Why did the Eastern Roman Empire survive longer than the West?

🔴 YOU WANT TO SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL? 🔴
🤗 Join our Patreon community: / maiorianus
Or become an official Maiorianus member on KZbin: / maiorianus461
Now finally we are going to address the big question: Why did the Eastern Roman Empire survive much longer than the Western one? Was it stronger, more successful, had the better or larger army? Let's find out.
🤗 One-Time Donation?
- PayPal: paypal.me/Maiorianus
- Bitcoin: bc1qv4lsfsplvfecrrgvmfclhga28we7mvh9563xdj
🔗 Share the video with anyone who might be interested (it helps a ton!)
👍 Subscribe to our videos FOR FREE: kzbin.info...
📚 My favorite Novel of the late Roman Empire, "Julian" by Gore Vidal: amzn.to/3mZwOdJ
📚 BEST BOOKS ON ROMAN HISTORY: 📚
1. "History of the City of Rome in the Middle Ages" by Ferdinand Gregorovius amzn.to/3yOvjEd
2. "Rome: Profile of a City, 312-1308" by Richard Krautheimer amzn.to/3yyChgp
3. "Rome: An Urban History from Antiquity to the Present" by Rabun Taylor amzn.to/322ClsZ
These are all excellent books if you are like me, absolutely fascinated by the transition of Rome from late antiquity to the early medieval period.
📚 One of our favorite books about the Fall of the Roman Empire, "The Fall of Rome" by Bryan Ward-Perkins: amzn.to/3FXeDNg
The wonderful background music is by Adrian von Ziegler: • Relaxing Roman Music -...
🎦 FILMING EQUIPMENT WE USE: 🎦
Webcam: amzn.to/3yFSFvu
Microphone: amzn.to/3e2ZFsW
Disclosures: Some links in the description are affiliate links which means that if you purchase something by clicking on one of them, your host Sebastian will receive a small commission at no additional cost to you. In this way you will be supporting the channel to improve the video production quality at no extra cost to you.
📬 Contact us: [e-mail]
#Maiorianus

[@Maiorianus_Sebastian]

🤗 Join our Patreon community: www.patreon.com/Maiorianus

[@ari3903]

In western rome's defense, the Rhine wasn't some shallow stream that could be frozen anytime, it was a solid line of defense with fortifications that has proved effective in the earlier years of the empire. Italy had alps and illyria had the danube over it. One of its greatest advantages over the East was that it didn't border a huge empire that had the manpower necessary to wreak havoc on its rich provinces. There are a lot of arguments that could be made to support the idea that the western roman geography wasn't terrible, but I still agree with your theory, but in a different context. That would be Britannia, the province was literally not worth it. It brought in less tax than it cost, and depleted the empire of its resources. It was a huge weak point and a thorn in the side for Western rome, both geographically, economically and even politically as it has served as a stepping stone for usurpers, as was the case for Magnus Maximus and constantine III. Eastern rome on the other hand had no such province, so it was able to expend its resources more efficiently. It's unfair to blame the west's fall on a single province, but I think that this was the one of the important causes for WRE's downfall.

[@gigaya777]

not complete right with the reforms of the late roman empire the rhine was protected mainly by limitae, not be the bulk of the roman empire army like it was during the early empire that actually was a good idea because the limitae army was incredible professional sadly after Constantine reforms the limitae army lost professionalism until the point they were part time job this is when the borders of the WRE was open

[@Blaqjaqshellaq]

Eastern Rome did have Dacia, though it was abandoned before too long.

[@ari3903]

@@gigaya777 Same was true for ERE

[@nicolaspinto76]

Dacia was abandoned in 271, prior to the division of the Empire and, like Britain, was considered a waste of military and economic resources (after the closure of its gold mines). In fact, I am very surprised that a video on the geostrategy of the late Roman Empire does not talk about the Sassanids. The Second Persian Empire was a rich, organized and expansionist state that wanted to conquer the lands of Anatolia, the Levant and Egypt like the Achaemenids (according to the Romans). This state was considered a greater threat to the Romans than the Germanic tribes, poorer and always at war with each other. It was the reason that the great part of the legions was in the East.

[@Tortellobello45]

@@Blaqjaqshellaq Dacia was not abandoned until Attila came. That’s why it’s still Roman today

[@theicepickthatkilledtrotsk658]

When the West was falling the East had the richest provinces, was more stable, was not exposed to constant barbarian invasion, and had a near unconquerable capital. It's easy to see why it continued to prosper but I think Rome would have lasted even longer if it remained united.

[@astrobullivant5908]

Many 4th and 5th Century Christians had a much easier time culturally supporting the East because of the "cancel culture" of the day against the traditional non-Christian culture of the West.

[@starcapture3040]

but the sassined empire was much bigger threat and another super power not easy to defend against.

[@astrobullivant5908]

@@starcapture3040 Persia was a very different kind of threat that the new autocratic bureaucracy of the Late Roman Empire was able to deal with. Sassanid Persia was another centralized civilization, not a bunch of roving decentralized tribal bands.

[@tylerellis9097]

The East was exposed to constant barbarian invasion and its natural defenses were worse while having the Sassanids as their neighbors. They had real problems too lol.

[@rockstar450]

Rome would have collapsed even sooner if not divided. Just look at the centuries before the collapse. The change of capital and move east was to recentralise around the wealth. The west was doomed to fall away imho. By 476 the west was half Germanic and Roman culture was already half bread out while the Greek-Roman culture of the east hadn’t waned. The loss of the west was necessary to save part of it.

[@constantinoskyriacou3630]

You completely forget that the East not only had to deal with the barbarians, but the Persian empire as well, so even though the rich provinces were far away from barbarian access, they directly bordered a powerful empire

[@zippyparakeet1074]

Yeah but the Persians themselves were dealing with migrations as well along with the White Huns so they signed a mutually beneficial peace treaty with the Eastern Empire that basically lasted throughout the duration of the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. The Persians also guarded the Caucasus in return for an annual payment from Constantinople.

[@ibrahimsulaiman9047]

Excellent video as always, detailed and thorough. I think the heavily fortified nature of Constantinople is key. Not only was this of great military significance, but it also allowed a safe hoarding space for immense wealth. This wealth ensured the upkeep of the army, and enabled the emperors to avert barbarian threats through tribute. It's worth noting that, as you showed in a previous video, the city of Rome hardly noticed the fall of the West in 476-480, while for the East, the fall of Constantinople, in 1204 and in 1453, meant the fall of the empire.

[@dimitrispap7977]

Thanks for this video. It explains why the East stood tall in the 400's-500's. It does not explain however, why the East continued to survive after 600's, when they were deprived of Egypt & Syria, after the Islamic conquests. East Roman Empire survived for a 1000 years AFTER the fall of the West. Even without the breadbasket of Egypt which was lost to the Arabs. East Roman Empire, became the longest surviving empire in history. Is there any explanation on that?

[@septimiusseverus343]

Admittedly that's what I was hoping this video would cover also. Perhaps he will discuss it further in a future vid.

[@gigaya777]

well it was not an easy task during the arab conquest western euorpe was not the same, there we see more docile barbarians kingdoms in the west so the romans could focus their army in the east. they have more access to new mercenaries not only in the west so in emergencies they could always rise new armies made of mercenaries (so even if they lack manpower to levy an army they could always levy mercenaries that is a luxury the late roman empire of the V century didnt have) during the 1071 when anatolia was breached the ERE raised an incredible big army sadly they had bad luck and bad generals... you can always do an AU where they won the battle XD what saved the ERE for centuries was its ability to rise an army quickly

[@ibrahimsulaiman9047]

I think he has already provided an explanation, by referring to the nigh impenetrable defences of Constantinople as a reason for the East's continuity.

[@dionf3858]

The eastern part of the empire had always bankrolled the west, so once they split, the western empire collapsed, where as the east stood for another 1000 years

[@darthguilder1923]

I’m somewhat partial to Bryan Ward-Perkins thoughts about how peace with the Persians helped to prevent the East from falling

[@GoogleUserOne]

You mean the Arab invasion? The Persians were a live and let live society with intermittent demigods. But the tow should have gotten together and smashed the Arab invasion.

[@nicolaspinto76]

Well, in the V century the Sassanid empire was fithing against the nomads tribes from the Northern Steppes and also was a period of weak kings, many murder by the nobility, so, they have few wars with Constantinople in this years.

[@user-cg2tw8pw7j]

@@GoogleUserOne No, the Persians didn't have slaves, but damn the Romans, why were they importing slaves from Europe and the Vikings?

[@lacintag5482]

Geography is the bedrock (pun intended) of history. It sets the initial possibilities, limitations, and incentives on which societies have to operate.

[@darthguilder1923]

Annales school moment

[@astrobullivant5908]

The Eastern Roman Empire was far more amenable to the autocratic bureaucracy that defined the structure of the Late Roman Empire largely because it enjoyed the benefits of the increased tax revenue. In the West, the bureaucratic autocracy probably decreased tax revenue, and more fundamentally, the Western Roman Empire simply did not like the political changes to the empire; the Westerners cared a lot more about their local cultures and traditions than the amenities of concrete, roads, forks, and baths. Keep in mind, Constantine had been in Britain with his father before deciding to refocus to the East. In the West, and especially Britain, the emphasis on localized administration, federalism, and assimilating local customs/folklore with Christianity to preserve it was far more popular than in the East. Lots of writers and historians have suggested/pointed-out that Constantius Chlorus was loathe to persecute the Christians in Britain under Diocletian, but what they neglect to mention is that it would have been impossible to implement Diocletian's autocratic bureaucracy in Britain to carry out the persecution in the first place.

[@alicancandogan5471]

Great point! When the western part of the Empire fell, it was still a confederation of cities; yet the eastern part had managed to centralise due to many factors such as geography, economics, a population which had been culturally more united from the Hellenistic period (and even, arguably, from the bronze age) on etc.

[@astrobullivant5908]

@@alicancandogan5471 And notice the places the Eastern Roman Empire held after the Arab conquests in the 7th Century were by and large the most Hellenic places of the Roman Empire in 325 CE with the big exception being Alexandria.

[@sillypuppy5940]

Hmm, the Apogee of the Eastern Roman Empire ("Byzantine") was during the Macedonian Renaissance - 9th to 11th Century. But this period was like a microcosm of the successful periods of the original empire: competent leadership, strong army, and picking battles carefully. After Basil II, things went downhill.

[@joeywheelerii9136]

I think a cool series idea would be What was life like in the different provinces just prior to the crossing of the Rhine. Civic life in Gaul 450 years post Caesar would be cool.

[@saguntum-iberian-greekkons7014]

The ity of Constantinople was never occupied by a foreign nation until 1204, i don't know where you get that info about goths conquering Constantinople

[@Michael_the_Drunkard]

Majoranius is known for his pseudo-history.

[@GoogleUserOne]

This is becoming my favorite history channel. And since history is my favorite thing: you rock sir.

[@christianyepez1016]

Three words: Location, location, location

[@velvetcroc9827]

The fall of the Western half wasn't inevitable. What if the massive invasion of the Vandal Kingdom had succeeded? What if Majorian or Aetius had lived longer? The survival of Eastern Rome was far from inevitable either. What if Aspar's clique had been as successful in maintaining its grip on power as Ricimer was? Historians sometimes like to play the game of retrospective prophecy and fail to appreciate what a wildly unpredictable beast history is. Medieval and ancient people didn't play history the way we do. They understood its haphazard nature a lot better and for this reason imagined divine decisions to play a decisive role in their understanding of the past. The ancient Romans themselves attributed their success under the Republic to their religious piety. The Eastern Romans were definitely the more pious half. Why not attribute their survival to divine aid? Indeed it was nothing short of miraculous that Justinian survived the plague or how Heraclius managed to save the empire.

[@wynnschaible]

The ultimate defeat of our Confederacy could perhaps be traced to a Union private with a taste for chewing tobacco coming across a tin (in which were concealed the Confederate plans for the upcoming battle!) while out foraging for firewood. Talk about chance! And some even in this secular age have attributed things like this to Divine Providence. If nothing else, your considerations have earned a decent amount of money for "alt-history" novelists! But we're stuck with the world we have.

[@rockstar450]

I wish I could agree with you, but other than some pockets of italy, the west was well on its way of being “de-Romanised” and was already a Germanic mish-mash of peoples getting by the way they could. There’s a reason nobody wanted to join the western army at the end and why Stilicho was desperate for eastern recruitment provinces. Honorius’ inaction doomed the empire. The surviving empire would have been Germanic federations and likely have overthrown the emperors eventually. Your theory ignores the one thing: migration diluting the Roman identity

[@wynnschaible]

@@Zeerich-yx9po I would tell Augustine the same thing Nils Bohr told Einstein: "Stop telling God what to do!" There are events so unlikely to downright impossible that it is hard NOT to invoke Divine intervention for their happening. The danger with this procedure is believing we know what God is doing or why He is doing it.

[@wynnschaible]

@@rockstar450 And yet the foederati wanted to be part of Rome and there were times when at least some of them felt they were more authentically Roman than the non-military inhabitants of the cities -- who were increasingly immigrants from the Semitic East in any event. Migration may have been changing the Roman identity, but it's not like the birthright Romans were producing enough children to even keep things going as they were (sound familiar?)

[@rockstar450]

@@wynnschaibleI think we can agree a stagnant and overly proud noble class is what lead to both the west and east’s collapse. Even during the crusades the Romans viewed Constantinople as civilisation and all beyond their borders as inferior… somethings never change! Stilicho’s death followed by Honorius’ long reign (he was racist af) is what sealed the West’s fate. Stilicho could see what needed to change. The stubborn noble class would have none of it

[@josephparker3033]

Awesome content! Thank you 🙏

[@elbapo7]

As someone with a background in IPE I see this in terms of trade routes and better geography. Look at a gdp map of the late roman empire, and it is clear that the richest parts are where there are trade routes to, well other civilisations. The bosphorus being a key strategic point for this for what became known as the Silk road eastward, and the nile delta covering trade up the nile deep into Africa but also the red sea (via canal) to India and beyond. The east controlling these key routes provided strategic advantages not least ongoing trade and therefore tax base for funding security. Rome on the other hand, once split from the east, and in particular with the loss of Africa was no longer at the centre of routes of trade going anywhere much and not of comparable value. The provinces 'let go' fairly much do so in order of their trade value, with Britain, France and Spain falling before Africa. This is how one would expect classic retrenchment to take place. The east was better able to hold on because more resources, as it was tapping more trade. Contrast this with the late middle ages, where the west of Europe became enriched and the east by comparison was left behind. This is because the new world meant trade routes to the west went somewhere. Somewhere with vast riches to be brought into those nations and eurasia more widely via western entrepots, which therefore had the tax bases for empire expansion.

[@TheDirtysouthfan]

What? While parts of Gaul and Spain fell before Africa, those regions were reconquered and held for awhile. Africa though, when it was lost, wouldn't be regained until Justinian.

[@nickkaskarelis8995]

The east had the advantage to have a more homogeneous culturally speaking population. The people had a common language spoken before the Roman conquest and it had become Christian before the west. The fusion of Hellenism and Christianity created the unique eastern Roman civilization. I don’t agree with the hypothesis of the eastern richer provinces of Syria and Egypt because even when this provinces were lost to the Arabs the empire survived and even made a comeback under the Macedonian dynasty. Also I don’t believe that the peak of the empires strength was under Justinian but under basil the second.

[@wynnschaible]

Many have added (including many professional historians) to the view expressed in the comments here, that the East was far more congenial to the crushing bureaucratic autocracy of Constantinople than the West. (And one sees that heritage even in the Russia of today) And yet this was the seat of those ancient inventors-of-democracy Athenians and proud Μολών λαβε! Spartans! Something had happened. But exactly what? A historical question which itself would seem to have great relevance today!

[@velvetcroc9827]

Autocracy was never absent in the West (think Louis XIV, Napoleon, Hitler) as it was never absent in ancient Greece with its numerous tyrannies.

[@wynnschaible]

@@velvetcroc9827 Louis XIV was an autocrat, but comparable to the Tsar? No. Henry VIII was as impatient of restriction as any English-speaking ruler has ever been, but even he had to back down in the face of a tax revolt. As for the rest, I can only say that the periods of tyrannical absolutism were episodes, not the century-in century-out norm. Perhaps this is just the West trying to feel good about itself. But then, see what Byzantium's heir is doing in Ukraine!

[@velvetcroc9827]

@@wynnschaible Byzantium has no heir. The Kievan Rus adopted the Greek rite of Christianity because they found its rituals more spectacular. And who can blame them? Charlotte Stapenhorst definitely gets them.

[@wynnschaible]

@@velvetcroc9827 The take in Moscow after 1453: Two Romes have fallen. A third still stands. A fourth there cannot be. The Russians certainly see themselves as the heirs!

[@velvetcroc9827]

@@wynnschaible Nobody else takes that seriously other than some ultra nationalist cranks in Russia.

[@DMMarch]

Interesting, I wonder if Constantine forsaw this by founding his city, noticing after the 3rd century crisis that Aurelian saw the vulnerability of the west and Rome itself.

[@septimiusseverus343]

Gallienus noticed it even before Aurelian. It's why he moved his HQ to Mediolanum, closer to the frontier where the action was.

[@alsiyonealternate]

Yes its true, the West was more open to barbarians, but you forgot, that the East was more open to a more formidable enemy: Persia. So this reason that the West is more open to invasion than the East is untenable. If Persia was nearer to the West, and the East nearer to barbarians, I dont think the West would survive longer either. The best reason imo is that the east was more urbanized and civilized than the west and had a bigger economy.

[@igorkarpov8051]

Agree! Sassanids were a much stronger foe for the East than any of the Germanic tribes and the persians were always waiting and eager to attack at any opportunity.

[@tylerellis9097]

Yeah the East also had to deal with the same Germanics and Huns that the West did.

[@georgeborb3245]

True. The wars with Persians were also the real reason why there was a much weaker version of the eastern empire after them and the rise of Islam came.

[@Tortellobello45]

@@georgeborb3245 no, it was the Justinian’s plague that weakened the Empire that would never again return to its former glory

[@Grason20]

Ironically it's Persia that's preventing the East from collapsing that early, since they had the same group of barbarians that the eastern empire had to deal with.

[@IchimaruGin19877]

Your favorite channel for subjective history here !!!!!!!

[@Pandadude-eg9li]

The west was more sparsely populated, the west didn't benefit from Diocletian's Proto-Feudalism, the west's Latin core basically just centered around Rome, the west had a longer frontier (at least in Europe) which was vulnerable by sea. The west had a usurper right from the off. Honorius and Valentinian III ruled more than 50 years collectively. Also, they didn't have Constantinople, Which was virtually impregnable by land. While the east did have Arcadius, Theodosius II was relatively competent and had good advisors, the east also had a more centralized Greek culture, and no truly incompetent Emperor came between Arcadius and Phokas. Basically, abandon Britain save for one legion, which will be given to the Celtic natives, have Constantine III not revolt, and be nicer to Alaric. Then have Constantius III live at least long enough so Valentinian III can have some understanding of how government and army work.

[@saguntum-iberian-greekkons7014]

the Famous IX th Legion is called?

[@Pandadude-eg9li]

@@saguntum-iberian-greekkons7014 Legio IX Hispania

[@user-so5tb1hy8r]

WHat about the Arab conquests? The arabs took the richest regions of the East, and it never regained them. That was in the 600s.... but the East lasted another 800 years after that, despite not having these rich regions.

[@davidantoniocamposbarros7528]

The East still had Anatolia and that's where they got most of their men,food and money

[@Michael_the_Drunkard]

Syria was temporarily retaken by Emperor John Tzimiskes.

[@jaydaytoday3548]

The real reason was that west had started to rely on Barbarians more and more to point that IE Ricimer could place Emperors on the throne at will. These Barbarians had no allegiance to Rome and so they acted on their behalf more and more. Ricimer is one of the main reasons the west fell along with the lost of Africa.

[@tylerellis9097]

The East had the exact same problem, only it was able to counter it and purge the Goths in power with Isaurians

[@gigaya777]

they did had some loyalty, alaric was betrayed twice by honorius alaric had no intention to destroy italy or let the other barbarians take over the empire he only wanted to be recognized also the visigoth were incredible Romanized under alaric orders

[@ultrasgreen1349]

It seems that the late roman empire had enormous manpower problems and this was the biggest issue. How come that the late roman empire could not replenish the loss of 30.000 men in the battle of Hadrianople but the early roman republic could replace the loss of more than 100.000 romans in the battles of cannae and lake trasimene against hannibal??

[@kevinbyrne4538]

The Eastern Mediterranean was also the end of important trade routes: the Danube, the Silk Road, and the route to India -- making Constantinople a rich center of trade. Only when Constantinople fell to the Turks in 1453 did the Europeans seek an alternate route to the luxury goods of the East -- and thus become major maritime powers.

[@antoniotorcoli9145]

Thank you for your amazing work. I will add some other reasons, of strictly military nature. First of all, the scarce roman troops in Spain, helped by locally raised militias,initially managed to repel the Vandals, the Alans and the Suebi . But Gerontius disrupted the pyrenean fortified defence and struck a deal with the barbarians, allowing them to invade Spain. Secondly, Heraclianus deprived Africa from their main forces which were destroyed in Italy. Eventually the remaining troops under Bonifatius were diminished by the successive campaigns against Johannes ‘s troops and Sigisvultus. When the Vandals invaded Africa, Bonifatius had only few thousands of foederati an buccellari Goths. Practically Africa was left defenceless. Thirdly, as you perfectly underlined in a previous video, Richomer was the real destructor of the West.

[@filipecasanova6719]

The Eastern Roman Empire was far more richer than the west, and had better geographic postion, and was less invaded by germanic tribes.

[@Michael_the_Drunkard]

1 of many reasons.

[@ryandugal]

2 The Past and Beyond! Love this stuff.

[@matiasmosquella1830]

You could expand on the economic advantage by adding that the Eastern empire was right at the end of the silk road and able to trade with the world where the west could not. The eastern provinces were also highly populated compared to kost western provinces

[@zippyparakeet1074]

I mean they both were the same Empire while the Eastern Romans directly benefited from the trade duties they levied it's not like they closed borders to Western Rome, international trade continued to flow into Rome and Italia even after 476.

[@kimphilby7999]

One can grow the opinion, after watching this video,that the eastern borders of the Eastern Empire,were inhabited by peaceful tribes of shepherds. But nooow! Eastern of Syria,the Persian empire was preparing one invasion after the other. They weren't barbarians,they had the intension to conquer Constantinople! But as far as the invasions of Goths,you are right Maiorianus, West lucked the diplomacy of the East....

[@wynnschaible]

Indeed, it was the mutual exhaustion of Byzantium and Persia in those wars that (along with the plague) allowed the Muslims to conquer the latter and take those rich provinces from the former.

[@Tasos98]

Everything mentioned in this video was true but West would fall anyway. On the contrary East had many factors that made its state more stable: 1)Unified civilization for centuries (greek language, Christian Religion). Especially in Minor Asia. Every external threat was fortifyng its solidarity while the West was being dismantled in similar occasions. 2)Globalized economy based on currency exchanges instead of "goods" excanges that were common in the West. The West was always much less economcaly unitted and turned into local markets during the 4th and 5th centuries 3)East had been unitted state for centuried, even from the times of Persian Empire. This led to much less "centifungal" tendencies than the West 4)The north territories of the East were very poor so was much less appealling than the north of the West (Gaul). This led invasions mostly to the west. 5)Constanople was the most fortified city in the world. Its walls were, maybe, the best defence system in ancient and medieval period. They had been conquered only when war technics had changed 1000 years later (gun powder, cannons etc). Also it could be uninteruptably supllied with food and money (taxes) during sieges due to its position and its fortified harbour. 6)FINALY due to a SMAAL SEA STRIP that was seperating the state in two pieces. The European and the Asian. Since every threat was by uncivilised tribes with no naval abilities only half of the state was in danger giving time the rest of it to recover and proceed to long term defence. (Long term defence was suitable for Rommans since they had organized supply line while barbarian tribes would starve in the meanwile) Only Arabs had both strong land and naval forces but Constantinople survived due to its technological superiority (Greek Fire). Superiority deriving from the cultural "depth" of the East

[@rosskourtis9602]

While much of what you said is true, there are some important things to mention. First, the East did, in some cases, make better decisions. For example, during much of the reigns of Arcadius and Theodosius ii, the military was de-barbarised and reduced in size, preventing the outbreak of internecine civil wars. Gainas' coup against Eutropius was an aberration in an otherwise quiet period for the East. Another example was in the reign of Anastasius, when a series of important economic policies were instituted that stabilised the bronze inflation problem. Second, the East managed to deal with the barbarian problem, unlike the west. Aspar, the east's version of Ricimer, was assassinated by the emperor Leo. After having dispatched Aspar, Leo sent a letter to Anthemius, the western emperor, advising him to move against Ricimer. Unfortunately for Anthemius, his attempt failed; and he was executed by the latter.

[@gigaya777]

I think the incredible weak limitae army in the late empire played a crucial role in making the WRE borders weaker specially because during the V century when it was like a part time job, the WRE border was the weakest point for the empire since the conquest of Galia but with the change of the early roman empire legion system with bases along the Rhine to the later reform with the comitatense be the main body of (attack/defense) leaving the role of the first defense to the limitae was a good idea in principle but it can only work if the limitae is an extremely professional army , sadly they start declining after Constantine reforms that opened the borders and nobody after that fixed it, the empire had to thanks the franks for be a good new buffer state and kind of loyal foderatio

[@SobekLOTFC]

Great job 👏

[@tylerellis9097]

Sounds like Western Roman Cope smh

[@septimiusseverus343]

Ikr? Lol

[@zersky495]

Yeah lmao

[@Asteros1453]

Sigma male grindset: Convince your beta neighbour to do all your hard work for you.

[@smilodondesmilodon7050]

Why is gratia in the last phrase accusative? The exclamatory accusative always needs a noun + adjective but there is no adjective accompanied with gratias in the last phrase of the video.

[@SuchIsLife424]

The Eastern Roman Empire used diplomacy as a weapon which they used to pit their neighbors against each other. That to me is how they managed to endure for so long. Sure, at times they bribed invading groups but most of the time their superb diplomacy skills were unrivalled. They're so good at it that it makes Henry Kissinger drool lol.

[@Michael_the_Drunkard]

1 of many reasons.

[@devonashwa7977]

you pronounce asia minor wrong the whole time but thanks for the video

[@ourpetsheadsarefallingoff6654]

It’s crazy how much Roman history we have and there aren’t more tv shows or movies on these subjects it wouldn’t even have to be made up the true stories are incredible on their own

[@morriganmhor5078]

And also, did the West ever have (from the times of Carthage) such a powerful, ever returning foe on the same technological level, as the Persians for the East? I don´t think so.

[@stelios-1821]

Opinions...

[@HannahHäggAutisticTransWoman]

Eastern Roman empire had bigger population and therefore a bigger army and could just sent armies after armies but due to incompites by generals made it so there was mistakes and armies lost.

[@explorer1968]

The Western part was plagued by a gigantic bureucracy, Germanic commanders of the Roman army, local-minded nobility and common populations, inept emperors, etc. Fortunately, the Eastern part learned to pull away from that disaster.

[@user-cg2tw8pw7j]

No, the Eastern Romans like civil wars, brother. It's in their blood

[@aa2339]

Looks like some hell on earth, where everyone was just trying to pull each other down.

[@jamesmccreery250]

You can tell by the thumb nail, the East had Olivier Giroud , but the poor West was stuck with Angel Di Maria.....

[@paulvmarks]

Interesting that the when the Goths occupied Rome they met no great resistance, but when the Goths occupied Constantinople, there were massive riots and thousands of Goths were killed - with what was left running away. Perhaps the difference is that the people of Rome suffered a long siege and were starving when the Goths entered - contrary to Hollywood, people who really are starved are NOT savage - they are listless, they have no energy, they cannot fight, not even to defend themselves. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and many other tyrants know this - people who really are staved do not revolt, they are too tired and weak to revolt. The Nazis used to gradually starve and work down the Jews before murdering them - knowing that reduced to a starved state, people cannot fight back. With their access to the sea (to two seas) it was difficult to cut Constantinople off from food supplies - it was Constantinople itself that allowed the Eastern Empire to survive as long as it did, so one has to praise Constantine (no matter his other terrible faults) for recognising the strategic and tactical location of the site.

[@Constantine_Bush]

Do not forgot that most of the ERE's empire was in the eastern provinces so they could be secure against a Persian incursion.

[@laughsatchungus1461]

Is it just me or did these videos used to be longer?

[@schoolofgrowthhacking]

1. More developed societies / cultures / trade opportunity in the East 2. Greek Fire saved Constantinople several times 3. Constantinople's strategic position and the Theodosian walls 4. Varangian mercenaries 5. External forces that worked in their favor (first three crusades, Mongols, Tamerlane)

[@shinsenshogun900]

Quite fun that the Eastern Romans managed to deal a great connection unto the eastern lands that were the Northern and Southern Chinese Dynasties through the Silk Road.

[@anthonydefex777]

I wonder if the East would have been screwed if the Barbarians would have continued going eastward in North Africa all the way to Egypt and Syria

[@davidantoniocamposbarros7528]

The Eastern Empire still had Anatolia,so losing the Levant and North Africa was fine

[@IvanIvanov-ip9el]

Couldn‘t babarians have crossed into Asia minor via the straits where today Gallipoli is located ?

[@Michael_the_Drunkard]

To even get this far, you have to evade the multitude of blockades and defending armies once you landed.

[@smilodondesmilodon7050]

There is still a grammatical mistake at 3:22 tibi is a dative second singular pronoun so it doesn't match with amici which is plural. Your phrase literally implies that you only thank one person. If you want to say "I thank you all friends" you need to use vobis instead of tibi.

[@realistfilms162]

Should let u know amici is plural so it should be gratias ago vobis amici not gratias ago tibi amici

[@user-sc5iv2rp2t]

Because it had the binding factor of the Greek Language. Greek was spoken by common people outside Greece Proper, Byzantine region and Anatolia, in the entire extent of the empire, in the Levant and in Egypt as well. In the West Latin outside Italy was just an administration and clergy language.

[@cowsmuggler1646]

The east was where all the production was. It had all the money. Everything was outsourced to the east. The east was more urbanized. So it was easier to defend. Just put walls around the urban areas and the barbarians did not have siege weapons. And the east had the Persian threat. So the elite military were moved from the Rhine to the east. That is why Constantine made New Rome. To be close to the Persian threat. And the east was less decadent. They were more Christian.

[@Tortellobello45]

It’s totally wrong. Latin was talked in all the Empire, ALL but as Vulgar Latin Not even Italy talked Classical Latin, only Vulgar Latin. By the 3rd Century Latin became a language of the noblemen and of the clergy

[@Michael_the_Drunkard]

Latin was obviously also spoken in Iberia, Gaul and Dalmatia.

[@issith7340]

Greece was destroyed by the goths. Athens, olympia, delfii, etc etc. But recovered and stayed glued to east empire. Greek language, and greek culture, helped east stay solid.

[@issith7340]

@@Zeerich-yx9po I’m talking about the power of greek language as linking factor . The east empire was speaking greek, not variations of it. That was not the case in the west, especially after the german invasions.

[@GGTanguera]

Oh well. The Greeks were traders. There were many other languages and tribes that built so-called "Byzantium".

[@issith7340]

@@GGTanguera all these peoples though , were communicated with each other , with one language , since before Roman Empire even existed: greek. That made them stay united. One language , one religion, one nation: romans.( and not byzantines/ they didn’t even know what byzantine means).

[@GGTanguera]

@@issith7340 Most "roman" emperors were not roman nor greek.

[@issith7340]

@@GGTanguera they were not greek, or anything else , but greek speaking, roman emperors of the Roman Empire. I don’t understand what is your issue, to that.

[@DCMarvelMultiverse]

Did I miss something or could invaders have gone into Egypt from Africa?

[@Uhtred-the-bold]

It’s weird how a country that cannot control its borders has a hard time surviving………

[@septimiusseverus343]

> Eastern Romans did not have it hard against a foreign invader > _Laughs in Sassanid Persian_

[@KertPerteson]

Eastern rome had good positioning

[@rockstar450]

This is so biased and taking out of context that both the east and west were feuding and doing their part. The “failure” of the east didn’t fell the west. Both sides were equally incompetent and there was no policy to sabotage the west. Rufinus was a selfish pos but Stilicho (who I love) was as well and was trying to strip power from them so he’s not innocent in the game of court intrigue. These were 2/2 of the same empire and it needs to stop. The only difference was the courts oppose each other. This is hardly new and the simple reason why the survive was superior geography with richer provinces and a more united court at a defensible capital. Acadius was incompetent…. You’re really going to say he was better than Honorius? Again, you omit the west did the same exact thing. The west simply copped the migration of the time worse with less resources to deal with it. They were both the Roman Empire stop devaluing either side.

[@septimiusseverus343]

I'm a huge fan of Maiorianus, and he seems a stand - up guy, but his seeming bias against the East is starting to somewhat grate on me.

[@rockstar450]

@@septimiusseverus343 I saw his comment previously quote: “the east was never more successful than the west, it was just luckier”. The courts were in competition, not the empire! Rome was the greatest city when the empire was at its peak, challenges changed it and then Constantinople became the greatest city during the end of the west and beyond… why is this a point of competition? The west was doomed to fall due to the challenges it faced while the east was saved thanks to wealth, geography, its neighbours and a more stable government at an invincible capital.

[@septimiusseverus343]

@@rockstar450 I know! It's the same with his vid on when he (somewhat desperately) tried to argue that the city of Rome did not become irrelevant after the 3rd century Crisis. I stand by my assertion that just as the Crisis shifted power away from the center to the provinces, Rome itself faded into the background. Never mind that some of the last shadow emperors resided there when the West was past the point of no return. It didn't change the fact that Mediolanum, and then Ravenna, were the true centers of political and military authority in the Late Roman West. They were a lot closer to the frontiers, where the real action was. Furthermore, if Valentinian III permanently shifted his residence to Rome in 450 AD, how is it that he murdered Aetius in _Ravenna_ in 454? Did he teleport there while Aetius was on a sightseeing tour? Lol

[@rockstar450]

@@septimiusseverus343 110% agree with this because it is essentially considered fact amongst scholars. The late western empire had its power centres closing off from the rest of the world, meaning central authority was waning. WHY is this a bad thing!? I love the Western Roman Empire, this is simply what happened and it became a decentralised, half Germanic state with some of the most fascinating political and cultural outcomes in human history. The economic and humanitarian issues of the empire broke it apart. This presenter feels ashamed Rome fell? Why? It did fall but it was glorious when she was young!

[@septimiusseverus343]

@@rockstar450 Preach it. 👍

[@grahamturner1290]

It's all Greek to me. 😊

[@user-qz4go8pf8l]

It's not Greek. Only Greek chauvinists and in general ignorant laymen think that the eastern Roman Empire was Greek.

[@grahamturner1290]

@@user-qz4go8pf8la joke, my friend. A well known saying, are you not familiar with it?

[@user-qz4go8pf8l]

@@grahamturner1290 Yes, I have! It was hard to detect your humor through the screen. I understand you now, take care.

[@grahamturner1290]

@@user-qz4go8pf8l you too! 👍

[@rickyyacine4818]

Same all greek brother latin are degenerate

[@iloMiloMiloM97]

3 words . Geography Geography Geography

[@hdufort]

The biggest strategic mistake in History. Trying to reconquer all of Italy... while destroying it in the process.

[@davidantoniocamposbarros7528]

Peace in a nutshell

[@nikhtose]

Disagree. The resilience of the East was rooted in the greater self-confidence and old Roman pride that survived among the citizenry of Constantinople but had ebbed away in Rome. The violent expulsion of Gainas, and, later, the astonishing reconstruction of the walls of Theodosius in a few weeks to prevent Byzantium's sacking by the Huns show this. Also, the East's frontiers were no less porous to barbarians than those of the West, but it also successfully fought off the powerful Sassanid and, later, Arab empires. In doing so, Eastern Rome saved the West, which could never have done these on its own. All credit goes to the East.

[@user-iu1eg2pt7i]

East could afford to pay their problems away.

[@commonsense3710]

Egypt

[@user-cg2tw8pw7j]

The entire Middle East has one of the oldest civilizations in the world

[@zolanidingaan2511]

The west died because of demographic changes, more and more primitive germanics became a significant % of the population and civilization died slowly.

[@Michael_the_Drunkard]

The Germanic peoples were in the minority. They were more like a military elite. They barely affected demographics. It was rather the case that many Western Roman peoples (Hispanics, Gauls, Brits, and later Italians and Dalmatian) submitted to them, because their government was failing.

[@allex975gaming]

dont forget that the east saved the west multiple times under justinian and bellisarius . When rome fell the east reconquered it and when the west needed help , it helped . The west fell because of traitors from spain , germany and north africa . Just because the east didnt completely help every time doesnt mean they ruined the west... You have a clear bias against the east even though they fought with everything for rome ...

[@jhn2121]

Western Roman cope

[@ImperivmRomanvm27bc]

I'm searching for the people that tinks Bisanzium is a greek empire

[@GGTanguera]

Greeks never had an empire.

[@iwannisbalaouras1687]

@@GGTanguera cry

[@iwannisbalaouras1687]

you would find many in the comments 😊

[@GGTanguera]

@@iwannisbalaouras1687 E malaga, life will get better for you 🙏❤ ✌ ☮ 🕊

[@iwannisbalaouras1687]

@@GGTanguera i hope for you to, because your education is not the best. good luck

[@oktayciftci8333]

eastern rome is 🇺🇸 at then

[@nazeem8680]

Next time they divide the roman empire, maybe they should try along north-south, or maybe diagonally. just dont give all of Egypt to those scheming easterners again.

[@Michael_the_Drunkard]

Gay opinion rejected

[@markdean1984]

Because of Christianity. In the East started from zero. New start, new religion. In the west, first had the old be destroyed by any mean and then everything to be restarted around the new religion. That, maybe, explain the dark age too.

[@noelyanes2455]

Nonsense. The eastern empire didn’t form out of a vacuum, it was always the wealthier side of the empire because of its geography and closer proximity to valuable trade routes and sea ports in the Mediterranean. It survived because it was wealthier and could afford to sustain its military as well as pay the Huns to leave them alone.

[@markdean1984]

@@noelyanes2455 Agree to disagree. Nobody knows all the reasons. Personally, I agree with Eduard Gibbon. When Constantine the Great built his new capital Constantinopolis, there was a small village on that place called Byzantium, he built it according to the new religion as a Christian city. Rome was very deep pagan and still was rejecting Christianity. It took a society reset to make atone Christian. I believe what I like to believe, you believe what you like to believe.

[@astrobullivant5908]

Then, why wasn't Aristotle ever "canceled" in intellectual circles? The East didn't really start from zero though. Saying that the East started from zero is like saying all of these new superhero reboots are completely removing racist historical connections. In many ways, the East had a major identity struggle throughout its existence when it came to dealing with its "Pagan" heritage. Can you imagine what Gemisthos Plethon was thinking when he was trying to save Constantinople? The common coloni were able to assimilate their "pagan" traditions to Christianity with relative ease, and as shown by the conversion of the Maniots to Christianity, they were often encouraged to honor their pre-Christian heritage in various ways--they just were encouraged to do so quietly and often anonymously. For intellectuals, the situation was extremely different. Many Byzantine political intellectuals privately had lots of respect for Diocletian, but obviously they could never say that outright. Philosophers, including the most gifted scientific mind of Byzantium's history, John Philoponus, had to walk quite the tightrope. However, these philosophers and scientists had to walk quite the tightrope in previous eras too; just ask Socrates and Archimedes. John Philoponus is a massive exception to the general rule that innovative output in mathematics and the theoretical sciences had simply been declining. It is also notable that when the Church anathematized or "canceled" John Philoponus, it didn't prevent his scientific writings from circulating. However, the peripatetics didn't like John Philoponus because he said that Aristotle was wrong. Buridan was really the first Christian mind to seriously consider John Philoponus, and that was centuries after his death. Regarding the cultural and philosophical "Dark Age", I think it's important to read Platonist writers from the 4th Century like Pappus of Alexandria who were noting that Geometry had been stagnating well before Constantine's reign. These writers observed that scientific innovation had been declining sharply and that such decline was making their Platonist and "pagan" religion less popular.

[@Rcampo42]

No offense dude, but I think the Roman’s deserved to fall

[@Michael_the_Drunkard]

At some point every empire falls.

[@laur1969]

The Eastern Roman Empire had the best recruiting ground:Illyricum,Dacia,Thracia and Macedonia. Only 25% of the army was foederati. 54% was native latin speakers from the Balkan romanized provinces. So the eastern army was more roman and latin speaker than the western army.

[@GGTanguera]

Where did you find reference that they were "native Latin speakers"?

[@laur1969]

@@GGTanguera Wikipedia

[@GGTanguera]

@@laur1969 I thought so :)

[@Michael_the_Drunkard]

​@@laur1969 the lower Danube regions were Latin-speaking until the 7th century when the Bulgarians settled in Moesia. They migrated north over the Danube to seek protection in the Carpathian Mountains and thus they became the Romanians. It's really ironic, since Majorianus is Romanian, a descendant of an Eastern Roman people, yet he is a WRE fanboy.

[@Michael_the_Drunkard]

The ERE was still mostly Greek. The Latin speakers obviously existed, but they were outnumbered by the Greeks.

[@Merle1987]

This kinda shows that when the West ruined things for the Byzantines in the middle ages, it was just karma coming home to roost.

[@Michael_the_Drunkard]

Karma? 1.Stop using this term if you aren't a hindu, it's cringe. 2. The Western Empire's fall was not primarily the fault of the Eastern Empire. It was mostly caused by Germanic puppet masters like Ricimer and incompetent emperors. Your opinion is declared gay.

[@jothegreek]

You deflact a lot of blame to the east the east faced the sassanids constantly the west could nt maintain even italy or spain

[@jhn2121]

Western Roman cope