TSR Wiki > Study Help > Subjects and Revision > Revision Notes > History > Why did the western empire fall when the east survived?
- Date fall of Western Empire to death of Augustus argued further on but only on technicality.
- Yet East survived and continued for another two years. Talk about sacred rhetoric of internal factors i.e.social, psychological economic
- Esaay hope to define, establish those and link with the external factors
Internal Problems
Political
- Shear number of political rulers compared with the post Val 3 only few usurpations in Eastern Empire
- Quality of men defeated Aetius petty political struggle 0 Aetius killed, Stilicho and West very petty
- Decline of civil responsibility political institutions lessen. Leads to centralisation, loss of control, landowners dont see Empire. Also leads to inefficient bureaucracy in the machinery of government.
- Landowners therefore turn to nearest power, military source invading tribe. Reluctant to give up troops.
- Talk about lack of middle clas sin power thus inefficient and slef - interested
Religion
- Some argue Christianisation negative influence economically an expensive resource. Jones refers to idle mouths another layer unproductive people also less willing to fight
- Refers to deep schisms it creates Arian, Nicea tribes for example. Less patriotic than Paganism.
- Countered by Liebeshuetze saw positive bit of Christianity. If anything it si the divide EE more chrisitianised and consistnet
Socio Economic
- Peasnats none landowners unlike the East, tenant farmers. Yet in West heavily taxed in terms of conscription and war. Also collapse citizenship etc likens them to slaves. Whilst De Croix Marxist view deliberate ploy from aristos etc, the upper classes where never keen to aid their peasants slavery, huge taxes, few immunities. Counter productive as rural population declines less food and conscription become a problem
- Exacerbated a larger landowners had more control of more conscripts if they all worked for him. Peasants rarely aided invaders passively accepted them and on occasion revolted
- Link point about heavy political superstructure on a weak and declining agrarian base
Problems of the Army
- Had to use non Romans increasingly dependent on Foderati link to Gibbons quote on Atantic to Volga.
- Careful not overplay Roman military rarely loss to invading tribe? But with barbarians discipline fell and numbers hard to recruit (chopping thumbs off etc).
- Simply over stretched lurching one internal crisis to another, many seemingly unnecessary why did the east go to war less easily? Empires within empires increase workload and leave frontiers indefensible.
- More and more army needed thus economic burden a swell.
Economic Problems
- Intrinsic differences between Eats and West not just length of border and
External Problems
External Pressure
- Relatively sudden emergence Huns. Characterised as ferocious attackers of Romans but 376 and 405/6 pressurisation of tribes into Roman Empire. Caused empires within empires problems shown above
- Huns helped Aetius tec, and when that help disappeared at certain time then Romans again exposed.
- Vandals in Africa hastened collapse Africa fertile lands, but great position to attack Romans which they did. Sacking Rome etc etc.
- Relations with east hardy beneficial no aid and persistent squabbling.
East Advantages
- More fertile land, economically more powerful. More people. Yes did have external pressure, but not to the same extent.
- Egypt and Africa
- Less borders attacks from Huns and other tribes, but never any other warriors in the land. Thus internal weaknesses which undoubtedly existed not exposed as much
Conclusion
Sacred Rhetoric not false there were internal problems that hastened collapse. These also existed in the Eastern Empire but empires within empires, borders etc exacerbated, highlighted and intensified internal problems
Comments
