Extinction Of The Western Empire

[Antiochus of Seleucia]

I was reading various things on the fall of the west, (Gibbon) and it seemed the East really didn't do too much to prevent the collapse of the west. Was it apathy? Was the east sick of all the ursurpers? Did they not have enough rescources? Had the cultural schism grown to wide? They could have at least protected the "Kingdom of Italy" as it was called in it's final days...

[Kosmo]

The East had enough problems for himself and maybe was a bit happy with having just an emperor remaining.

[Honorius]

the east had its own problems as Kosmo said but remember that Leo I tried to have his own choice Julius Nepos placed on the Western throne.

 

Also troops were sent to Ravenna to protect Honorius..

 

and a number of expeditions were launched to retake africa.. like basiliscus' one..

[Antiochus of Seleucia]

Ok, I may have found an answer. Gibbon states that the Eastern Empire was "strenuously exerted to deliver the Western Empire from the Vandals."

 

It's too bad the Western Romans lost their tenacity and failed to raise a Roman army. That would have been a decisive factor.

[Honorius]

to raise a roman army against the vandals?? Majorian did but his fleet got devastated by a suprise attack and for soem reason i have a tiny feeling that avitus tried aswell but thats probably wrong

[Antiochus of Seleucia]

Still, think about it- During the Punic Wars the overwhelming majority of males enlisted, even after Cannae and other horrible losses. They fought for the survival of their sovereignty and their country. The West's last army under Orestes was some German Auxiliares. That's pathetic.

[Honorius]

i guess the army wasnt too appealing. plus germans were cheaper to use i believe...and the west was already barbarised by the amount of tribes that had already settled in the provinces..

[Antiochus of Seleucia]

True, but which is better, cheap barbarians or loyal nationalists? I agree with you, by this time the westerners were pacified people. Their fighting spirit of the republican times were long gone.

[Honorius]

with the situation of the west cheap barbarians was the better choice. imho

[caldrail]

True, but which is better, cheap barbarians or loyal nationalists? I agree with you, by this time the westerners were pacified people. Their fighting spirit of the republican times were long gone.

 

Pacified? No I wouldn't have said that. Large numbers of contientious objectors certainly, but the truth is most late westerners regarded the empire as a pain in the butt. They simply wanted to get on with their lives without all these heavy taxes and recruitment drives.

[Antiochus of Seleucia]

One quick question: Weren't citizens exempt from service?

 

most late westerners regarded the empire as a pain in the butt

Is there a source where I can read up on this?

[Neos Dionysos]

True, but which is better, cheap barbarians or loyal nationalists? I agree with you, by this time the westerners were pacified people. Their fighting spirit of the republican times were long gone.

 

The Empire had strong fighting sprirts as well, it simply came more and more dilluded overtime. The army starting around the 3rd century was no longer going out on campaigns like it did under the early and high empire and so you were more of a defense rather than 'offensive defense' and so there is less money to be made, constant civil wars, the manpower of Rome starts to weed down and those willing to serve even worse. If you could not provide an able body, you had to "pay" for what one would cost and Romans much preferred to pay money rather than serve, and what does the emperor have left to him other than to recruit from the Germans who lead lives of military existance so...

[phil25]

Countries change with time, and peoples' attitudes and perceptions change with them.

 

Look at Britain. In the C19th with a much smaller population and less wealth, we ruled the waves and gained and ran a vast empire.

 

If that challenge arose today, I doubt whether many British people would answer the call (I would, I think, but I don't find many who would agree with me.

 

What we see as praiseworthy or practical, moral or improper etc, has changed markedly. It isn't just down to immigration, but to a different style of living, better communications, and the fact that we have been there, seen it, done it - and doing it again seems inappropriate, etc. maybe the world has just got more complicated!!

 

Ancient Rome would probably have faced similar changes over time though (given the nature of the world then) to a lesser degree. Their attitudes may also have been coloured by other pressures - self-sufficiency in food-stuffs, supply of slaves in a non-industrial age, even by plague and reduction in population/ lower birth rates (lead pollution?).

 

It's just something that happens, and it's called history.

 

Phil

[Gaius Octavius]

Constantinople preserved itself for a number of centuries without expansion but rather by trading, which enriched it. The same might be said of Britain today. Its people are better off today than they were a mere 60 or 70 years ago - with an empire.

[Antiochus of Seleucia]

I think that after Trajan when the Empire stopped expanding, they brought in less loot for they no longer made conquests. I've heard people say that was a reason for weakening.