Eastern roman empire: Survives against the powerful persian empire

>Eastern roman empire: Survives against the powerful persian empire.
>Western roman empire: Is defeated by a bunch of half- naked barbarians.

What went wrong?

Bad leaders.. East had better borders. More money and resources. Etc etc

>half naked barbarians
the Germanic peoples who sacked Rome were professional armies
usually with commanders trained by Romans
Rome didn't have true armies anymore, and the mercenary armies turned on Rome several times
they had good steel and armor

>>Western roman empire: Is defeated by a bunch of half- naked barbarians.

That's so 1 AD of you. In the meantime Germanics made astonishing progress.

The irony is that when archaeologists find something from late 4th and 5th century, it's only a guesswork whether it belonged to a Roman or a German.

WE

Financial insolvency: The cost of maintaining the West out stripped its capability to finance itself. By the 4th century, mich of the "west" has devolved into manorialism that was worked by colonia who were tax exempt, these estates where largely owned by the rich senatorial class who were themselves tax exempt. Serfdom started in the Roman empire, not the middle ages

Political unrest: The West was more or less at a cold war with the Eastern Empire. As far as the East was concerned, the situation in the West was something they felt needed to be managed from afar than to directly intervene

If looked at from a true historical perspective and "muh immigrants, muh degeneracy" is tossed out. The people people who sacked from under Alaric was the Roman army. After the assassination of Stilicho, the Emperor tried to purge the Empire of any troops loyal to Stilcho and thier families. With no family to return to and owed backpay, most of these troops simply defected over to Alaric who was a former Roman general himself. Unlike the nonsense barely armed ragged bunch of barbarians they show on the history channel. The army of Alaric probably looked alot like the Roman army but probably without the colors and banners of the empire. Compare say a private contractor in Iraq to a U.S army soldier in terms of looks and gear used

WUZ MERCENARIES N SHIET

>Eastern roman empire: chopped in half by nomadic merchants from the south over the course of 6 years

The worst part is that Alaric's rebellion could've been avoided entirely. All he wanted was to he recognized by Rome and to be given lands for his people, even offering to act as a buffer zone for the empire against the huns.

Honorius fucked it up of course.

And in-fighting and politics led to the sacking by the Vandals.

Immigration didn't fuck Rome over. They fucked themselves over.

>Eastern Roman Empire: Massive cash available, trade routes including the silk road, Egyptian grain supplies, strategic location of Constantinople, access to cities and lands such as Greece, Egypt, Palestine, and Asia minor that had been developed for thousands of years, being hubs of amazing trade and wealth which enabled them to placate/hire barbarians at will
>Western Roman Empire: uhhh, farms and stuff? This depopulated metropolis called Rome filled with some marble and arenas that people set up houses in and that isn't even our capital anymore. Fertile farming land right next to migrating barbarians, such as the Suebi, Goths, Vandals, Franks, Angles, Saxons, Picts, etc. Fuckall trading contacts, fuckall cities, most settlements barely a few hundred years old and populated by ethnic groups not at all loyal or relate-able to the Roman Empire. Dirt poor, not a lot of people because of no more grain shipments from Egypt, no ultra-rich silk road or cool trade routes to make money. Not enough people to support my huge useless territory being invaded from all sides, hire barbarians, can't pay barbarians or barbarians take advantage over my weaknesses, empire gets destroyed by barbarians trained by my own empire as mercenaries.
Dumb question, dumb thread

In historical context, nothing Alaric did was new. In fact much of the 3rd century was full of characters like Alaric declaring war on Rome on behalf of his troops. The difference being the terms of payment and Alaric's end game. Most generals who fought Rome did so in order to become the Emperor themselves and thus pay his troops the donatives promised to them, Alaric couldn't do this because of his ethnic origin and could really only fight for the payment promised to him and his men. Rome simply didn't know if they should handle him as a rogue General or a barbarian warlord because they never ran into this situation themselves where a general would march on Rome and only demand payment and nothing more

>powerful persian empire

Any sources or is that just asspulling?
Keep in mind the migration of the Tribes coincided with the fall of the empire, not everyone was a foederati or a merc.
Most Germanic were "mercenaries" only in the sense that they wouldn't attack Rome in return for tribute and lebensraum.
The collapse also correlates with apathy, intellectually, artistically (see the coins and arches), sexually (cult of the phallus), and militarily (no more hard nosed archetypal Roman citizens fighting for senate and people, just mercenaries who cared about gold)

Most of the Roman army by the late 3rd century were of germanic origin. The crisis of the third century led to a recruitment crisis as a new soldier simply didn't know if he his commander was going to make a run at the throne or if he was going to be purged by a sitting Emperor who doubted his commanders loyalty. Public service at that point was seen by most Roman citizens as a punishment rather than a privilege. The only people who could left who had any stake in the military where those of Germanic origin seeking citizenship and settlement lands upon retirement (assuming they lived all 20 plus years of a single "enlistment")

Was there a reason people just kept attacking the WRE?

If a dam is left unmaintained because the government can't or won't pay for upkeep, when it breaks and floods the valley do you blame the water?

Literally every failing of the Roman Empire can traced back to the filthy rich of Rome crying "muh property rights".

>defeated by a bunch of-

This is a popular misconception. If you can show me a battle where the Western Roman army was trashed on the battlefield by a bunch of bumfuck barbarians then i'll eat my hat. The WRE destroyed itself, not the barbarians. While barbarians were roaming Gaul and Spain in 410 the emperor was sending his armies against a usurper.

>Most of the Roman army by the late 3rd century were of germanic origin.
The notitia dignitatum would disagree.

>Was there a reason people just kept attacking the WRE?
Border more porous than a sponge and the ERE literally paying everyone to attack the WRE rather than them not enough for you? It sure was for the barbs.

>Literally every failing of the Roman Empire
>implying the erosion of the smallholders in mid-republican Italy wasn't a chief reason for the implementation of the marian reforms, who led to military clientelism that ultimately led to the empire
You didn't look deep enough.

This,also Rome itself is not particularly defensible geographically,while Constantinople was easier to defend and supply than Rome, as one's opponent would have to have land and sea superiority.

My opinion is that the people who formed the leadership of the empire stopped fighting its wars themselves and thus the general quality of the soldiery declined dramatically.Finally it got to the point where Attila mocked them for cowering behind their shields.

I can't imagine this would have happened in the glory days of the Republic.

>implying the erosion of the smallholders in mid-republican Italy
Which was caused by the rich crying "muh property rights" every time somebody suggested that the latifunda were bad.

Wasn't the Capital of the WRE Mediolanum for most of the time after they slpit the Empire because it was easier to defend due to their swamps?

The east was richer. It also had to deal with more frontiers. Africa, Scotland, the Rhine, and the upper Danube, along with almost every uprising because they held the capital.

From the reign of Honorius (395-423 AD) the Western capital was in Ravenna. It was in a swampy area chosen purposefully so that it couldn't be easily attacked by land and was the future site of Venice.

Before that, except for a few temporary spells mostly relating to the First Tetrarchy, Rome was the permanent capital.it retained its symbolic importance as the founder of the Roman Empire well after the fall of the West. Thats the reason the bishop of Rome is the Pope.

>more frontiers
Are you drunk?

They have the same "number" of frontiers, with the west concentrating them in a manner that should have bene easier to deal with by all rights, because it was FAR easier ot get troops from one crisis to another. The eats had frontiers in africa, europe, and asia, with existential threats coming from two of those places.

No, it was caused by military campaigns lasting years and years, meaning smallholders weren't able to farm for years on end, going bankrupt and having to sell their land to pay denbts.
Latifunda became a thing due to smallholders disappearing, don't confuse cause with effect.

Greeks make for better and more stable leaders instead of backstabbing Latin scum

Better Version of the picture It's from a 5 set piece called The Course of Emprie

Ok.

>was the future site of Venice
You do realize that Venice and Ravenna are 150km away from each others right?

>the general quality of the soldiery declined dramatically.Finally it got to the point where Attila mocked them for cowering behind their shields.
That's funny considering they tore Attila a new arsehole.

There's lots of reasons, but the half-naked barbarians ran around in the eastern Roman empire too. It's just that the economic engine of the empire was down in Egypt and Syria and North Africa, and the barbarians couldn't get past Constantinople to get to it. Even Atilla the Hun saw the walls and was like "Fuck that" and left.

There's nothing to support the idea that late imperial forces were sub par.

>Finally it got to the point where Attila mocked them for cowering behind their shields.
I, too, would talk shit if my culture ENTIRE METHOD OF WAR relied on shooting people, and those people proceeded to invalidate me by sitting behind shields and waiting for my warriors to go full retard and die in pointless attacks on formed infantry.

Atilla whining doesn't mean shit. He lost. There's also literally no reason for infantry facing horse archers to do anything aside form sit behind shields.

The captial moved with the emperor. Often the emperor would stay on campaign simply because it was safer to be surrounded with trusted troops in the middle of nowhere than to be vulnerable in a static position in a city full of political intrigue

> It got to the point where Attila mocked them for cowering behind their shields

This. Also sort of relevant, but not really- I just thought it was funny:

> "When Alaric heard that the people were trained and ready to fight, he said that the thicker grass was easier to mow than thinner and laughed broadly at the ambassadors, but when they turned to discuss peace he used expressions excessive even for an arrogant barbarian: he declared that he would not give up the siege unless he got all the gold and silver in the city, as well as all movable property and the barbarian slaves. When one of the ambassadors asked what he would leave for the citizens if he took these, he replied: 'Their lives.'"

rekt lmao

>Sassanid Empire
>not powerful

They should have payed him on the condition that he dissolve his army and allow Rome to make sure he didn't try anything again.

Wouldn't have worked. Part of his deal was he wanted to be named a full general of the Roman army and his troops given recognition from Rome as well as land to settle them.

Honorius would never go for it.

What's kind of fucked up is actually how much of a romaboo Alaric was at the same time. He actually had his men call him Alaricus in roman style. And he promised during the sack of Rome that anybody who sought refuge in a church would be safe because they were all men of the faith.

The dude loved Rome more than Honorius and his court sitting in Ravenna.

Horrible fucking leaders weakened the empire. I can't name each individuals as I forgot. Can anyone give me those leaders names please?

eastern roman empire was defeated by the turko-persian empire

eastern roman empire was wrecked so bad by the turks that half its territory was converted into muslim land