I really enjoy your great channel and have been subscribed for a long time. With respect, the only thing that I can think of that could be a hindrance to the success of your channel is your accent. I am a native English speaker and have lived in Spain for 29 years, my accent isnt so good when I speak Spanish. Your accent is better than mine but if you could adapt your accent to better suit your channel you may get more views and subs. Thanks for all the cool vids mate.
I think one major overlooked reason for the east to survive was the remarkable peace with the Sassanid Persian empire in the 400s. No wars in the east meant that the military and economic weight of the rich provinces could be focused to keep the government in Constantinople stable. Having to deal peacefully with a one, highly organized state at quite the same level of the Roman Empire itself was a huge benefit, while the West had to compete with multiples competitive and aggressive german and steppe nomad coalitions.
That's because the Sassanids had their hands full dealing with the Hepthalites (White Huns) in their Eastern borders with Peroz III getting slain alongside his entire army and his son Kavadh being taken as a hostage by the Huns.
@@alessandrogini5283 Apparently there were attempts to cooperate in the face of Arab conquest, but that didn't work out - there were many differences between two states. Most known example if it can be believed, was battle of Firaz, where Byzantine garrison sallied out to assist Sassanids threatened by Khalid ibn al-Walid. The whole account is treated with some scepticism, as it came from later sources and it's unknown if it was just an attempt to flex Arab superiority on two big empires.
The East had Hellenic culture that had already endured for a thousand years. Civilization was very firmly established in the East which enabled it to survive the collapse of the West and the rise of Islam. Greece and Asia Minor were the bulwarks of the Eastern Empire. Constantinople was itself an impregnable fortress.
@@AnthonyGarcia-sy3yk not black and white no, but even if accidentally the Eastern half had advantages that led to it outlast the Western. It managed to set up a more secure system for succession (very very relative though considering their regular civil wars) and even if geography was on their side compared to the west (with only the north Balkans and east anatolia to worry about as land borders and most the territory being coastal so open to naval commerce, transport and quick response) their advantages still led them to lasting much much longer. Its like with ancient Egypt or China, if your nation has lasted long enough that people debate did they evolve away from being 'truly Roman' through sheer age then you did something right
@@Rynewulfthe west was doomed the second Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the empire and then moved the capital, himself, and most of the rich people all the way to Byzantine.
One thing that people fail to realize is that when the empire was united, even during the worst periods the West really leaned heavily on the east. And when they split apart the West had to stand or fall on its own and it fell. Losing north Africa only sped it up
The west only had Spain ( where the mines had depleted) and Italy with its highly developed economy to back the army. While the east had almost any province being either rich of highly populated.
The east used armies with soldiers coming from the west till the 509 AD 🤦🏼♂️ Even if politically split they were a single empire. They shared their resources and manpower so a comparison is useless…
@@mr.archivitykeep in mind I was referring to the province of Egypt. Back then it was a major bread basket, even more so than north Africa. In the Roman empire, not every province was made equal. Some provinces like Egypt and North Africa were net money/resource producers where as some like gaul and especially Britain were resource sinks. That's part of why they didn't really move into Scotland.
@@Kasadoll and that’s why I said they shared. Even tho Egypt was the bread basket the armies were mostly comprised of people from the western part. Even after the western side fell the eastern continued to use soldiers from the west till 500-600 AD (after they completely lost their western influence and were reduced mostly to the Greek-speaking territories)
An interesting aspect would be the natural resources and mining sites. I am not very knowledgeable about this aspect, but AFAIK the most of mining was located in the West - the silver mines in Spain, lead mining in Britannia etc. That would be an interesting topic for a fllow-up video, if you happen to have more details. I would also be interested about the trading between the West and the East - was there any form of advantage (similar to the modern trade agreement zones)?
Britain had the only large Tin mine in Europe, the next closest one was in Afghanistan EDIT: I should add that if you watch some other videos made by Maiorianus he mentions often how Plague had depopulated the West to such a degree mining locations were abandoned and never re populated. So the argument you began saying may not actually be a very valid one. Even if yes the West did have more ores to mine than the east, they never actually managed to utilize any of them after the 3rd century crisis.
@@Iason29 Thanks for the info! Yes, that is what I had in my mind - also lead, silver (Hispania) etc. All these metals needed to be imported by the East, but not by the West.
The Eastern Empire had multiple Copper, Iron, Silver and Gold Mines throughout Asia Minor/Eastern Balkans/ Western Armenia, and Copper Mines in Syria and Cyprus. Eastern Balkans notably having lead Mines. Balkan output was of Course reduced by the Gothic, Slavic and Turkic raids/invasions
@@Iason29 Good point, thank you! I have to admit up until recently I was just a "mainstream" Rome admirer and I sorely miss more context - that is why I try to find out more and this channel is a very useful source with a very knowledgeable community. Thank you for your inputs!
Depends on the time but the Western Roman Empire had access better recruiting grounds for legions like Illyria and Gaul as well as more natural resources. The obvious negatives the longer and easier to cross border which frequent tribes took advantage of but Flavius Stilicho proved that with the right leadership it was still manageable.
Yes Western Rome had bigger borders but that was the only border they had to worry about. Hispania was super stable so it just needed one field army, Africa (before migrations) was quite stable as well and needed little military force. So all that needed to be guarded was the Rhine frontier and Pannonia. Brittania was a massive waste but it was still not that difficult to defend, the northern border was guarded by the Wall and the rest of the Island could be defended easily by the Roman Navy which was far superior to the Barbarians' rag tag "fleets" of row boats. Compare this to the East- they had to guard the Danube, the entire Eastern front from Armenia to Arabia needed to be guarded against the rival superpower in the form of the Persian Empire which was an order of magnitude above the Barbarians when it came to how big of a threat it posed to the Empire. The Eastern Empire always, *always* needed to keep 2/3rds of its armies guarding the East to deter the Persians. Unlike the Parthians, the Sassanids were quite aggressive and expansionist, looking to restore the old Achaemenid borders. Unlike the West, the East also didn't have the luxury of stable provinces- the Levant and Egypt always needed to be pacified especially after the spread of Christianity. The East also needed to spend a good amount of resources to keep its puppets propped up (such as Lazica, Armenia and the Ghassanids) to keep the Persians contained. The West fell due to sheer corruption. It had everything going for it and yet it squandered it all away. The East stayed vigilant and it endured.
@@zippyparakeet1074 imagine if majorian wouldnt have been treasoned but the other romans would have just stopped filling their pockets for once and stabbing anyone competent
Illyria also produced many great emperors with knack for military command. Other provinces like Britannia and northern Gaul were just drain on resources, though.
When talking about geography he astounishingly fails to mention that the Eastern Empire had a superpower on their doorsteps - the Parthians and later Sassanids. The danger that they represented was something unmatched by Germanic tribes , until the emergence of Hunnic Empire - which btw both had to deal with, though East had to deal with the both at the same time! And then in the west of the Eastern Empire they had to deal with the same problem as Western Empire, which had the Rhine in the Gaul/Germania so they were in similar situation, east maybe being more interested in dealing with these raids as nothing stood between barbarians and Constantinople once barbarians crossed the Danube... The West had the Alps which meant that they thought that it is possible to kick the can further along the path hoping it will go away... So i would say that as far as geography is concerned, both have had their own set of challenges and both should get a point.
@@BiggestCorvid Yeah. But when not, the half of the Empire could be peeled off. Imagine if the Parthians were having one of their stronger rulers in times of Roman civil wars and disunity and came to conquer Egypt and Levant and then stick to it for hundreds of years? Now that was a prospect.
true but the east had extremely more mountainous and defendable geography. asia minor is like a thorny fortress of mountains while greece is full of choke points and mountains and islands as well. compared to west which had almost no significant natural border in gaulia or african side.
"As soon as the West had fallen, the fate of the East was also sealed; and it was only a matter of time until the East would also fall." (16:16) Didn't the East last about 750 years more (till the 4th Crusade), or about 1000 years more (till Constantinople fell to the Ottomans), after the West had fallen? Seems like more than "only a matter of time".
The East was very lucky to have survived the 7th and early 8th century. As soon as the Islamic conquests started, it was a downward spiral. They lost the Levant and Egypt in the blink of an eye and soon had the invaders ok their doorstep at Constantinople. Had only a few things gone different, the East would have fallen in the 2-3 centuries after the fall of the west. Constantinople's superhuman fortification is one of the main reasons that it didn't. The almost 10 centuries the East lived longer were no easy times. And especially at the beginning, it really seemed like it was only a matter of time, and it could have been. The East struggled hard. You really have a point, but looking at the East in the 7th century, it seems like an absolute miracle that it didn't fall.
@@muscledavis5434To call the eastern Roman Empire’s survival ‘lucky’ or a ‘miracle’ really undermines the years, and great amounts of decisions, strategies, ideas, policies, wars, that the empire had to go through to survive. It was definitely not lucky, Heraclius did a calculated decision to retreat back to Anatolia, centuries of continuously frontier guerilla warfare were an adaptation, the siege of 717 was a brillant, the economic and state policies, none of that was a ‘miracle’ it was the result of the ideas of a past civilization, all those diplomatic efforts and military efforts culminating in the Macedonian golden age, or Alexios maneuvering of the crusades to get back Asia Minor and even after the 4th crusade, the restoration of the Roman Empire by the Nicean emperors wasn’t a ‘miracle’ most of John III Laskaris work was through determination, and cleverness. Even to the individual, tons of hardworking Roman citizens paying their taxes, giving men to the military, and so on. Overall, the East could’ve fallen, but it didn’t, not because of luck, or miracles, but because of its people, its leadership, its culture, its state, etc
@@muscledavis5434 I know Constans II is not the most popular Emperor but he truly deserves credit for creating the themata system in Anatolia that would prove to be a bulwark against invading Arab. As great as the fortifications of the capital was, without the manpower and wealth Anatolia brought in the capital would have soon fell much like the 15th century with the Ottomans. The Themata just made conquering Anatolia an even more difficult goal than capturing the capital due to the vast area near the border being essentially no man's land (making conquering Anatolia a logistic nightmare), on top of a dense concentration of soldiers in Anatolia thanks to Constans II clever decision to grant military lands + a small monetary pay which allowed the now drastically poorer Empire to maintain a higher amount of soldiers than simply paying the soldiers with just cash as was the case during the times of Maurice and Justinian. Also the fact that soldiers are now defending their own hard earned lands and income gave them more motivation in preventing Anatolia from falling to Arab hands.
Yeah it’s remarkable how long Rome lasted, I mean Rome in the Middle Ages wouldn’t be recognisable to a Roman at the time of the republic so I get differentiating it, the Arabs & Crusaders didn’t conquer *the* Rome that’s famous, but still it’s the legacy of it.
I'm mostly agree about all the video, except the conclusion. The Roman Empire had a serious illness, that was mostly in his western side. And to survive, needed to cut it off. You can survive, more or less if you want to sacrifice you arm infected by gragenne (cutting it) you cant if you want to keep ip all, because the gragenne gonna, eventually, "infect" the "eastern side". The Roman Empire, to survive, needed to make some sacrifices (that is splitting in 2 sides). Was that or falling completly 1000 years earlier.
With regards to the army numbers, Agathias who was writing in 559 only mentions the size of the Field army, the border guards or limitanei which Warren Treadgold estimated to be around ~195k in size during the 540s had their pay permanently cancel by Justinian in order to increase the size of the much higher quality field army from ~104k to 150k. While the limitanei might have still been second rate, full time soldiers during the late 4th century, by the 5th century their pay was so low that they took up other occupations in order to support themselves, essentially becoming more of an unpaid militia force than an actually army by the mid 6th century. This makes comparing Roman army numbers during the 4th and the 6th century more complicated, those 150k troops were of the highest quality.
A counter argument to the assumption that the West had a larger army is that more units don't necessarily mean that those units were of equal size. The East, with a significantly higher population and richer tax base, probably found it easier to recruit enough men keep units fully staffed up to or as close to their nominal size as possible, and to pay them regularly to keep them in uniform and reduce desertions. Even in the East, paying for the army was often problematic. It would've been even more problematic for the West to staff and pay for an even bigger army from a smaller population and with a poorer tax base.
I think they had more units, because they had more ground to cover, as WRE had much wider frontier with not so much natural barriers to protect themselves. Maybe at some point they even had more soldiers inside them. Then they started to struggle keep them staffed and operational. Fighting in civil wars, which forced to shuffle units from one regions to another, mounting losses forcing WRE to rely more on foederati of varied quality and loyalty, losing provinces which also affected their tax base. It's safe to say that what really killed WRE was losing Africa to Vandals *and* not being able to retake it despite multiple attempts. Unpaid soldiers could become as big of a trouble as barbarians they were supposed to defend against.
11:09) I would say that the West has the better geography because: 1) They have the Atlantic to the West (So no enemy invasions from there) 2) They have the Sahara to the South (So no major possible enemy invasions from there) 3) They have the whole Eastern Empire to there east (So Foreign enemies have to go through them first) 4) They only need to defend 1 front, the Rhine Frontier (So you can concentrate your forces more easily and know from which direction they're coming) 5) They had the Alps protecting Italy and the Pyrenees protecting Spain (They failed at fortifying and/or building defensive lines/buildings there, thus allowing the enemy to pass through) The West fell because they failed at protecting the 1 major border they have with they're enemies The East on the other hand: 1) They had the Danube to the North (Constant migrations coming from there tying up forces that could be needed elsewhere) 2) They had the powerful Sassanids to they're east (They were a constant threat and constantly waging war with the east and tying up the majority of the East's armies and a lot of money)
?? The Western Empire was always poor and Vulnerable with a Depopulated population and Unstable Political Scene, Their peak performance was completely overshadowed by the East Economic and Military Might even in Development the East existed as a Beacon of Light during the Collapse of Roman power @@popmonika
He’s obvi a pre split/western Roman empire fan but I hope he stops contributing to Eastern Roman erasure via constantly staying Byzantine because I legit like his content
Every empire that fails to integrate fully its conquered peoples into citizenry and some sort of social benefit by that will fall to internal contradictions disabling it from responding to external stress. We are living through such an age at the moment, and it's going to get messy. Your videos are consistently excellent, and the material and era are endlessly fascinating. Many thanks.
An outstanding channel full of interesting info but most importantly, thoughtful analysis. Many channels are just a recitation of facts, that get really old, very fast. Our host Sebastian also has a fabulous voice. Makes my day whenever there is a new video. Thank you Sebastian!
Is there enough trade going to/from the bay of Biscay or West African coast and the Mediterranean to justify that? Byzantion existed for centuries before Constantine showed up, I don't know how long permanent settlements have been at Gibraltar
@@BiggestCorvid Well, there is sub-Saharan trade. Plus, Mansa Musa is known as the richest man in the world for obvious reason. You know that. And that is the trade route the Romans can rely upon. With gold and salt coming in from West Africa, this western version of Constantinople will be quite profitable. In fact, this is the very reason why the monarchs of Castile kept the Emirate of Granada around for so long.
I have one quarrel with you about the overall military and the military sizes specifically. The eastern empire relied far more on cavalry and archers, because of the threats it faced from the east-especially the Persians. A unit of cavalry would be far smaller than a unit of heavy infantry. The western empire relied on mercenaries and the Germanic tribes, especially after the destruction of its army during the barbarian invasions until its demise were met. You don’t address any of these, and I think they’re very important. The two empires had very different military philosophies.
It's so ironic that the "disaster provinces" of the Roman Empire would become among the wealthiest, most powerful states in the world in later centuries!
A significant reason why that is, is due to, once again, the thanks towards Rome and Greece, mediterranean culture👍 (along with the golden age of the middle east), and unfortunately, the black death. Its what caused the renaissance.
@@lyricofwise6894 and those established trade routes being more heavily taxed than sending some ships west, hoping they come back at all. That resulted in continents that they could pillage freely for centuries.
@@BiggestCorvidDang, youre like Einstein. Said people are not responsible for barbarian kingdom evildoers free choice, in which case to SIMPLY fufill more of their greed, ESPECIALLY to that extent of how much to do that colonialism, how many, how long, etc. etc....
I think it was Adrian Goldsworthy who wrote that we shouldn't pay too much attention to the Notitia as it likely contains many units that only existed on paper.
@Maiorianus Hello, would be possible to make a video in the future about: "Could Roman Empire be saved if it would conquer all lands in Germania? (No enemies, no decline?) .Thank you for video 👍👌✔ !
Idk man that would have just pushed the border further and a new enemy. However germania would have given more and greater manpower and making gaul economically more strong due to not having to be defended anymore while germany would have needed to be developed massively in infrastructure and economics. Maybe going up and taking denmark while sweden had a super small population and norway maybe southern parts being conquered. Then comes the question where would be a good border to draw. Probably at the 1914 german russian border going along a river in modern day poland. However I think the biggest problem then would be that their new enemys would be more and more nomads, which roman infantry armies sucked hard against relying on infantry
@@dawdoh3226this is a very good question. Germania Magna was one of the biggest problems the empire had and I think conquering it all would have changed a lot. But then there are other Barbarians to the east. And then further east only more Barbarians... so maybe in the end it wouldn't even be such a big difference, only that the invaders in the end wouldn't be Germanic tribes but someone else.
The eastern provinces were also more vulnerable to foreign invaders, specifically Persians and Arabs. These two even conquered Egypt… So it is not true that the Western provinces were more accessible by foreign invaders
The eastern Mediterranean countries in modern times are renowned for their dry desiccated soils. It is hard to imagine how they supported their large populations. Were their soils really that much better back then? Were those larger populations really vital ones?
@@omaraboal-azm8705 That name describes the region as it existed 5,000+ years ago. Since then there has been lots of over-farming and climate change in the region.
Well a matter of time or not, 1000 years is a lot of time. The phrase kinda loses it's meaning, since by that reasoning everything that happens is only a matter of time.
Interestingly enough later on as the East continued to weaken and destabilize it too developed an epidemic of frequent usurpations and coups. There was a study done and half the emperors between the 600s and the Sack of Constantinople in the 1200s had either been overthrown or murdered. Even during more stable reigns nearly all of them still had to deal with revolts and pretenders to the throne. In several cases this resulted in catastrophic civil wars such as while the Persians were invading in the 600s (yes, WHILE they were invading) or just as bad was the civil war following Manzikert that resulted in the total loss of Anatolia.
I think the Western Empire's armies were probably stronger. Constant warfare, high numbers of warlike Germanic foederati in the ranks, harsher climates around the Rhine and Danube, more barbarian raids/migrations, etc. The East was definitely richer and more stable.
The roman east lacked warrior-culture recruitment areas outside of Thrace and Galatia (gaulish heritage). Easterners from Syria to Egypt were notoriusly bad at war, so the armies relied mostly on foreign mercenaries until the rise of Islam turned Anatolia into a warzone, making it a new ideal place to recruit people used to fight.
@@TheUrobolos Armenians and Isaurians were great warriors, Arab mercenaries were also frequently recruited in Syria from the Ghassanids, Dacia (the Moesian province) and Thrace also had good soldiers plus the major advantage the Eastern Empire had was the equestrian culture it borrowed from the Persians which meant that it had access to super heavy cavalry such as the Clibanarii and the Catafractarii as well as mounted archers. They also frequently recruited Gothic foederati from beyond the Danube.
Why do you think the WRE had to deal with Germanic raids, pray tell? Did you ever consider that it was because they were simply weaker from a military standpoint, and thus an easier target?
@@johanlassen6448 Yes, I considered this and then I ruled it out. The West was weaker not due to the quality of its military, but due to a number of other factors, including: climate change and Hunnic migration pushed the Germanic tribes westward across the Rhine; the WRE was more overstretched than the ERE; the WRE suffered from corruption and decentralisation, such as emerging feudal enclaves; the Germanic folk were already entrenched within the WRE.
@@cerdic6586 Except for getting its ass kicked by pretty much every invader of course. You left out that little detail. Besides that I am sure the WRE looked stronger. Also - more overstretched? The ERE had the Sassanids to deal with, a far greater threat than Germanic invaders.
I think the analysis is mostly correct. Overall the main difference is mostly represented in the last point about the number of emperors and usurpers. The western side was by 395 “a sick man” already dying (one of the comments below rightly stated that Stilico and julianus it was possible indeed to defend the west if only there was a unified intent). The west was doomed to fail due to its lack of internal synergies.
Leaving out the Sassanid Empire when discussing the geographic situation was a massive omission. They were a very different kind of threat from the Barbarians, whose presence and frequent large-scale wars against a professional military meant that Eastern Anatolia and the Northern Levant were very much not secure areas and would ultimately weaken the East to such an extent that it cleared the way for the Arab invasions. Despite all that however I agree with your ultimate conclusions, dividing the Roman Empire deprived the West of the resources it needed to survive, and when the West fell it left what remained of Rome in the east in a far weaker position than it could have had. If Rome could have remained united and thus preventing the fall of the West, I imagine the combined power of a united Roman Empire would have been far more able to defeat the Sassanids without such a long and devastating war, and thus leaving Rome better able to defend itself when the Arabs arrive.
I have an Idea, Could I asked if you could Make a Video on what if The Roman Republic and the Carthage United to form the Republika of Roma Carthagia, against the Reform Egyptian Empire
Amazing content as always! Though i disagree at the point of geography. Yes the provinces of the East were richer, more populated and possibly more culturally advanced but we have to take in to account the simple logic that ERE had three borders to defend, the North one (Danube/Balkan), the South one (African) and the East one (bordering Persia the No.2 Superpower of the times) while the WRE got just the North one (Germanic and Britain) and the South one (African) since from the east it bordered ERE and from the west the Atlantic Ocean. Thus We can say that WRE was more isolated geography wise which in turn keeped her protected. ERE got simply more borderlines to protect. To enhance my point, we can argue that most of the major threats of the times came from East (Persians, Goths, Huns, Arabs) and got to Raid ERE first before reaching the lands of the WRE.
Not sure where you're getting the West legions outnumbering the East. When you look at how the legions were distributed in 395, theres almost twice as many posted along the Eastern and Danube frontiers compared to the Rhine, Britain and Africa. The Valentinian and Constantinian dynasties both stripped legions from the West to post in the East and then the civil wars under Theodosius killed recruitment and military infrastructure. Thats why Stillicho is left with a shell of a Western army and then Aetius cant even afford to protect more than Gaul.
The East was easy to control though... It's where all civilizations started, middle east, Greece.. while the west was just barbarians trying to kill you all the time
The Western Roman Empire also had its advantages over Byzantium, such as the “Great Amber Road” and access to the Atlantic Ocean. But civil wars in the early 5th century destroyed the Western Empire until Charlemagne restored it in 800 AD!
@Iamnotracistlmao Charlemagne was the legitimate Roman Emperor since he was crowned by the Pope, and Byzantium recognized his title in 812. At the same time, the province of Byzantium, the Duchy of Rome, voluntarily seceded from Byzantium and became part of the restored Western Roman Empire; it would later become known as the Papal States. By the way, the Republic of Venice was the heir of Byzantium, since until the mid-9th century it was its province as part of the Ravenna Exarchate!
@Iamnotracistlmao Most of the inhabitants of the restored Western Roman Empire spoke and wrote in Latin, Romanesque architecture continued to exist and the citizens of Charles Augustus were Christians, as they had been in the 5th century. At a time when Byzantium was no longer Latin-speaking, it did not have the city of Rome itself and it lost most of its lands to the Arabs and Turks!
@Iamnotracistlmao You obviously don't know that most of the inhabitants of the Carolingian Empire were Gallo-Romans and Italo-Romans who spoke and wrote in Latin!
@Iamnotracistlmao It's funny that the local Italo-Roman population renounced Constantinople, so two exarchs proclaimed themselves emperors, these were Eleftherius and Olympius. But only Charles Augustus was able to gain the support of Rome itself, whose inhabitants refused to recognize the Greeks as Romans.
@Iamnotracistlmao Wake up and finally understand that before Charlemagne there were those who were proclaimed Emperor of the West, as was the case with Eleftherius and Olympius. Who, like most residents of Italy, renounced the Greeks!
Two emperors was perhaps acceptable, but dividing b the empire legally was a colossal blunder. Instead of a cohesive chain of command, it became a mess, and a situation could arise such as Arcadius' glorified babysitter telling Honorious' capable babysitter to let Alaric and the Visigoths escape revenge for Adrianople. Not the first time when poor Stilicho could have learned from Sulla
Inquiring minds want to know: Why did the eastern Roman Empire stop supporting the western Roman Empire? Why didn’t they see the threats to the western empire as being eventual threats to them as well?
If only the Julian Dynasty had followed through conquering Germania, then it might have slowed the decline. It also would mean the possible later HRE would actually be more Roman.
8:48 the eastern romans experienced this problem with the Sassanids later on though 😅 12:01 the problem with this is that it just lists army units, not actual troop numbers. Who's to say the western units were at full strength? They more likely weren't, considering increased corruption in this era and loses due to attrition from all the armies and barbarian raids they had to fight off. 12:51 your reasoning is solid, but you also have to consider that the eastern roman army might have shrink in the interceding century. Keep in mind that war with the persians picked up again around this time
to see who is stronger, just look at what Western Europe has produced from all points of view from the fall of the Roman Empire to today. Starting from the most powerful empires in history (English, Spanish, French, Portuguese, German) not to mention the contributions to science and philosophy, the Renaissance. an endless list could be made.
Im commenting before watching full video...but West Rome have 1. France with iron Mine and Wheat ( althoung not as much as egypt or turkey ) 2. Spain had Silver mine and also Wheat 3. Italy with Wheat , Grape , And Olive And Cattle 4. Tunisia become rome Bread Basked On the other hand the east have 1. Greek with Iron , olive , and wine 2. Turkey with iron mine , Wheat 3. Egypt as breadbasket of the east 4. And Syria As Trading Hub 5. Constaniple itself also serve as Trading Hub
![True Size of a Byzantine Army [c. 900 AD] 3D DOCUMENTARY](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/jE48hMEGlPI/mqdefault.jpg)
🤗 Join our Patreon community: www.patreon.com/Maiorianus
I really enjoy your great channel and have been subscribed for a long time. With respect, the only thing that I can think of that could be a hindrance to the success of your channel is your accent. I am a native English speaker and have lived in Spain for 29 years, my accent isnt so good when I speak Spanish. Your accent is better than mine but if you could adapt your accent to better suit your channel you may get more views and subs. Thanks for all the cool vids mate.
The East lasted longer
I think one major overlooked reason for the east to survive was the remarkable peace with the Sassanid Persian empire in the 400s. No wars in the east meant that the military and economic weight of the rich provinces could be focused to keep the government in Constantinople stable.
Having to deal peacefully with a one, highly organized state at quite the same level of the Roman Empire itself was a huge benefit, while the West had to compete with multiples competitive and aggressive german and steppe nomad coalitions.
That's because the Sassanids had their hands full dealing with the Hepthalites (White Huns) in their Eastern borders with Peroz III getting slain alongside his entire army and his son Kavadh being taken as a hostage by the Huns.
@@phuntshodorji3903 Yes..Imagine if sassanids and Romans were allies
@@alessandrogini5283 Apparently there were attempts to cooperate in the face of Arab conquest, but that didn't work out - there were many differences between two states. Most known example if it can be believed, was battle of Firaz, where Byzantine garrison sallied out to assist Sassanids threatened by Khalid ibn al-Walid. The whole account is treated with some scepticism, as it came from later sources and it's unknown if it was just an attempt to flex Arab superiority on two big empires.
@@phuntshodorji3903 not neccesarily
The East had Hellenic culture that had already endured for a thousand years. Civilization was very firmly established in the East which enabled it to survive the collapse of the West and the rise of Islam. Greece and Asia Minor were the bulwarks of the Eastern Empire. Constantinople was itself an impregnable fortress.
One lasted a few hundred years, the other for one thousand. Thats a pretty clear difference
Not even a hundred - barely _80_ years lol.
Well , lots has to do with the level of competition and against who they fought against , a bad streak of emperors is not a black and white aproach.
@@AnthonyGarcia-sy3yk not black and white no, but even if accidentally the Eastern half had advantages that led to it outlast the Western. It managed to set up a more secure system for succession (very very relative though considering their regular civil wars) and even if geography was on their side compared to the west (with only the north Balkans and east anatolia to worry about as land borders and most the territory being coastal so open to naval commerce, transport and quick response) their advantages still led them to lasting much much longer.
Its like with ancient Egypt or China, if your nation has lasted long enough that people debate did they evolve away from being 'truly Roman' through sheer age then you did something right
@@Rynewulfthe west was doomed the second Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the empire and then moved the capital, himself, and most of the rich people all the way to Byzantine.
One thing that people fail to realize is that when the empire was united, even during the worst periods the West really leaned heavily on the east. And when they split apart the West had to stand or fall on its own and it fell. Losing north Africa only sped it up
The west only had Spain ( where the mines had depleted) and Italy with its highly developed economy to back the army. While the east had almost any province being either rich of highly populated.
The east is the reason the west fell. You can’t take all that power, the emperor, the rich people and move to the east and not expect the west to fall
The east used armies with soldiers coming from the west till the 509 AD 🤦🏼♂️
Even if politically split they were a single empire. They shared their resources and manpower so a comparison is useless…
@@mr.archivitykeep in mind I was referring to the province of Egypt. Back then it was a major bread basket, even more so than north Africa. In the Roman empire, not every province was made equal. Some provinces like Egypt and North Africa were net money/resource producers where as some like gaul and especially Britain were resource sinks. That's part of why they didn't really move into Scotland.
@@Kasadoll and that’s why I said they shared. Even tho Egypt was the bread basket the armies were mostly comprised of people from the western part. Even after the western side fell the eastern continued to use soldiers from the west till 500-600 AD (after they completely lost their western influence and were reduced mostly to the Greek-speaking territories)
The eastern provinces kept the empire running since the time of Augustus.
An interesting aspect would be the natural resources and mining sites. I am not very knowledgeable about this aspect, but AFAIK the most of mining was located in the West - the silver mines in Spain, lead mining in Britannia etc. That would be an interesting topic for a fllow-up video, if you happen to have more details. I would also be interested about the trading between the West and the East - was there any form of advantage (similar to the modern trade agreement zones)?
Britain had the only large Tin mine in Europe, the next closest one was in Afghanistan
EDIT: I should add that if you watch some other videos made by Maiorianus he mentions often how Plague had depopulated the West to such a degree mining locations were abandoned and never re populated. So the argument you began saying may not actually be a very valid one. Even if yes the West did have more ores to mine than the east, they never actually managed to utilize any of them after the 3rd century crisis.
@@Iason29 Thanks for the info! Yes, that is what I had in my mind - also lead, silver (Hispania) etc. All these metals needed to be imported by the East, but not by the West.
The Eastern Empire had multiple Copper, Iron, Silver and Gold Mines throughout Asia Minor/Eastern Balkans/ Western Armenia, and Copper Mines in Syria and Cyprus.
Eastern Balkans notably having lead Mines. Balkan output was of Course reduced by the Gothic, Slavic and Turkic raids/invasions
Very good suggestions for future considerations. I am writing this down, thanks !
@@Iason29 Good point, thank you! I have to admit up until recently I was just a "mainstream" Rome admirer and I sorely miss more context - that is why I try to find out more and this channel is a very useful source with a very knowledgeable community. Thank you for your inputs!
Depends on the time but the Western Roman Empire had access better recruiting grounds for legions like Illyria and Gaul as well as more natural resources. The obvious negatives the longer and easier to cross border which frequent tribes took advantage of but Flavius Stilicho proved that with the right leadership it was still manageable.
Yes Western Rome had bigger borders but that was the only border they had to worry about. Hispania was super stable so it just needed one field army, Africa (before migrations) was quite stable as well and needed little military force. So all that needed to be guarded was the Rhine frontier and Pannonia. Brittania was a massive waste but it was still not that difficult to defend, the northern border was guarded by the Wall and the rest of the Island could be defended easily by the Roman Navy which was far superior to the Barbarians' rag tag "fleets" of row boats.
Compare this to the East- they had to guard the Danube, the entire Eastern front from Armenia to Arabia needed to be guarded against the rival superpower in the form of the Persian Empire which was an order of magnitude above the Barbarians when it came to how big of a threat it posed to the Empire. The Eastern Empire always, *always* needed to keep 2/3rds of its armies guarding the East to deter the Persians. Unlike the Parthians, the Sassanids were quite aggressive and expansionist, looking to restore the old Achaemenid borders.
Unlike the West, the East also didn't have the luxury of stable provinces- the Levant and Egypt always needed to be pacified especially after the spread of Christianity. The East also needed to spend a good amount of resources to keep its puppets propped up (such as Lazica, Armenia and the Ghassanids) to keep the Persians contained.
The West fell due to sheer corruption. It had everything going for it and yet it squandered it all away. The East stayed vigilant and it endured.
@@zippyparakeet1074 imagine if majorian wouldnt have been treasoned but the other romans would have just stopped filling their pockets for once and stabbing anyone competent
Illyria also produced many great emperors with knack for military command. Other provinces like Britannia and northern Gaul were just drain on resources, though.
@@zippyparakeet1074stability wasn’t real. Spain and Africa had more than 1 civil war starting there…
Thanks!
Thank you for this kind donation, I really appreciate it very much
When talking about geography he astounishingly fails to mention that the Eastern Empire had a superpower on their doorsteps - the Parthians and later Sassanids.
The danger that they represented was something unmatched by Germanic tribes , until the emergence of Hunnic Empire - which btw both had to deal with, though East had to deal with the both at the same time!
And then in the west of the Eastern Empire they had to deal with the same problem as Western Empire, which had the Rhine in the Gaul/Germania so they were in similar situation, east maybe being more interested in dealing with these raids as nothing stood between barbarians and Constantinople once barbarians crossed the Danube... The West had the Alps which meant that they thought that it is possible to kick the can further along the path hoping it will go away...
So i would say that as far as geography is concerned, both have had their own set of challenges and both should get a point.
Yes but when Rome and Parthia were st peace oh boy could they get stuff done
@@BiggestCorvid Yeah. But when not, the half of the Empire could be peeled off. Imagine if the Parthians were having one of their stronger rulers in times of Roman civil wars and disunity and came to conquer Egypt and Levant and then stick to it for hundreds of years? Now that was a prospect.
true but the east had extremely more mountainous and defendable geography. asia minor is like a thorny fortress of mountains while greece is full of choke points and mountains and islands as well. compared to west which had almost no significant natural border in gaulia or african side.
amazingly done as always
"As soon as the West had fallen, the fate of the East was also sealed; and it was only a matter of time until the East would also fall." (16:16)
Didn't the East last about 750 years more (till the 4th Crusade), or about 1000 years more (till Constantinople fell to the Ottomans), after the West had fallen? Seems like more than "only a matter of time".
They make the mistakes of using hindsight.
The East was very lucky to have survived the 7th and early 8th century. As soon as the Islamic conquests started, it was a downward spiral. They lost the Levant and Egypt in the blink of an eye and soon had the invaders ok their doorstep at Constantinople.
Had only a few things gone different, the East would have fallen in the 2-3 centuries after the fall of the west. Constantinople's superhuman fortification is one of the main reasons that it didn't.
The almost 10 centuries the East lived longer were no easy times. And especially at the beginning, it really seemed like it was only a matter of time, and it could have been. The East struggled hard.
You really have a point, but looking at the East in the 7th century, it seems like an absolute miracle that it didn't fall.
@@muscledavis5434To call the eastern Roman Empire’s survival ‘lucky’ or a ‘miracle’ really undermines the years, and great amounts of decisions, strategies, ideas, policies, wars, that the empire had to go through to survive. It was definitely not lucky, Heraclius did a calculated decision to retreat back to Anatolia, centuries of continuously frontier guerilla warfare were an adaptation, the siege of 717 was a brillant, the economic and state policies, none of that was a ‘miracle’ it was the result of the ideas of a past civilization, all those diplomatic efforts and military efforts culminating in the Macedonian golden age, or Alexios maneuvering of the crusades to get back Asia Minor and even after the 4th crusade, the restoration of the Roman Empire by the Nicean emperors wasn’t a ‘miracle’ most of John III Laskaris work was through determination, and cleverness. Even to the individual, tons of hardworking Roman citizens paying their taxes, giving men to the military, and so on.
Overall, the East could’ve fallen, but it didn’t, not because of luck, or miracles, but because of its people, its leadership, its culture, its state, etc
@@muscledavis5434 I know Constans II is not the most popular Emperor but he truly deserves credit for creating the themata system in Anatolia that would prove to be a bulwark against invading Arab. As great as the fortifications of the capital was, without the manpower and wealth Anatolia brought in the capital would have soon fell much like the 15th century with the Ottomans.
The Themata just made conquering Anatolia an even more difficult goal than capturing the capital due to the vast area near the border being essentially no man's land (making conquering Anatolia a logistic nightmare), on top of a dense concentration of soldiers in Anatolia thanks to Constans II clever decision to grant military lands + a small monetary pay which allowed the now drastically poorer Empire to maintain a higher amount of soldiers than simply paying the soldiers with just cash as was the case during the times of Maurice and Justinian. Also the fact that soldiers are now defending their own hard earned lands and income gave them more motivation in preventing Anatolia from falling to Arab hands.
Yeah it’s remarkable how long Rome lasted, I mean Rome in the Middle Ages wouldn’t be recognisable to a Roman at the time of the republic so I get differentiating it, the Arabs & Crusaders didn’t conquer *the* Rome that’s famous, but still it’s the legacy of it.
I'm mostly agree about all the video, except the conclusion.
The Roman Empire had a serious illness, that was mostly in his western side. And to survive, needed to cut it off. You can survive, more or less if you want to sacrifice you arm infected by gragenne (cutting it) you cant if you want to keep ip all, because the gragenne gonna, eventually, "infect" the "eastern side".
The Roman Empire, to survive, needed to make some sacrifices (that is splitting in 2 sides). Was that or falling completly 1000 years earlier.
CONGRATULATIONS, a very ,very interesting video- at least for me❤
Hope your channel will survive and beat the evil algorithm 😁
With regards to the army numbers, Agathias who was writing in 559 only mentions the size of the Field army, the border guards or limitanei which Warren Treadgold estimated to be around ~195k in size during the 540s had their pay permanently cancel by Justinian in order to increase the size of the much higher quality field army from ~104k to 150k. While the limitanei might have still been second rate, full time soldiers during the late 4th century, by the 5th century their pay was so low that they took up other occupations in order to support themselves, essentially becoming more of an unpaid militia force than an actually army by the mid 6th century. This makes comparing Roman army numbers during the 4th and the 6th century more complicated, those 150k troops were of the highest quality.
Hope one of the next videos will be about my hometown of Cremona, a relatively important city on northern Italy.
A counter argument to the assumption that the West had a larger army is that more units don't necessarily mean that those units were of equal size.
The East, with a significantly higher population and richer tax base, probably found it easier to recruit enough men keep units fully staffed up to or as close to their nominal size as possible, and to pay them regularly to keep them in uniform and reduce desertions.
Even in the East, paying for the army was often problematic. It would've been even more problematic for the West to staff and pay for an even bigger army from a smaller population and with a poorer tax base.
I think they had more units, because they had more ground to cover, as WRE had much wider frontier with not so much natural barriers to protect themselves. Maybe at some point they even had more soldiers inside them.
Then they started to struggle keep them staffed and operational. Fighting in civil wars, which forced to shuffle units from one regions to another, mounting losses forcing WRE to rely more on foederati of varied quality and loyalty, losing provinces which also affected their tax base. It's safe to say that what really killed WRE was losing Africa to Vandals *and* not being able to retake it despite multiple attempts. Unpaid soldiers could become as big of a trouble as barbarians they were supposed to defend against.
Le pestilenze decisero il destino dell'impero d'occidente
We already know who won this competition.
great video Sebastian. Keep up the good work
Good video
I absolutely love your channel keep up the good work!
ALGORITHM!!! LETS GOOO MAIORIANUSSS
11:09) I would say that the West has the better geography because:
1) They have the Atlantic to the West (So no enemy invasions from there)
2) They have the Sahara to the South (So no major possible enemy invasions from there)
3) They have the whole Eastern Empire to there east (So Foreign enemies have to go through them first)
4) They only need to defend 1 front, the Rhine Frontier (So you can concentrate your forces more easily and know from which direction they're coming)
5) They had the Alps protecting Italy and the Pyrenees protecting Spain (They failed at fortifying and/or building defensive lines/buildings there, thus allowing the enemy to pass through)
The West fell because they failed at protecting the 1 major border they have with they're enemies
The East on the other hand:
1) They had the Danube to the North (Constant migrations coming from there tying up forces that could be needed elsewhere)
2) They had the powerful Sassanids to they're east (They were a constant threat and constantly waging war with the east and tying up the majority of the East's armies and a lot of money)
the west also had to protect their portion of the Danube which was the portion that didn't have a whole dacia in between it
One Empire fell to pieces shortly after the division, while the other held on for almost as full millennium afterwards. Seems pretty clear-cut to me 😏
It depends on whether you judge better on longevity or peak performance.
On peak performance, the west wins easily.
?? The Western Empire was always poor and Vulnerable with a Depopulated population and Unstable Political Scene, Their peak performance was completely overshadowed by the East Economic and Military Might even in Development the East existed as a Beacon of Light during the Collapse of Roman power @@popmonika
What peak performance😅@@popmonikayou mean losing territory and lossing every war they faced with goth and hunnic?
@@popmonikaLmao sure 😂
@@popmonikaThe Byzantines had like 10 peaks, choose one so we can compare
(Hits the Eastern/medieval Roman Empire griddy)
.. the one that survived another 1,000 years … bruh are you even trying anymore ?
He’s obvi a pre split/western Roman empire fan but I hope he stops contributing to Eastern Roman erasure via constantly staying Byzantine because I legit like his content
Another awesome video, Dominus.
🖤
This is why I love studying the Roman Empire and how the world came to be through History. The Constant Culmination
As expected. Great detailed information on the subject!!
Really like when you said that once the west fell the easts faith was sealed
Easiest question ever asked about Roman Empire
great video
East Rome wasnt as'well " protected" geographically as the west was- had to face all asian nomadic people and ofc Arabs but survived for 1100 yrs
East>west
Roman empire in West lasted 85 years. 395 -480ad
And around 60 of those years were ruled by Honorius and Valentinian III, the two of the worst emperors to have ever ascend the imperial purple.
Another great video! Thanks!
Every empire that fails to integrate fully its conquered peoples into citizenry and some sort of social benefit by that will fall to internal contradictions disabling it from responding to external stress. We are living through such an age at the moment, and it's going to get messy. Your videos are consistently excellent, and the material and era are endlessly fascinating. Many thanks.
An outstanding channel full of interesting info but most importantly, thoughtful analysis. Many channels are just a recitation of facts, that get really old, very fast. Our host Sebastian also has a fabulous voice. Makes my day whenever there is a new video. Thank you Sebastian!
Could Carthage and Sicily be saved if the Roman Empire built a city similar to Constantinople at the Strait of Gibraltar?
Roman Emperor: Brother, why do we attack Sicily or Egypt and leave Anatolia? Are we stupid?
Is there enough trade going to/from the bay of Biscay or West African coast and the Mediterranean to justify that? Byzantion existed for centuries before Constantine showed up, I don't know how long permanent settlements have been at Gibraltar
@@BiggestCorvid Well, there is sub-Saharan trade. Plus, Mansa Musa is known as the richest man in the world for obvious reason. You know that. And that is the trade route the Romans can rely upon. With gold and salt coming in from West Africa, this western version of Constantinople will be quite profitable. In fact, this is the very reason why the monarchs of Castile kept the Emirate of Granada around for so long.
I have one quarrel with you about the overall military and the military sizes specifically. The eastern empire relied far more on cavalry and archers, because of the threats it faced from the east-especially the Persians. A unit of cavalry would be far smaller than a unit of heavy infantry. The western empire relied on mercenaries and the Germanic tribes, especially after the destruction of its army during the barbarian invasions until its demise were met. You don’t address any of these, and I think they’re very important. The two empires had very different military philosophies.
Awesome video
Great Vídeo.
In regards to the Army size, as we all know inside diplomacy and betrayals of generals was real determination of civil war battles
The transition from Late Roman to Byzantine coinage (in the East) would make an interesting topic…
It's so ironic that the "disaster provinces" of the Roman Empire would become among the wealthiest, most powerful states in the world in later centuries!
A significant reason why that is, is due to, once again, the thanks towards Rome and Greece, mediterranean culture👍 (along with the golden age of the middle east), and unfortunately, the black death. Its what caused the renaissance.
@@lyricofwise6894 and those established trade routes being more heavily taxed than sending some ships west, hoping they come back at all. That resulted in continents that they could pillage freely for centuries.
@@BiggestCorvidDang, youre like Einstein.
Said people are not responsible for barbarian kingdom evildoers free choice, in which case to SIMPLY fufill more of their greed, ESPECIALLY to that extent of how much to do that colonialism, how many, how long, etc. etc....
Nahh
I think it was Adrian Goldsworthy who wrote that we shouldn't pay too much attention to the Notitia as it likely contains many units that only existed on paper.
@Maiorianus Hello, would be possible to make a video in the future about: "Could Roman Empire be saved if it would conquer all lands in Germania? (No enemies, no decline?) .Thank you for video 👍👌✔ !
I thought about this before. How far east would they have to go to make a secure border?
Idk man that would have just pushed the border further and a new enemy. However germania would have given more and greater manpower and making gaul economically more strong due to not having to be defended anymore while germany would have needed to be developed massively in infrastructure and economics. Maybe going up and taking denmark while sweden had a super small population and norway maybe southern parts being conquered.
Then comes the question where would be a good border to draw. Probably at the 1914 german russian border going along a river in modern day poland.
However I think the biggest problem then would be that their new enemys would be more and more nomads, which roman infantry armies sucked hard against relying on infantry
@@dawdoh3226this is a very good question. Germania Magna was one of the biggest problems the empire had and I think conquering it all would have changed a lot. But then there are other Barbarians to the east. And then further east only more Barbarians... so maybe in the end it wouldn't even be such a big difference, only that the invaders in the end wouldn't be Germanic tribes but someone else.
The eastern provinces were also more vulnerable to foreign invaders, specifically Persians and Arabs. These two even conquered Egypt… So it is not true that the Western provinces were more accessible by foreign invaders
I'd like to point out that the WRE had much more Barbarians recruited in the army. That explains the numbers
The fate of the east was sealed and it fell 1000 years later...also after Justinian there was no East and West. Only the roman empire
The eastern Mediterranean countries in modern times are renowned for their dry desiccated soils. It is hard to imagine how they supported their large populations. Were their soils really that much better back then? Were those larger populations really vital ones?
Egypt
It's called the "fertile crescent " for a reason and don't forget Egypt which was the biggest grain producer in the Mediterranean sea
@@omaraboal-azm8705 That name describes the region as it existed 5,000+ years ago. Since then there has been lots of over-farming and climate change in the region.
I'm talking about the region from 3,000 BCE to 1500 AD
Awesome video!
Well a matter of time or not, 1000 years is a lot of time. The phrase kinda loses it's meaning, since by that reasoning everything that happens is only a matter of time.
East has the majority of trade and population. That makes it stronger.
Also Egypt had a monopoly on the Empire's food.
Woulf love a video on what if the western roman empire survived in Carthage or africa
Implying if it would not get islamified? Who knows.
Interestingly enough later on as the East continued to weaken and destabilize it too developed an epidemic of frequent usurpations and coups. There was a study done and half the emperors between the 600s and the Sack of Constantinople in the 1200s had either been overthrown or murdered. Even during more stable reigns nearly all of them still had to deal with revolts and pretenders to the throne. In several cases this resulted in catastrophic civil wars such as while the Persians were invading in the 600s (yes, WHILE they were invading) or just as bad was the civil war following Manzikert that resulted in the total loss of Anatolia.
west had more frequent usurpations and at least east continued more than 1000 years after the fall of west
I think the Western Empire's armies were probably stronger. Constant warfare, high numbers of warlike Germanic foederati in the ranks, harsher climates around the Rhine and Danube, more barbarian raids/migrations, etc. The East was definitely richer and more stable.
The roman east lacked warrior-culture recruitment areas outside of Thrace and Galatia (gaulish heritage). Easterners from Syria to Egypt were notoriusly bad at war, so the armies relied mostly on foreign mercenaries until the rise of Islam turned Anatolia into a warzone, making it a new ideal place to recruit people used to fight.
@@TheUrobolos Armenians and Isaurians were great warriors, Arab mercenaries were also frequently recruited in Syria from the Ghassanids, Dacia (the Moesian province) and Thrace also had good soldiers plus the major advantage the Eastern Empire had was the equestrian culture it borrowed from the Persians which meant that it had access to super heavy cavalry such as the Clibanarii and the Catafractarii as well as mounted archers. They also frequently recruited Gothic foederati from beyond the Danube.
Why do you think the WRE had to deal with Germanic raids, pray tell? Did you ever consider that it was because they were simply weaker from a military standpoint, and thus an easier target?
@@johanlassen6448 Yes, I considered this and then I ruled it out. The West was weaker not due to the quality of its military, but due to a number of other factors, including: climate change and Hunnic migration pushed the Germanic tribes westward across the Rhine; the WRE was more overstretched than the ERE; the WRE suffered from corruption and decentralisation, such as emerging feudal enclaves; the Germanic folk were already entrenched within the WRE.
@@cerdic6586 Except for getting its ass kicked by pretty much every invader of course. You left out that little detail. Besides that I am sure the WRE looked stronger.
Also - more overstretched? The ERE had the Sassanids to deal with, a far greater threat than Germanic invaders.
The East was where the action was at. Constantine choosing Byzantium to build his new capital wasn't a coincidence, divine intervention or not.
I think the analysis is mostly correct. Overall the main difference is mostly represented in the last point about the number of emperors and usurpers. The western side was by 395 “a sick man” already dying (one of the comments below rightly stated that Stilico and julianus it was possible indeed to defend the west if only there was a unified intent).
The west was doomed to fail due to its lack of internal synergies.
Leaving out the Sassanid Empire when discussing the geographic situation was a massive omission. They were a very different kind of threat from the Barbarians, whose presence and frequent large-scale wars against a professional military meant that Eastern Anatolia and the Northern Levant were very much not secure areas and would ultimately weaken the East to such an extent that it cleared the way for the Arab invasions.
Despite all that however I agree with your ultimate conclusions, dividing the Roman Empire deprived the West of the resources it needed to survive, and when the West fell it left what remained of Rome in the east in a far weaker position than it could have had. If Rome could have remained united and thus preventing the fall of the West, I imagine the combined power of a united Roman Empire would have been far more able to defeat the Sassanids without such a long and devastating war, and thus leaving Rome better able to defend itself when the Arabs arrive.
I have an Idea, Could I asked if you could Make a Video on what if The Roman Republic and the Carthage United to form the Republika of Roma Carthagia, against the Reform Egyptian Empire
That’s certainly not part of late roman history, i don’t think it’ll be covered.
Amazing content as always! Though i disagree at the point of geography. Yes the provinces of the East were richer, more populated and possibly more culturally advanced but we have to take in to account the simple logic that ERE had three borders to defend, the North one (Danube/Balkan), the South one (African) and the East one (bordering Persia the No.2 Superpower of the times) while the WRE got just the North one (Germanic and Britain) and the South one (African) since from the east it bordered ERE and from the west the Atlantic Ocean. Thus We can say that WRE was more isolated geography wise which in turn keeped her protected. ERE got simply more borderlines to protect. To enhance my point, we can argue that most of the major threats of the times came from East (Persians, Goths, Huns, Arabs) and got to Raid ERE first before reaching the lands of the WRE.
Will we have an episode about Leo I?
Not sure where you're getting the West legions outnumbering the East. When you look at how the legions were distributed in 395, theres almost twice as many posted along the Eastern and Danube frontiers compared to the Rhine, Britain and Africa. The Valentinian and Constantinian dynasties both stripped legions from the West to post in the East and then the civil wars under Theodosius killed recruitment and military infrastructure. Thats why Stillicho is left with a shell of a Western army and then Aetius cant even afford to protect more than Gaul.
So I assume there will be eventually be a part 2?😊
For cities you forgot to add that most of Eastern Roman Empire's citiies were already built by ancient Greeks
something tells me the empire that saved 1000 years longer may have been stronger
Prob the 1 that fell 1k years after the other
Also, the East was wealthier and therefore had more resources to fund and prosecute warfare.
Question: 9:00 what made britania such a hotspot for rebelion? And how many were there?
My did the area result in so many general rebelling
East is my prediction. I have to sleep so i'll see in the morning, assuming there's a definitive answer in the video 😁😁
You were right.
I’d feel that the only way the empire could be split is if it was into 3, like a triumvirate.
Only by conquering Germania could the Western Roman survive Britannia was a millstone around Roman neck
The East was easy to control though... It's where all civilizations started, middle east, Greece.. while the west was just barbarians trying to kill you all the time
It was the civilised east vs the barbarian west .
What else could have happened?
the east had a slightly less corrupt and more competent set of leaders
So the Eastern Empire wins on population density and due to the sea, probably on logistics.
They were still one empire in more ways than one
The Western Roman Empire also had its advantages over Byzantium, such as the “Great Amber Road” and access to the Atlantic Ocean. But civil wars in the early 5th century destroyed the Western Empire until Charlemagne restored it in 800 AD!
@Iamnotracistlmao Charlemagne was the legitimate Roman Emperor since he was crowned by the Pope, and Byzantium recognized his title in 812. At the same time, the province of Byzantium, the Duchy of Rome, voluntarily seceded from Byzantium and became part of the restored Western Roman Empire; it would later become known as the Papal States. By the way, the Republic of Venice was the heir of Byzantium, since until the mid-9th century it was its province as part of the Ravenna Exarchate!
@Iamnotracistlmao Most of the inhabitants of the restored Western Roman Empire spoke and wrote in Latin, Romanesque architecture continued to exist and the citizens of Charles Augustus were Christians, as they had been in the 5th century.
At a time when Byzantium was no longer Latin-speaking, it did not have the city of Rome itself and it lost most of its lands to the Arabs and Turks!
@Iamnotracistlmao You obviously don't know that most of the inhabitants of the Carolingian Empire were Gallo-Romans and Italo-Romans who spoke and wrote in Latin!
@Iamnotracistlmao It's funny that the local Italo-Roman population renounced Constantinople, so two exarchs proclaimed themselves emperors, these were Eleftherius and Olympius. But only Charles Augustus was able to gain the support of Rome itself, whose inhabitants refused to recognize the Greeks as Romans.
@Iamnotracistlmao Wake up and finally understand that before Charlemagne there were those who were proclaimed Emperor of the West, as was the case with Eleftherius and Olympius. Who, like most residents of Italy, renounced the Greeks!
East still have to face persian empire invasions and skirmishes in geography
I would argue bigger geography not necessarily a good thing because you have more to defend and if go thru 24 emperors you are quite frankly screwed .
Two emperors was perhaps acceptable, but dividing b the empire legally was a colossal blunder. Instead of a cohesive chain of command, it became a mess, and a situation could arise such as Arcadius' glorified babysitter telling Honorious' capable babysitter to let Alaric and the Visigoths escape revenge for Adrianople.
Not the first time when poor Stilicho could have learned from Sulla
East Roman Empire was more strength according to this accurate evaluation. Thank you for sharing
Hello! Here for the algorhytm! :)
Here comes my wc as Byzantium by 1650 will post a link to the video soon
Inquiring minds want to know: Why did the eastern Roman Empire stop supporting the western Roman Empire? Why didn’t they see the threats to the western empire as being eventual threats to them as well?
If only the Julian Dynasty had followed through conquering Germania, then it might have slowed the decline. It also would mean the possible later HRE would actually be more Roman.
hahaha ist das eine Kiste Kola im Hintergrund ? xD
Was Gratian not considered a decent emperor or was it just so short lived ?
8:48 the eastern romans experienced this problem with the Sassanids later on though 😅
12:01 the problem with this is that it just lists army units, not actual troop numbers. Who's to say the western units were at full strength? They more likely weren't, considering increased corruption in this era and loses due to attrition from all the armies and barbarian raids they had to fight off.
12:51 your reasoning is solid, but you also have to consider that the eastern roman army might have shrink in the interceding century. Keep in mind that war with the persians picked up again around this time
to see who is stronger, just look at what Western Europe has produced from all points of view from the fall of the Roman Empire to today. Starting from the most powerful empires in history (English, Spanish, French, Portuguese, German) not to mention the contributions to science and philosophy, the Renaissance. an endless list could be made.
Was Glycerius a misnaming cause he wasn't a good emperor at all, Anthemius though was pretty good.
Can you make video what if eastern half fell instead of western part
I didn't know Maiorianus/Sebastion was a Valyrian.
Im commenting before watching full video...but
West Rome have
1. France with iron Mine and Wheat ( althoung not as much as egypt or turkey )
2. Spain had Silver mine and also Wheat
3. Italy with Wheat , Grape , And Olive And Cattle
4. Tunisia become rome Bread Basked
On the other hand the east have
1. Greek with Iron , olive , and wine
2. Turkey with iron mine , Wheat
3. Egypt as breadbasket of the east
4. And Syria As Trading Hub
5. Constaniple itself also serve as Trading Hub
Not to mention the Eastern Empire lasted longer than the West!! 🛡️🗡️✨🤍 I love Ancient Roman history!!!
Comment for the algorithm.
Could you create a what if video about if the west and east didn't split in 2?
You can make a video where you talk about Jews in the late Roman Empire?
East is better. I Play at Total War Attila so I know
Do we really need a video when its almost 1000 year difference between them? Plus they werent distinct entities