07-27-2010, 06:05 AM
Yes, sorry: I should have said endnote, not footnote.
I’ve scanned through the book and found some of his arguments. Hopefully I didn’t miss anything important. Basically, Goldsworthy says that the threats faced by the Western and Eastern Empires in the fifth century were different.
Independent kingdoms
In the West, independent kingdoms were created inside its territory. In the East, its territory remained more-or-less intact. Many threats against the East, such as Attila, later moved West and there settled. “The eastern emperors were not forced to accept the permanent occupation by barbarian groups of substantial parts of their provinces.”
Geography
Geography helped the East survive. The Bosphorus was an obstacle protecting Asia Minor from northern barbarian groups, and of course the situation of Constantinople helped secured it.
Centres of power
And speaking of Constantinople: it was a large, rich and protected capital, bustling with business, government and religious activity. Constantinople was the centre of power in the East. In the West, Ravenna (and earlier Milan) was isolated from a great deal of administrative and spiritual power sources, such as the Senate or Pope in Rome.
Sudden losses of resources
The West faced some sudden, terrific losses. Africa is probably the best example: it was rich and fertile, and when the Vandals took the province it was a massive blow. The loss of Africa meant the loss of a major food supply and tax base. The East was helped by its sheer size. It was fertile, populous and wealthy which helped it to deal with threats and to withstand some blows. It did not face a sudden loss of a province like this until the Arabs took Egypt centuries later. (And it still survived that.)
Money
Since the East didn’t lose any rich provinces, it remained wealthy. It was able to fund defensive works such as the Theodosian Walls and to pay soldiers properly. “The Eastern Empire remained prosperous enough to support a large regular army and the imperial bureaucracy.”
Manpower
The East had “sufficient troops to deal with any problem,” unlike the West which was often forced to use one barbarian group to fight another. This balancing act was precarious. Also, “after Anastasius’ reforms [the East] was less dependent on mercenary and allied contingents or unwilling conscripts.”
Number and severity of external threats
It was easier to deal with one problem (Persia in the East) instead of a number of competing chieftains and kings. Persia was also weak and focussed on internal problems or their own northern borders during much of the fifth century. As such, it was “rarely inclined towards major aggression against their Roman neighbour.” When it did threaten, Persia was more interested in raids instead of permanent occupation of territory.
Number and severity of internal threats
The West had more civil wars than the East, further weakening it. Individuals such as Aetius could become very powerful and this helped start civil conflict. There were fewer civil wars in the East. Instead of a court being dominated by just a few individuals, the East had multiple people powerful enough to act as balances against each other. While the East did have some usurpers, these tended to be small-scale affairs instead of full-blown civil wars.
Quote:How do you feel that Goldsworthy treats the question that should be asked with any theory about the fall of the West: why did the West fall and the East survive? He seems to mention a lot of things that would normally be the same for both parts of the empire.
I’ve scanned through the book and found some of his arguments. Hopefully I didn’t miss anything important. Basically, Goldsworthy says that the threats faced by the Western and Eastern Empires in the fifth century were different.
Independent kingdoms
In the West, independent kingdoms were created inside its territory. In the East, its territory remained more-or-less intact. Many threats against the East, such as Attila, later moved West and there settled. “The eastern emperors were not forced to accept the permanent occupation by barbarian groups of substantial parts of their provinces.”
Geography
Geography helped the East survive. The Bosphorus was an obstacle protecting Asia Minor from northern barbarian groups, and of course the situation of Constantinople helped secured it.
Centres of power
And speaking of Constantinople: it was a large, rich and protected capital, bustling with business, government and religious activity. Constantinople was the centre of power in the East. In the West, Ravenna (and earlier Milan) was isolated from a great deal of administrative and spiritual power sources, such as the Senate or Pope in Rome.
Sudden losses of resources
The West faced some sudden, terrific losses. Africa is probably the best example: it was rich and fertile, and when the Vandals took the province it was a massive blow. The loss of Africa meant the loss of a major food supply and tax base. The East was helped by its sheer size. It was fertile, populous and wealthy which helped it to deal with threats and to withstand some blows. It did not face a sudden loss of a province like this until the Arabs took Egypt centuries later. (And it still survived that.)
Money
Since the East didn’t lose any rich provinces, it remained wealthy. It was able to fund defensive works such as the Theodosian Walls and to pay soldiers properly. “The Eastern Empire remained prosperous enough to support a large regular army and the imperial bureaucracy.”
Manpower
The East had “sufficient troops to deal with any problem,” unlike the West which was often forced to use one barbarian group to fight another. This balancing act was precarious. Also, “after Anastasius’ reforms [the East] was less dependent on mercenary and allied contingents or unwilling conscripts.”
Number and severity of external threats
It was easier to deal with one problem (Persia in the East) instead of a number of competing chieftains and kings. Persia was also weak and focussed on internal problems or their own northern borders during much of the fifth century. As such, it was “rarely inclined towards major aggression against their Roman neighbour.” When it did threaten, Persia was more interested in raids instead of permanent occupation of territory.
Number and severity of internal threats
The West had more civil wars than the East, further weakening it. Individuals such as Aetius could become very powerful and this helped start civil conflict. There were fewer civil wars in the East. Instead of a court being dominated by just a few individuals, the East had multiple people powerful enough to act as balances against each other. While the East did have some usurpers, these tended to be small-scale affairs instead of full-blown civil wars.
David J. Cord
www.davidcord.com
www.davidcord.com
