Take the 2-minute tour ×
History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. It's 100% free, no registration required.

There were several crises in the “late” Roman Empire.

For once, the crisis of the Republic, which resulted in the creation of Principat and later Dominat. This crisis may be related to the fact that due to an end of territorial expansion, the constant stream of slaves ran dry. By then, slavery had by large replaced traditional farmers, who had been the backbone of the Roman army. This crisis resulted in a population drop from about 50 million to about 30 million. (source: Kautsky)

Then, there was the crisis of the third century which almost caused the collapse of the Roman Empire. Ursupator states were formed in the West and the East. This crisis was eventually overcome, and both the Gallic Empire and the Empire of Palmyra were re-integrated in the Roman Empire, but in the Western half, this success did not last for long. By 500, the Western Empire had vanished, while the Eastern Empire remained intact for almost 1000 years.

Now there are several factors in which the Western and the Eastern Empires were different. I believe that in the Eastern empire, slavery never played a role as important as in the Western empire, i.e. there were no huge latifundia with hundreds of slaves, so the end of slavery did not mean that much of a catastrophy in the Eastern half.

Furthermore, the Eastern empire is often said to have been technologically further advanced, had more population and was richer, but I am not sure if or why this would be true.

What are your thoughts?

Edit I cannot help but wonder why most answers claim military circumstances as reason for the decline of the Western Empire. The Roman Empire constantly faught wars with its neighbours, which before never caused to major crises, and the most fericious enemy, i.e. the Persians, were faced by the Eastern Empire, which did not collapse around 500. This wikipedia site lists several theories about the decline of the (Western?) Roman Empire, the vast majority of which do not boil down to military circumstances.

share|improve this question
Welcome to the site. An upvote to keep you going. –  Tom Au Feb 23 '12 at 14:53
good question, hard to answer. –  john Feb 23 '12 at 20:02
What do you mean under phrase "western roman empire collapsed"? There nothing special happened in the western half of the empire until 800. The most significant events being * A Gothic rebellion of 535, which lead to a Gothic war till 552 when the Goths were defeated by Justinian. * Conflict between the emperor Leo II and the pope Gregory II in 727 over iconoclasm * Invasion of Lombards of 771 who were defeated by 773. What of these events do you call a "collapse"? What really was disastrous is the usurpation of the power by Charlemagne in 800, but still I doubt this action can be called "coll –  Anixx Feb 24 '12 at 9:30
Because it was not invasion, but rebellion. Formerly content Goths rebelled against the emperor. –  Anixx Feb 24 '12 at 14:45
@Felix Goldberg I meant that the changes were evolutionary with no single abrupt change. What can be sait more or less significant changes though are the adoption of Christianity under Theodosius and adoption of Greek language as the official under Heracleus (beginning of the 7th century). –  Anixx Dec 4 '12 at 19:50

6 Answers 6

The biggest difference between the military threats of the Goths and the Huns compared to Persia was the migratory nature of the former versus the centralised (and thus spatially constrained) government of the latter.

Rome and Persia had sparred against each other in the mesopotamian region for centuries, but, though one or the other might gain ascendancy, they were unable to maintain their advantage beyond their centre of gravity.

In contrast, although germanic tribes had been fought off by the legions repeatedly over the centuries, when the Goths did finally break into the Empire, they brought their entire nation with them. It took just one sustained failure to deal a fatal blow to the Empire.

Note that one of the reasons for the continued ebb-and-flow of the balance of power between the Persians and the Romans was that the Persians were also having to hold off similar migratory opponents on their north-east border (not always successful, as illustrated by the Parthian rule between the two Persian empires).

In this sense, Persia acted as a buffer for the Eastern Roman Empire, leaving only a small part vulnerable, north of the Black Sea. A good reason for the quality of the defenses of Constantinople!

share|improve this answer
+1 Especially for noting that the Persian Empire faced similar threats. There was even some cooperation in guarding the Caspian passes at times. –  Felix Goldberg Dec 7 '12 at 12:00

Lars Brownworth discusses the survival of the Eastern Empire and by tangent the fall of the West in "Twelve Byzantine Rulers" in Episode 5: Zeno. His book by the same name presumably discusses the same. The podcast discusses the general situation at the time of the various emperors essentially being puppets of barbarian generals and the like. The fall of the West wasn't some immediate thing.

The last emperor was deposed but it wasn't until later when no new Emperor was crowned that the empire "fell". It was more that was the end of direct Roman control over the remains of the Western Empire. The Eastern Empire avoided this fate by the work of Zeno who managed to throw off the barbarian yoke in the east and forged a solid state that proved durable enough to survive as a united thing.

Odoacer and later Theodoric both payed homage to the Emperors in the east but after Theodoric died, the later kings and chiefs in Italy didn't mint imperial coins or do otherwise to show any kind of fealty to Constantinople. This eventually prompted Justinian to invade Italy.

share|improve this answer
And what does it say? –  Lohoris Feb 28 '12 at 7:53
I added a synopsis. –  World Engineer Feb 28 '12 at 14:07

In the "early" going, at least (fourth and fifth century A.D.), part of the differences in the fate of the Roman Empires had to do with the movements of the Goths and Huns. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goths

"To make a long story short," the Huns chased the Goths out of Eastern Europe and the Balkans (e.g. HUNgary), and these people in turn migrated to, and took over the Italian peninsula and western Europe from the Western Romans. No such thing happened to the Eastern Romans (in modern day "Asia Minor,") and they were spared for almost a thousand years.

share|improve this answer
How does the military threat caused by the Goths or the Huns differ from the military threat caused by, say, the Persians? I would say that, with the Sassanids and the Parthians, the Eastern Roman Empire faced stronger enemies than the Western Roman Empire. Furthermore, in its glorious old days, the Roman Empire had no problems dealing with equally strong adversaries, such as the Carthagians. I’d say that without inner crisis, it is impossible to say why the Germanic tribes led to the collapse of the Western Empire. –  mzuba Feb 24 '12 at 9:31
@mzuba: Rome, however, did have problems dealing with the Germanic tribes almost from their first encounter. More than one Germanic tribe (Goths, Vandals, Lombardi...) was able to seriously threaten Roman military authority. –  sbi Feb 27 '12 at 15:36
So why didn't the Goths migrate into the Eastern Empire instead of the West? –  Gaurav Feb 28 '12 at 6:36
@Gaurav: They actually did. In 378 they inflicted a crushing defeat on the Eastern army at the Battle of Adrianople. Nowever, later military, economic and political development saw them moving into the Western Empire and staying there. It's a long story that wikipedia covers in "Fall of the Western Roman Empire" (still work in progress, but the big picture is there and so many of the details). –  Felix Goldberg Dec 4 '12 at 12:56

Furthermore, the Eastern empire is often said to have been technologically further advanced, had more population and was richer, but I am not sure if or why this would be true.

That was indeed the case. Eastern Mediterranean ("Levant") in general had civilization superior to the western part of the Roman Empire (btw there was only one Roman Empire - what we call Western Roman Empire is the part of the Empire governed by the Emperor of the West). That started to turn around only around 1000 AD.

In my opinion, the key event for the fall of the West was Vandalic invasion of North Africa in 420s AD which took away critical economic resources from Romans. They were aware of that fact and there were several attempts to recapture Africa. All failed until the expedition of Belisarius in 530s AD.

share|improve this answer
@SevenSidedDie: Not at all. The Roman Empire had two emperors long before what we call the "division" of the Roman Empire. The Empire was never devided into two separate states and when the office of the Emperor of the West was abolished, the Emperor of the East remained the sole ruler of the Empire. –  Nemanja Trifunovic Aug 25 '12 at 13:02
@SevenSidedDie: I suggest you read Chapter I of Bury's "History of the Later Roman Empire". Here it is online: penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/BURLAT/1*.html –  Nemanja Trifunovic Aug 25 '12 at 16:42
"A few words may be said here about the unity of the Empire. From the reign of Diocletian to the last quarter of the fifth century,the Empire is repeatedly divided into two or more geographical sections—most frequently two, an Eastern and a Western—each governed by its own ruler. From A.D. 395 to A.D. 476, or rather 480, the division into two realms is practically continuous; each realm goes its own way,and the relations between them are sometimes even hostile. It has, naturally enough, proved an irresistible temptation to many modern writers to speak of them as if they were different Empires. –  Nemanja Trifunovic Aug 25 '12 at 16:47
"To men of the fourth and fifth centuries such a mode of speech would have been unintelligible, and it is better to avoid it. To them there was and could be only one Roman Empire; and we should emphasise and not obscure this point of view. –  Nemanja Trifunovic Aug 25 '12 at 16:48
"But it is not merely a question of constitutional theory. The unity was not only formally recognised; it was maintained in practical ways. In the first place, the Imperial colleagues issued their laws under their joint names, and general laws promulgated by either and transmitted for publication to the chancery of his associate were valid throughout the whole Empire.53 In the second place, on the death of either Emperor, the Imperial authority of the surviving colleague was constitutionally extended to the whole Empire until a successor was elected. –  Nemanja Trifunovic Aug 25 '12 at 16:49

The Eastern empire kept more of its troops on the borders, while the Western empire kept more troops close to the Emperor. The East also developed diplomacy to a fine art, which was a bit lost on their Western counterparts, and so was able to survive without being the toughest nation out there by a good margin.

share|improve this answer
I downvoted because the first assertion requires reference and the second is essentially true but anachronistic, and thus grossly misleading. The Byzantine Empire did become a byword for diplomatic cunning, often in lieu of actual military strength, but this development came at a much later date. During the 4-5th century, which is the timeframe relevant to the question, there was no discernible difference in military or political technique between the two portions of the Empire. –  Felix Goldberg Dec 4 '12 at 12:52
Still Eastern Roman Empire diplomacy mainly consisted of huge bribes. The west had seen an economical decline since the third century, both in trade and the population of their cities, so they would not have been able to practice the same kind of diplomacy. –  Jeroen K Oct 17 '13 at 12:45

I think too many people are focusing on the attacks of the Goths. Any care to share why they attacked? How they lived in Roman land and fought in Roman armies before they revolted? I would also say the split did CAUSE the fall of the Western half. Since the Eastern did have a higher population and better trade and took that with them in the split (i.e. more money from taxes and more troops to recruit). Clearly the Romans had little control of the western half of the empire when Rome was sacked in 410 AD. So I am asking how much the economy played a role in the collapse. I think it could be argued as one of the leading causes.

share|improve this answer
I'm not sure this answers the question. –  Mark C. Wallace Jul 1 at 0:11
I think this is a better answer than the ‘the western empire collapsed because it was conquered’ approach. –  mzuba Jul 1 at 8:04

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.