Timeline for Why did the Western Roman Empire collapse but not the Eastern Roman Empire?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
35 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 15, 2017 at 18:51 | answer | added | user26763 | timeline score: 0 | |
| Mar 24, 2017 at 18:21 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Mar 24, 2017 at 21:25 | |||||
| Mar 24, 2015 at 21:32 | answer | added | Tyler Durden | timeline score: 3 | |
| Mar 24, 2015 at 12:44 | history | edited | MCW♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
spellcheck is your friend.
|
| Jan 22, 2015 at 1:41 | answer | added | Oldcat | timeline score: 6 | |
| Aug 11, 2014 at 3:29 | answer | added | Thomas Pornin | timeline score: 13 | |
| Jun 30, 2014 at 21:10 | answer | added | user5161 | timeline score: 3 | |
| Dec 6, 2012 at 1:39 | comment | added | Felix Goldberg | @Anixx: I agree about the evolutionary nature of the changes, to a point. But they did aggregate to significant change over any extended period of time. | |
| Dec 4, 2012 at 19:50 | comment | added | Anixx | @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). | |
| Dec 4, 2012 at 19:43 | comment | added | Felix Goldberg | @Anixx: My main point is that 800 and 400 saw extremely different Western Europes. That much is nearly consensus among modern scholars. Your comment seems to me to point to a different interpretation. | |
| Dec 4, 2012 at 14:39 | comment | added | Anixx | @Felix Goldberg possibly, but what does it change? Foederati were used along many centuries before and after 5th century. They were used even before Rome conquered Italy. | |
| Dec 4, 2012 at 12:49 | comment | added | Felix Goldberg | @Anixx: For instance, some historians describe the use of the foederati as an administrative experiment gone horribly wrong. Note that this is a far cry from the classic Migration of the Peoples narrative - but nevertheless the fact that something did go very wrong is recognized. | |
| Dec 4, 2012 at 12:47 | comment | added | Felix Goldberg | @Anixx: With all due respect, your rendering of the history of 400-800 CE is highly unorthodox. There is lots of room for debate over decay and fall and what was their actual extent, but a bland assertion that "nothing special happened" is rather too much to stomach. Am I missing something? | |
| Dec 4, 2012 at 0:34 | history | edited | yannis |
edited tags
|
|
| Aug 27, 2012 at 14:45 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | Sorry, I meant to type "causes" in there, not to imply its existence was debated. In any case, looking for a singular cause for the collapse of a large political system is always going to result in overly-simplistic answers. There are lots of military monocausal answers because you asked a bunch of people and that's what they think. :) There's nothing magic about a Stack that guarantees that all the answers submitted to a question will be individually correct and high-quality. | |
| Aug 27, 2012 at 14:38 | comment | added | mzuba | @SevenSidedDie I don’t understand what you mean by saying that the decline is “debated”. No historian denies that the decline existed. And yes, there is an abundance of theories on the reasons of the decline. But virtually no historian regards the military challenges that Rome faced as singular cause of said decline and eventual collapse of the Roman Empire, which several answers here do. See chapter Monocausal decay, none of those is military-related. | |
| Aug 25, 2012 at 1:26 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | Regarding your edit, that very same Wikipedia article notes in the very first sentence that the decline is a debated by historians, not known. You're getting a variety of answers because there are more people than Kautsky who have had thoughts on the matter. | |
| Aug 24, 2012 at 12:25 | answer | added | Nemanja Trifunovic | timeline score: 6 | |
| Aug 23, 2012 at 10:09 | vote | accept | mzuba | ||
| Feb 27, 2014 at 8:31 | |||||
| Feb 28, 2012 at 2:11 | answer | added | Paul Hutton | timeline score: 44 | |
| Feb 24, 2012 at 14:45 | comment | added | Anixx | Because it was not invasion, but rebellion. Formerly content Goths rebelled against the emperor. | |
| Feb 24, 2012 at 13:19 | comment | added | mzuba | So, out of all of Rome’s adversaries, why did especially the Goths manage to conquer Rome and cause this deterioration? | |
| Feb 24, 2012 at 13:17 | history | edited | mzuba | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 579 characters in body
|
| Feb 24, 2012 at 10:56 | comment | added | Anixx | They got Rome, I think, twice. This brought much of deterioration. They got senators as hostages and possibly, killed much of them. | |
| Feb 24, 2012 at 10:51 | comment | added | mzuba | The decline of the Western Empire as I described it was evident well before the Gothic war. Furthermore, your answer begs the question: What was special about the Goths? | |
| Feb 24, 2012 at 9:47 | comment | added | Anixx | In that case you probably should count the Gothic war as the cause of the deterioration. After it the Rome itself required a serious repair. | |
| Feb 24, 2012 at 9:42 | comment | added | mzuba | While it may be true that no single event marks the “collapse” of the Empire and there are several claims of legal continuity (albeit disputed), there are also strong indicators of societal collapse. I would name a sharp decline in trade, urban culture, central power, law enforcement, economic activity and population size, connected to the fact that de-facto independent germanic kingdoms were established within the territory of the Western Empire. It is hard to see how “nothing special happened in the Western half of the Empire until 800”. | |
| Feb 24, 2012 at 9:30 | comment | added | Anixx | 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 | |
| Feb 24, 2012 at 7:24 | answer | added | user88 | timeline score: 15 | |
| Feb 24, 2012 at 3:37 | answer | added | David Thornley | timeline score: 4 | |
| Feb 23, 2012 at 20:36 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackHistory/status/172781908470665216 | ||
| Feb 23, 2012 at 20:02 | comment | added | user202 | good question, hard to answer. | |
| Feb 23, 2012 at 16:13 | answer | added | Tom Au | timeline score: 4 | |
| Feb 23, 2012 at 14:53 | comment | added | Tom Au | Welcome to the site. An upvote to keep you going. | |
| Feb 23, 2012 at 12:17 | history | asked | mzuba | CC BY-SA 3.0 |