why did the eastern roman lasted so much longer than the western roman empire?

Question

does anyone know why the eastern roman empire lasted so much longer than the western roman empire

Answer 1

Mostly it was the lack of aggressive, and organized invaders. When the barbarians from the north invaded, they finished off the weakening Roman Empire. But the eastern empire was left to wither away for a long time after, eventually being conquered as well.

Answer 2

The Eastern Roman Empire had invaders. Take note of the Visigoths in the 4th century AD, the Ostrogoths in the 5th century (who the Eastern Romans were having many problems with before they eventually invaded Italy), and also take note of the Slavs who invaded the Balkans, including Greece, during the 6th and 7th centuries. And let's not forget that the rise of Islam took from the Eastern Romans many of their most valuable provinces, and later after 1071, the Seljuk Turks.



The big reason why the Eastern Roman Empire outlasted the Western Roman Empire by 1000 years was simply due to more effective leadership. The Eastern Roman Empire was much more densely populated and urbanized than the Western Roman Empire - hence collecting taxes on the people and enacting policies which all individuals must follow as well was much easier in the eastern empire (because it's much easier to do these things in cities than a vast countryside sprawled with tiny villages here and there with no real administrative center for hundreds of miles). This was one of the reasons why the Western Roman Empire couldn't stand the barbarian invasions and thus why they had to rely on the barbarians to protect the borders, which in the end turned on itself.



The wealth of the eastern empire was also much greater. By about 300 AD, the western empire had become sort of a backwater, even in Italy (though some cities were still fairly well off, Milan being one example; though those were few and far between). Most of the population and the bulk of economic activity was concentrated in the eastern Mediterranean region. The division of the empire by East and West left the Western Roman Empire having to control too much land with too little of a tax base, unlike the Eastern Roman Empire. In the end, it was not really sustainable.



The same fate would occur on the Eastern Roman Empire about 1000 years later also, though there is a difference. The fall of the Eastern Roman Empire was clear while the fall of the Western Roman Empire was not and this is largely because we need to keep in mind that the eastern empire was based around its capital of Constantinople whereas the western empire had no real focus - even Rome during the Late Antiquity was nothing compared to its past. The Eastern Roman Empire over its last centuries, like the western empire, had lost much land and wealth. Its capital of Constantinople, however, was still relatively well off despite everything but alone against the Turks who now possessed cannons that could fire through its high walls, it could not stand a chance.

Answer 3

All the problems the Western empire faced, the Eastern empire faced as well. The only difference was the sheer impossibility to conquer Constantinople. The city was strategically located (on of the best locations on this planet, in fact) and had the best walls of the world. Any besieger would also need a navy to seal off the city. A blockade on land simply wouldn't be enough.



This gave the Byzantine empire several breathing spaces. Several times the empire shrank to just the city. But it could recover.



Rome was not strategically located, had no harbor worth the mention, the walls were not half as strong as those of Constantinople. When Rome fell, the empire fell.

Answer 4

The western roman empire fell because they were having issues. They never mastered the way to succeed power down to another emperors where actually taking money from the Western Roman Empire (little known fact). Also, they had HUGE armies and the citizens had to pay for it. The economy was failing so trade went down as well. Plus, Germanic tribes were coming in and it was hard to protect the whole empire because of its size. Those are the 3 main reasons! Hope I helped!

Answer 5

specially by using Barbarians. They began assaulting the Western Roman Empire commencing in England and then ultimately the Barbarians in Germany have been given rid of the Roman Empire´s presence there.

Answer 6

For many years, the Byzantines had the wealthiest economy in the Medieval world. Constantinople was/is situated at the crossroads between the European landmass and Asia Minor. It also sat on the strait that connected the Mediterranean to the Black Sea. The Byzantines grew rich taxing trade. Agriculturally, they were also self sufficient by farming the Anatolian plateau (Turkey).



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_economy



Rome's economy was far weaker and it largely depended on North Africa for corn.

Answer 7

I am new to this question, and have much to learn about the Eastern Roman Empire.



However, Gibbons offers arguments about the fall of the Western Empire. One of his arguments, that the pursuit of luxury by the elites led to a loss of the Republican virtues that fueled the Roman expansion, does not seem to differentiate East from West.



However, a corollary has some bearing, In the pursuit of luxury, elites in the West were able through their political influence to shift the burden of taxation onto the middle and working class, causing a loss to their standard of living and increasing resentment of the elites and indifference to the glories of empire with a resentment of its burdens. Gibbons argues that in the end, the common people didn't care to defend the empire against the barbarian incursions, seeing no advantage to imperial rule.