Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
poirot
Arch Duke
Editorial Staff
Joined: 21-May-2005
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1838
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Which was the superior half of the Roman Empire? Posted: 24-May-2005 at 07:25 |
WHICH IS THE SUPERIOR HALF OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE?
|
AAAAAAAAAA
"The crisis of yesterday is the joke of tomorrow.� ~ HG Wells
|
|
Imperator Invictus
Caliph
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-May-2005 at 10:09 |
The Eastern half was stronger but I don't know what you mean by Superior.
|
|
poirot
Arch Duke
Editorial Staff
Joined: 21-May-2005
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1838
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-May-2005 at 11:38 |
Superior:
1, Militarily
2, Economically
3, Level of Learning
etc
|
AAAAAAAAAA
"The crisis of yesterday is the joke of tomorrow.� ~ HG Wells
|
|
Frederick Roger
Colonel
Joined: 09-Jan-2005
Location: Portugal
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 658
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-May-2005 at 13:47 |
I don't think this question bares much sense...
|
|
Komnenos
Tsar
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 20-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4361
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-May-2005 at 13:54 |
Originally posted by poirot
WHICH IS THE SUPERIOR HALF OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE? |
End of West Roman Empire: 476 AD
End of East Roman Empire: 1453 AD
Any more questions?
|
[IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg">
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-May-2005 at 00:40 |
LOL, you took the words right out of my mouth Komnenos. East Rome proved to be far more dynamic and versatile, for most of the Middle Ages it had a way of responding to the challenges it was faced with. West Rome did not.
|
|
poirot
Arch Duke
Editorial Staff
Joined: 21-May-2005
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1838
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-May-2005 at 07:48 |
Apologize for not clarifying. What I meant was the Eastern and Western Roman Empires prior to 476 A.D. I usually term the Eastern Roman Empire after 476 A.D. as the Byzantine Empire.
|
AAAAAAAAAA
"The crisis of yesterday is the joke of tomorrow.� ~ HG Wells
|
|
Komnenos
Tsar
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 20-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4361
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-May-2005 at 08:27 |
Originally posted by poirot
Apologize for not clarifying. What I meant was the Eastern and Western Roman Empires prior to 476 A.D. I usually term the Eastern Roman Empire after 476 A.D. as the Byzantine Empire. |
Slightly different question, same answer!
|
[IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg">
|
|
Reginmund
Arch Duke
Joined: 08-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1943
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-May-2005 at 10:41 |
In the glory days of Rome, the Western Empire was the strongest. However, over an extended period of time the western part was gradually weakened, and by the time of Constantine I the scales had shifted in favour of the eastern part.
Admittedly the eastern part had always been the richest, but that doesn't really matter as during the glory days this wealth was transported back to Rome. To illustrate my point; the agriculturual capacities of the Nile delta far exceeded that of the Roman heartland, but that didn't do Egypt any good other than making it the breadbasket of the Romans.
|
|
Imperator Invictus
Caliph
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-May-2005 at 21:10 |
In the glory days of Rome, the Western Empire was the strongest.
However, over an extended period of time the western part was gradually
weakened, and by the time of Constantine I the scales had shifted in
favour of the eastern part.
Well, the eastern Empire didn't even exist until Constantine (or, technically, after 364).
|
|
TheodoreFelix
Colonel
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 694
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-May-2005 at 21:30 |
As Imperatore said, there was no "Eastern Empire" until the full split until the start of the end of the western one. Consatntinople was created by COnsatntine BECAUSE the west was weakening. Later on, the east also got the better slice of the bread and had the better emperors.
|
|
Belisarius
Chieftain
Suspended
Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1296
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-May-2005 at 01:19 |
The eastern half was the richer, the more cultured, and the more
densely populated. It showed its ability to recover after a major
defeat in the war against the Huns and the Germans, which was something
the western half could no longer do.
|
|
Seko
Emperor
Spammer
Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-May-2005 at 09:43 |
I would have to go with the Eastern half. They remained a cultural and formidible military force for 1000+ years. In that time the west broke into varied city states. Then they were no longer united under the western umbrella.
|
|
Reginmund
Arch Duke
Joined: 08-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1943
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-May-2005 at 09:50 |
Originally posted by Imperator Invictus
Well, the eastern Empire didn't even exist until Constantine (or, technically, after 364). |
Not in the sense of a Byzantine Empire, but what I meant was simply the eastern part. Anatolia, Egypt, the Middle-East and Greece.
As for withstanding barbarian invasions, the West certainly bore the brunt of the German tribes.
|
|
Spartakus
Tsar
terörist
Joined: 22-Nov-2004
Location: Greece/Hellas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4489
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-May-2005 at 13:32 |
|
"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996)
|
|
Belisarius
Chieftain
Suspended
Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1296
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-May-2005 at 14:47 |
Originally posted by Reginmund
As for withstanding barbarian invasions, the West certainly bore the brunt of the German tribes. |
Not true. The east suffered the same, if not more. In addition to the
invasions of the Balkans by the Goths, the east took the brunt of the
Hun invasion. The east also had to deal with a real empire in the
Sassanids who were at war with them almost continuously.
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-May-2005 at 12:39 |
Easy way to answer the question. If the best W. Roman military unit met the best E. Roman unit, who'd win.
E.g. if J. Caesar's 10th Legion and Gallic auxilliary cavalry ever met Belisarius' 5,000-man unit which retook rome from the Ostrogoths whou would win? I'd bet on Belisarius' 5000, even if the 10th and auxilliaries would have a slight numerical advantage.
E. Roman cataphracts would pepper the old legionaries with arrows all day, then ride them down with their lances.
|
|
Reginmund
Arch Duke
Joined: 08-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1943
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-May-2005 at 13:42 |
Originally posted by Belisarius
Not true. The east suffered the same, if not more. In addition to the invasions of the Balkans by the Goths, the east took the brunt of the Hun invasion. The east also had to deal with a real empire in the Sassanids who were at war with them almost continuously. |
Oh, but it is true, the West did bear the brunt of the German tribes. Now wether it bore the brunt of barbarian invasions in total, that's another matter. Not counting the Sassanids, they were hardly barbarians.
|
|
Jazz
Baron
Joined: 29-Mar-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 410
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-May-2005 at 02:30 |
Originally posted by poirot
Apologize for not clarifying. What I meant was the
Eastern and Western Roman Empires prior to 476 A.D. I usually term the Eastern Roman Empire after 476 A.D. as the Byzantine Empire. |
Which itself (the term Byzantine) is a misnomer....
It was renamed mainly because influential historians of a particular
age didn't think the Empire of Constantinople deserved the title
"Roman"..
|
|
|
Tobodai
Tsar
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4310
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-May-2005 at 02:38 |
The Eastern half included Egypt, and Egypt fed the empire. Trade with the east was also more profitable, and the east survived longer even though its enemies were on the whole more formidable than those in the west, I mean cmon, what in the west compared to Parthian and Sassanid Iran? Yet the east pulled through.
|
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton
|
|