Whatever became of the Roman Army in the West

[Robert Vermaat]

Very good explanations and arguments, as usual, Robert.

Thank you. :oops:

Wasn't economic mismanagement (not really growing poverty) in the west part of the problem? You said the stronger west failed. I've read that in the 5th c. (I think after the loss of the biggest part of the African provinces in the 420s? I'm not sure.) the military budget alone of the east was bigger than the whole budget of the west. And that the budget of the west equates to the annual income of just 3 great (but not of the greatest) private latifundiae. That seems to have been a problem of misguided wealth, a false politics of taxes? Maybe understandable because the empire wanted to protect the backbone of the state but to no good efforts. I missed arguments about this problem f.e. in Peter Heathers book about the fall of the (western part of the) empire.

I'm not sure wjere you found those number about budgets so I can't really comment.
I said the west was stronger, but that was speaking of military strength. the east was more wealthy, which was of course a pro, and they developed a policy in which they tried to defeat a threat by negotiations and gold. Only when that was no longer possible did they use military force.
Another dvelopment was that in the east they managed to curb the power of the 'man behind the throne', strengthening the power of the ruling dynasty.

I can't say that the West mismanaged their economy. They lost large part of their territory, or rather the income through taxes, because of continued unrest within the borders. This made the budget even smaller, and the ability to maintain the army even more precarious.