What caused the fall of the (Western) Roman Empire?

The Solidus, surprisingly enough, managed to escape debasement until the mid-Byzantine period IIRC. However, I would guess it was a rather large coin for day-to-day matters, so it might have enabled the Empire to pay for armies but wouldn't have done much to streamline trade. In addition to the impacts of inflation you'll learn about in any intro econ class, there was also the fact that it was impractical to pay for goods by carrying several pounds of base metal veneered in a couple ounces of silver. Thus, barter economies re-emerged, which is better than nothing but makes it hard to facilitate long-term trade.

I strongly disagree with this statement. The patterns of trade did not really collapse until the late 4th and in most cases mid 5th century. For example, you still find extensive quantities of North African pottery in Roman Britain around 350 CE. This is a primary reason I find the debasement argument so dissatisfying. If debasement were really the problem you would expect to see a linear decline in trade patterns from 250 CE onward. You don't see this. Instead you see a much sharper decline circa 350 CE for Britain circa 430 CE for Gaul etc. It makes no sense to argue that suddenly after trading with debased currency for a century the Roman-British suddenly said "hey why do we want this useless stuff that we've been using for a century". I will acknowledge that my intense dislike of this idea may be related to the fact that I am an economist by profession and with some frequency encounter "gold-bugs" arguing that because the dollar is no longer about to die economic collapse will occur any day. Amongst economists gold-buggery has roughly the same status as geo-centrism does in astronomy.
 

Hecatee

Donor
That is a really interesting idea. That said, I would want evidence of a change in trade patterns between say 150 CE and 250 CE. From my limited understanding there is evidence that a few Roman merchants made it to China and a few Chinese merchants made it to the Empire but that is unlikely to be enough to have any impact. How extensive were the trade networks at the height of both empires?
Eastern trade made, according to McLaughlin, the mid-2nd century foreign trade of the Roman empire was subject to import duty of 25% of the good's worth, collected mainly on the eastern trade roads of silks, spices and perfumes, for some 3 to 400 millions sestertii a year. Roman army cost at the same time was around 650 millions sestertii a year and the various building and restoration programs and the running of the administration cost around 350 to 400 millions. Internal 2.5% trade tax and other taxes on the population brought around 500 millions sestertii, and bullion production (gold and silver) was good for 150 to 200 million sestertii.

expenses : around 1 billion, income : around 1 billion. Any disruption of silk trade is thus causing troubles, even more so due to inflation and increases of the roman army size under the Severian dynasty, with a smaller population base than under Hadrian or Antoninus Pius... And the silk trade in the 2nd century was not yet as high as it would later become : by the 4th century even the people would buy silk according to Ammian Marcellus. The problems of the Han from 180 onward did not cut the silk trade, given that Heliogabalus only clothed himself with silk, but had an impact as the silk collection and dispatching infrastructure suffered in China. This seem to have lowered available material and thus trade and tax volume.
 
I strongly disagree with this statement. The patterns of trade did not really collapse until the late 4th and in most cases mid 5th century. For example, you still find extensive quantities of North African pottery in Roman Britain around 350 CE. This is a primary reason I find the debasement argument so dissatisfying. If debasement were really the problem you would expect to see a linear decline in trade patterns from 250 CE onward. You don't see this. Instead you see a much sharper decline circa 350 CE for Britain circa 430 CE for Gaul etc. It makes no sense to argue that suddenly after trading with debased currency for a century the Roman-British suddenly said "hey why do we want this useless stuff that we've been using for a century". I will acknowledge that my intense dislike of this idea may be related to the fact that I am an economist by profession and with some frequency encounter "gold-bugs" arguing that because the dollar is no longer about to die economic collapse will occur any day. Amongst economists gold-buggery has roughly the same status as geo-centrism does in astronomy.

Oh, I totally agree with you that the idea of the gold standard is bonkers, but we have to remember that the Romans conceived of value as being in precious metals to an extent, and ultimately value is whatever people decide it is. And, given the importance of state transport on long-distance trade and commerce, I do think that the impacts on the local economy were likely much greater than they were on the macroeconomy.
 
Eastern trade made, according to McLaughlin, the mid-2nd century foreign trade of the Roman empire was subject to import duty of 25% of the good's worth, collected mainly on the eastern trade roads of silks, spices and perfumes, for some 3 to 400 millions sestertii a year. Roman army cost at the same time was around 650 millions sestertii a year and the various building and restoration programs and the running of the administration cost around 350 to 400 millions. Internal 2.5% trade tax and other taxes on the population brought around 500 millions sestertii, and bullion production (gold and silver) was good for 150 to 200 million sestertii.

expenses : around 1 billion, income : around 1 billion. Any disruption of silk trade is thus causing troubles, even more so due to inflation and increases of the roman army size under the Severian dynasty, with a smaller population base than under Hadrian or Antoninus Pius... And the silk trade in the 2nd century was not yet as high as it would later become : by the 4th century even the people would buy silk according to Ammian Marcellus. The problems of the Han from 180 onward did not cut the silk trade, given that Heliogabalus only clothed himself with silk, but had an impact as the silk collection and dispatching infrastructure suffered in China. This seem to have lowered available material and thus trade and tax volume.


What was the level of trade in the mid-third century.
 
To me dividing the Empire was what doomed it in the long run. The Roman Empire was a multi-faceted entity that needed each component working like clockwork for the state to function efficiently. Diocletian's tetrarchy was doomed to fail as there were four Augusti each wanting to be in for the championship round: sole rulership of the entire empire. The division of the West basically doomed the Western half to fall. The Western half was kept afloat by the tax base of the more urbanized and prosperous East.

The West was regarded as the inferior half of the empire to govern. The reason the second triumvirate which turned into the diumvarate between Mark Antony and Augustus was theoretically feasible was because all monetary revenue was kept in one treasury ensuring cooperation. It brought some breathing room for the Republic and allowed Augustus time to gear up to bring about the Empire. However the division of the empire after Theodosius’ death screwed over both. Rome was one collective unit with various collective units that combine to create one unitary state. The idea behind diving the empire was to allow the West to deal with the Germanic barbarians while the east dealt with the Persians and avar tribes in the north. This screwed over both halves of the empire. On paper the East was the stronger empire with more trade networks and urbanization. However the less urbanized West was to compensate for this by having manpower bases such as Gaul and Illyria. However both were paper tigers. The West was deprived of funds to pay the army and the bureaucracy to effectively govern the provinces and frontiers to coordinate military action and defense against invaders. The East has to contend with the barbarians and the full fledged Persian state. The Romans and Persians fought each other continuously for 741 years. However both halves of the empire remained which allowed it to bounce back. The sheer size of the united empire meant that it could absorb huge blows and recover. The East was also unable to help or fully reconquer the West because the Sassanids would attack them when their troops were out west. But during the 5th century the Sassanid front was mostly quiet as the Sassanians had to deal with Hephatalites on their frontier and internal stife.
 
The West was regarded as the inferior half of the empire to govern. The reason the second triumvirate which turned into the diumvarate between Mark Antony and Augustus was theoretically feasible was because all monetary revenue was kept in one treasury ensuring cooperation. It brought some breathing room for the Republic and allowed Augustus time to gear up to bring about the Empire.

This is a legend actually, revenue wasn’t shared, that’s why Antony, as the senior and most powerful partner in 42 BCE, took the East, it was the richest half, and the one with the most state clients. What the triumvirs did share, in theory, was control of Italy and the ability to levy troops from there.
 
Really? I take it Flavius Aetius never won a battle then...

Aetius largely relied on foederati troops (especially during the Hunnic invasion), as the empire's ability to pay its own native soldiers after the Vandal conquest of Africa was severely reduced. Whether or not that counts as the "Western Roman Army" or not is a matter of semantics though.

To me dividing the Empire was what doomed it in the long run. The Roman Empire was a multi-faceted entity that needed each component working like clockwork for the state to function efficiently. Diocletian's tetrarchy was doomed to fail as there were four Augusti each wanting to be in for the championship round: sole rulership of the entire empire. The division of the West basically doomed the Western half to fall. The Western half was kept afloat by the tax base of the more urbanized and prosperous East.

Dividing the empire certainly saved it in the short run. The long run consequences are up for debate, but I don't think it was necessarily causal. The Western Empire was not "kept afloat" by the taxes of the East, because each half of the empire had separate treasuries. A lot of times people throw around that the East was "more urbanized" and "more prosperous" while ignoring the fact that the WRE was also incredibly urbanized. Western cities were broadly just a bit smaller as a function of their younger average age (compare the ages of Cologne and Narbonne relative to Damascus and Athens for example), but that did not mean that the WRE was substantially poorer. There were a number of wealthy and productive regions therein, such as Africa, Baetica, and much of Italy. The WRE was still a huge, prosperous state with massive resource wealth (almost all of the empire's gold and silver came from Spain, for example) with a large, well-trained army and a large cadre of capable officers and statesmen. In the opinion of many historians, the West was only lost after the conquest of the productive regions of Spain and Africa to the Vandals, Alans, and Sueves.
 
In the opinion of many historians, the West was only lost after the conquest of the productive regions of Spain and Africa to the Vandals, Alans, and Sueves.

Heck, even then I think it could have recovered had Majorian been a bit more lucky and had managed to retake N Africa.
 
I'm inclined to agree. Once Majorian's invasion of North Africa was foiled in 460 the jig was up.
There was a TL called The Reign of Romulus Augustus where the WRE survives. But they had to gain Africa with support from the East. Basically Odoacer’s request to settle his men in Italy is granted and Nepos and him rule as a duimvarate with Romulus as a puppet. Romulus is married to Aninia Juliana for legitimacy. Basically Romulus is a ruthless sociopath who singlehandedly pulls the empire from the brink. One problem was the elite as the Senate allied with the Ostrogoths. He put them down and rebuilt the army and assimilated the Germans as Latin Romans. He also creates a new dynastic union with the East which opens up cooperation and a united front. Any lasting WRE needs North Africa and a major re- organization to account for its diminished size and revenue. I highly recommend this TL.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/the-reign-of-romulus-augustus.278876/
 
Your arguments do not seem to be based on analysis but rather on conjecture. For example, you speculate that Christians were skeptical of the empire and did not want to fight for it. However, this argument ignores the fact that the sack of Rome in 410 CE caused profound theological problems for Christians. Basically, the common strain of Christian thought in say 400 CE was that the conversion of the empire was all part of God's plan to bring salvation to the whole world. After all, bringing salvation through the empire is a pretty efficient way of doing this. The sack of Rome (and the implication that the empire might not be eternal) caused profound problems with this argument. Addressing this issue was the main reason why Augustine wrote The City of God which developed the notion that the City of God was eternal but the City of Man was ephemeral.

I never said christians wanted to eliminate the Empire. They didn't oppose its survival. It's just that didn't relate to it as strongly as its citizens once did and were not willing to give their all to save it. Around 200 CE a renowned figure in the early church prayed for, among other things, a strong army. But he still opposed christians serving in it.
 
Christians had no problem to fight for the empire. I doubt they would see the empire that allowed their religion to thrive as the enemy, there were many Christian generals and many Christian soldiers, who had been fighting for the empire for centuries. Xiphilinus mentions in his epitome of Dio’s history that a whole legion prayed so that a storm might come up and save Marcus Aurelius and the rest of them. Now we know that’s not true, but the very fact that a Christian would report that means that it was completely believable that Christians would fight for the empire in the second century.

Like I said before, the fact that at least two church fathers c 200 opposed christians serving in the army shows that some did or it wouldn't have been necessary to oppose this. But they tended to be exceptions, as Origen indicated in his response to a pagan critic. It's reasonable to assume even fewer christians, relative to total christian population, served after the views of the church fathers c 200 were disseminated and gradually spread. We know that they were highly influential in the church.

When Christians thought of Jesus’ death, I’m rather more inclined to believe they saw it the way Christians see it now. It wasn’t the Romans who killed Jesus, it was men, in general, because Jesus needed to bear the burden of all men’s sin for them on the cross. Plus, the Romans rarely actively persecuted Christians. There’s just a handful of emperors who did that, namely Decius, Valerian, Diocletian, Galerius and Maximinus Daia.

In fact christians were persecuted with state sanction from the time of Nero to about 313 CE or so. Domitian was keen on enforcing emperor worship, so the writer of revelation called him "the beast" or some such and Rome "the great harlot." Trajan said christians were not to be actively sought out but could still be punished if formally reported. There were martyrs under Pius and Aurelius etc.


All the rest merely reacted to local and sporadic problems related to Christians. As Lactantius, Eusebius and most Christian chroniclers prove, they never harbored any grudge against the empire, only against emperors who, in their view, had mistreated them. Fourth century passion scenes made obvious the wickedness of those emperors, not of the empire as a whole.

:) But "wicked emperors" were not depicted in passion scenes, just Roman soldiers and Pilate, an agent of the Roman State. Of course christians like Lactantius and eusebius claimed not to oppose the state just certain "wicked" individuals. They had to say that or they could get in a lot of trouble, for being openly anti-roman...
Passion scenes, and martydoms, may not have caused christians to wish for the fall of the empire. But in light of historical baggage of various kinds besides pacifism, it's reasonable to assume many christians were just unwilling to fight like crazy to save the empire. The old spirit was gone and in light of recurrent crises which had always affected Rome, this meant doom.


[he increase in desertion wasn’t due to conflict of faiths, people cut their own thumbs because they didn’t want to leave their homes, same as soldiers used to raise unwilling men to the purple so that they wouldn’t have to move away from the provinces were they had already settled. It was as simple as that.

No way. As Goldsworthy pointed out, while cutting off thumbs had long been a problem it appears to have become way more common in the fourth century. Roman soldiers had long been unwilling to move away from their homes but they still did it many times, down to the mid fourth century with few problems.



Then civil wars increased the loss of manpower, the great estate owners decided it was better to pay the government rather than give up their workers for conscription, and suddenly the WRE found itself without men for the army. It had nothing to do with faith, at least for the great majority of them.

Frankly I think this is absurd. As I pointed out before, some of the worst civil wars were fought c 350-53. By that time, or for some time since Diocletian many men had been tied to the land. Yet Julian was still able to raise a very large army to invade Sassanid territory. Chronic military weakness set in only later, and coincided with the rise of christianity to prominence in the empire.
People blame the fall on economic problems, plague etc, when the Empire had endured even worse problems of these kinds prior to the fifth century and notably in the third. As long as the Roman world had strong support from its citizens it could weather any crisis. When this support waned, it rapidly went down the drain, in the west which was most heavily beset.
 
Really? I take it Flavius Aetius never won a battle then...

Of course he did, with Hun and other mercenaries not the regular Roman army, which no longer amounted to much.

Ummm…no? The Huns and Goths, by far the two most destructive groups, first entered the East before moving west. The Huns were paid off, but the economic means to pay tribute does constitute the socioeconomic ability to "handle" the barbarians in the 5th Century.

I know they entered the East first but the ultimate destination of nearly all 5th century barbarians was still the West. The key difference is that the West suffered more extensive and permanent losses of territory and revenue (5th century).

But diseases don't just go away. Sure, they stop being epidemics, but when the economy collapses as it did in the 5th Century WRE, it decreases nutrition availability and thus makes plagues more deadly.


The economy of the WRE "collapsed" only because of invasions and associated losses. It's fallacious to paint the late Roman world as an economic wasteland. It remained a lucrative target--precisely why barbarians invaded en masse.


First of all, the Empire's recovery was by no means complete until Constantine came along. It was Constantine who worked out the kinks in the Tetrarchy system, for one thing.

Lol that made little practical difference....


Furthermore, the endemic problem of inflation wasn't really solved until Constantine issued the Solidus, which was possible by confiscating the gold of Pagan temples (oh, look, Christianity helping the Empire).

I was under the impression Constantine got the needed extra bullion in Armenia.

And Christianization occurred rapidly following Constantine's rule, not Julian's, by every metric I've ever seen, once it became obvious that Christians would be in the Emperor's good books.

Christianity continued to grow after Constantine but I doubt it reached the tipping point (clear majority, in driver's seat) until after Julian. I don't think Julian could've ruled had pagans been a despised minority already.


There's no reason to believe Christians wouldn't fight at this period,

As I've pointed out there are excellent grounds for believing it. Besides the historical baggage, and pacifism inherent in christianity --"Thou shalt not kill, turn the other cheek, those who take up the sword will perish with the sword"--this is what christians had been told by highly influential church fathers. And actual examples can be cited in which men are recorded as opposing service or fighting, based on their christian faith.


Also, if you want proof that the ERE could objectively deal with Barbarians better than the WRE, I point you to the fact that it managed to survive the combined Slavic and Arab conquests, though it was greatly diminished.

Yeah but...yet again.......that was after Augustine had changed the christian attitude on war.

I find it amazing how you overlook all manner of political, sociological, and economic factors relating to their unwillingness to fight for an Empire that couldn't grant them the same benefits it once had and was increasingly forcing them into bondage based on the interpretations of a largely illiterate population of the finer points of scripture. As @Sertorius126 has mentioned, the church fathers were more than willing to admonish people to fight.

Lol, those around 200 CE, who were most relevant to christian attitudes of the late empire, were anything but proponents of military service.
As for other factors, as I pointed out, the third century empire had worse issues. Runaway inflation surely reduced economic benefits for everyone. Civil wars and military catastrophes showed just how risky it was to be a soldier. But the still pagan empire made a most admirable comeback.:)
As for the kind of bondage instituted under Diocletian, it clearly had no effect on Roman military prowess for decades. The empire remained capable of building huge armies--down to the time of Julian.


In any case, I think it likelier that people turned to doctrines that gave them an excuse not to fight than that they all woke up one day and decided to become pacifistic Christians. Whether/what branch of Christianity people followed was highly dependent on local socioeconomic and political factors as is shown by the strong correlation between various heresies and various regions in the East.

I don't think most men wanted an excuse not to fight. They turned to christianity for other reasons like "everlasting life in paradise." But not fighting or killing was one of the rules to get there.​


Yes, but it was socioeconomic much more than religious factors which lead people to stop relating to the Empire.

I very much doubt that. The Empire failed big time c 250-60 but the still pagan populace still related to it and fought very hard for it.


Kyle Harper, for one.

He was an ancient historian? :)
 
Like I said before, the fact that at least two church fathers c 200 opposed christians serving in the army shows that some did or it wouldn't have been necessary to oppose this. But they tended to be exceptions, as Origen indicated in his response to a pagan critic. It's reasonable to assume even fewer christians, relative to total christian population, served after the views of the church fathers c 200 were disseminated and gradually spread. We know that they were highly influential in the church.

Except there’s no solid proof that Christians didn’t fight. As the old rule goes, a line from an ancient historian is better than a whole book of speculations from us, and as Insaid before, if Xiphilinus believed that Christians could fight in the second century for Rome, when the empire wasn’t even remotely Christian, then why wouldn’t they fight later on, when it did become Christian?



In fact christians were persecuted with state sanction from the time of Nero to about 313 CE or so. Domitian was keen on enforcing emperor worship, so the writer of revelation called him "the beast" or some such and Rome "the great harlot." Trajan said christians were not to be actively sought out but could still be punished if formally reported. There were martyrs under Pius and Aurelius etc.

As I said, sporadic and localized, every religion had its martyrs, it doesn’t mean it was actively persecuted. The general attitude of the Roman Empire prior to Decius towards Christians is best represented by Pliny’s letters. From time to time, he’d ask Trajan “what am I supposed to do with this damn Christians?” And he’d say “If they don’t cause too much of a fuss, let ‘em go, they aren’t worth the trouble”. And they weren’t, since they weren’t even that widespread until the late third century.




:) But "wicked emperors" were not depicted in passion scenes, just Roman soldiers and Pilate, an agent of the Roman State. Of course christians like Lactantius and eusebius claimed not to oppose the state just certain "wicked" individuals. They had to say that or they could get in a lot of trouble, for being openly anti-roman...
Passion scenes, and martydoms, may not have caused christians to wish for the fall of the empire. But in light of historical baggage of various kinds besides pacifism, it's reasonable to assume many christians were just unwilling to fight like crazy to save the empire. The old spirit was gone and in light of recurrent crises which had always affected Rome, this meant doom.

And shortly after that, St Paul went ahead preaching around the whole empire, clearly believing Romans were worth the attention, constantly pointing out to every Roman that would listen that he was a Roman citizen same as everybody else. Jews saw Rome as the enemy, not Christians, and that’s what allowed them to become what they are now.

And why should we suppose that Eusebius and Lactantius were hypocrites? There were a lot of Christians that didn’t necessarily agree with Constantine and lived to tell the tale, although disgraced and branded heretics. Neither Eusebius nor Lactantius needed to write anything at all in favour of the empire, yet they did.
This is proof enough for me of their overall good will towards the institution.



No way. As Goldsworthy pointed out, while cutting off thumbs had long been a problem it appears to have become way more common in the fourth century. Roman soldiers had long been unwilling to move away from their homes but they still did it many times, down to the mid fourth century with few problems.

Honestly, I’ve based my views on the subject on what Ian Hughes wrote in his biographies of Stilicho and Aetius, plus Peter Heater in his “the fall of Rome”. I love Goldsworthy when it comes to late Republic - early empire, but when it comes to the late empire, I’m gonna stick by those who extensively wrote on the period. Besides, it’s not like Goldsworthy doesn’t blame the great estate owners same as Heater and Hughes do.





Frankly I think this is absurd. As I pointed out before, some of the worst civil wars were fought c 350-53. By that time, or for some time since Diocletian many men had been tied to the land. Yet Julian was still able to raise a very large army to invade Sassanid territory. Chronic military weakness set in only later, and coincided with the rise of christianity to prominence in the empire.
People blame the fall on economic problems, plague etc, when the Empire had endured even worse problems of these kinds prior to the fifth century and notably in the third. As long as the Roman world had strong support from its citizens it could weather any crisis. When this support waned, it rapidly went down the drain, in the west which was most heavily beset.

Yeah, and that large army, also composed of Christians like Valentinian and his brother, got trounced, and then another large army got trounced at Adrianople, and then another at Siscia, and another at Potovo, and finally another at Frigidus. There’s so much an empire split in half can take you know. Christians aren’t to blame for these gigantic losses, except maybe in the regard that the fighting armies were led by Christian generals.
 
Last edited:
There's no doubt the WRE fell because of military weakness. The new christian pop[ulation evidently didn't want to fight and few barbarians would serve in the regular Roman army after 408.

The Eastern Empire never had these problems (it employed barbarian soldiers, sure, but always as supplements to native troops, never as the bulk of the army), and was more thoroughly Christianised than the West.

Of course it's possible that the ERE being more christian friendly from the start always had a bit more support from its citizens, even in the 400s.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that the East was more Christian friendly. The last big persecution, under Diocletian, had been concentrated in the East, and shortly afterwards the Eastern Church was riven by Arian-Catholic disputes to a much greater degree than the Western.

But landowners had to provide recruits, and sons had to become soldiers if their fathers were.

Theoretically, yes. In practice, there were a range of dodges, from mutilating yourself to hiding out when the recruiting officers came round to simply bribing them to go away.

Ummm…no? The Huns and Goths, by far the two most destructive groups, first entered the East before moving west. The Huns were paid off, but the economic means to pay tribute does constitute the socioeconomic ability to "handle" the barbarians in the 5th Century.

To be fair, the Huns and Goths only had access to the Balkans, which were comparatively unimportant to the East. The real money-making provinces in Egypt, Syria and Anatolia were beyond the reach of most invaders.

The West was regarded as the inferior half of the empire to govern.

Not necessarily; when the Valentinii divided up the Empire in 363, Valens, the senior Emperor, chose to govern the West.

Like I said before, the fact that at least two church fathers c 200 opposed christians serving in the army shows that some did or it wouldn't have been necessary to oppose this. But they tended to be exceptions, as Origen indicated in his response to a pagan critic. It's reasonable to assume even fewer christians, relative to total christian population, served after the views of the church fathers c 200 were disseminated and gradually spread. We know that they were highly influential in the church.

On the other hand, in 200 they'd have been fighting for a pagan state that occasionally sought to wipe them out, whereas in the fourth century they'd have been fighting for a Christian state. That would have made a lot of people more willing to fight for it, I'd guess.
 
I just happened to stumble on this YT channel few days ago and I think it is interesting. What you people think about this?
 
I just happened to stumble on this YT channel few days ago and I think it is interesting. What you people think about this?

That video highlights my main point. Once the imperial government selected to co-op the manpower of the barbarians, the imperial public (and imperial landowners) lost the incentive to pay taxes to the central government, which contracted the size of the central treasury, which in turn made the WRE even more dependent on the use of germanic auxiliaries. After that tipping point, it became a vicious cycle, and its unlikely that anything less than a herculean effort and a huge transfer of aid from the ERE would be able to slow or reverse that trend
 
The Eastern Empire never had these problems (it employed barbarian soldiers, sure, but always as supplements to native troops, never as the bulk of the army), and was more thoroughly Christianised than the West.

Right the fact that Constantine had designed it to be christian friendly--free of the pagan associations of Rome--meant that the new christian population could better relate to it, hence was somewhat more willing to fight for it, although it was still very lucky to be less heavily targeted than the west in the 5th century.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that the East was more Christian friendly. The last big persecution, under Diocletian, had been concentrated in the East,

I was referring to the situation in Constantine's time and later--the founding of Constantinople as a new more christian capital than old pagan Rome.

and shortly afterwards the Eastern Church was riven by Arian-Catholic disputes to a much greater degree than the Western.

Not the fault of the state and this was not anti-christian but an internal issue.

To be fair, the Huns and Goths only had access to the Balkans, which were comparatively unimportant to the East. The real money-making provinces in Egypt, Syria and Anatolia were beyond the reach of most invaders.

But even in the third century the Goths and others had raided far and wide in the Aegean, eastern Mediterranean and Asia Minor as well as in the balkans. Had it not been for the Classis Alexandrina and Classis Syriaca (sp?) there's no telling what might've happened. It would've been infinitely worse.
Btw I noticed in Heather's book at one point the Huns did cross into Asia Minor, but apparently decided not to go that way; the point is they could've, like preceding marauders, but just didn't.


On the other hand, in 200 they'd have been fighting for a pagan state that occasionally sought to wipe them out, whereas in the fourth century they'd have been fighting for a Christian state. That would have made a lot of people more willing to fight for it, I'd guess.

Lol, unfortunately, the christian triumph c 370-80 or so correlates with the onset of chronic military weakness. There is excellent grounds for believing most citizens didn't want to serve or fight in the late 4rth century, the same time they turned to christianity. Put two and two together. :) Btw doubts may be raised as to the accuracy of that statement. In 200 CE, there had been persecutions of course, but they may not have amounted to very much, perhaps since the time of Nero. In contrast the worst persecution was early 4rth century under Diocletian and Galerius. Maximinus II Daia was also very anti-christian and later Julian disparaged christianity.
gain many christians might've been willing to fight for the ERE but even it needed barbarians.
 
Last edited:
Top