antilogic]

No mention of the rampant civil wars and succession crises every time the emperor died?

 

[Dachs]

No mention of the rampant civil wars and succession crises every time the emperor died?

Those didn't always happen. They weren't the rule except for two relatively short periods in imperial history.

 

[Antilogic]

Those didn't always happen. They weren't the rule except for two relatively short periods in imperial history.

I'm thinking of the 50-year crisis in the late 3rd century, to be specific (which I'd assume is one of the two periods you are referring to). Granted, plenty also died at the hands of assassins.

In any case, I think that factors like rapid turnover of unstable and insecure leadership plus wasted manpower in civil wars just as the pressure on the borders was increasing make a stronger argument than what was originally presented.

 

[Dachs]

Pressure on the borders was increasing?

 

[Antilogic]

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.

 

[Dachs]

It really wasn't. It also was never a particularly major element of the events surrounding the demise of the Roman Empire.

There is another thread here, "The Problem of Barbarians", that you may find useful on that subject.