Was it a mistake to split the Roman Empire in half?

No, Rome only became wealthy by pillaging Carthage, Greece, and Asia.

This, really up until Columbus' discovery of the America's. World trade was centered in the ERE and Sassanid empires. The shift from overland routes to sea trade was the cause of collapse for the Ottomans.

But yes, the WRE was far disconnected from the trade routes. Suffered from an overabundance of ambitious generals who rather fight civil wars over the purple than actually defending the borders (Britain held 2% of the Empires population yet 12% of the troops). The Western Empire from a business perspective was simply financially insolvent and the East was better off cutting her losses than trying to save a sinking ship

Yes. It led to millions of deaths.

This gets repeated so often, but that's not what happened at all. The Roman Mediterranean wasn't one half paying for the other, it was a system of consolidating and redistributing the goods and wealth of Roman landowners from a central point. It wasn't that the WRE was poor, but that it suffered the brunt of the early Barbarian migrations and civil wars which meant the Roman elite had to rely on lands elsewhere, namely the ERE. This was exacerbated by the rise of Constantinople which diverted the annona shipping lines to the Eastern Mediterranean, not because of the natural demands of more vibrant trade in the east but simply because Constantinople was now the destination most Roman ships had to sail toward as many times a year as possible.

Also, the Ottomans depended heavily on sea trade, and overland trade in Asia was steadily increasing at the same time. It's the fact that European powers began to grow cash crops in their colonies and ship them and any finished goods made from them in bulk that harmed their economy.

Spain has a lot of mineral wealth and North Africa was an important wheat producer. Britain was worthless except for wool though.

>Britain held 2% of the Empires population yet 12% of the troops

That didn't actually matter, really. Those troops would get paid no matter where they went, and would revolt to get paid if they had to. They were in Britain not because population mattered to Roman income, but because of who owned much of the land in Britain - senators, those in the army, other rich Romans, etc.

die hero; live villain yadda yadda

They stretched themselves too thin, if they didn't split up they would've even survived another century.

Wrong Again

> The Roman Mediterranean wasn't one half paying for the other

Yet it quite literally became that way, the crisis of the 3rd century saw the economic collapse of the west (rival claimants to the purple, independent "empires", barbarians taking advantage of the chaos), the problem didn't become clear until Diocletian split the empire into separate administrative regions and it was obvious that the west needed cash from the East to keep her problems in check

> It wasn't that the WRE was poor, but that it suffered the brunt of the early Barbarian migrations and civil wars

Wrong again, the civil wars (caused by a political system that demanded wars to gain legitimacy) led to the creation of more or less self sufficient estates that in itself created the system of feudalism that continued on into the middle ages, these estates where either entirely tax free (rich senators vote themselves privileges) or completely hostile to imperial tax collectors. By the 4th century the West could not generate sufficient revenue to properly defend itself

>This was exacerbated by the rise of Constantinople which diverted the annona shipping lines to the Eastern Mediterranean, not because of the natural demands of more vibrant trade in the east

Italy herself remained an economic powerhouse, it was the issues in Gaul, Germania and Britannia that sucked the wind out of the larger western empire. During the 3rd century crisis maintaining the gain supply in Africa was much more vital that a German swamp that was being raided by naked tree worshiping cannibals

>Also, the Ottomans depended heavily on sea trade, and overland trade in Asia was steadily increasing at the same time. It's the fact that European powers began to grow cash crops in their colonies and ship them and any finished goods made from them in bulk that harmed their economy.

>North africa
>not breadbasket of rome

Britain was a financial sinkhole for the empire, the only reason so many troops where there was because putting potentially rebellious generals and legions on an island is a safe way to deal with them. The most successful rebellion in Britain happened when the naval commander, not the army, decided he wanted to be his own emperor

Egypt was completely worth the effort for the grain. Iberia had gold and other resources (also some good soldiers).

Other than that, I more or less agree. I'd also extend that to Anatolia.

did they really have a choice in splitting the empires? it seemed inevitable due to the internal and political instability and the physical size of the empire. so it wasn't a mistake and nor was it the right thing to do, it just kind of happened because of forces out of our control

Yes and no.

Yes because it caused lots of civil wars

No because it was absolutely necessary due to how big Rome was

It was really just done to late and with the shittiest people. Imagine if Hadrian and Trajan tried it, would have been perfect

most of their food supply came form North Africa

to the point where when the Vandals conquered it they started starving. Also why Justinian had to go from the bottom up when conquering rome

it degenerated into shit because people don't work for a degnerated money supply, ideologically it falls apart, every time

youtube.com/playlist?list=PLE88E9ICdipidHkTehs1VbFzgwrq1jkUJ