My Roman empire question

That's an interesting question. But I think it needs some clarification.

From 27 BC to 364 AD, there was only one Roman Empire. From 364 AD onward, there were two Roman Empires, split into an eastern and western half. The Western half died out in 476 AD but the Eastern side remained until 1453 AD.

So there is a huge range of time. Is the comparison between the Early Roman Empire and the "Byzantine" Empire, or is the comparison between the Eastern and western half when they both simulataneously existed?

The difference between the Roman Emprie and the "Byzantine" Empire is quite large, since there were 1000 years of time between the two. However, I think the difference between the two Empires when they both coexisted was not as great. Initially, they both had similar government structures, such as the senate and the Empire for each half. Primary differences laid in demographics, economics, the amount of corruption, stability, and policy toward barbarians.

I am entirely unsure what is meant by "Imperial Policy."


Edited by Imperator Invictus

Furthermore there are no "imperial policies" in Northern Europe, which was always an independent barbarian territory.

My guesses:

• The Western Empire was Latinized/Romanized and the Eastern instead kept its original Hellenistic culture, at least for the most part. But this wasn't any compulsive policy but mostly a natural developement.
• The Western Empire was for the most part barbaric or semi-barbaric, while the East was highly civilized - again this has almost no relation with any "imperial policy".
• The Western Empire, including Rome, was deficitary, while the East was much richer and, therefore, more stable in the long run. No imperial policies involved again - just a natural thing that happened.
  
• The expansion into the West was caused by the competition with Carthague, securing mineral resources and "pacifying" the barbarians, capturing much slave workforce in the process. The expansion into the East was instead a matter of political hegemony over prosperous and civilized neighbours.
  
• The main rival in the west were the German barbarians (that also threatened the NE limes), the main rival in the East were the Iranian states (Parthia first, Sassanid Persia later).
  
• The West, once left on its own, was quickly anninhilated by the barbarians. The East lasted still 1000 years more.
  

But little to do with specific regional policies of the Roman Empire, I must say. I'm as puzzled as II.

Policy in the two halves of the Roman Empire became more pronounced as time went by and their differences became more evident.

After the initial split there was a natural assumption that the Empire was a body one and the same as always, but administratively it needed to rulers to better enable it to deal with increasing uncertainty, greater threats and declining economic power. The two Empires therefore cooperated and their political structure was strongly related by marriage and family connection.

The Battle of Adrianople in 376 marked a point of change. As usual the two Empires acted cooperatively, the Western Emperor sending his army to aid his Eastern colleague. The defeat of the East Romans threw the military situation in the Balkans in to utter disarray. The ERE had been fairly sufficient in maintenance of its Persian frontier, but Adrianople created a severe crisis. This diminished her ability to act in concert with the WRE, she was simply too busy dealing with the Goths. As a result the WRE had to continue her struggles against the Germans on her own.

At the death of Theodosius in 395 the two Empires drifted further apart. Though the two royal families were strongly connected to eachother, the Emperors themselves were weak and effective power was wielded by court favourites. These court favourites were now actively intriguing against the court of their sister empire. Some have suggested that WRE general Stilicho actually acted with the cooperation of Alaric the Ostrogoth against the ERE.

The problems in the Balkans left the ERE grappling with military threats and the problem of creating a reliable national army to replace foederati mercenaries. This was a problem they would continue grappling with for centuries, while continually needing to hold the Eastern frontier. The WRE, now unable to rely on the East for consistent help, now fought a losing battle just to survive. Every now and then an ERE army would turn up to try and enforce Roman authority, such as to install Valentinian III or Basilacius' campaign against the Vandals. But essentially the two Empires grew apart. The ERE battled to adapt to a changing world and reinvent itself as a viable state with a reliable military. The WRE simply did whatever it could to stave off death, but its situation was already terminal.