The trouble of having such a large Empire because of overexpansion was not just limited to the army however. Communication was a huge problem in regard to the central action Emperors tried to command. A colossal imagination is required to understand the hardship of collecting accurate and precise information in the Roman world. Even ruling just half of it, you were still trying to control an area larger than the modern day European Union minus the luxuries of mobile phones, planes and superfast broadband. These communication problems faced made it inconceivably harder for these Emperors than for their counterparts in modern day Brussels. The problem was twofold, not only the snail-like speed of ancient communication but also reliability. An
…show more content…
It also offered some degree of containment, so that the eventual collapse of the west did not drag the Byzantine half of the empire down. Furthermore this new capital was geographically a lot more ideal than Rome as it was more central to the whole Empire. It was surrounded by water making for easy defense whilst also allowing for easy access into the Mediterranean as well as down the Euphrates. Back in the fourth century it was probably thought of as an exceptional decision by Constantine to preserve the Empire. However for the West it was …show more content…
However, what Trueman says is spot on. This split was only going to work if both sides agreed to strategically work together which due to constant internal strife was not happening. Therefore the West was left very vulnerable as the majority of prosperous trade went through the East from cities such as Antioch and Alexandria which traded with cities in Asia. And so, whilst the East became an economic superpower the West started to stagnate. From this one can argue that this split of gigantic proportion was an underlying factor behind the failing economy I mentioned above. This all stemmed from overexpansion for without the exceptional size of the Empire there wouldn’t be need to have to split into two zones geographically.
Lastly, overexpansion was the main factor for the fall in regard to the obvious most commonly thought view in the invasion of barbarian hordes. When asked ‘what caused the fall of the roman empire’ most people will instantly respond with some vague knowledge of a vicious barbarian invasion.
It also offered some degree of containment, so that the eventual collapse of the west did not drag the Byzantine half of the empire down. Furthermore this new capital was geographically a lot more ideal than Rome as it was more central to the whole Empire. It was surrounded by water making for easy defense whilst also allowing for easy access into the Mediterranean as well as down the Euphrates. Back in the fourth century it was probably thought of as an exceptional decision by Constantine to preserve the Empire. However for the West it was …show more content…
However, what Trueman says is spot on. This split was only going to work if both sides agreed to strategically work together which due to constant internal strife was not happening. Therefore the West was left very vulnerable as the majority of prosperous trade went through the East from cities such as Antioch and Alexandria which traded with cities in Asia. And so, whilst the East became an economic superpower the West started to stagnate. From this one can argue that this split of gigantic proportion was an underlying factor behind the failing economy I mentioned above. This all stemmed from overexpansion for without the exceptional size of the Empire there wouldn’t be need to have to split into two zones geographically.
Lastly, overexpansion was the main factor for the fall in regard to the obvious most commonly thought view in the invasion of barbarian hordes. When asked ‘what caused the fall of the roman empire’ most people will instantly respond with some vague knowledge of a vicious barbarian invasion.