What role did the Eastern Roman Empire play in the fall of the Western Roman Empire?

What role did the Eastern Roman Empire play in the fall of the Western Roman Empire?

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

What role did the Eastern Roman Empire play in the fall of the Western Roman Empire? Did the Eastern Empire actually contribute to the fall of the West? Was the Eastern Roman Empire able to help the Western Roman Empire around the time of their collapse (they were definitely wealthier and more populated, but did they have enough manpower and resources to significantly make a difference)?"

The following two sources are somewhat unreliable, but summarize the problem.

The Eastern Emperors did, with their vast sums of gold, pay off Hunnic and Germanic tribes that were harassing the Danube frontier from Pannonia to the Black Sea to leave them alone and go off somewhere else. This somewhere else was the Western Empire.

As for the relationship between the 2, it was more often one of mistrust and interference rather than close alliance and friendship. Yahoo Answers

The drifting apart of the East and West empires did contribute to the decline of the West, but it isn't true that the East did not try and help the West during this time.

1) The courts of the two young emperors Arcadius and Honorius did become more 'insular' in their thinking than in the good old days when Constantine would march all over the map. One problem was the West wanting to reacquire its provinces in Illyria loaned to the East in the 380s, as these were a good source of recruits.

2) The East sent troops several times to aid the West - in the 410 period after the sack of Rome, in the 420s. Even some emperors were sent, with troops, to the West. Often this did not help, just becoming another player in the current civil war.

3) The largest intervention was the East's attempt to retake Africa from the Vandals with a 1000 ship expedition in the 468. It was a disaster, and an expensive one for the East. After this failure, the East was tapped out for some time.

See The Battle of Cape Bon

Without the full and free use of the entire resources of both halves, Rome could no longer sustain its position as a great power in the region. The East Empire could defend its half better, due to short borders and the defenses of the Capital. The West Empire, with much less wealth and more areas to guard, could not hold. Together, they might have been able to win out, if they had removed the Vandals in 468. Without that, the likely result would have been a somewhat larger East Empire, kind of like what resulted after the Lombards invaded Italy a century later.

The Fall of Rome and its Effects on Post-Roman and Medieval Europe

For almost one-thousand years, Rome conquered and brought order and law to most of the known world. A lthough the concept of the Roman Empire and Republic being absolutely benevolent to its entire population is highly inaccurate, Rome did spread several ideas and principals which are essential to modern government and day to day life. Rome did its part in shaping the modern world, but all good things must come to an end. One of the most severe and lasting impacts Rome had on Europe was, in fact, the empire’s own demise. The fall of Rome not only shook the world then, but had profound effects on the next thousand years of western European history.

To understand the effects of the Roman Empire’s fall, one must first understand why the Empire fell at all. This topic has been discussed and debated by innumerable scholars through the ages and historians still have no definitive answer. However, there are a few factors which most scholars agree at least played a role in the empire’s collapse. The first is economic crisis. A large portion of Rome’s economy was based on slave labor. In fact it is estimated that, at its peak, 25% of Rome’s population were slaves. These slaves were obtained from the soldiers and resistance forces of conquered nations (“Roman Slaves”). Therefore, when Rome was no longer able to conquer, the supply of slaves dried up. Since Rome had relied on human labor for so many years, it had not pursued technological innovation in the field of agriculture (Dutch, “Roman Science and Technology”). Without cheap labor and slaves to work the fields, the economy collapsed (Damen, “The Fall of Rome: Facts and Fictions”). Additionally, the Roman welfare system, which supported the thousands of Romans who were out of work due to the availability of slaves, taxed the Roman coffers and economy heavily. Corruption also helped bring about the economic collapse that plagued the late Roman Empire. An unknown author who lived around 386 A.D. wrote, “…wherewith the arts of [greediness] afflict the provinces, comes the appalling greed of the provincial Governors, which is ruinous to the taxpayers’ interests” (“On Military Matters”). It is clear that this author, as well as many other Romans, must have realized that the opulent lifestyle of the Roman elite was bringing the country to its knees.

The second main reason for Rome’s fall is not the archetypal “barbarians outside the gate” but, instead, “barbarians” (any non-Roman) inside the gates. As the empire grew larger, the native Roman population grew smaller in proportion to the size of the Empire. Rome was forced to hire barbarian mercenaries to defend the borders (Heather, “The Fall of Rome”). Of course these troops were not of the same quality as the legionaries of Rome’s golden ages, nor were they loyal to Rome. The generals and commanders who did command the mercenaries’ loyalty were then able to command Rome itself. This partially led to the rampant corruption and volatile political climate that also helped to bring about the downfall of Rome.

Due to the many problems that plagued the Empire in its later years, the Roman Empire was carved up by barbarians and separated into many smaller kingdoms. Perhaps the most immediate effect of Rome’s fall was the breakdown of commerce and trade. The miles of Roman roads were no longer maintained and the grand movement of goods that was coordinated and managed by the Romans fell apart. It is clear that the quality of goods throughout Europe decreased significantly after the fall of Rome. Before the collapse, one might find high quality pottery from Africa on the table of Roman citizens in Italy. Brian Ward-Perkins, a historian and archaeologist, notes that post-Roman pottery was “…rare and poor in quality-of badly selected clay… The resulting vessels are porous and very friable- many would score low marks as first efforts in pottery at an infants’ school.”

Also note that the barbarian takeover itself caused economic problems. Jordanes, an ancient historian, mentioned how frequently the “barbarians” would sack settlements as they marched (Jordanes, “The Origin and Deeds of the Goths”). The economic collapse and coupled with these foreign invasions meant that much of the classical Roman architecture was lost. The fancy stone of the Roman era was, unfortunately, replaced with simple wooden structures.

The fall of Rome also paved the way for another major part of Europe’s history: feudalism. When Rome fell, Europe fell into a state of constant warfare. The new kings not only wanted to tax their populous, but also wanted them to fight during times of war. This practice was, of course, unpopular (Heather, “The Fall of Rome”). The new kings allowed the landowners to raise their own small armies that the kings could call upon to defend the kingdom. This system also provided local protection from anyone who might want to pillage the land, such as the Vikings or Magyars. This eventually developed into the system of feudalism that dominated medieval Europe.

Feudalism helped prevent another strong centralized government, like that of Rome, from forming in Europe for hundreds of years. Although landowners swore loyalty to the king, those landowners would further subdivide and distribute their lands to people who swore loyalty to them. Naturally this created a decentralized government that was prone to internal conflict. Feudalism also further weakened trade and economic development in Europe. Serfs who worked the land were bound to the land, and forbidden to create economic infrastructure without their lord’s permission. Since serfs had to pay taxes and tolls to use their lord’s infrastructure and resources, it was not in their lord’s best interest to give them the privilege to develop the land. (Kip, “Feudalism”). The European economy of the middle ages was nothing compared to that of the Roman era. However, there was a significant improvement and strengthening of religious bodies after the fall of Rome.

At first, Christianity was banned in Rome and Christians were persecuted by many emperors such as Nero and Diocletian. However, in 313 AD, Christianity became legal under the rule of Constantine the Great, the first Christian emperor (“Roman Emperors Persecute Christians”). Using his influence as Emperor, Constantine established processes and standards that provided stability to the early church. Under his protection, and due to the various forms of favoritism he showed to the church, Christianity prospered under Constantine. Being a man skilled in politics and administration, Constantine also influenced the internal working of the church in order to make it more stable. For example, the standard of calling religious councils in which church leaders would come together and debate major theological and doctrinal issues was Constantine’s idea (O’Gorman and Faulkner 305). Although the church’s bureaucratic and highly political nature would eventually lead to the decline of the Catholic Church, it did help the church survive and prosper after the fall of Rome.

When the law and order that Rome provided disappeared, the people of Europe began to look to the church for guidance. Some religious leaders, such as the Pope, basically acted like monarchs. Other lower religious leaders acted as advisors to kings and even had managerial roles in various kingdoms (Hatch, “The Organization of the Early Christian Churches”). Without Rome’s advocacy of polytheism and established government, the church not only became the ultimate source of authority in the newly converted European kingdoms, but also became somewhat entwined in the political affairs of these countries(Damen, “The Fall of Rome: Facts and Fictions”). This paved the way for the Church’s domination of medieval Europe.

Although the fall of Rome did allow Christianity to prosper, it created many problems for medieval Europe. After all, it would be almost a millennium before any other civilization could rival the size, complexity and sophistication of Rome. Until then, Europe would suffer from an intellectual drought and a lack of growth and prosperity. The fall of Rome was necessary in order for the world to be what it is today, but its fall was still, in many ways, a tragedy.

If you’re interested in learning more about history, please see my recent article on religion in early America. Click here to read it.

How Climate Change and Plague Helped Bring Down the Roman Empire

This article was originally published at Aeon and has been republished under Creative Commons.

At some time or another, every historian of Rome has been asked to say where we are, today, on Rome’s cycle of decline. Historians might squirm at such attempts to use the past but, even if history does not repeat itself, nor come packaged into moral lessons, it can deepen our sense of what it means to be human and how fragile our societies are.

In the middle of the second century, the Romans controlled a huge, geographically diverse part of the globe, from northern Britain to the edges of the Sahara, from the Atlantic to Mesopotamia. The generally prosperous population peaked at 75 million. Eventually, all free inhabitants of the empire came to enjoy the rights of Roman citizenship. Little wonder that the 18th-century English historian Edward Gibbon judged this age the ‘most happy’ in the history of our species — yet today we are more likely to see the advance of Roman civilization as unwittingly planting the seeds of its own demise.

Five centuries later, the Roman empire was a small Byzantine rump-state controlled from Constantinople, its near-eastern provinces lost to Islamic invasions, its western lands covered by a patchwork of Germanic kingdoms. Trade receded, cities shrank and technological advance halted. Despite the cultural vitality and spiritual legacy of these centuries, this period was marked by a declining population, political fragmentation and lower levels of material complexity. When the historian Ian Morris at Stanford University created a universal social-development index, the fall of Rome emerged as the greatest setback in the history of human civilization. 

Explanations for a phenomenon of this magnitude abound: in 1984, the German classicist Alexander Demandt cataloged more than 200 hypotheses. Most scholars have looked to the internal political dynamics of the imperial system or the shifting geopolitical context of an empire whose neighbours gradually caught up in the sophistication of their military and political technologies. But new evidence has started to unveil the crucial role played by changes in the natural environment. The paradoxes of social development, and the inherent unpredictability of nature, worked in concert to bring about Rome’s demise.

Climate change did not begin with the exhaust fumes of industrialization, but has been a permanent feature of human existence. Orbital mechanics (small variations in the tilt, spin and eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit) and solar cycles alter the amount and distribution of energy received from the Sun. And volcanic eruptions spew reflective sulphates into the atmosphere, sometimes with long-reaching effects. Modern, anthropogenic climate change is so perilous because it is happening quickly and in conjunction with so many other irreversible changes in the Earth’s biosphere. But climate change per se is nothing new.

The need to understand the natural context of modern climate change has been an unmitigated boon for historians. Earth scientists have scoured the planet for paleoclimate proxies, natural archives of the past environment. The effort to put climate change in the foreground of Roman history is motivated both by troves of new data and a heightened sensitivity to the importance of the physical environment.

It turns out that climate had a major role in the rise and fall of Roman civilization. The empire-builders benefitted from impeccable timing: the characteristic warm, wet and stable weather was conducive to economic productivity in an agrarian society. The benefits of economic growth supported the political and social bargains by which the Roman empire controlled its vast territory. The favorable climate, in ways subtle and profound, was baked into the empire’s innermost structure.

The end of this lucky climate regime did not immediately, or in any simple deterministic sense, spell the doom of Rome. Rather, a less favorable climate undermined its power just when the empire was imperilled by more dangerous enemies — Germans, Persians — from without. Climate instability peaked in the sixth century, during the reign of Justinian. Work by dendro-chronologists and ice-core experts points to an enormous spasm of volcanic activity in the 530s and 540s CE, unlike anything else in the past few thousand years. This violent sequence of eruptions triggered what is now called the ‘Late Antique Little Ice Age,’ when much colder temperatures endured for at least 150 years.

This phase of climate deterioration had decisive effects in Rome’s unravelling. It was also intimately linked to a catastrophe of even greater moment: the outbreak of the first pandemic of bubonic plague.

D isruptions in the biological environment were even more consequential to Rome’s destiny. For all the empire’s precocious advances, life expectancies ranged in the mid-20s, with infectious diseases the leading cause of death. But the array of diseases that preyed upon Romans was not static and, here too, new sensibilities and technologies are radically changing the way we understand the dynamics of evolutionary history — both for our own species, and for our microbial allies and adversaries.

The highly urbanized, highly interconnected Roman empire was a boon to its microbial inhabitants. Humble gastro-enteric diseases such as Shigellosis and paratyphoid fevers spread via contamination of food and water, and flourished in densely packed cities. Where swamps were drained and highways laid, the potential of malaria was unlocked in its worst form — Plasmodium falciparumva deadly mosquito-borne protozoon. The Romans also connected societies by land and by sea as never before, with the unintended consequence that germs moved as never before, too. Slow killers such as tuberculosis and leprosy enjoyed a heyday in the web of interconnected cities fostered by Roman development.

However, the decisive factor in Rome’s biological history was the arrival of new germs capable of causing pandemic events. The empire was rocked by three such intercontinental disease events. The Antonine plague coincided with the end of the optimal climate regime, and was probably the global debut of the smallpox virus. The empire recovered, but never regained its previous commanding dominance. Then, in the mid-third century, a mysterious affliction of unknown origin called the Plague of Cyprian sent the empire into a tailspin.

Though it rebounded, the empire was profoundly altered — with a new kind of emperor, a new kind of money, a new kind of society, and soon a new religion known as Christianity. Most dramatically, in the sixth century a resurgent empire led by Justinian faced a pandemic of bubonic plague, a prelude to the medieval Black Death. The toll was unfathomable   maybe half the population was felled.

The plague of Justinian is a case study in the extraordinarily complex relationship between human and natural systems. The culprit, the Yersinia pestis bacterium, is not a particularly ancient nemesis. Evolving just 4,000 years ago, almost certainly in central Asia, it was an evolutionary newborn when it caused the first plague pandemic. The disease is permanently present in colonies of social, burrowing rodents such as marmots or gerbils. However, the historic plague pandemics were colossal accidents, spillover events involving at least five different species: the bacterium, the reservoir rodent, the amplification host (the black rat, which lives close to humans), the fleas that spread the germ and the people caught in the crossfire.

Genetic evidence suggests that the strain of Yersinia pestis that generated the plague of Justinian originated somewhere near western China. It first appeared on the southern shores of the Mediterranean and, in all likelihood, was smuggled in along the southern, seaborne trading networks that carried silk and spices to Roman consumers. It was an accident of early globalization. Once the germ reached the seething colonies of commensal rodents, fattened on the empire’s giant stores of grain, the mortality was unstoppable.

The plague pandemic was an event of astonishing ecological complexity. It required purely chance conjunctions, especially if the initial outbreak beyond the reservoir rodents in central Asia was triggered by those massive volcanic eruptions in the years preceding it. It also involved the unintended consequences of the built human environment — such as the global trade networks that shuttled the germ onto Roman shores, or the proliferation of rats inside the empire.

The pandemic baffles our distinctions between structure and chance, pattern and contingency. Therein lies one of the lessons of Rome. Humans shape nature — above all, the ecological conditions within which evolution plays out. But nature remains blind to our intentions, and other organisms and ecosystems do not obey our rules. Climate change and disease evolution have been the wild cards of human history.

Our world now is very different from ancient Rome. We have public health, germ theory and antibiotic pharmaceuticals. We will not be as helpless as the Romans, if we are wise enough to recognize the grave threats looming around us, and to use the tools at our disposal to mitigate them. But the centrality of nature in Rome’s fall gives us reason to reconsider the power of the physical and biological environment to tilt the fortunes of human societies.

Perhaps we could come to see the Romans not so much as an ancient civilization, standing across an impassable divide from our modern age, but rather as the makers of our world today. They built a civilization where global networks, emerging infectious diseases and ecological instability were decisive forces in the fate of human societies. The Romans, too, thought they had the upper hand over the fickle and furious power of the natural environment.

History warns us: they were wrong.

Kyle Harper is a professor of classics and letters and senior vice president and provost at the University of Oklahoma. His latest book is The Fate of Rome: Climate, Disease, and the End of an Empire (2017).


early game, I let the hordes have their way in Greece/Thrace aside from the Capital. Eventually Macedonia and Dacia factions emerged from rebellions I quickly made peace with them and used them as puppet states and trade partners. Eventually I recaptured the rest of Greece and Thrace.

Eventually all the hordes went west, that said the Alans attacked in turkey across the ocean and I had to divert troops to deal with them. I ended my Relations with the West Roman Empire, I only kept the trade agreement, otherwise they drag you into two many wars.

I demolished all the Churches to free up income and allow me to convert later to Roman paganism.

I invested heavily in the rest of my empire, especially the waterworks building to increase growth.

Then about turn 30 while my troops were returning to the border after dealing with the Alans, the Sassanids decided to declare war.

A few turns went by I moved my troops to the border and got bored so I attacked, with my two border stacks. They took the border town killed the Sassanids heir. End turn and about 3 Sassanids stacks wipe out my troops retake the city, the eastern border is completely defenseless.

I spent a great deal of time turtleing and rebuilding my armies using Edessa and the province capital of Palestine as my main points of defense.

After a number of failed attack by both sides the war stalemated. Axum invaded Egypt caused a famine (made worse by my conversion, since all the Roman Pagan religious building require food) in my empire I took awhile but I redirected troops and drove them out, followed by an expensive invasion of their territory, I raised both their cities destroying the faction.

(but not before Axum dragged Himyar into the war) I had too keep Half stack garrisons in Egypt since one of the Sassanids puppet states, Makran keeps sending troops by sea to attack me.

Eventually I figured out the Sassanids army's greatest weakness, Fortified stance I carefully invaded their territory from multiple directions, ending each turn with my armies in fortified stance.

The Sassanids would attack and I would destroy them simply by holding the forts 6 entrances, making full use of the defensive testudo formation, against multiple stacks preventing them from destroying the towers allowing them to annihilate the enemy missile units.

Right now I am about 90 turns in and the Sassanids home province is the new front-line, along with the Armenian border, I have made peace with Himyar.

And guess what new stalemate but I am thoroughly enjoying the campaign, its an actual challenge not just steam rolling the map.

That said corruption should be toned down quite a bit and their Horse archers really need Parthian shot but other than that its good so far.

Dr Zoidberg "We fight over matters of honour, and whether or not abbreviations count in scrabble. THEY DON'T"

“My fault. What I said in the guild was incorrect: rather than ‘death is certain if you follow me’, I actually meant ‘come along and I shall slaughter the lot of you’.”

Ainz Ooal Gown Overlord Light Novels

Same strat i using safe for one thing . i go right after the Sassanids after dealing with the Visigoths. i basically blitz through every single of their territories and subjugate them.
Their puppet states now become YOUR puppet states and the once that dont will quickly over to become your puppet state.
Since you are already at war with a half dozen factions these puppet states will soon become best friends (because the puppet states are now at with YOUR enemies as well) and trade with you as well.
Before attila was born i had 10 k (and 5 full stack armies) income and the east was secur and i was moving on rome. any minor faction that still existed i simply declared war on and my puppet states did the rest.

I cannot stress The importance of puppet states in this game. if gorund doesnt have average or good fertility dont take it let your puppets take it.

I normally do the following. I have played ERE campaign twice already. Normal and hard
-Group your armies in Macedonia and Thrace in town next to Visigoths. Defeat them and chase them down next turn. Both stacks
-Gift SE small gifts every turn till on green status.
-focus on building Po and sanitation in Greece, then Egypt, finally Asiaminor.
-the stack located in Africa, send it to east Africa to border Garaga. It prevent AI from thinking you are weak
-break defensive alliance with WRE
-raise one full stack immediately and sent to north Thrace in fortified position.
-sue for peace after beating 2-3 stacks of Huns

Once you achieve peice with the Huns, the game is done. You have no enemy. You can build up your Eco to give you 50k+ a turn. I had 7 full stacks next to SE by 400 ad. 2 in Thrace and one in west of Africa. If you steam role SE before they can send their stacks, the client states will end up fighting one another

The key to ERE is the first 10 turns or so. Beating Visigoths in turn two is a must, keeping peace with SE and peace treaty with Huns. You do that and you win

I normally do the following. I have played ERE campaign twice already. Normal and hard
-Group your armies in Macedonia and Thrace in town next to Visigoths. Defeat them and chase them down next turn. Both stacks
-Gift SE small gifts every turn till on green status.
-focus on building Po and sanitation in Greece, then Egypt, finally Asiaminor.
-the stack located in Africa, send it to east Africa to border Garaga. It prevent AI from thinking you are weak
-break defensive alliance with WRE
-raise one full stack immediately and sent to north Thrace in fortified position.
-sue for peace after beating 2-3 stacks of Huns

Once you achieve peice with the Huns, the game is done. You have no enemy. You can build up your Eco to give you 50k+ a turn. I had 7 full stacks next to SE by 400 ad. 2 in Thrace and one in west of Africa. If you steam role SE before they can send their stacks, the client states will end up fighting one another

The key to ERE is the first 10 turns or so. Beating Visigoths in turn two is a must, keeping peace with SE and peace treaty with Huns. You do that and you win

WRE are your biggest trading partner, so for that alone you should be trying to keep them afloat, as you'll need the income in the late game thanks to endemic corruption wrecking your tax income.

You can't save all of the WRE, but you should have enough in the tank to keep a rump state of Italia, the islands and Africa afloat surely?

Moved the starting general from Constantinople to the city "to the left". Merged the other army from the North into the first and disbanded the lone general. Sent my heir to Macedon to recruit extra spears (turn one).

On turn two, Visigoths just chose to encamp without moving anywhere forcing me to into a field battle to eliminate one of the stacks.

Before 1.2, they always attacked the city instead.

Moved the starting general from Constantinople to the city "to the left". Merged the other army from the North into the first and disbanded the lone general. Sent my heir to Macedon to recruit extra spears (turn one).

On turn two, Visigoths just chose to encamp without moving anywhere forcing me to into a field battle to eliminate one of the stacks.

Before 1.2, they always attacked the city instead.

I never tried it on Legendary. I have tried it on Normal (2 times), Hard and Very Hard(one time)

Found out if you dump all your armies into one general. Then place the general only army behind the river (which can be only crossed to in a single turn through the city) the visigoths will attack that army but wont attack city. Their forces will be split so you can defeat them piecemeal. Got real tired of playing that same stupid city battle over and over.

Also, try getting Sassanids to join war with Huns, it will hold them off for a while. I always rush ports in macedonia and the island province, while destroying every church. It will help you get to infinite money much faster

I never tried it on Legendary. I have tried it on Normal (2 times), Hard and Very Hard(one time)

But it seems, this is random. I tried 3 times in a row now. 2 times, they stayed encamped, the third time, they attacked.

Actually, as I was doing my random tries of Goth behavior last night, I got a roll where the starting Sassanid ruler had only one trait: "admires Sarmatians" (no hate for rival empires, no aggression, etc.) on top of that the two starting ERE puppets rolled to be reliable defenders.

This turned out to be a very enjoyable ERE start. Sassanids are friendly and trading around 415 now. Both starting puppets have remained such and WRE volunteered to become a puppet some 20 turns in.

That latter bit is what made the biggest difference as all of a sudden ERE was able to start accumulating a cash horde which is crucial given ERE's ability to earn interest.

The bottom line: it's very random. Can be a nightmare of both puppets and Sassanids declaring war on turn 2 or a piece of cake if their rulers have good traits.

The Sassanids declared war on me pretty late (around turn 55), but it wasn't them directly. It was one of their allies (the Arran) that declared war on me. The Sassanids felt really friendly towards me even after war broke out. I can easily ask for peace, but why should I? I have enough armies to beat them back. I held off 3 full stack Sassanid armies with only one of my armies in a siege defense with minimal losses. Here is what I have so far:

I like to take the diplomatic route when possible. Played on Legendary.

Early Game
Demolish all level 2 churches except 1. You can also choose to demolish all level 1 churches, I do it but end up building them again later.

There are few barracks you can demolish if you want since you don’t need 5 provinces dedicated to military production. However, I ended up keep all of them at the start for faster anti-revolt recruiting.

There is nothing wrong with disbanding 4-6 spear or sword infantry if you can quickly rebuild them when needed and feel secure enough to do so. Their upkeep is 50% of the recruitment cost and if you suspect your army will be out of action more than 3-4 turns you can downsize your defense to a “half stack”. At the beginning of the game I disband almost all infantry outside of Greece. Since you won’t be attacked there in the first few turns and you can train infantry to handle revolts on the spot.

In the early game focus on developing the provinces that earn you the most money and you think are the most secure.

Looting your unfortunate subjects, sure they will revolt but you will be rich. Raise taxes to max for the first 2 turns. You can keep it longer but then you need to spread around your generals so that you can kill revolts in their infancy. If you do decide to trade growth for money there is nothing wrong with losing territory bordering your rivals and then subjugating the rebels instead of recapturing, provided they are reliable enough. They tend to help you kill of rebels and give 200-300 gold income. I would say territories in Libya or bordering Armenia are good candidates for this.

Keep in mind that you want to plan your cities after a normal tax rate so lower it now and then to see how your public order is doing. Once war breaks out you won’t be able to have your generals scattered taking care of revolts, unless of course, you don’t mind losing some territory to rebels.

How long you decide to loot your populace is up to you and what you think your generals can handle.

Your primary goal in the early game is to stabilize your empire, bank money and increase your income. The best way to secure your borders is through good diplomacy, you should be ready to pay a little if necessary. Your main conquest goal will be to subjugate the SE so that all their clients become your clients. And with this goal in mind having a cold war, meaning a defensive war against another kingdom is both costly and policy as it takes resources away from your primary goal. A border secured through diplomacy is over time far cheaper than a border secured through arms.

Huns and the Nomadic Tribes
The most important diplomatic action as the ERE is to make peace with the Huns as quick as possible. It is relatively cheap to do in the first 1-3 turns (7000 or so), and they will love you for it provided they don’t have a specific trait against you specifically.

The Huns are a force to be reckoned with and you can direct this force on your rivals: Germanic Tribes (Ostrogoths) and Western Rome Empire. But even if you don’t value them attacking someone else other than you just think of it in monetary terms. Keeping 1-2 stacks and a fleet on the ready to defend Greece is expensive, the military upkeep will match the tribute you paid in only a few turns. To maximize the value of this unholy alliance you need a spy to spot approaching nomads and 1 or 2 half stacks that you can turn into full stacks (depending on how threatened you feel).

During my Sassanid campaign, I was feeling so secure that I only had 1 general with 4-6 units in his stack to defend all of Greece. This might however have attracted the Vandals coming by ship from Italy, which I wasn’t ready for. We weren’t at war but I decided to bribe them for a none aggression pact, to buy myself time or make them direct their attention somewhere else (6.000)

Your primary focus early game is to find as good a wife as you can and to secure your frontiers with nations that are preferably predictable. (Remember divorce and Assassination can be an option if you have another partner waiting in the wings.)

Paying 2.000 – 3.000 for trade is decent provided you aren’t preparing for an invasion anytime soon. Usually trade lands around 200 for small states, which is a ROI between 6 to 10% which is better than the 5% you get from only banking the money. But more importantly it establishes good relations with them.

Felt like I had to share as my most recent campaign with ERE has set a new standard.

With the sheer variety in ERAs recruitment pool they were always my first choice when starting a new campaign. Yet, these always ended in a massive grind fending away hordes. There are well over 10 different hordes to deal with until you get to mid game when they start to move west and fade out. I'd say on Hard or legendary its near impossible to defend your whole empire and keep economy on the rise eventually petering out your entire forces and ruining the empire.

I can't take full credit for this as a chap had uploaded a video giving a great insight, but I did make minor changes which help in the long run. As The key to winning with ERA is consolidating your forces, it will likely be seen as a controversial method, but if you play it out I know it will yield dividends.

Initial turns and set up

First task is to venture into your diplomacy - you have a young faction leader and getting a wife will increase your families dominion. Fortunately our western roman friends have a daughter they are happy to give away, normally you can trade of trade rights for her hand in marriage, literally paying you to have a wife. So get this done or simply seek if for some reason its different in your campaign. Then try to open up any non aggression pacts or ideally trade routes with factions.

Second task is to readdress your armies and borders. - You're only going to defend two regions and a city - Aegeptus, Libya and of course, Constantinople. Egypt will become the highest earning region in Europe later in the game, so it's a primary task to defend and build the region up. Libya is defended by the western empire so in reality only one stack of 15 is required to defend the new empire. This is the bottleneck in Egypt from the desert tribes located in the East. I would personally recommend disbanding all armies apart from the one in Egypt and Constantinople but if you want to save on money you can bring the armies in from the rest of the empire and merge. The rest of the regions in the old empire are dead zones, the key to utilising these are to ensure there are no buildings which require upkeep or food. Once these have all been addressed you want to leave them to revolt and create their own nations. Be sure to put your tax to the hightest setting to increase unhappiness and income.

Third Task is to plan out the three regions you have left, this is open to choice, but I have provided recommendations, Egypt - all ecomonomy and happiness, you might want to keep a few building slots for military but this essentially takes away the potential income from Egypt. An alternative is to have firstly Libya and eventually Palestinaine as your military regions. Once your roads start to build up in Egypt moving your new armies across the small empire is not a struggle. These two regions act as staging points for campaigns into to the East and West. Its also advised getting your priests up in these regions to keep them happy.

Fourth task is to secure Constantinople. It's up to you if you leave your emperor here or recruit him in Egypt but you will require a stack to defend the city. Buildings are quite key here as with the wrong ones your capital city is set for doom. You want to build it for survival not economy, just like in history, so build up the sanitation, a fishing port, a theatre or something of the sort, and two military buildings, Archers and mounted or foot soldiers, This depends on how confident you are at rallying out, personally I would recommend mounted troops as there are going to be numerous hordes which will be passing through the plains outside your city walls. Cavalry are an essential when dealing with the hordes due to their numerous numbers, these battles give easy exp for your general and slaves for money. However, defending and staying within the walls will be just as prudent. Essentially this City is eventually going to act as another staging point but we do not need to campaign from it until we have recaptured Asia Minor at around Mid Game. You are welcome to do recapture Thrace and Greece early but Attila will first arrive here and if the regions are in your control their only option is to attack you. Of course, you can pay them off for a non aggression pact, but it is best to get this done early game before the big man arrives and there is always a chance they could turn on you anyway but this is up to the player. It is recommended to take your Constantinople army and subjugate the surrounding towns and cities creating much needed allies for when the mass hordes come, but it's not crucial.

Fifth task, save your money. The ERE have a nifty trait called interest or something like that, but it essentially gives you back 5% of your total treasury at the end of each turn. If you have a treasury of $100,000 you are going to be receiving $5,000 to put towards your armies each turn. Admittedly I get click happy and just start building up my economy straight away, however I have seen it be done and the patience does pay off eventually. So it is recommended to save, save, save until you are over the $100,000 threshold then just spend the excess when you get to it ensuring a free income of $5,000 each turn, the money is easy to generate as your old empire will do most of the earning for you even without the income buildings. However, as I mentioned I opted to start building straight away and did not jeopardise my grand campaign merely slowed it down, so its up to you. As mentioned above the money from faction trade will actually pay out more in the long run but it does generally require an investment from yourself to initially obtain.

With this starting plan you are put in a great starting position and it really comes down to where you want to take next, however I have recommended taking the puppet states to the south in Aetheopia then moving in Palestine to create a staging point. Generally the WRA will keep the Western desert tribes busy giving you the ability to move into Saudi Arabia. However be wary, I left Libya completely undefended for around 10-20 turns while I was pacifying the Eastern Desert Tribes. Some key defences held the Garmantians off until I could get my Emperor over to quell the attack however a better route to take would be simply break your alliance with WRA and rely on our own force to defend this region one you have established a economy. Breaking your allegiances with WRA also offers up new relationships with the Gaulic tribes along with massive income on trade, I am currently receiving £8,000 per turn from my trade in the west.

I am now moving into year 405, I have taken Saudi Arabia and I'm now moving in to take the Asian regions back to eventually link my new empire back up with Constantinople. The only issue are the Huns who have pretty much demolished anything East of Syria. However this isn't necessarily a bad thing, just means there are no enemies there. They have left a stack in Saudi Arabia which is keeping me on edge and keeping a full army out of the action so I will likely declare war on them and take the stack out before continuing on with my reclamation campaign lest they rip me up from the insides.

1 &ndash Leadership

There was nothing remarkable about the emperors of the Eastern Empire during the fourth, fifth and early sixth centuries, but they were competent at least and also benefited from continuity of sorts. After the death of Theodosius I, who ruled the entire empire, in 395, the West had at least 14 emperors up to the point of Romulus Augustus&rsquo deposition. In contrast, there were only seven in the East. Critically, at least eight Western emperors were murdered while the same fate befell only the usurper Basiliscus in the East.

The main reason for this stability in the East was a clear pattern of succession. In the West, emperors were beholden to the military. Indeed, every emperor after Valentinian III&rsquos murder in 455 was installed by the army and all but Olybrius were deposed. Ricimer and Gundovald, the so-called Masters of Soldiers (magistri militum), killed at least five of these pretend emperors in a 17-year spell. While the West allowed generals to decide the administration of the empire, it was civil officials who ruled the roost in the East and these individuals were clearly more qualified to rule a kingdom.

Theodosius II was the Eastern Emperor for over 42 years, and while he is classified as ‘lazy&rsquo by many historians, he did manage to place some distance between his empire and the crumbling ruins of the West. The Eastern emperors successfully handled military threats to their crown. Leo I ‘the Thracian&rsquo for example, killed the general Aspar in 471 after the German tried to take control of the empire. Zeno was briefly dethroned by Basiliscus in January 475 but regained his empire within 19 months and murdered the usurper, along with his wife and son.

The Eastern Roman Emperors were typically men of action. Even if their decisions were not always the right ones, at least they were able to see the threat and act upon it. Western Emperors such as Honorius were completely ineffectual. Rather than take on Alaric, he decided upon the ‘strategy&rsquo of doing nothing. A. Ferrill says that Honorius doesn&rsquot deserve the criticism he gets and claims the emperor&rsquos passivity would have worked had someone not opened the gates of Rome to the Visigoths in 410. In reality, the threats the West faced in the fifth century meant they needed a brilliant leader but Majorian aside, no competent ruler ever sat on the throne. Better leadership against the imminent danger also had an impact on the respective wealth of East and West.

The Reign Of The Byzantine Empire

than previous Roman emperors because the Byzantine emperors inherited imperial law, which were only provincial forms of Roman law that survived in the west. Also, the emperors were able to transition smoothly into the role of all powerful Christian monarchs. 2) The Byzantine Empire post 600 CE can be categorized as a "beleaguered" empire because they only had a single ruler who endowed with supreme legal and religious authority was able to prevent the breakup of the Eastern Empire. Also, the loss

What role did the Eastern Roman Empire play in the fall of the Western Roman Empire? - History

Barbarian Invasions and the Fall of the Western Roman Empire

Many people ask why the Roman Empire ended, according to the historian, Gibbon, the question should be how did it last.

"The decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness. The story of its ruin (downfall) is simple and obvious and instead of inquiring why the Roman empire was destroyed, we should rather be surprised that it had subsisted so long." -Gibbon, History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

The fall of Rome is an example of the domino effect. The domino effect comes from the idea of placing dominoes on their sides, one next to another, and then intentionally knocking the first one in the line over into its neighboring domino. This creates a chain reaction and all of the dominoes fall down, one after another. For the fall of Rome, it was the Huns invading from the east that caused the domino effect, they invaded (pushed into) the Goths, who then invaded (pushed into) the Roman Empire.

The fall of the Western Roman Empire is a great lesson in cause and effect. A cause leads to an effect.

In the following examples of cause and effect, you can say the word "because" before you read the cause, and then finish the sentence with the effect. Like this: Because Roman legions evacuated Britannia in AD 406, the Anglo-Saxons moved into Britannia. You could also say the word "so" in between the cause and effect, like this: The Huns pushed other groups westward, so the Vandals invaded Spain, north Africa, and sacked Rome.

The Anglo-Saxons move into Britannia (Effect)

Aleric and the Visigoths sack Rome, AD 410 (Effect)

Vandals invade Spain, north Africa, and sack Rome in AD 455 (Effect)

Here is a brief list of Internal Causes for the Fall of Rome (causes from within the Roman Empire):

  • Christianity was less tolerant of other cultures and religions. Example: Emperor Theodosius ended the Olympic Games because they honored Zeus.
  • The split of the empire into two parts weakened the empire.
  • Roman soldiers were loyal to their military leaders, not necessarily the emperor
  • A failing economy
  • High taxes
  • Romans became lazy and comfortable
  • Romans hired barbarianmercenaries to guard the borders

The fall of the city of Rome and the Western Empire did not put an end to the entire Roman Empire. The Eastern Empire survived for another thousand years. The Eastern Empire is sometimes called the Byzantine Empire, after the capital city of Byzantium. Greek was the main language in the Byzantine Empire, not Latin.

Watch this video clip of singer/songwriter and artist Jeffery Lewis as he performs "The Fall of Rome."

Disclaimer: It is not the intention of the Penfield School District to promote specific commercial interests. These links are provided as a courtesy to our users to assist in downloading information and does not represent an endorsement of a particular company or product. By clicking on these links the user is leaving the Penfield School District website, the district is not responsible for any information associated with these links.

large view
Visigoth Political Cartoon

large view
Eastern and Western Roman Empires

History [ edit | edit source ]

The Eastern Roman Empire was the eastern part of the Roman Empire after the one united Roman Empire became too bloated to be ruled by one Emperor, and was divided into an Eastern and Western half. The East based its capital in the city of Constantinople, not Rome. Unlike the Western Roman Empire, its people spoke Greek, not Latin and had a largely Greek culture and identity. The Eastern Roman Empire also encompassed the extremely wealthy provinces, including most of the Aegean sea, Anatolia, Egypt, and part of North Africa. Though extremely rich, the Eastern Empire was plagued by internal instability and foreign invasions.

The Western Roman Empire, less urbanized and less densely populated, experienced an economic decline throughout the late empire. The East was not so destitute, as Emperors like Constantine the Great and Constantius II had invested heavily in the eastern economy.

The Byzantine Empire was the continuation of the Eastern Roman Empire during the Middle Ages, though they never stopped seeing themselves as Roman.

Compare and Contrast the Eastern and Western Halves of the Roman Empire

The ways of the historical development of Eastern and Western empires, after they finally split in 395, were significantly different. While both were ruled by brothers and sons of Theodosius, and in legal theory the idea of a unified empire only controlled by two emperors was preserved, in fact, and politically they were two independent states with their capitals (Ravenna and Constantinople), their imperial courts, with different challenges faced by the governments and, finally, with different socio-economic bases.

In the Eastern Roman Empire, the processes of feudalization retained the features of greater continuity of old social structures, were slower, and maintained a strong central authority of the emperor in Constantinople. Different was the way to the feudal socio-economic system in the West. Its main feature was the weakening of central authority of the Roman Emperor and its destruction as a political superstructure of the slave society, preserving slave orders. Another feature is the gradual formation of independent political entities on the territory of the Empire – the barbarian kingdoms (Cameron, 2011).

The main difference of the Byzantine Empire from the Western Roman Empire was the dominance of Greek culture on its territory. Even its official language was Greek, not Latin. In a sense, it can be viewed almost as a continuation of the Greek empire of Alexander the Macedonian. Also a profound ideological revolution was made in the Eastern Empire: Christianity, which was subjected to persecution in Rome, was declared the state religion during the reign of Constantine. Thus, Constantinople became the capital of the Christian empire. Eastern Roman Empire had few ties with Western Europe, although for a long time it did not recognize the right of Western countries to independence (Cameron, 2011).

Eastern Empire, which later became known as the Byzantine Empire, turned in a feudal state, which could last for a thousand years more until the middle of the 15th century (1453). Quite different was the historical destiny of the Western Roman Empire. The collapse of the slave system within its boundaries proceeded especially stormy, was accompanied by bloody wars, coups, popular uprisings, completely undermining the former might of one of the largest states in the ancient world. It could not defend itself against “barbarians”. Goths, one of the Germanic tribes, came and plundered Rome, and then came the Vandals and Huns.

One of the reasons for their easy success was probably the fact that the Roman peasantry was suffering badly under the authority of the empire, it was levied with taxes so seriously, and the debts were so great that the peasants were ready to welcome any change. The Eastern Empire not only survived these attacks, but persisted for centuries, despite the constant struggle that it had to wage against the Arabs, and later against the Turks (Cameron, 2011).

Cameron, A. (2011). The Mediterranean World in Late Antiquity: AD 395-700. Routledge.

Diversity of Population

Rome's central location attracted immigrants and traders from all parts of the ancient Mediterranean world. According to The Flow of History, the diversity of the early Roman state helped it expand its influence. The Romans were unusually adaptable and willing to change their strategy when compared to the rest of the ancient world. That flexibility enabled the Romans to overcome new challenges as the centuries passed. It also made the Roman empire more accepting of outsiders, which encouraged foreign powers to cooperate with rather than oppose Roman forces.

Watch the video: Called to Communion with Dr. David Anders - September 28, 2021 (July 2022).


  1. Kenos

    the answer With assured gain)

  2. Chibale

    Wonderful, very funny answer

  3. Gardaran

    Willingly I accept. The theme is interesting, I will take part in discussion. I know, that together we can come to a right answer.

  4. Mikinos

    the sentence Magnificent

  5. Vozragore

    I think this is the excellent thought

  6. Shinzaburo

    I think you are making a mistake. I can defend my position. Email me at PM, we will talk.

Write a message