AND YOU COULD HAVE IT ALL

I have a hard time buying this. Source?

It's believable, by the latter years they had lost almost all ability to tax their citizens outside of Italy though a source would be nice.

Patrick Geary, Before France and Germany, p. 29:
>‘It has been estimated that by the middle of the fifth century, the total annual revenues of the eastern half of the Empire, were around 270,000 gold pounds, of which 45,000 pounds were for the military. At the same time, in the West the entire annual budget was approximately 20,000 gold pounds—an almost insignificant figure when one considers that a single wealthy Italian senator could easily have an annual income of 12,500 pounds.’

What the fuck? How did this happen? Did they run out of tax collectors?

Well, sort of. Western Rome rule was retarded and they made tax exemptions for the aristocracy (literally had to pay no taxes), which they only abandoned in 444 AD (and even then it was only a 4% sales tax). That and they lost most authority over their territories as well.

Major population decline, rampant corruption, barbarian tribes that settled inside the empire's borders who didn't like paying taxes

By the middle of the fifth century most of the western empire was already outside of government control. Sorry for the weird glitches on the map text but this shows what was going on more or less. Western Empire at this point was literally Italy, south coast of France, southeast coast of Spain, the mediterranean islands, and a bunch of germanics who responded to "imperial" "commands" with a "pssh vatever you say kid"

>DUUUUUUUUH MULTICULTURALISM XDDD

it did actually play a part in this case

Not to mention Western Rome lost one of its richest provinces - North Africa - to the Vandals by mid 400s, grain supplies were fucked and Aetius was being a memester and focused on fucking around in Gaul and Illyricum mainly rather than retaking N.Africa (although can't really blame him much). Not to mention Vandals basically asserted dominance in the sea and began pirate raids, fucking up Western Rome's trade.

You're an Anglo aren't you

Why didn't they focus on keeping at least the peninsula safe? Why bother recovering distant parts of your empire when the core is in danger?

TRICKLE DOWN

le Trump face

fuck off reddit cucks, those roman peasants should of just got a stem degree

Because the areas lost like Gual, North Africa and the coasts of Hispania were in the hands of tribes that could assert their authority over territory wealthy enough to form realms that could easily threaten Rome. So they might as well try and bring it back into imperial hands and put this resources to romes use. Then you got places like interior hispania ,illyrium , and parts of Germania which are points from which barbarians to attack Rome.

Think of it like this. Rome expanded into those far off territories to help protect the core of their territory and bring wealth to the republic. This is in part why they ended up with an empire.

Turns out when you have to pay a horde of foreign barbarians to guard your borders they won't feel as loyal once the cash runs out. The same foreigners that were supposed to guard Rome ended up sacking Rome in the end. Unironic nationalism could've saved the empire.

But that is true in the last stages of the empire, Hispania had the biggest gold and iron mines of the empire and some of the best emperor came from that place so i dont believe it was really a relatively 3rd world shithole

>‘On Mediterranean sites like Luna, the extraordinary and abundant range of tablewares available in Roman times became very rare in the fifth and sixth centuries, and eventually disappeared altogether; and kitchenwares, which were pretty much all that remained, became more or less restricted to a single bulbous design of pot.’
>‘This was a society with similarities to our own—moving goods on a gigantic scale, manufacturing high-quality containers to do so, and occasionally... discarding them on delivery. Like us, the Romans enjoy the dubious distinction of creating a mountain of good-quality rubbish.’
>‘Fine tablewares and imported amphorae for the storage and transport of liquids were discovered not just on the coast and in towns and rich villas, but also on inland sites and humble farmsteads.’
>‘The economy that sustained and supplied a massive middle and lower market for low-value functional goods had disappeared, leaving sophisticated production and exchange only for a tiny number of high-status objects.’
>‘In the third century, rural Italian peasants could both afford and acquire ARS; in the seventh they could not. On the supply side, the absolute quantities of ARS in circulation were almost certainly declining, political disaggregation had ended or restricted the underpinning of distribution networks by the state, and the integration of the regional market economy which permitted the circulation inland of imported goods had in places been undermined by protracted periods of warfare, most obviously in Italy. On the demand side, it is likely that the needs of the state were greatly reduced, and that many private consumers were increasingly impoverished, in some regions to such an extent that even regional economic systems were undermined, and exchange contracted to a rudimentary level....’

They did try, pretty hard. The thing is, every fuckup that lost them territory reduced the resources of wealth, supplies, and manpower on which they could draw to try to prevent further fuckups or redress fuckups past, while also making it more likely that people would think "wow, what a bunch of fuckups" and try and carve out little independent realms of their own.

This is distinct, though related, phenomenon from the fall of the western empire though. Justinian's wars devastating the motherfuck out of Italy and Arab conquest screwing up all the mediterranean trade combined with general shabbiness of the western european successor states to drive the western Roman territories into economic decline. This all wouldn't have taken place if the western empire had still been humming along, for sure, but it took place over the century or two after the empire finally collapsed and isn't an argument as to whether the Western Roman Empire was "third world hellhole" from the get-go.

Oh I didn't really try and imply that it was a third-world hellhole from the get-go. Guess we got off on the wrong foot, I wanted to show more before it fell it was in a fiscally horrible state (hence why I mentioned when it came to income and compared it to ERE) and the life of Romans kept deteriorating over-time there

Most of the WRE's territory was poor except for the parts directly bordering the Med. So Italy, southern France, eastern Spain, Tunisia, and some islands.

what the fuck were they thinking splitting it in West/East

should have been North with Iberia to Greece and South with Anatolia to Gibraltar

The split was based on the imperial courts ability to react swiftly to any crisis such as Germanic border crossers(west) or Persian invasions (east)

upboated post for interdasting

Let the bodies hit the floor, let the bodies hit the floor, let the bodies hit the floor, let the bodies hit the.....
FFFFLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But why was the west so poor when France and Britain went on to be not just viable, but wealthy and powerful countries? Like by the middle ages France was one of the premier European powers, so why was Gaul so useless?

England was a shit hole until the 1700s.

>England
>Ever not a shithole

That still leaves France, even if you think England was bad, which I'd disagree with.

>a country is different than it was 1000 years ago
whoah

Well east was suppoused to be poorer because of constant Sassanid invasions, that didn’t go that well did it
Also Theodosius dying so early on meant his sons were ruled by barbarians and eunuchs

It was all because they lacked the strength and bravery to challenge the Hibernian warrior and his bountiful potato/gold supplies.

that would've been cool actually

>All that land was completely worthless aside from Italy

Actually the province of Africa was incredibly wealthy, and was still incredibly rich and urbanised up until the Arab invasion. From what i've read the true nail in the coffin of the Empire in the west was the loss of Carthage's taxes and grain to the Vandal kingdom.

the Third Century Crisis pretty much destroyed Rome, it was far too dependent on reliable trade with the provinces to survive the collapse of the internal peace enforced by a stable empire

>tfw no alternate timeline where the romans never left england and england remains as the direct continuation of the roman empire

It was the largest city in the world well into the fifth century. It went through third century relatively unharmed.

>it's a potential savior of the Empire gets betrayed by Germanic underlings episode

Originally, the East was supposed to be more precarious, since it directly bordered the Persian Empire, while the West was shielded from this by Byzantium.
In reality, Persia:
>was stable (ironically protecting Europe from steppe hoardes e.g. Hepthalites)
>was interested in peace
>had a central authority that could be reasoned with
>was not interested in settling hundreds of thousands of people in Byzantine territory
West Rome was stuck with a bunch of disorderly shit-flinging monkeys that wanted to move in, they had to deal with them on a tribe by tribe basis and the Germans like war.

This didn't really happen.
In reality, the West Roman tax collectors were basically gangsters, the rich paid protection money to the collectors to fuck off and leave them and their serfs alone. Instead, they went after the poor who couldn't defend themselves.
I find it kind of funny that someone living Ostrogothic Italy or Vandal Africa was probably better off than the average Roman in the last century of the Empire's life.

> that someone living Ostrogothic Italy or Vandal Africa was probably better off than the average Roman in the last century of the Empire's life.
>Vandal Africa
>better off
The fucking Aristocracy were enslaved and Nicean Christians were persecuted, how the fuck is that "better off" than, say, under barbarian rule in Gaul who tried to adopt a roman system of law?
>‘[In those houses that they did not burn] they smashed the roofs in pieces and levelled the beautiful walls to the ground, so that the former beauty of the towns cannot be deduced from what they look like now. And there are very many cities with few or no inhabitants, for after these events the ones which survive lie desolate; for example, here at Carthage they utterly destroyed the odeon, the theatre, the temple of Memoria and what people used to call the Via Caelestis.’
>‘After these wild and frenzied acts of wickedness Gaiseric gained and entered Carthage, that great city, and reduced to slavery its old class of free men, freeborn and noble; for his captives included not a few of the senators of the city….’
>‘Concerning the rest of the Libyans, he robbed them of their estates, which were both very numerous and excellent, and distributed them among the nation of the Vandals. As a result, these lands have been called “Vandal estates” even up to the present time. And it fell to the lot of those who had formerly possessed these lands to dwell in extreme poverty…. But as much of the land that he did not deem worthy he allowed to remain in the hands of former owners, but assessed so large a sum to be paid in government taxes that nothing whatsoever remained to those who were able to retain their farms.’

Bumping this thread for interest

lmao africa and mauritania was the breadbasket, as well as industrial capitol of the West. Even more so after the crisis in the 3rd century

>Liteterally richer and more developed than eastern shitholes today

How did they make it?

Unironically Islam

>Persians
>Turds
>Mongols
>Turds again

The Western army was essentially feudal by this stage. Foederati were given land and money in exchange for service, and had their own officers and generals. Letting the rich away with not being taxed and the poor away with not being conscripted was a terrible idea.

Spitting it was a good idea, but the borders they chose were not. It would have been a much better idea to split it into three parts. A Gallic Empire controlling Gaul, Spain, and Britain, a central Roman Empire controlling Italy, Africa, Egypt, Rhaetia, Noricum, Pannonia, Dalmatia, Greece, and Thrace, and an Oriental Empire controlling Anatolia and the Levant.

Don't mind me, just the last Roman Emperor coming through

>The fucking Aristocracy were enslaved and Nicean Christians were persecuted, how the fuck is that "better off" than, say, under barbarian rule in Gaul who tried to adopt a roman system of law?

And yet the cities survived in Vandalic Africa, and most retrenched in Gaul.

>taking a whining Catholic at face value

Those fuckers like to exaggerate everything. I take you've read Salvian's De Gubernatione Dei?

>And yet the cities survived in Vandalic Africa
But the point was:
>someone living in Vandal Africa was better off
not
>At least the cities survived
I doubt being enslaved was a "much better" case than simply being dependant on a barbarian rather than a Roman in Gaul, which was what my statement was trying to imply.

potatoes are a new world veg mate