Abandoning Rome as capital city

[Viggen]

...interesting read at The Toynbee convector

 

At the turn of the third and fourth centuries of the Christian Era the transfer of the principal capital of the Roman Empire from Rome to Constantinople or to some maritime city in that neighbourhood was, in fact, inevitable. But it is remarkable to find evidence that, more than three hundred years earlier, when Rome was towering at the zenith of her power under the auspices of Julius Caesar and Augustus, the Romans were already anxiously foreboding a shift in the seat of the imperial government, and were expecting that the Roman dictator with whom the decision of Rome

[Kosmo]

Rome had the perfect location in the middle of the empire and it has lost her place as a capital for political reasons. After Pons Malvius Rome was not even the capital of Italy, northern cities like Milan, Ravenna and Pavia being preferred over her. When several capitals were chosen I don't think that the one for the East had necessarily to be at Byzantium or in the Hellespont area. Why not in the area of Greater Syria like Antioch or Cesarea?

[Klingan]

When several capitals were chosen I don't think that the one for the East had necessarily to be at Byzantium or in the Hellespont area. Why not in the area of Greater Syria like Antioch or Cesarea?

 

I'v never researched this myself, but I've repeatedly seen arguments that stress the defensive nature of the later capitals, either to make it easier to repel invaders or to function as a lock, preventing the enemy to advance further into the Empire. This was simply a function that Rome could never have. This theory would, on the other hand, not be able to explain why Ravenna and Milan were chosen as capitals.

 

On Rome being in the centre of the empire; yes, this is true, geographically speaking. But the east was always richer than the west and I believe that you would get a completely different picture if you drew up a socio-economical map of the empire. Rome would all of the sudden be quite far off.

[Ursus]

The East was always richer, both culturally and financially. I do believe a move was inevitable.

 

If Antony had won at Actium, no doubt he would have left a lieutenant in charge of Rome while he and his dynasty ruled from Alexandria.

[Guaporense]

The east was much richer than the west during the 1st centuries BCE and CE. However, Italy and the western provinces increased in wealth during the early empire, at least according to the archaeological evidence, while the east stagnated or decreased in wealth after the 1st century BCE.

 

This graph presents the chronological distribution of archaeological findings on Roman fish salting factories on Gaul, Spain Portugal and Morocco:

 

source: http://oxrep.classics.ox.ac.uk/nw/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=40%3Aquantification-of-fish-salting-infrastructure-capacity-in-the-roman-world&catid=13%3Aproject-generated-research&Itemid=163&showall=1

 

The economic expansion in the early roman period for the western provinces was great. While in the 1st century BCE the east concentrated the bulk of the tax revenues, with time the west gained importance. The difference between the east and the west by the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE was much smaller. For example, out of the 5 largest cities in the empire, 2 were in the west, Rome and Carthage, while 3 were in the East, Alexandria, Antioch and Ephesus.

 

We cannot say that the move of the capital to Constantinople in the 4th century had anything to do with the fact that the east was richer, as the hypothesis that the east was richer is quite in doubt for the 4th century.

[Kosmo]

Even if the East was richer Byzantium was located in the rather poor area of Thracia and by the time of Constantine much of the Balkan region has been already raided by barbarians. Much is also made by Constantinople controlling the access to the Black Sea but by this time the goths had overtaken the Bosporan kingdom and the other cities and states on the northern shore and their ships were attacking the roman coasts and shipping. The Black Sea was a dead end and the Balkans a war zone so the capital was moved in an exposed area with little resources.

The richest areas in the East were Egypt, Syria and Asia Minor so if the wealth of a region was the deciding factor for establishing a capital then a logical choice would have been in or between this provinces, that's why a Syrian capital would have made sense for an Eastern Empire.

My guess is that romans did not need to move the capital where the wealth was because they were perfectly able to extract and transport resources where they needed them. The capitals were chosen closer to the borders to allow supervision of the armies (and implicit of enemies), so Byzantium and Nicomedia are in the middle of the road connecting the Danube and the Persian frontiers. In the West emperors ruled from Northern Italy and North Eastern Gaul from where they could control the Upper Danube and the Rhine limes and never took residence in the wealthiest regions like Africa, South and East Spain or Sicily.

[abvgd]

There was less internal cohesion within the empire as the 3rd century crisis showed, so Rome was not necessarily seen as the undisputed center it had previously been.

The increased threat of invasions from all directions also meant that protecting Rome would be a constant headache and would further strain the already limited military resources available.

The arrival of a new set of provincial military emperors during the 3rd-century crisis with little if any connection to Rome or Rome's aristocracy, meant that the new ruling elite had less regard for any symbolic value that Rome might have as capital.

 

I'v never researched this myself, but I've repeatedly seen arguments that stress the defensive nature of the later capitals, either to make it easier to repel invaders or to function as a lock, preventing the enemy to advance further into the Empire. This was simply a function that Rome could never have. This theory would, on the other hand, not be able to explain why Ravenna and Milan were chosen as capitals.

If I'm not mistaken, Ravenna was surrounded by swampy terrain which is what made it so difficult to conquer. I remember when reading about Belisarius' campaign against the Ostrogoths that this was mentioned as the reason why the Ostrogoths had retreated to Ravenna to make their last stand. I don't know about Milan though...

[Melvadius]

Milan had a strong defensive wall built in the late 3rd Century which may have had something to do with it's defensive ability but it also was closer to the frontier area than Rome. Effectively it was more 'central' for the are directly controlled by the Western Empire so a better base for a leader intent on being close to threatening enemies on the border including keeping an eye on the previously rebel 'Gallic' Empire.

 

I agree about the defensive nature of Ravenna there has been a lot of land reclamation there since the Roman period so you effectively now approach the modern harbour through a canal from the Adriatic with the main town some 4 miles inland from the sea.

[sonic]

The whole question relates to the number of 'Emperors'. In the Tetrarchy, there were 'four' (two Augusti and two Caesars), so there were four 'capitals' - Trier facing the Rhine, Milan defending Italy, Sirmium facing the Danube, and Nicomedia facing the Persians.

 

After the Tetrarchy there were usually two emperors. The Emperor in the East usually resided at Constantinople, as this was relatively central. Sirmium or Nicomedia were too far from the other frontier. Constantinople gave the emperor easy access to both the Orient, for wars against Persia, and to Thrace to defend the Danube. Just as importantly, its position greatly helped with the collection of information and the distribution of orders.

 

In the West, the choice fell on Milan. Although it could be argued that Trier, or even Strasbourg, in Gaul were more 'central' to the frontier, this would have meant that Italy was not defended personally by the Emperor, and Rome was still the capital in the heart of the population.

 

The result was that Milan, ideally situated to either defend the Alps against invasion or use the same passes to strike at invaders either to the east or the west, was the clear choice. Rome was half way down the Italian peninsula and so was not as suited to the collection of information and the distribution of orders as Milan.

 

Ravenna was only chosen as the 'capital' after Alaric had invaded Italy and nearly captured Honorius in Milan while Stilicho was dealing with an invasion across the Alps. However, it's clear from the Theodosian Code that once Stilicho was killed the emperor travelled all over northern Italy, not simply remaining in Ravenna. Ravenna should be seen, not as the 'capital' in the modern sense, but as the default city of refuge should the emperor become threatened - for example between 408 and 410.

 

Hope that makes sense, but I am a little pressed for time!

Edited February 21, 2011 by sonic

[Skywatcher]

I have a few questions on this subject. When the emperors moved out of Rome, how much of the imperial bureaucracy did they take with them? And how many people did the government employ to begin with and what percentage of the population would that have been?