Why Did The Western Empire Fall When

The East Survived. Essay, Research Paper

Most historians agree that Romulus Augustlus was the last

leader of the Western Roman Empire.. His

reign ended in 476 and we can therefore state that the Western Roman Empire fell

at the same time, although other historians may argue for a slightly longer

lifespan.. These technicalities are in

some ways irrelevant.. The Eastern

Empire survived the fifth century, whilst the Western Empire crumbled.. Traditionally historians have blamed social,

economic and psychological factors for the collapse.. The .sacred rhetoric., as Brown calls it, describes the Western

Empire as crumbling from within.. More

modern historians place more emphasis on the so-called external problems that

afflicted the Western Empire in this period..

In this essay I hope to analyse both the internal and external problems

of the Western Empire, whilst continuing to compare the problems of the west to

the problems of its sister empire in the East.The Western Empire was ravaged by

political problems in the fifth century. By looking at the number of

usurpations in the sister empires we gain a simplistic yet pronounced, view of

the differing political situations..

A.H.M Jones states there were only a handful of attempted usurpations in

the Eastern Empire during the fifth century, whereas the number of attempted

usurpations in the Western was significantly larger.. One need only look at the succession of ephemeral Empereor.s that

succeeded Valentinian III to see how politically unstable the West really

was.. This is not to say that the

Western Empire was completely bereft of good leaders and commanders.. Indeed Aetius was in a position of power for

twenty-six years until his assassination in 454.. During his career Aetius managed to protect southern Gaul from

the Visgoths and more northern parts from the Franks.. He also worked successfully with the Huns, as well as beating

them in 452.. His assassination

highlights the lack of patriotism and the level of self-interest that infected

the upper echelons of Roman society..

Maximus planned to kill Aetius merely as way of enabling the

assassination of Valentinan III.. This

self-interested and counter productive internal feud is symptomatic of the

internal political wranglings that beset the Western Empire.. These wranglings, some of which resulted in

civil war, wasted valuable military resources that could have been better used

in combating the other problems that also beset the empire in this period.This self-interested feuding is

strongly linked to the decline in civil responsibility.. In previous eras it was considered a Roman.s

duty to work for the state and the empire..

However some have suggested that the Roman elite increasingly saw civic

work as dirty work. A.H.M Jones attributes this change in mindset to the

Christianisation of the Western Rome Empire..

He suggests that the elite had religious objections to working for the

state.. However this argument appears

overly simplistic.. Many of the elite

landowners outside of Rome had become isolated.. This is partly due to increased centralisation of the state, but

also to the influx of other tribes into the empire.. These tribes, who from 376 onwards infiltrated the Empire, became

the closest source of power to many landowners.. It is no surprise then that they focussed attention on the

military and political might of the closest tribe, rather than the physically

and metaphorically distant imperial capital..

This change in attitude is difficult to prove, but we know that landowners

were increasingly unwilling to allow their labourers to join the army.. This self-interested practice hardly depicts

these landowners as responsible and dutiful citizens of the empire.Those who did go into public

service were almost exclusively from the aristocracy.. Their behaviour reflects their class position.. The political institutions that managed to

give even the lowliest member of the empire some political rights were

gradually eroded.. De Croix believes

that the erosion of the peasants political rights, and the decreasing

importance of citizenship, virtually enslaved the peasantry.. Maybe he goes too far when he states that

this degradation of the peasant.s rights was a deliberate ploy to create cheaper

labour: .(the decline in the importance of citizenship) was primarily a

development that would facilitate exploitation and as bought about by the

propertied classes it was for precisely that purpose... Along with large tax burden greedily imposed

on the peasantry by the landed elite, we see why the peasantry were hardly

enthusiastic about the empire.. The

decrease in conscription, the passivity in which they accepted the foreign

tribes and even the Bagaudic peasant uprisings are all symptoms of a poor and

discontented rural population.The tax burden bought on the

peasan

Внимание, отключите Adblock

Вы посетили наш сайт со включенным блокировщиком рекламы!
Ссылка для скачивания станет доступной сразу после отключения Adblock!

Скачать