Moderator: K. A. Pital
was not part of the ERE,while they had to defend Mesopotamia
as the WRE had only a single large, important city
I got the idea from from How Rome Fell by Adrian Goldsworthy, an author recommended by Thanas IIRC. Persia may have done heavy raiding in the East, but they never stayed in the area the way the Vandals or Visigoths did. The Persians never made it to Egypt or Asia Minor until the 7th century conflicts, and the effort of doing so left them overextended for Heraclius' counteroffensives.Akhlut wrote:Where'd you get this idea? The ERE had to defend their borders in the Balkans, the Caucasus, and Arabia from barbarian tribes, while they had to defend Mesopotamia and Egypt from a major world power in Persia. If anything, they had more territory to defend against invaders who were more powerful.Setzer wrote:With the East, they had a much smaller area to guard, and even if the barbarians broke through, they didn't have the strength to take Constantinople, or the naval power to invade Asia Minor and Egypt, so the most lucrative provinces were never threatened.
If anything fell the WRE, it was the fact that the WRE was always dependent on the ERE for men and money, as the WRE had only a single large, important city and the corresponding people and government to go with it, while the ERE had half a dozen larger cities and a much greater population as opposed to the WRE.
Highly debatable, especially considering the almost 50 years peace period.Where'd you get this idea? The ERE had to defend their borders in the Balkans, the Caucasus, and Arabia from barbarian tribes, while they had to defend Mesopotamia and Egypt from a major world power in Persia. If anything, they had more territory to defend against invaders who were more powerful.
Not true. For example, even in the days of Stilicho, the eastern army was dependent on the western one for additional troops.If anything fell the WRE, it was the fact that the WRE was always dependent on the ERE for men and money,
Apparently Carthago, Augusta Trevorum, Colonia Agrippina etc. all were never built in Akhlut's world.as the WRE had only a single large, important city and the corresponding people and government to go with it,
Completely incorrect. The frontier alternated between war and peace periods, some of which could last more than a decade.Also, the Romans were often at peace with Persia, but there was never any relief from the seemingly endless influx of barbarian tribes.
Edi wrote:It's cato.org, what do you expect? A neoconservative stinktank that will use any flimsy or outright fabricated excuse to pontificate about the evils of socialism and the supremacy of the free market.
They're Libertarians, not neocons. Neoconservative philosophy focuses on aggressive foreign policy in pursuit of American interests and doesn't give a blue damn about the free market, as the Cato Institute itself is all too eager to point out. Can we at least try for a modicum of accuracy?I took issue with your statements about the "Barbarians", not about the Persians.Setzer wrote:Thanas, I mainly meant that Persia often had peace treaties with Rome, not that they were usually at peace with Rome. The Persian wars weren't a non-stop drain of money and resources.
Shit, I was conflating Justinian's efforts with earlier time periods. My bad.Samuel wrote:was not part of the ERE,while they had to defend Mesopotamia
The WRE had Rome and a few Italian cities and some north African cities (Neapolis, Ravenna, Mediolanum, Carthage, Hippo) that were major cities, otherwise the majority of Gaul, Iberia, and Britain were agricultural lands. The ERE, however, had a great deal more urban cities of enormous size (Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Athens, Thessalonica, Ephesus, Nicaea, etc.) and a great deal more productive agricultural lands (Egypt, primarily, but throughout the ERE).as the WRE had only a single large, important city
The Roman Empire was probably the most urbanized ancient civilizations in human history. Do you seriously want Thanas (or any European member) to start listing the major cities?
Yes, but the fall of the WRE was an ongoing process that took more then just 50 years. The Sassanids went to war both before and after the fall of the WRE against the ERE and took enormous tribute and made frequent land grabs as often as they were peaceful toward the ERE.Thanas wrote:Highly debatable, especially considering the almost 50 years peace period.
Not true. For example, even in the days of Stilicho, the eastern army was dependent on the western one for additional troops.If anything fell the WRE, it was the fact that the WRE was always dependent on the ERE for men and money,
As above, but I will still contend that the ERE was far more urbanized and had a much greater population base then the WRE, having a larger number of larger cities throughout Greece, Anatolia, the Levant, and Egypt.Apparently Carthago, Augusta Trevorum, Colonia Agrippina etc. all were never built in Akhlut's world.as the WRE had only a single large, important city and the corresponding people and government to go with it,
Your evidence that the Persians were ever as much a thread as the Barbarians is...where exactly? It completely flies in the face of troop deployments.Akhlut wrote:Shit, I was conflating Justinian's efforts with earlier time periods. My bad.Samuel wrote:was not part of the ERE,while they had to defend Mesopotamia
However, unlike the WRE, the ERE still had to defend itself against a major power, the Sassanid Persians, who had waged war both before and after the fall of the WRE (in the 420s and the 480s) and had done enormous damage to the ERE, causing massive losses of land and gold, yet the ERE still weathered that storm, while the WRE suffered similar hammerings and still fell.
Fun fact: What was the most heavily populated and urbanized part of the country? North Africa.The WRE had Rome and a few Italian cities and some north African cities (Neapolis, Ravenna, Mediolanum, Carthage, Hippo) that were major cities, otherwise the majority of Gaul, Iberia, and Britain were agricultural lands. The ERE, however, had a great deal more urban cities of enormous size (Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Athens, Thessalonica, Ephesus, Nicaea, etc.) and a great deal more productive agricultural lands (Egypt, primarily, but throughout the ERE).
Evidence that Sassanid invasions were as much of a threat than the Barbarian invasions?Akhlut wrote:Yes, but the fall of the WRE was an ongoing process that took more then just 50 years. The Sassanids went to war both before and after the fall of the WRE against the ERE and took enormous tribute and made frequent land grabs as often as they were peaceful toward the ERE.Thanas wrote:Highly debatable, especially considering the almost 50 years peace period.
To bulk out my cites.Thanas wrote:You used Norwich? Why? He is more of a popular historian.
Then tell me why does it take over 400 years for the Roman Empire in the west to fell, and the reason why the Empire in the east didn't fell.Xon wrote:My amature understanding of why Rome fell, was a major contributing reason was the Roman transportation network (and thus communication) couldn't move between major jubs fast enough due to the insane distances.
Yes, they build awesome roads and had fleets of ships moving goods around. But they where quite slow compared to the overall size of the Empire.
Wasn't their an incident where Cato the Elder held up figs freshly picked in Carthage as an example of why they were still a threat? Aside from that there is the fact that transportation did not improve for centuries and yet massive empires were still able to be constructed by other powers. Spain's Latin America conquests were definately larger than the Roman Empire and Spain managed to hold onto the until they were invaded.Xon wrote:My amature understanding of why Rome fell, was a major contributing reason was the Roman transportation network (and thus communication) couldn't move between major jubs fast enough due to the insane distances.
Yes, they build awesome roads and had fleets of ships moving goods around. But they where quite slow compared to the overall size of the Empire.
The real shame is that an honestly respectable conservative of ancient Rome has now had his name appropriated by a bunch of people who are demonstrating terrible ignorance of ancient Rome.Edi wrote:It's cato.org, what do you expect? A neoconservative stinktank that will use any flimsy or outright fabricated excuse to pontificate about the evils of socialism and the supremacy of the free market. Anything they write should be assumed to be false unless they can actually back it up with tangible evidence, that's how reliable they are.
The article is a carefully constructed crock of shit that is not worth the paper required to print it. If anyone wants to learn about Rome, pick up a fucking history book.
Also possibly some unusually tough barbarians- the Huns were going to be more of a problem for the Romans by nature than many earlier armies, simply by virtue of being more mobile and harder to pin down with infantry forces.Thanas wrote:The question is whether these invasions were caused by lack of roman strength in the wake of civil wars or whether they could have been beaten back without the civil wars. One must remember that the most bloodiest of battles were not really fought between Romans and barbarians, but between Romans and Romans. The Battle of Mursa alone dwarfs the casualties of Adrianople, for example. One must also not forget that up until the death of Stilicho, the frontiers were relatively secure and that until the division of the empire, the romans had still occupied almost all of the former territories they had held for several centuries.
In the end, it was most likely a combination of all factors and really bad luck.
And yet the Roman Empire held together quite adequately on its road network and shipping capacity for centuries. "Insane distances" indeed. Obviously not "insane" to the point where the Romans could not effectively move legions where needed and in reasonable timeframes to make their large-scale military operations feasible. I do believe the Romans also employed their own networks of fire-beacon and heliograph towers to send communiques very swiftly over long distances by relay from station-to-station.Xon wrote:My amature understanding of why Rome fell, was a major contributing reason was the Roman transportation network (and thus communication) couldn't move between major jubs fast enough due to the insane distances.
Yes, they build awesome roads and had fleets of ships moving goods around. But they where quite slow compared to the overall size of the Empire.
I'm unsure about that theory. I mean, the Romans did engage with the Parthians who did made extensive use of Calvary. Additionally, the Roman army in the late antiquity isn't something that relies on Infantry alone. You are forgetting that the late Roman army did made extensive use of cavalry.Simon_Jester wrote:Also possibly some unusually tough barbarians- the Huns were going to be more of a problem for the Romans by nature than many earlier armies, simply by virtue of being more mobile and harder to pin down with infantry forces.Thanas wrote:The question is whether these invasions were caused by lack of roman strength in the wake of civil wars or whether they could have been beaten back without the civil wars. One must remember that the most bloodiest of battles were not really fought between Romans and barbarians, but between Romans and Romans. The Battle of Mursa alone dwarfs the casualties of Adrianople, for example. One must also not forget that up until the death of Stilicho, the frontiers were relatively secure and that until the division of the empire, the romans had still occupied almost all of the former territories they had held for several centuries.
In the end, it was most likely a combination of all factors and really bad luck.
Sorry, my mistake there. There's been enough overlap between the two at times that I mixed them up. Doesn't change the fact that you need a cartload of salt on hand when reading their stuff.Rogue 9 wrote:Edi wrote:It's cato.org, what do you expect? A neoconservative stinktank that will use any flimsy or outright fabricated excuse to pontificate about the evils of socialism and the supremacy of the free market.
It took less than two months to reach Constantinople from Rome. Entire armies could be relocated within months. Note that the relocation speed does not matter if it still exceeds the speed in which the enemies could relocate. Also, if the roads of the High empire could support the empire, the massively overbuilt fortress roads sure as heck could support the late roman empire.Xon wrote:My amature understanding of why Rome fell, was a major contributing reason was the Roman transportation network (and thus communication) couldn't move between major jubs fast enough due to the insane distances.
Yes, they build awesome roads and had fleets of ships moving goods around. But they where quite slow compared to the overall size of the Empire.
Not really - general mobility is not the same as tactical mobility. There is always some area you need to defend (for example, in case of the Huns the grazing areas of Pannonia) and I highly doubt that the large Hun army was that much mobile than the Roman ones. Heck, even Aetius, with degenerating roads and an army in bad shape, managed to catch up with them. The huns were never just cavalry, they always had infantry with them.Simon_Jester wrote:Also possibly some unusually tough barbarians- the Huns were going to be more of a problem for the Romans by nature than many earlier armies, simply by virtue of being more mobile and harder to pin down with infantry forces.
Didn't the Huns have a large segment of civilians trailing behind the armies as well?Thanas wrote: Not really - general mobility is not the same as tactical mobility. There is always some area you need to defend (for example, in case of the Huns the grazing areas of Pannonia) and I highly doubt that the large Hun army was that much mobile than the Roman ones. Heck, even Aetius, with degenerating roads and an army in bad shape, managed to catch up with them. The huns were never just cavalry, they always had infantry with them.
