WI Rome also had Theodosian Walls ?

[Jimbo808]

What if at the same time as the walls around Constantinople were built and completed a set comparable to these were built around Rome as well?

Would they have prevented the final sack of Rome and or could Rome come back from the dead and regroup?

I understand geography helped in Constantinoples case

 

[Kerney]

What if at the same time as the walls around Constantinople were built and completed a set comparable to these were built around Rome as well?

Would they have prevented the final sack of Rome and or could Rome come back from the dead and regroup?

I understand geography helped in Constantinoples case

What Western Rome lost was it's breadbasket (Africa), too many soldiers in battles like Frigidus, whose numbers and quality lost in 395 were not replaced by 406, a reluctance to support the state by a its populace, who after the initial shock of conquest was over, found a Frankish or Visagothic King could administer justice just as well as an Imperial Magistrate.

Those are the walls Western Rome needs.

 

[Silver01]

I mean the aurelian walls are no joke

 

[GameBawesome]

They did. They had the Servian Wall and Aurelian Walls...

They did not save them

 

[kholieken]

I think geography is crucial factor. Constantinople is in pennisula, so only one side need wall, while three other side protected by water. That simplify tactics and manpower. Roman walls had to be circular to protect it, that not enough protection even with high walls.

 

[Aluma]

I agree with the previous posters that Theodosian tier walls wouldnt save Rome, but I think the implications are still interesting
Like agreed, the Aurelian Walls were strong, but what would be the impact of them being just as strong as their eastern counterpart? Im not sure Western Rome can even afford that at this time, but if they did I wonder what would have been the first barbarian tribe to take the city and how long they'd rule with a defense that strong before somebody else comes in

 

[Domz]

I agree with the previous posters that Theodosian tier walls wouldnt save Rome, but I think the implications are still interesting
Like agreed, the Aurelian Walls were strong, but what would be the impact of them being just as strong as their eastern counterpart? Im not sure Western Rome can even afford that at this time, but if they did I wonder what would have been the first barbarian tribe to take the city and how long they'd rule with a defense that strong before somebody else comes in

You'd have to moat Rome somehow. And who's to say that a third column within the city wouldn't open the gates to an opposing force?

Rome in the 4th and 5th centuries was already in the process of losing its capital status in the Empire/Western Empire (even in Italy, where it was replaced by more defensible cities like Ravenna and Milan).

Interesting factoid: When Constantipole was sacked by the Crusaders in 1204, the Crusaders breached the city through the sea walls, not the Theodosian Walls.

 

[Aluma]

u'd have to moat Rome somehow

Yeah no idea how to do that either

And who's to say that a third column within the city wouldn't open the gates to an opposing force?

Indeed, like I said I dont think it'd save Rome in the long run
But it does make you wonder who'd be the first to be "invited" there, like which "foederati" they'd pick

 

[Mildtryth]

I think geography is crucial factor. Constantinople is in pennisula, so only one side need wall, while three other side protected by water. That simplify tactics and manpower. Roman walls had to be circular to protect it, that not enough protection even with high walls.

Moreover, even the most powerful walls won't be enough to save a city if the food within it runs out during a siege, and presumably, considering one has direct sea access and the other doesn't, it'd probably be easier to resupply Constantinople in the event of a siege than Rome.

Would they have prevented the final sack of Rome and or could Rome come back from the dead and regroup?

And to answer your question, they wouldn't - in both cases, the defences weren't breached through direct assaults, which better walls could help with: the gates were thrown open from the inside, instead.

 

[Domz]

Yeah no idea how to do that either

Indeed, like I said I dont think it'd save Rome in the long run
But it does make you wonder who'd be the first to be "invited" there, like which "foederati" they'd pick

I should also add that Rome doesn't seem to be a significant national capital of Italy after the 5th century. Sure, it was seen as a spiritual capital like Jerusalem, but it was no longer as economically dynamic or vibrant as the Italian city-states to the North and South since basically those times. The great Italian merchant republics were all from Northern Italy and Southern Italy had the occasional empire from time to time (Norman Scilly, Kingdom of the Two Scillies, Kingdom of Naples). I think the most pressing fact was that Rome had to be artificially restored, for symbolic and historical reasons, as the capital of a new and unified Italy by Sardinia-Piedmont in the 1860s/1870s, despite merchantilist Northern Italy being much wealthier than the then still heavily agricultural economies of Central and Southern Italy.

 

[Aluma]

Indeed, I dont think the concept is plausible at all without Rome remaining the imperial capital, otherwise it'd make much more sense to have Ravenna have the walls

 

[Domz]

Indeed, I dont think the concept is plausible at all without Rome remaining the imperial capital, otherwise it'd make much more sense to have Ravenna have the walls

Although Ravenna was heavily fortified already, since it was in a swamp. I can see Rome's improved defences making Rome more relevant for a few years longer.

 

[general]

From what I have read the major problem was a lack of manpower to man the walls, more than any weakness in the walls themselves.

 

[Ana Luciana II]

Problem with building Theodosian Walls for Rome is that it’s too exposed. Constantinople is prime defensive territory, surrounded on three sides by water, with the only land approach easy to man and defend. That’s not getting into the monetary costs for the Western Empire.

 

[Avrorrange]

Biggest advantage of Constantinople was that you could resupply the city from the sea. During the Sack of Rome, it’s been reported that some people opened the city gates because they ran out of food.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

What if at the same time as the walls around Constantinople were built and completed a set comparable to these were built around Rome as well?

Would they have prevented the final sack of Rome and or could Rome come back from the dead and regroup?

I understand geography helped in Constantinoples case

The Aurelian Walls were already formidable and it made the city incredibly difficult to take by siege into the early modern era. Neither the Goths nor the Vandals took it by siege though. The Goths were let in and the Vandals arrived to have nobody opposed to them. The defense of Constantinople was not entirely due to the Theodosian Walls as such-they were so effective because you could only assault Constantinople over land via one direction. Additionally, the strategic location made Constantinople an effective rallying point-from Constantinople you could block invasion access to either Europe or Asia (depending on wich direction the invaders are coming from) and successfully counterattack. Rome does not offer the same benefits.