Did Rome Fall?

There is no certain official date considered to be that of the fall of Rome. Many historians though, believe it was in 476 A.D. A small German chief named Odoacer captured Rome and proclaimed himself king. The city of Rome was finally overthrown. It was towards the end of the second century A.D. in which the Roman Empire began to weaken. The fall was caused by internal decay in political and military issues, economics, and sociology. The question on many minds though, is the following: Did Rome fall? The answer, simply enough, is no. Although the Roman Empire was said to have fallen in 476 A.D. for many political, economic, social, and military reasons, it still thrived in the Middle East for another thousand years.

In 330 A.D., Constantine the Great founded Constantinople in present day Istanbul, Turkey. He then made a brilliant strategic move that would have a major impact on the Roman Empire in later times. He wisely changed the capital of the empire from Rome to Constantinople. Rome at the time was under great political turmoil in which war amongst rival political parties was always possible. The founding of the new capital was great for the Middle East. The population and importance grew rapidly over the next three decades. However, its effect on Rome was not so wonderful as stated by James A. Corrick (14): The old imperial capital, Rome, by contrast, suffered through hard times. Its population declined, and its public buildings and monuments fell apart from lack of money to repair them. Such problems are an important factor to the fall of Rome.

The Roman Empire was quite large and very demanding, making it very hard for one emperor to control all of his subjects and territories. In 364 A.D., the Emperor Valentinian I, successor of Jovian, divided the Roman Empire into two sections, the east and the west. He became the emperor of the west, Illyricum, Italy, Gaul, France, Britain, Spain, and North Africa, and gave his brother, Valens, the eastern part of the empire to rule at Constantinople ( Valentinian I Microsoft Encarta). This idea, although put into full effect in 364, was introduced by previous empires and was nothing new. For example, Marcus Aurelius shared his power with a co-emperor, as did Valerian and his son Gallienus (Grant 113). Diocletian broke the empire into separate regions in which he appointed different posts to take charge of each (Grant 113). In addition, the empire was divided between the sons of Constantine following his death (Grant 113). Unlike the other emperors, Valentinian I made the division of the empire permanent, although to many people it was still considered united. However, it was Theodosius who made it apparent that there were separate eastern and western empires, when he left the empire to his sons, Arcadius and Honorius (Grant 9).

The permanent division of the Roman Empire into the East and West marked the decline of Rome. As mentioned before, Rome began to fall into pieces. The geographical location of the Western Empire was a major factor in the fall of Rome. The Western Empire was much more vulnerable to attack than the East (Grant 203).

A. H. M. Jones suggests the heavy burden the Western Empire had to carry that the East did not:

The Western Empire had to guard the long fronts of the Rhine and the upper [and middle] Danube, the Eastern Emperor only the lower Danube. For on the Eastern front his neighbour was the Persian Empire, a civilized power which was not on the whole aggressive and kept its treaties.

Moreover, if the Western Emperor failed to hold any part of the Rhine and

Danube fronts, he had no second line of defense; the invaders could penetrate

straight into Italy and Gaul, and even into Spain [whereas] no enemy could

force the Bosphorus and the Hellespont, guarded by Constantinople itself

(Grant 203).

It is quite evident that geography was one of the most important, if not the most important, factor that hindered the Western Empire, but protected the East. In addition, the East had more resources than the West, and the land was better cultivated (Grant 204). The West was more spread out, which made it harder to govern (Corrick 17). Constantinople covered a triangular peninsula, bordering three sides of waters. On the west side, there was only land in which a wall was built to keep out attackers. To the east was the Bosporus and to the west was the Golden Horn, a long, narrow body of water which stretched inland from the Bosporus (14). The Sea of Marmara was located south of the city (14). It is evident that Constantinople in itself could easily defend itself from attacks as a result of its tactical location. However, the Western Empire had to constantly defend itself from invasions by the Germanic tribes, Saxons, Cimbri, Goths, Persians, and Visigoths ( Rome Microsoft Encarta).

The Eastern Empire faced the same problems that the West had, including immature/inept emperors, rebellious armies, and some barbarian invaders. However, the East was eventually able to overcome these problems, while the West was not. One problem that the East did not face, however, was high taxation. The Eastern Empire possessed a sounder social and economic structure, encountering fewer disunities. One suggestion for this is offered by the renowned historian, Glanvilee Downey:

The structure of the government differed significantly in the East and West. In the West, the land-owning aristocrats, some of them fantastically wealthy, contributed much less money than they should have to the cost of the army and the government. The Eastern Empire, in contrast, possessed a civil service composed largely of middle-class professionals, and while graft unavoidably existed, the Eastern government received in taxes a higher proportion of the national income than the Western government could enjoy (Grant 204).

As a result, the East possessed much greater resources than the West, thus enabling it to better maintain its armies. The Western Emperor controlled a vast army. All the soldiers were paid from the central treasuries, which the empire soon found diminishing. Moreover, a great portion of the army consisted of Visigoths, Burgundians, Franks, Suevi, and Vandals, who felt little pride and loyalty to the empire (Williams 44). Such dangerous settlements within imperial territories were another major problem which the West had to face. All of these problems played a major role in the fall of the Western Roman Empire. However, the Eastern Empire was able to overcome such obstacles. The Roman Empire in the West fell in 476, but the empire in the east thrived for another thousand years.

After the fall of the Western Empire, which at that time merely consisted of barbarian settlements, the Eastern Empire in Constantinople survived until 1453. Constantinople fell as a result of The Crusades and an invasion of the Ottoman Turks (Hatzopoulos http://www.greece.org/Romiosini/fall.html). It took another thousand years after the fall of the Western Empire for this splendid city to come to an end as its brother in the West did. The jewel in the east was finally invaded by a hungry warlord,

Mehmed II, who had planned for quite some time the fall of Constantinople (Hatzopoulos). Years prior, the sultan created a fortress on the Bosporus, limiting the amount of vessels allowed to pass through the Black Sea (Hatzopoulos). By economically isolating the great city of the Eastern Empire, the sultan posed a great threat. In 1453, Mehmed II delivered the final blow, completely capturing the whole city, destroying everything that stood in his way. The question that still remains is: Did Rome fall? The answer is no. The Western Roman Empire was said to have fallen in 476 A.D., the date most historians refer to as the fall of Rome, but the Eastern Roman Empire thrived longer than almost any other civilization in history. Even today, we have adopted many of the Roman ways of life, resulting from the influence of Rome on every civilization after it. We are all Roman at heart.