Question about Rome

Mostly he founded Constantinople as the western territories were contributing much less money to the Empire than the east, at least by 300 AD. It was a shift so that the capital would be the centre of the wealth again.

Communis opinio is, that miltary needs were the major reason. Diocletian and others already resided in Nicomedia most of the time. Because the Bosporus is located perfectly between the two major fronts of these days: Lower Danube and Euphrat. An emperor had to lead campaigns himself these days in order to legitimize himself in front of the army. Rome was simply too far away from the major fronts.
 
Last edited:
The Rhine frontier wasn't a major military front? I think it was the largest one when it comes to static defense (although not short-lived all out wars), so military alone wouldn't have been enough to go so far away from the Rhine.

- BNC
 
What was the core reason that Rome had difficulties in the final years of its existence?

Bad Luck. Period. I think the fall of Rome was mostly due to bad luck.

The Romans had some enemies as dangerous as the barbarians (the Etruscans, the Greeks, Hannibal, the Persians), but at the same time they had decent and capable leaders. During the republic, they had the Senate; during the empire, they had persons like Augustus, Trajan, Hadrian, Septimius Severus, Diocletian, Constantine, Julian...). With these leaders, the Roman Empire encountered crises, but was able to survive them. That was impossible with the leaders Rome had in Late Antiquity - there were some decent ones like Flavius Stilicho or Flavius Aetius, but both were removed from office despite of their achievements!

If Rome had two or three competent western emperors, the Empire could've been saved without major difficulties.
 
The behaviour of the ERE was simply disgusting.

IDK -- the Goths and Huns started off terrorising the East before turning on the West, but I don't think there's any evidence that the Eastern Emperors deliberately redirected them. The other barbarian tribes started off along the Rhine or upper Danube, and so were ranged against the West from the start. Plus, the East sent forces to help the West on several occasions, most notably under Zeno (IIRC) when they nearly bankrupted themselves raising a fleet to help the Westerners reconquer Africa.

The problem is Constantine - why did he found Contantinople in the first place? There shouldn't be a second Rome within the empire. When the Empire lost the city of Rome, it should have stopped to call itself "Roman" Empire.

Emperors had started ruling from close to the frontiers during the third century, often adding major new buildings to make their new bases worthy of Imperial residence. Constantinople was just a continuation of this trend.

I would say the Antonine Plague (165-180) with a 30% death rate of the population and the Plague of Cyprian (250-266) with about the same, leaving the Empire with great shortages in manpower (both in food production and the military). After that came the Barbarian Migrations. People after people, Goths, Huns, Vandals, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Franks, Lombards, and so on and so forth, for more than half a milennia. It was as a great boxer, weakened by diseases, was fighting fresh opponent after fresh opponent, until he just couldn't stand up again.
The same for the ERE, just that it suffered a further plague, constant warfare with the just-as-strong Persians for 200 years, then came the Muslim encroachment for about a millenia from the South-East, while fending off other Barbarian migrations like the Avars, Slavs, Bulgars, Pechenegs, etc., and later settled Serbs, Croats, Rus, Venetians, even Norse. And a Crusade. It's no surprise they've fallen.
It's surprising for how long they stood in those conditions.

The Antonine and Cyprianic Plague were two and one hundred years, respectively, before the Age of Migrations. They undoubtedly weakened the Empire, but with a full century to recover from their effects it's unlikely they were the sole, or even main, cause of the barbarian migrations.
 
The Antonine and Cyprianic Plague were two and one hundred years, respectively, before the Age of Migrations. They undoubtedly weakened the Empire, but with a full century to recover from their effects it's unlikely they were the sole, or even main, cause of the barbarian migrations.
But didn't those plagues play a big role in kickstarting the instability of the 3rd century? The civil wars and the general Crisis would have ben a multiplicator to their effect, no?
 
The Antonine and Cyprianic Plague were two and one hundred years, respectively, before the Age of Migrations. They undoubtedly weakened the Empire, but with a full century to recover from their effects it's unlikely they were the sole, or even main, cause of the barbarian migrations.
It probably would have been, if not for nearly constant warfare during the period. Also, losing 30% of the population is huge. At the very least it would have severly weakened the Empire for the duration and about a decade afterwards. Combine that with external pressure, internal unrest and mounting levels of corruption. Individually, each a great burden, but survivable. Together they kept feeding from each other until they just couldn't be handled anymore.
 
The Rhine frontier wasn't a major military front?

Of course it was. But Constantine had to make a decision. He could not cover all 3 major fronts at once. And for the roman emperor the Euphrat was always the most important front. So Bosporus made a lot of sense.
Later we saw co-emperors again, who now covered the Rhine and upper Danube residing in Mediolanum or even as close to the Rhine as Augusta Treverorum.
 
But didn't those plagues play a big role in kickstarting the instability of the 3rd century? The civil wars and the general Crisis would have ben a multiplicator to their effect, no?

Yes. Especially the combination of plague and war was fatal. With a loss of population and shrinking economy you have to lower the money supply. But with a war running, the romans could not do that. The result is inflation. So this was the point of time, when the so far moderate inflation became a serious issue, and became worse up to hyperinflation after Severus Alexander.

With the introduction of the Solidus the romans stopped it just partially. Silver currency was still inflated. The turnaround was with Maioranus and th e last effect were fought finally by emperor Anastasios. These are 300 years of troubled economy. Perhaps less in the East than in the West,

I don't buy Peter Heathers claim about green pastures in the 4th century.
 
Plus, the East sent forces to help the West on several occasions, most notably under Zeno (IIRC) when they nearly bankrupted themselves raising a fleet to help the Westerners reconquer Africa.

The East didn't follow the rules of romanitas. During the republic, every Roman would have fought until death to prevent a barbarian occupation of Rome. The ERE did nothing of the sort.

Emperors had started ruling from close to the frontiers during the third century, often adding major new buildings to make their new bases worthy of Imperial residence. Constantinople was just a continuation of this trend.

On which border is Constantinople actually? No, Constantinople was quite useful for the Byzantine empire, but it wasn't necessary for the whole Roman Empire. Just Constantine's attempt to give his name to Rome's capital.
 
But didn't those plagues play a big role in kickstarting the instability of the 3rd century? The civil wars and the general Crisis would have ben a multiplicator to their effect, no?

The Third-Century Crisis is usually held to have started with the assassination of Severus Alexander in 235, some years before the Plague of Cyprian and over fifty years after the Antonine Plague.

The East didn't follow the rules of romanitas. During the republic, every Roman would have fought until death to prevent a barbarian occupation of Rome. The ERE did nothing of the sort.

Hence my point earlier about declining asabiyyah. Although in fairness to the ERE, the Westerners weren't exactly doing their all to stop the barbarians, as indicated by the huge difficulties the Western government had in prizing its tax money out of the hands of its aristocrats.

On which border is Constantinople actually? No, Constantinople was quite useful for the Byzantine empire, but it wasn't necessary for the whole Roman Empire. Just Constantine's attempt to give his name to Rome's capital.

Constantinople is close to the Danube, and reasonably close to the Euphrates, so an Emperor based there could keep an eye on two of the main frontiers. And Constantine didn't actually name the city after himself; its official name was New Rome, Constantinople originally being just a nickname.
 
Another issue is the collapse of the western Roman tax structure, as the primary taxpayers of the late Empire-the decurions-either sought ways to achieve tax exempt status or were taxed into poverty. This gutted the west's ability to raise funds and maintain armies, and caused the cities to deteriorate and the people to flee to the countryside.
 
On which border is Constantinople actually? No, Constantinople was quite useful for the Byzantine empire, but it wasn't necessary for the whole Roman Empire. Just Constantine's attempt to give his name to Rome's capital.


Iirc, wasn't Diocletian's capital at Nicomedia, just down the road from Byzantium? He evidently also saw it as a desirable location.
 
Top