Could the Fall of the WRE have been prevented?

[Dave Strider]

What I mean is, couldn't the armies of the West simply pull back to Italy and defeat the Goths, and then rebuild their empire from there? Or couldn't the East have sent a Relief army, since they had less enemies than the west?

Input would be appreciated, but PLEASE, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, no flaming.

[hellheaven1987]

No, and since when ERE had less enemies??

[Romanos IV]

If the political system was more stable and less corrupt, and had there been more Generals like Aetius, they could at least maintain Italy, South Gaul and perhaps Afirca. But the problem was not the invasions of the Goths and of the Huns, but the increasing Germanization of the Empire, something which was prevented in the East and was very importand for the fate of each of the Empires.

[Poach]

The armies and politicians of Rome had spent so long fighting amongst themselves that the Empire had become fragmented and weak, hence it fell to the Hunnic invasions.

Had Rome remained strong and unified then perhaps the tide could have been stemmed and the Huns halted. As history has it, however, the Huns swept in and the Empire fell. The ERE escaped this fate but was itself gradually destroyed by Turks.

[Tiberios]

Well the ERE had a more stable political system with far less civil wars and problems whenever a new Emperor took the throne. Just as importantly the ERE was a bit easier to defend, it's borders being less vulnarable as far as I recall.

So I'd say that with a less unstable political system, the WRE could have survived.

[Rt. Hon. Gentleman]

The erosion of Roman culture is what destroyed Rome. I would argue that Carthage was a far more powerful threat than the Huns or their ilk ever were. It's not the threat that worsened. Romans became less powerful.

Another important point: legions were paid largely in booty and newly annexed land. In an empire that was not expanding any more (towards the end) that meant legions had to be paid in gold from the treasury. That was expensive. Hence why we got poorer quality legions towards the end. Rome could only survive if it continued to conquer.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

The erosion of Roman culture is what destroyed Rome. I would argue that Carthage was a far more powerful threat than the Huns or their ilk ever were. It's not the threat that worsened. Romans became less powerful.

I disagree with this. The Roman system was getting worse and worse, and it eventually collapsed under the weight of its own absurdity.

[DAVIDE]

The erosion of Roman culture is what destroyed Rome. I would argue that Carthage was a far more powerful threat than the Huns or their ilk ever were. It's not the threat that worsened. Romans became less powerful.

Another important point: legions were paid largely in booty and newly annexed land. In an empire that was not expanding any more (towards the end) that meant legions had to be paid in gold from the treasury. That was expensive. Hence why we got poorer quality legions towards the end. Rome could only survive if it continued to conquer.

Foederati Barbari. You have forgotten that important part

[Dave Strider]

Thanks for the input, guys.

[Tankfriend]

The thing of the ERE sending in reinforcements to help the WRE is also a little problematic. They weren't exactly on good terms with each other and both were more or less content with getting the other part of the Empire destroyed if it meant that their part would survive. At least that's what you can see with the actual handling of the Goths migrations, anyway.
Hypothetically, I guess anything is possible somehow.

[Tankfriend]

Er... somehow ended up as a double post...

[Mythos]

If the joint ERE-WRE attack on North Africa in 468AD succeded and complete control of the N.African coast regained it would perhaps give the WRE enough resources to regain Spain in a few years's time. It this happened and the ERE was willing to smack the Ostrogoths in Noricum and Pannonia and keep them of the WRE's back, the WRE would have enough forces to concentrate on Gaul and regain control of SE Gaul from the Burgundians, SW from the Visigoths and NE from the Franks with sustained campaigning and consistent leadership. The former would rest on enough economic resources, a strong emperor who would face no usurpers and the latter on how the ERE and WRE would interact diplomatically. The two-emperor scheme tended to produce troubles if the emperors did not have established seniority-juniority relations or weren't relatives.

I think the turning point could be the regaining of N.Africa and Spain. It would be pretty straitword to regain these areas but Gaul, Noricum, Rhaetia and Pannonia would be a whole different story. There are too many variables.

[War&Politics]

If the joint ERE-WRE attack on North Africa in 468AD succeded and complete control of the N.African coast regained it would perhaps give the WRE enough resources to regain Spain in a few years's time. It this happened and the ERE was willing to smack the Ostrogoths in Noricum and Pannonia and keep them of the WRE's back, the WRE would have enough forces to concentrate on Gaul and regain control of SE Gaul from the Burgundians, SW from the Visigoths and NE from the Franks with sustained campaigning and consistent leadership. The former would rest on enough economic resources, a strong emperor who would face no usurpers and the latter on how the ERE and WRE would interact diplomatically. The two-emperor scheme tended to produce troubles if the emperors did not have established seniority-juniority relations or weren't relatives.

I think the turning point could be the regaining of N.Africa and Spain. It would be pretty straitword to regain these areas but Gaul, Noricum, Rhaetia and Pannonia would be a whole different story. There are too many variables.

Agreed. It seems the WRE could have been saved as late as 486, which is pretty late, so yes, it could have been saved.

[CK23]

That's a rather interesting question, as much as I'd like to say NO, because it's obvious all "great" things must come to an end, it's rather truthful that the Western Roman Empire could have totally turned things around and focused on what they needed to do.

The first problem in the WRE was the military was basically de-centralized and had ineffective commanders, that's a problem for any country during the Ancient time period. If you had terrible commanders, you failed, rather hard.

The second problem in the WRE was that the government was so corrupt and screwed up that it was basically worthless to even attempt. In all honesty if an Emperor had come in with a small sect of loyal officers who were competent and could use their weight, he could have purged the government and instated a possibly better one then it was. I mean elimination of a private guard such as Constantine (I think it was him...little fuzzy) had done was essential.

[Optimus Marcus Ulpius Traianus]

I would say unification would have helped giving them more troops to use and a greater capacity to take internal and external shocks.

[Exarch]

so if the empire hadnt been divided could the west have been saved?

[Xanthippus of Sparta]

I tend to not buy into any of Gibbon's theories about how The Fall happened. "Barbarians" in the armies could not be helped, and honestly there were always tons of non Roman citizens in the army. Nor do I suscribe to the notion that culture or the adoption of Christianity played a major role. It's impossible to explain the continued existence of the Eastern Empire if you are a supporter of any of these above theories.

Mythos may be right on, lack of cooperation between the Western and Eastern Empires may have left the weaker Western Empire to it's eventual fall. Even in the days of the Roman Republic the western Mediterreanean was not as wealthy as the east...and this was even more true in the time of the Late Empire as most of the Civil Wars, invasions, social and religious upheaval, etc. happened in the WRE. The WRE was simply devastated. By the time of the 5th century, possibly earlier, the Eastern Empire did not need the trouble that the Western Empire was constantly embroiled in.

And they knew it.

In earlier times, the eastern part of the Empire needed Imperial troops and leadership, and the western half needed coin and grain. By the 5th century, and despite the Battle of Adrianople, the Eastern Empire's army was probably superior to that of the West. And, plus, simple geography aided them. The bulk of the ERE's Legions fought the Sassanians while the walls of Constantinople detered invaders like the Huns and Goths, who then moved to attack the weaker Western Empire. I really doubt that any attempt by an Eastern Emperor to militarily reinforce the West would have done any good, the aggressive Sassanians would have taken advantage. Plus, after Adrianople the Eastern Emperors were far more content to negoiate with any Barbarians who arrived on their soil rather than fight them. As well as sending them west with a wink and a nod.

As we discussed in a recent thread about the Battle of Chalons, Rome's greatest general of the 5th century (Flavius Aetius) could not stabilize the crumbling Empire. In fact, he was pretty much responsible for the loss of North Africa to the Vandals. Africa had previously been the most stable region of the Western Empire before the Vandals took advantage of the rivalry between Aetius and Count Boniface. Without the income that Africa provided (when I say Africa I'm talking about the original meaning of the word, the province Africa) the WRE was doomed, there was no turning back.

so if the empire hadnt been divided could the west have been saved?

No way. The Tetrarchy allowed the Empire to survive as long as it did and was absolutely necessary, a very practical decision by Diocletian. The Romans were facing the most serious crisis arguablly since the 2nd Punic War when the call was made.

[hellheaven1987]

so if the empire hadnt been divided could the west have been saved?

Well, the problem was not whether the Empire was divided, but there was no way to stop Civil War happened - divided or not.

[thursgun]

There are too many factors to prevent the fall of WRE:

- Constant invasions from barbarians
- Internal disputes (both political and religious)
- Poor economy
- Upkeep of professional army was no longer possible.

All in all I think the main reason was the poor economy caused mainly by the division of the empire.

[Stavroforos]

No, as it was a gradual process which reached its heights at the 5th Century and at that point couldn't be turned back. The best thing that could have been done to preserve the Empire IMO would have been Justinian holding onto the meager Italian possessions he had before attacking Italy and instead making the various barbarian clans Romans vassals, having the Emperor in the East and petty kings in the West.