Why the Eastern Roman Empire managed to survive for 1000 years after the fall of the western roman empire?

[Londinium]

What's the relation of medieval , Renaissance and modern Italy to Rome? There's almost zero relation.

Whats the relation of post Medieval Asia Minor to Greece? Very little aside from the Greek disapora on the fringes which rarely disobeyed the Sultan, which doesn't even exist anymore.

Looking at the modern status of these countries to see how Romanised they were is ridiculous. The fact is they were invaded by Barbarians, which fundamentally changed the way they are today. They still speak Latin derived languages and incorporate a whole load of Roman law in their law systems. Regardless I'm getting well off the point here. The point is that during Roman rule they were very Romanised, using the status of those nations hundreds of years down the line as an example they weren't Romanised is ridiculous.

[Stavroforos]

Whats the relation of post Medieval Asia Minor to Greece? Very little aside from the Greek disapora on the fringes which rarely disobeyed the Sultan, which doesn't even exist anymore.

Looking at the modern status of these countries to see how Romanised they were is ridiculous. The fact is they were invaded by Barbarians, which fundamentally changed the way they are today. They still speak Latin derived languages and incorporate a whole load of Roman law in their law systems. Regardless I'm getting well off the point here. The point is that during Roman rule they were very Romanised, using the status of those nations hundreds of years down the line as an example they weren't Romanised is ridiculous.

Basically.

I'd go so far as to say that Gaul was perhaps the most Romanized province of the Empire.

[Manuel I Komnenos]

Whats the relation of post Medieval Asia Minor to Greece? Very little aside from the Greek disapora on the fringes which rarely disobeyed the Sultan, which doesn't even exist anymore.

Looking at the modern status of these countries to see how Romanised they were is ridiculous. The fact is they were invaded by Barbarians, which fundamentally changed the way they are today. They still speak Latin derived languages and incorporate a whole load of Roman law in their law systems. Regardless I'm getting well off the point here. The point is that during Roman rule they were very Romanised, using the status of those nations hundreds of years down the line as an example they weren't Romanised is ridiculous.

1,5-2 million Greeks living there.

[Stavroforos]

1,5-2 million Greeks living there.

There aren't 1.5-2 million Greeks living in the Middle East, excluding Cyprus.

[Manuel I Komnenos]

There aren't 1.5-2 million Greeks living in the Middle East, excluding Cyprus.

He asked about the post-medieval period. These people were in Asia Minor until recently, 1922/23.

[Stavroforos]

He asked about the post-medieval period. These people were in Asia Minor until recently, 1922/23.

However, they are no longer there. If one looked at the Middle East now, it would be impossible to tell that it was all once part of a Hellenized world.

[Manuel I Komnenos]

However, they are no longer there. If one looked at the Middle East now, it would be impossible to tell that it was all once part of a Hellenized world.

They are not because of a peace Treaty not because of some normal process.
The Greeks of Western Asia Minor as well as the Greeks of Pontus (who were not Greeks but were hellenized during the Hellenistic Era) managed to survive under Ottoman rule for almost 700 years. How long did the Romans in Gaul and Italy survived before being Frankized, Germanized or Ostrogothized?

If we are talking about Egypt, Bactria or Syria, okay, there were Greek populations residing there in the Hellenistic and the Byzantine period but they were always a minority there. The Greek population in these areas wasn't as strong as in the Asia Minor as to say that the areas were Hellenized. The Greek or Hellenized population of Asia Minor did never disappear, but was rather removed due to a peace Treaty. The Greeks/Hellenized people of Asia Minor did not experience Ottomanization to a large scale as to become extinct.

The Romanization of Gaul and Italy was so light that the Romanized people were almost instantly replaced or were Germanized following the fall of the WRE.

[Eärnur]

Apart from the fact the Eastern part had rich province's, the West was almost all the time in a civl war's, which left it more weak, though still the east servived and later conquered some part's in the west it was no longer as powerfull as it had been during it's hight when it was ruled from Rome.

[Stavroforos]

They are not because of a peace Treaty not because of some normal process.
The Greeks of Western Asia Minor as well as the Greeks of Pontus (who were not Greeks but were hellenized during the Hellenistic Era) managed to survive under Ottoman rule for almost 700 years. How long did the Romans in Gaul and Italy survived before being Frankized, Germanized or Ostrogothized?

If we are talking about Egypt, Bactria or Syria, okay, there were Greek populations residing there in the Hellenistic and the Byzantine period but they were always a minority there. The Greek population in these areas wasn't as strong as in the Asia Minor as to say that the areas were Hellenized. The Greek or Hellenized population of Asia Minor did never disappear, but was rather removed due to a peace Treaty. The Greeks/Hellenized people of Asia Minor did not experience Ottomanization to a large scale as to become extinct.

The Romanization of Gaul and Italy was so light that the Romanized people were almost instantly replaced or were Germanized following the fall of the WRE.

How long has the Greek civilization of the Middle East survived? (not long)

And an actual look into Gaul or Italy after the barbarian invasions will show that the Roman influence was still very strong at first, and then gradually merged with the barbarian cultures.

[Londinium]

They are not because of a peace Treaty not because of some normal process.
The Greeks of Western Asia Minor as well as the Greeks of Pontus (who were not Greeks but were hellenized during the Hellenistic Era) managed to survive under Ottoman rule for almost 700 years. How long did the Romans in Gaul and Italy survived before being Frankized, Germanized or Ostrogothized?

If we are talking about Egypt, Bactria or Syria, okay, there were Greek populations residing there in the Hellenistic and the Byzantine period but they were always a minority there. The Greek population in these areas wasn't as strong as in the Asia Minor as to say that the areas were Hellenized. The Greek or Hellenized population of Asia Minor did never disappear, but was rather removed due to a peace Treaty. The Greeks/Hellenized people of Asia Minor did not experience Ottomanization to a large scale as to become extinct.

The Romanization of Gaul and Italy was so light that the Romanized people were almost instantly replaced or were Germanized following the fall of the WRE.

*sigh*

No they weren't. The Romanised people of Gaul retained a rather sizable majority even after the barbarian invasions. The Germanic invaders formed an elite, which the previous Roman elite collaborated with to form new states and to provide the knowledge to run said states. This is why France speaks a Romance language and not a Germanic one. The vast proportion of the population stayed Romanised and absorbed Germanic influences, not the other way. In fact they formed a greater majority in the nascent France than the Greeks ever did in Asia Minor after the Turkish invasions.

(Britain is the exception here, rather oddly Britain went the other way. The barbarians became a majority and the native Romano-British became a minority estranged from positions of power)

Besides once again we're missing the point. The point is that the Medieval state of nations has absolutely no relevance to the success or failure of Romanisation or Hellenisation in that region. Barbarian invasions massively changed much of Western Europe compared to their Roman era. With of course the exception of Britain which was always tenaciously Romanised and pursued a different path to the continental Roman provinces during the collapse of the empire.

[Manuel I Komnenos]

I believe that Hellenisation and Christianity played the biggest role in the survival of the ERE.
Its citizens believed that they were part of something special, that their (Greco-Roman) civilization and culture was one level above those of the surrounding states, that they had been chosen by God to protect Christianity, that their Empire was divine, and lots of other things. This was the national identity of the Byzantines and what made them unite, fight and die to protect this Empire. This was state of the Empire for most of its existence (up to 1204 and a bit later).

Contrary to the ERE, the WRE, ravaged by corruption, unable Emperors and generals, suffering from the crisis of the 3rd Century BC, not believing in such an advanced and universal religion as Christianity until much later, finally lost their identity in the easiest possible way. The citizens didn't rise up to fight the invaders, rather they gradually accepted them and handed them some of the remaining glory of the Roman Empire (such as the Latin language).

[Tiberios]

Contrary to the ERE, the WRE, ravaged by corruption, unable Emperors and generals, suffering from the crisis of the 3rd Century BC, not believing in such an advanced and universal religion as Christianity until much later, finally lost their identity in the easiest possible way. The citizens didn't rise up to fight the invaders, rather they gradually accepted them and handed them some of the remaining glory of the Roman Empire (such as the Latin language).

It's not like they just gave up and was assimilated. Take Gaul, the Roman aristocracy in these lands continued to exist after the fall and served with the new elite, the Franks. Many of them also entered the service of the church. I'd say that rather than dissapearing it was the Romanized peoples that assimilated the Franks, which adopted at least some Roman customs, adopted their religion and their language.
If you read Civilization in the West, that gives a decent explanation as to what became of the Roman aristocracy and the rest of the Romanized peoples.

[Jlop985]

The western provinces were thoroughly Romanized by the 5th century. Barbarian influences took a different form in each region, but only in Britain and along the German frontier did the barbarian culture overwhelm the Roman culture. In Gaul, as has been stated, the Gallo-Roman elite retained a lot of clout, and ended up merging with the Frankish elite. In Hispania, the Visigoths embraced and preserved Roman culture, but they remained separate from the native Hispano-Roman population until the end of their reign.

Ironically, it was Italy that the native Roman population was most affected. The Ostrogoths implemented policies similar to the Visigoths, that is, leaving Roman culture in place, but replacing the Roman elite with Ostrogothic elite. The reconquest of Italy destroyed the Italian economy and the Ostrogothic power base, which led the way for the Lombard invasion. The Lombards were very harsh with the native Italian population, and maintained a separate identity as late as the 9th century.

In Italy, Spain, and Gaul, the Germanic invaders only made up a small minority of the population. The demographic changes amounted to little more than a change in the ruling classes.

[Carpathian Wolf]

Homogeneous population and religion.

Not really homogeneous. Diversity is not a weakness.

Luck

One of your worse answers.

What's the relation of medieval , Renaissance and modern Italy to Rome? There's almost zero relation.

You can't say that. That's an ignorant statement. Just like how Albanians say that modern Greece has nothing to do with ancient Greece and that today's Greeks are a bunch of "Asians/Africans/Anything else but Greek."

[Xanthippus of Sparta]

An important point has been missed, one of the most important in understanding why Roman rule in Constaninople outlived that in Rome itself.

Wealth.

Mangalore touched on this when it comes to trade routes, but the eastern Mediterranean had always been richer than the west, going back to the time of the Roman Republic at least.

Intially, the ERE had three of the most wealthy, populous, and culturally important cities in the world at its disposal....Antioch, Alexandria, as well as Constaninople.

This was at a time where Rome was barely a city anymore. Why would you want to live in a city that is violently sacked, vandalized (pun intended), and fought over all the time? After 410, the population of Rome itself dropped sharply.

It's not like they just gave up and was assimilated. Take Gaul, the Roman aristocracy in these lands continued to exist after the fall and served with the new elite, the Franks. Many of them also entered the service of the church. I'd say that rather than dissapearing it was the Romanized peoples that assimilated the Franks, which adopted at least some Roman customs, adopted their religion religion and their language.
If you read Civilization in the West, that gives a decent explanation as to what became of the Roman aristocracy and the rest of the Romanized peoples.

This is also very true as well. There is a reason why Catholic Priests dress in 5th century Roman garb when conducting Mass even today.

Still, most of what made the Romans "Roman" was lost, but continued with the ERE. Education. Literacy. Architecture. Standing armies. Even little things like personal hygiene.

[Dromikaites]

The main problem of the Roman Empire which was transferred to WRE and ERE was its "constitution". In theory the emperors needed to be approved by the Senate. In practice any man (and in the ERE sometimes also women) who could secure enough military support was a potential emperor. Capturing Rome or Constantinople and thus getting hold of their respective Senates was a nice finishing touch of the ascension to the throne but it wasn't really necessary. By the way, there was nothing democratic about the Senate neither in Rome nor in Constantinople. And democracy as a concept was long since gone at that time. Might simply made it right.

The problem with "might makes it right" and large states like WRE and ERE is the armies need to be spread out far apart. This makes it hard for the central government to exert a direct influence on the individual soldiers. If the empire is well run, this doesn't constitute a problem because the soldiers are happy and don't feel like risking their lives in a civil war just for the fun of it. However when problems happen, a popular general or a local rich guy can become a successful candidate to the throne. And since the empire is large there are several people who might launch bids for the throne in the same time. Anarchy is guaranteed. And if anarchy happens at the wrong time the empire is doomed.

Why did the ERE manage to bounce back several times (Heraclius, Basil II, Alexios I Komnenos) while WRE entered a downward spiral never to recover?

I think it was a combination of luck and geography.

Luck because it simply happened the right people got into power after repeated situations in which the wrong people had been emperors. The fact the system allowed the wrong people to become emperors and stay in power long enough to do big damage invalidates any assumption there was something special about the Byzantines (Orthodoxy, Hellenization of the East, etc) compared to their Western counterparts. Eventually the Byzantines also ran out of luck with the civil war between Andronikos II and his grandson Andronikos III. As per Murphy's law, if s*it can happen, it will.

Geography did play a role in keeping the ERE alive for longer for 2 reasons:

1. Economy - At it was pointed out, Egypt, Syria, Palestine and the Mediterranean shores of Anatolia were relatively well protected by natural obstacles even though in the 5th century they were near the strongest enemy of the Romans, the Sassanids. So in the 3rd, 4th and 5th centuries BC while the WRE was running out of money, The ERE still had plenty. As a result the WRE was more exposed to anarchy (e.g the "Gallic Empire of 260 AD - 274 AD), less able to field large enough armies and less able to buy off the barbarians, ERE-style;

2. Strategic defense - WRE had one long vulnerable border roughly corresponding to the nowadays Dutch-Belgian, Belgian-German and French-German ones. It had the relatively easy to defend Spain, Britain and Africa (the latter province corresponding to the nowadays North of Morocco, North of Algeria, Tunisia and North of Libya). The problem was Gallia (France & Belgium) was the richest and most populous and therefore had to absorb almost all of the military resources of the Empire for its defense.

But what happens if the majority of the army is in Gaul and somebody tries to invade Italy? That's exactly what happened in 401 AD and Stilicho, the commander in chief of the WRE armies had to weaken the defenses of Gallia in order to defend Rhaetia (Switzerland) against the Ostrogoths of Radagsius and Northern Italy against the Visigoths of Alaric. While he was having his hands full with those two, the Vandals, Alans and Sueves crossed the Rhine and cut large chunks of Gallia for themselves. Once Gallia was gone the WRE collapsed within 70 years.

The Byzantine Empire on the other hand was facing only one really serious threat in the 5th century: the Sassanids. It bought off the Huns and struck an agreement with the Goths. Some of them were employed as mercenaries ant the others were basically allowed free rein in Italy. That allowed the Empire to focus on defending the richest provinces, which anyway were protected by strong natural obstacles (mountains and deserts).

The harder to defend Danube borders were shorter than those of the WRE. In addition to that, the territory north of Constantinople (nowadays Bulgaria and former Yugoslavia) was pretty much expendable, unlike Gallia for the WRE. Even the loss of Greece didn't mean much because money were mainly made in the East (Mediterranean Coast of Anatolia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt) while the troops were mainly recruited from Anatolia.

After losing Egypt and Syria in the 7th century AD it still retained Anatolia till the battle of Mazinkert 1071 in the 11th century. Holding Anatolia from the 7th to the 11th century allowed the ERE to do the following:

1. To recover Greece in 785 AD from the Slavs who had overrun it and settled there in the 7th century and to re-colonize it with Greek-speakers from Anatolia;

2. To recover the Balkans and Syria during the reign of Basil II (976 - 1025).

After Mazinkert most of Anatolia was lost, however the most populous and richest parts of the region remained in the Byzantine hands. That allowed the last bouncing back under the reigns of Alexios I Komnenos, John II Komnenos and Manuel I Komnenos.

A better geographic layout of the ERE resulted in the empire being able to absorb more screw-ups than its western counterpart. However the inherently flawed political system (lacking a clear rule of succession like the majority of the European feudal states had) eventually led to its demise.

[ray243]

The main problem of the Roman Empire which was transferred to WRE and ERE was its "constitution". In theory the emperors needed to be approved by the Senate. In practice any man (and in the ERE sometimes also women) who could secure enough military support was a potential emperor. Capturing Rome or Constantinople and thus getting hold of their respective Senates was a nice finishing touch of the ascension to the throne but it wasn't really necessary. By the way, there was nothing democratic about the Senate neither in Rome nor in Constantinople. And democracy as a concept was long since gone at that time. Might simply made it right.

The problem with "might makes it right" and large states like WRE and ERE is the armies need to be spread out far apart. This makes it hard for the central government to exert a direct influence on the individual soldiers. If the empire is well run, this doesn't constitute a problem because the soldiers are happy and don't feel like risking their lives in a civil war just for the fun of it. However when problems happen, a popular general or a local rich guy can become a successful candidate to the throne. And since the empire is large there are several people who might launch bids for the throne in the same time. Anarchy is guaranteed. And if anarchy happens at the wrong time the empire is doomed.

Why did the ERE manage to bounce back several times (Heraclius, Basil II, Alexios I Komnenos) while WRE entered a downward spiral never to recover?

I think it was a combination of luck and geography.

Luck because it simply happened the right people got into power after repeated situations in which the wrong people had been emperors. The fact the system allowed the wrong people to become emperors and stay in power long enough to do big damage invalidates any assumption there was something special about the Byzantines (Orthodoxy, Hellenization of the East, etc) compared to their Western counterparts. Eventually the Byzantines also ran out of luck with the civil war between Andronikos II and his grandson Andronikos III. As per Murphy's law, if s*it can happen, it will.

I really don't think that luck is enough to explain why the Eastern Empire managed to produce better leaders than the Western Empire. After all, how well the Empire was structured is key to whether capable leaders will climb to power.

The Eastern Empire has an added advantage that the aristocrats there are more powerful and influential in being able to fend off any "generalissimo" trying to gain more influence over the Emperor, and the added fact that the population in the East seems to be more loyal towards the Emperor than the most powerful general. This would ensure that the Empire was stable, even if a weak Emperor was in charge.

In the West, it seems harder for the Emperor to maintain the loyalty of the army than the East, especially when he was not known to be active in military affairs and chooses to delegate the command of his army to his generals. Combined with the fact that certain powerful Generals is unable to claim the throne due to their background, it would only prevent capable leaders to climbing to the throne and consolidating their influence.

After all, all of the influential Magister Militium such as Aetius, Stilicho and Ricimer never managed to secure their influence within the Western court. It cannot be good for the Empire when all the capable and influential would prefer to become the Magister Militium rather than become the Emperor of the Western Empire.

[Dromikaites]

I really don't think that luck is enough to explain why the Eastern Empire managed to produce better leaders than the Western Empire. After all, how well the Empire was structured is key to whether capable leaders will climb to power.

I doubt the Byzantines produced better leaders than the West because of some special systemic feature.

Let's look at the actual Western time-line:

1. When Theodosius divided the empire, neither of his sons was more competent than the other. Both were underage and both were given powerful tutors;

2. Stilicho was the tutor of the Western Emperor and he played all the cards at his disposal to save the empire. Given the resources at hand he did well. Too well according to his contemporaries. So he ended up killed before being able to finish off Alaric or to recolonize Alaric's Goths somewhere where they could be useful. Had he been alive, it's quite likely he would have managed to recapture Gallia. The army he had with him in Italy alone was as big as that of the Vandals, Alans and Sueves combined. In addition to that he could have counted on the bulk of the Franks who at the time were still allies of the Romans and had tried to oppose the " other barbarians'" crossing of the Rhine;

3. With Stilicho dead, more than half of Gaul lost by 407, the loss of Spain in 409, Constantine III's unsuccessful but extremely damaging rebellion (407 - 411), the sack of Rome in 410 and with Aetius and Boniface at each other's throats there was not much left in the West to defend Africa in 429;

4. Aetius managed to recover part of Gaul and temporarily turned back the Huns but then he was killed by the emperor Valentinian III in 454. The WRE had only 22 years left to live.

So when exactly was supposed the WRE produce better leaders than the ERE? Two incompetent emperors who killed their best generals was simply too much to handle in quick succession.

If we compare what was going in the ERE in the same time we see the main difference was the ERE simply had enough Roman troops on payroll to safely dispose of the Goth mercenaries (the extermination of Gainas and his men) and until Theodosius II declared war on the Sassanids in 421 that border was quiet too.

Then the Huns showed up in 437 and were bought off. Because the empire could afford it and because as "competent" as Theodosius II was (he was the one who started the unnecessary war with the Sassanids) he nevertheless lacked a general like Aetius. With another Aetius in his service he would have given the Huns steel instead of gold.

The same "competent" ERE emperor chose poorly the general sent against the Vandals. Yes, the WRE also screwed up on the same occasion but at least WRE had the excuse of being ruled by Valentinian III.

Then Theodosius II died and his sister married Marcian, an officer of the emperor-making Alan general Aspar. Both Aspar and Marcian knew well the military business. At least well enough to focus on the wars which could be won.

Marcian abandoned the WRE to its fate and focused on streamlining the finances of the empire and strengthening the army to the point he could afford to stop paying tribute to Attila the Hun. But he was not a product of a superior ERE leader-selection system. He was a product of Aspar's handpicking.

Aspar was an Arrian and because of that simply could not become emperor without risking a religious war (the population of Constantinople rioted when Aspar's son was nominated Caesar) even though the throne was offered to him more than once by the Senate. Aspar, just like Stilicho, Aetius or Ricimer in the West was the result of "might makes it right" system where the most powerful general got to run the show.

After Marcian died of a gangrene it was Aspar again (and not the superior ERE leadership training program) who produced the next emperor, Leo I, yet another of Aspar's subordinates. Leo I decided to get rid of Aspar and his son when they turned into liabilities, proving once more Aspar had a good instinct in selecting competent emperors. Too good for Aspar's own fate.

Leo I's son-in-law (yet another general - this time a Isaurian named Tarasis who adopted the Greek name of Zeno) was to be the next ERE right when the WRE crumbled (476).

Zeno skillfully played the Ostrogoth leaders Theodoric the Great and Theodoric Strabo against each other then bought off the last of them left standing (Theodoric the Great) and sent him to Italy to replace Odoacer. He also crushed several rebellions and was smart enough to keep the peace with the Sassanids.

If anything, we can conclude Aspar's "school of leadership" was good enough to train Leo I in choosing the right guy as son-in-law but whatever know-how might have existed died with Leo I. Zeno died without choosing a heir and without having any surviving sons.

From then on we can't anyway compare the WRE and ERE "systems for producing leaders" because WRE had already ceased to exist and the guy who succeded Zeno, Anastasius I was not exactly a lucky pick.

He was not smart enough to pay off the Sassanids, allowing his empire to be dragged into a war which ended in a stalemate. The problem was he needed the Balkan troops to achieve that sub-par result. The depleted lands south of the Danube down to Constantinople was devastated by the Slavs and the Bulgars and triggered the debut of the Slavic settlement in the Balkans.

Anastasius' answer was to sink money into building another wall for Constantinople. This simply proved the point that a mediocre emperor could get away with it as long as there are enough money left to be thrown at the problem. It would have of course been cheaper to pay the Sassanids instead and defend the Balkans. Dead men don't pay taxes nor can they be recruited.

Just to go a little bit more with the story (though WRE was not around anymore for comparing leaders), Anastasius I died childless and without designating a successor so the next emperor became the 70 year old illiterate (but otherwise wise enough) Justin I, who happened to be the only general with an army in Constantinople. It was pure luck Justin I was wise enough to co-opt Justinian I. Though given the ruined state of the empire's finances at the end of Justinian I's reign rises some questions about how good of an emperor Justinian I really was...

Bottom line: for the rather short time the WRE and ERE existed side-by-side both were actually ran by generals, mostly barbarians. If anything we can conclude the barbarians in the East were smarter not to let themselves killed by incompetent emperors.

The other difference was geography and economy derived from it allowed the empire to better absorb both the external shocks and the internal ones caused by less-than-stellar emperors.

After WRE was gone the same geography kept softening the blows till it wasn't any geography left to shield the empire. The constitutional system of the ERE remained flawed because it never departed from the "might makes it right" formula.

With a clear succession law like in most of the Catholic kingdoms of the time a lot of strife would have been avoided. Such system had the advantage the kings felt less threatened by their most competent subjects (be them generals or administrators). It also prevented many destructive rivalries among them (of course not all since they were competing for the sovereign's favor) since none could hope to ascend to the throne.

The Eastern Empire has an added advantage that the aristocrats there are more powerful and influential in being able to fend off any "generalissimo" trying to gain more influence over the Emperor, and the added fact that the population in the East seems to be more loyal towards the Emperor than the most powerful general. This would ensure that the Empire was stable, even if a weak Emperor was in charge.

Actually not really: the stories of Phokas (who murdered and replaced emperor Maurice), Heraclius (who killed Phokas and replaced him), Bardas Skleros, Bardas Phokas "the Younger", John Tzimiskes (who became emperor after murderering his emperor), Nikephoros Bryennios "the Elder", Alexios I Komnenos himself are examples of generals who rebelled against the existing emperors. Some managed to ascend to the throne, some didn't. But the point is "might made it right" every time the conditions would allow it.

In the West, it seems harder for the Emperor to maintain the loyalty of the army than the East, especially when he was not known to be active in military affairs and chooses to delegate the command of his army to his generals. Combined with the fact that certain powerful Generals is unable to claim the throne due to their background, it would only prevent capable leaders to climbing to the throne and consolidating their influence.

After all, all of the influential Magister Militium such as Aetius, Stilicho and Ricimer never managed to secure their influence within the Western court. It cannot be good for the Empire when all the capable and influential would prefer to become the Magister Militium rather than become the Emperor of the Western Empire.

Yes, it's bad the most capable generals in the West were killed by their emperors. But there was a good reason for that happening: it was feared they might otherwise remove the emperors and crown themselves.

Odoacer called himself king only to avoid antagonizing the ERE emperor. But technically Aetius at least could have been another John Tzimiskes since unlike Stilicho, Aspar or Ricimer he was Roman.

So what was really wrong with the Roman empire from before splitting into ERE and WRE was its "constitution" which was inherited by both its successor states. the true problem, given such constitution, was not the emperors killed their competent generals but the fact incompetent emperors killed their competent generals without being able either to manage without them or to replace them with other competent but less ambitious ones. A competent emperor getting rid of an equally competent but politically dangerous general would not have been a serious problem (see Leo I dispatching Aspar and Aspar's son).

Then as I've said, the ERE's geography (the money and strategic advantages deriving from it) allowed it to absorb more blows.

[ray243]

Actually not really: the stories of Phokas (who murdered and replaced emperor Maurice), Heraclius (who killed Phokas and replaced him), Bardas Skleros, Bardas Phokas "the Younger", John Tzimiskes (who became emperor after murderering his emperor), Nikephoros Bryennios "the Elder", Alexios I Komnenos himself are examples of generals who rebelled against the existing emperors. Some managed to ascend to the throne, some didn't. But the point is "might made it right" every time the conditions would allow it.

I think you are missing my point. My point is that the Eastern Emperors seems to have a much easier time in consolidating their influence and control over vital aspect of the Empire, such as the army as opposed to the West.

The fact that the East could ensure that the majority of the army are willingly to remain loyal to the Emperor even after they killed influential generals like Aspar should be highlighted. Even under Theodosius II, the Empire did not face huge amount of rebellion as a result a Emperor that has little to no actual influence in running the Empire.

Yes, it's bad the most capable generals in the West were killed by their emperors. But there was a good reason for that happening: it was feared they might otherwise remove the emperors and crown themselves.

Odoacer called himself king only to avoid antagonizing the ERE emperor. But technically Aetius at least could have been another John Tzimiskes since unlike Stilicho, Aspar or Ricimer he was Roman.

So what was really wrong with the Roman empire from before splitting into ERE and WRE was its "constitution" which was inherited by both its successor states. the true problem, given such constitution, was not the emperors killed their competent generals but the fact incompetent emperors killed their competent generals without being able either to manage without them or to replace them with other competent but less ambitious ones. A competent emperor getting rid of an equally competent but politically dangerous general would not have been a serious problem (see Leo I dispatching Aspar and Aspar's son).

Then as I've said, the ERE's geography (the money and strategic advantages deriving from it) allowed it to absorb more blows.

My issue is that when it became harder and less desirable for good and competent leaders/generals to grab the throne, and fully consolidate their power, it makes it harder for the Empire to be well run and be held together in times of crisis.

[NogaOsibisa]

The Romanization of Gaul and Italy was so light that the Romanized people were almost instantly replaced or were Germanized following the fall of the WRE.

The Germanics were normally not so numerous and merged into the gallo-roman population or started to settle territories that had not been used by the locals like hill slopes. You can see this if you compare the funerary goods of cemeteries. The Germanics had a tradition of placing funerary goods while the Gallo-Romans normally none. The funerary goods were disappearing after some decades regularly as also the languages of the Germanics. Gothic is one of the few germanic languages of the migration period that remained been spoken but outside of the Romance context. Allemanic, Burgundian are afaik not documented, Langobardian maybe and Frankish certainly but later. These languages had disappeared before they were written with the exception of later Frankish and early Anglo-Saxon. Old High German is documented from the middle of the 8th century. That is in the Merovingian Kingdom 400-500 years after the migrations and Old French is not much earlier.