Julian II (the Apostate) and his policies

[Theodosius the Great]

So, that's just what Theodosius The Great did after Adrianople. What I wanted to stress is that Adrianople, just as Mursa, Abrittus, ... was not a blow the Roman Empire could not cope with. Like always, losse could be made good.

Andrianople was devastatingly unique for the Empire in three crucial ways :

1.) the loss took place within Roman territory, combined with

2.) the fact that they were fighting barbarians and not Romans, combined with

3.) the migration of the Gothic nation (i.e. Men, Women, and Children) into Roman territory which afterwards made it virtually impossible for the weakened Romans to expel them

So, the Goths' entry and permanent presence within the Empire retarded the Romans' ability to recover their strength to restore the status quo of pre-Adrianople.

In the Roman and Byzantine Empire there was never a long lasting dynasty like you have in the medieval France or England. There were uprisings, usurpers (succesful or not).
Relative peace after the conversion of Constantine? One of his sons was even killed in battle by a brother, Julian took over power, even Theodoius The Great had to deal with a very dangerous uprising and his sons, well yeah, they were pawns in the hands of others.

You misunderstand me. It's all relative. Politically, the Empire was more stable in the 4th century than in the 3rd. The army was loyal to 4th, 5th, and 6th century dynasties. What can one do when civil wars break out between rivals of the same dynasty ? Sure, there were civil wars but the ruling dynasty was seldom challenged by an outsider. The dynasty would always remain in power until it became naturally extinct.

Besides, medieval dynasties of Western Europe were also plagued by civil war. The Visigoths in Spain fought among themselves leaving Spain open to Muslim invasion and conquest. The Franks in the North warred among themselves too. "England" or Britannia was the most chaotic and backward place in all Europe for centuries after Rome abandoned it. Even when they finally pulled themselves up they were plagued with civil wars as well. Pick any "English" dynasty and you'll see that none were free from worry about civil wars breaking out.

These are the major Christian Roman / Byzantine Dynasties :

Constantinian Dynasty : 293 A.D. - 363 A.D. (70 years)
Theodosian Dynasty : 379 A.D. - 455 A.D. (76 years)
Justinianic Dynasty : 518 A.D. - 602 A.D. (84 years)
Heraclian Dynasty : 610 A.D. - 711 A.D. (91 years due to an interlude)
Isaurian Dynasty : 717 A.D. - 802 A.D. (85 years)
Macedonian Dynasty : 867 A.D. - 1056 A.D. (189 years !)
Palaeologan Dynasty : 1261 A.D. - 1453 A.D. (192 years !)

The most sucessful "English" dynasty were the Angevins who lasted for 245 years. They too were fraught with civil wars. Have you seen "Lion in Winter" starring Peter O'Toole ? Now there's a dysfunctional family if I ever saw one. hock:

The French "Direct Capetian" dynasty was the most sucessful dynasty of all : 341 years but they were freaks ! They kept managing to have male heirs well beyond the typical lifespan of three generations.

The average "house", I would estimate, lasted for about 3 generations in the medieval period (including Byzantium). Now you could lump some of them under the overall Capetian, Hapsburg, Romanov umbrella and say they last(ed) for several centuries but so what ? Their various branches were scattered thoughout all Europe or lasted only through the female line.

~Theo