Why the Roman Empire fell and the East survived

[sophie]

Which year is this? Which emperor? Which barbarians?

 

[christos200]

Cant you just accept generic talking? Anyway:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Adrianople

 

[christos200]

By the way, this is just an example. This happend many times.

 

[Ajidica]

I notice the perpetual wars and flat out bad luck of the Western Roman Empire is left out of your list. I mean, even Peter Heather who is a big fan of the 'Migration & Revolt' theory still acknowledges the huge part Roman Civil Wars and bad luck played.

EDIT: Also, why was Adrianople important? Sure a Roman army was defeated and an Emperor killed, but the Goths still spent the next few years bumming it around Thrace and the Romans were still in charge.

By the way, this is just an example. This happend many times.

Not really. One of the main reasons Adrianople is remembered is because of how rare it was for a 'barbarian' army to defeat a Roman army in a pitched battle. IIRC, all of the other major battles that consisted of 'Romans v. Barbarians' were in actuality "Romans & Barbarians v. Other Romans & Barbarians."

 

[LightSpectra]

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.

The Sassanids attacked Rome with more soldiers than all of the "barbarians" in history put together.

 

[Flying Pig]

Source? Even then, that just shows that the barbarians weren't a major threat to Rome either.

 

[History_Buff]

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.

I think you're underestimating what the West had access to, and possible overestimating what the East had.

When I think about the areas each controlled, I don't see much of an advantage to either side in terms of 'fertile area'. Really the WRE probably had more arable land in Gallia, but as I recall it was so underutilized that the quality of the land doesn't really come into it.

And while the ERE would indeed have had access to the eastern trades, the WRE had an enormous amount of mineral wealth, primary from Hispania. Vast quantities of gold and silver were pulled out of Spain. Nor are the WRE and ERE two vast separate polities; for as long as they were co-extant, they would have had close trade links. Those silks and spices would have passed from the East to the West, and metals and foodstuffs back in the other direction. It should have been a mutually beneficial relationship.

All that with a grain of salt pending dachspwn of course.

 

[H4run]

I think you're underestimating what the West had access to, and possible overestimating what the East had.

Well possibly I will not going to defend myself on that, I also learning about these issue for curiosity, history for me is a pieces of puzzle that might be useful sometime for me to make a clear picture about something. As I only follow master narrative or you may say popular narrative regarding to what really happen back then. But master narrative in many manners can be also misleading and far from the truth, so I appreciate any challenge and alternative narrative.

And while the ERE would indeed have had access to the eastern trades, the WRE had an enormous amount of mineral wealth, primary from Hispania. Vast quantities of gold and silver were pulled out of Spain.

I forget about that, especially about "Spain" Gold. Thanks to remind me.

 

[JohannaK]

Meh, I'm late to the party. I wanted to point out the mineral richness point.

 

[History_Buff]

And just to expand, it wasn't just silver and gold. There was plenty of copper, tin, lead, iron, and other stuff being mined in the West (and also in the East).

Well possibly I will not going to defend myself on that, I also learning about these issue for curiosity, history for me is a pieces of puzzle that might be useful sometime for me to make a clear picture about something. As I only follow master narrative or you may say popular narrative regarding to what really happen back then. But master narrative in many manners can be also misleading and far from the truth, so I appreciate any challenge and alternative narrative.

I'm the same sort of amateur really. The popular narrative and whig history in general is a tough mistress to shake.

 

[Dachs]

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?

Commodities and trading weren't really that important a part of the imperial exchequer. They were, of course, there, but hearth taxes on tens of millions of people and receipts from working millions of acres of state land were far more relevant. Population was the closest analog to wealth for states as large as the Roman Empire.

Have a think about this for a bit. Resident Greek ultranationalist over there keeps talking up how superior the Eastern Empire was to the Western Empire. But the same thing that happened to the Western Empire almost happened to the East. In the 470s and 480s, the Eastern Empire got itself embroiled in a series of bad internal crises, military mismanagement, and civil wars that nearly shook it to pieces. Large segments of the military revolted under the leadership of Isaurian and Ostrogoth officers, and even larger segments of the military died in combat with each other over this. The real difference was made by the leadership and management of the Emperor Zenon. Although he was forced to abandon Constantinople for a time, he successfully avoided an Iranian war, put a lid on religious tensions in Egypt, convinced Thiudareiks to take his Ostrogothic army to conquer Italy, broke the cabals against his rule in Constantinople, and smashed the Isaurians with his own army. Zenon's energy and skill contrast strongly with the lack of leadership that the West's Emperors during the crucial moments there - Honorius and Valentinianus III - displayed.

Ultimately, in many ways, it all came down to luck. If Zenon the Isaurian had not managed to hold the Empire together with duct tape and hope, the ERE might well have ceased to exist. And if any number of things had happened differently in the West - if Constantius III had not died early of pleurisy, or if there were no freak wind off Cape Bon to help destroy the Roman expedition to reconquer Africa, or if Gratianus had better managed the elites of the Empire - then the WRE might well not have fallen at all.

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?

I am not saying that because the Roman Empire was a large state, therefore it was rich and had a good army. I am saying that the Roman Empire was all three of these things, period. The Roman Empire was large and populous; it was reasonably adept at extracting wealth from that populace; it had the largest army of any contemporary state in the world (estimates ranging as high as over half a million soldiers of various kinds for the two halves of the Empire put together).

More specifically, on the topic of the late Roman military in the West and how incalculably superior it was to its external foes, see Hugh Elton's Warfare in Roman Europe.

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.

Within several years of its establishment, the Sasanian Empire had already sacked Antiocheia and raided widely in Anatolia. The Emperors of the East continued to view Sasanian Iran as their greatest military threat even when Attila was tromping around in the Balkans.

Is it plausible for Sasanian Iran to have destroyed the ERE purely by military might before the sixth century or so? Of course not. Was it more plausible than "barbarians" destroying the ERE in a similar timeframe? Infinitely.

I would like to know why you think "the barbarians" wanted to settle inside the Empire. Was there some sort of giant magnet on the Palatine Hill to which unlettered savages were inexorably drawn, as though by a force of nature? Or was there an actual reason?

I think you're underestimating what the West had access to, and possible overestimating what the East had.

Quite so.

 

[History_Buff]

I would like to know why you think "the barbarians" wanted to settle inside the Empire. Was there some sort of giant magnet on the Palatine Hill to which unlettered savages were inexorably drawn, as though by a force of nature? Or was there an actual reason?

Some barbarians just want to watch the world burn.

 

[Flying Pig]

I would like to know why you think "the barbarians" wanted to settle inside the Empire. Was there some sort of giant magnet on the Palatine Hill to which unlettered savages were inexorably drawn, as though by a force of nature? Or was there an actual reason?

In the main, two reasons - one, the empire contained good, fertile farmland, and two - perhaps more importantly - it didn't contain rampaging nastier barbarians. Many nations were driven from their homelands by aggressive expansion, notably by the Huns, and found that the only way to run was through the Roman frontier. That does not mean that the barbarians were the main cause of the Empire's collapse, but it does to some extent explain what they were doing there in the first place. Of course, I don't doubt that a fair few barbarian kings quite fancied the international kudos that taking on the world's greatest power and sacking its greatest city would have brought them.

 

[Traitorfish]

How mobile were "barbarian" peoples? People seem very casual talking about them bouncing around Europe like pinballs, but these were agrarian peoples, so they can only either have been so mobile, or have moved in very limited numbers.

 

[History_Buff]

In the main, two reasons - one, the empire contained good, fertile farmland...

As sort of a tangent to this, I am correct in saying that the Roman Empire had very little of it's arable land under cultivation yes? So presumably if a Germanic tribe really wanted it, the Roman authorities would theoretically have been able to settle them in exchange for whatever? I forget where I read that, but I think it was here...

 

[Flying Pig]

How mobile were "barbarian" peoples? People seem very casual talking about them bouncing around Europe like pinballs, but these were agrarian peoples, so they can only either have been so mobile, or have moved in very limited numbers.

I like to imagine them as like the Cherokee in the 1830s - migration would not have been a pleasant experience. It would have been a case of 'take what you can carry and run', and then a matter of taking what food they could from the lands they entered.

 

[Phrossack]

How mobile were "barbarian" peoples? People seem very casual talking about them bouncing around Europe like pinballs, but these were agrarian peoples, so they can only either have been so mobile, or have moved in very limited numbers.

The Cimbri and Teutones are said to have travelled all over Europe during the Cimbrian War, but then again I barely believe anything the Romans claimed about the Germanic/Celtic/whatever peoples.

 

[LightSpectra]

The Cimbri and Teutones are said to have travelled all over Europe during the Cimbrian War, but then again I barely believe anything the Romans claimed about the Germanic/Celtic/whatever peoples.

I'm still rather unclear about how large overland population movements were even possible before innovations like supply depots. Unless they specifically planned a march years ahead and thus bred an insane amount of livestock, it seems like migrations that are like 20,000+ people would have to just go out and harvest all of the nearby farmland to even survive (let alone have enough food to siege fortified positions). But that means the pack would have to move really slowly since they'd all be spread out to gather fruits and grains.

It really blows my mind when I think about the Huns, Dothraki, and Mongols, who supposedly were traveling with hundreds of thousands of men, women, children, horses and cattle.

 

[Phrossack]

I'm still rather unclear about how large overland population movements were even possible before innovations like supply depots. Unless they specifically planned a march years ahead and thus bred an insane amount of livestock, it seems like migrations that are like 20,000+ people would have to just go out and harvest all of the nearby farmland to even survive (let alone have enough food to siege fortified positions). But that means the pack would have to move really slowly since they'd all be spread out to gather fruits and grains.

It really blows my mind when I think about the Huns, Dothraki, and Mongols, who supposedly were traveling with hundreds of thousands of men, women, children, horses and cattle.

I can't understand how these "Germanic migrations" allegedly took place. They seem extremely unlikely and poorly documented, if at all. I mean, how are settled agricultural societies supposed to travel hundreds of miles? Food and shelter would be scarce, as they normally had farms and more or less permanent hoousing. The terrain often difficult, and I can't imagine the inhabitants of their destination welcoming huddled masses of roving foreigners with open arms. So I'm not even sure they happened.

Now, the Huns, Mongols et al. are different. They're nomads, not settled people, so they moved around on an annual basis anyway in search of fresh pastures. For them, migrating wasn't that difficult. They simply packed their meager possessions, mounted up, disassembled or loaded up their tents, rounded up their herds, and moved. For food, they had their vast amounts of livestock for meat and milk (camels, horses, goats, sheep, cows, and yaks outnumber people in Mongolia by a ratio of about ten to one), and there was always hunting. In fact, quite a few Mongols still live like this, though lately the climate's been going crazy and killing off a lot of their herds, which has forced many nomads to move to cities.

 

[Dachs]

In the main, two reasons - one, the empire contained good, fertile farmland, and two - perhaps more importantly - it didn't contain rampaging nastier barbarians. Many nations were driven from their homelands by aggressive expansion, notably by the Huns, and found that the only way to run was through the Roman frontier. That does not mean that the barbarians were the main cause of the Empire's collapse, but it does to some extent explain what they were doing there in the first place. Of course, I don't doubt that a fair few barbarian kings quite fancied the international kudos that taking on the world's greatest power and sacking its greatest city would have brought them.

The overwhelming majority of "barbarians" would not have known that the Empire contained "fertile farmland", even where it did exist, except possibly in the case of agricultural areas in the immediate vicinity of the border. That might suffice to explain small-scale, short population movements. It does not suffice to explain hordes of savages swarming into Aquitania, Italy, and North Africa, which is the usual claim.

The "domino effect" business comes up plenty; Peter Heather is fond of the argument, and it forms the centerpiece of his own book on the fall of the (Western) Roman Empire. Aside from the obvious retort - securing the assistance of Roman power in taking on external foes is infinitely more sensible than packing up ALL THE THINGS, embarking on a treacherous journey, and at the end of that journey attempting to take on the largest and best army in the world - there is the salient problem that this "domino effect" is actually attested by very few Roman sources. The main one who did was Ammianus Marcellinus, who employed it in the midst of a trope-laden misinformation spiel about the Huns' ethnography.

Ammianus claimed that the Huns arrived like a bolt from the blue, smashed the defenses of Tervingi and Greuthungi in the old Roman limes in Dacia, and forced the Tervingi in particular to pack up and leave. The problem with this is that it doesn't really match up all that well with either standard patterns of migratory activity - the Huns, if they had done this, would have been operating very far outside the norm - and it also doesn't match up all that well with Ammianus' own chronology, which implies that it was Valens' attacks on the Goths earlier in the decade that destabilized the area badly enough to induce large-scale migratory activity. Instead, the Huns had probably been around in the area for some decades, a constant source of minor pressure but hardly an existential threat; they were merely an extra inducement for some people who lost out in the power struggles following Valens' invasion to try their luck further south.

Most of the claims of further Hunnic aggression driving other people into the Empire is basically conjectural, made on the basis of Ammianus' argument.

How mobile were "barbarian" peoples? People seem very casual talking about them bouncing around Europe like pinballs, but these were agrarian peoples, so they can only either have been so mobile, or have moved in very limited numbers.

I can't understand how these "Germanic migrations" allegedly took place. They seem extremely unlikely and poorly documented, if at all. I mean, how are settled agricultural societies supposed to travel hundreds of miles? Food and shelter would be scarce, as they normally had farms and more or less permanent hoousing. The terrain often difficult, and I can't imagine the inhabitants of their destination welcoming huddled masses of roving foreigners with open arms. So I'm not even sure they happened.

They can't have been all that mobile, no. Most average people weren't.

You know what kind of organization is quite mobile, though? An army. Specifically, a Roman army, easily grouped under a central commander and able to draw on regional commissaries and more-or-less willing citizens for requisitions, and, what's more, equipped with knowledge of major transit routes, population centers, and all those other little details that you have to have for any cross-country trip.