why did the eastern roman empire last longer than the western roman empire? long answers plez?

Answer 1

One reason is they took a strategic viewpoint of everything and did not consider it disgraceful to bribe or cheat other nations if it meant their own. Also they had a pretty strong place to live and a little secret called Greek Fire.

Answer 2

each and all the topics the Western empire confronted, the eastern empire confronted besides. the only distinction develop into the sheer impossibility to beat Constantinople. the city develop into strategically placed (on of the final places on earth, in certainty) and had the final partitions of the worldwide. Any besieger might additionally want a military to seal off the city. A blockade on land basically does no longer be sufficient. This gave the Byzantine empire quite a few respiratory areas. quite a few circumstances the empire shrank to in basic terms the city. even though it ought to recuperate. Rome develop into no longer strategically placed, had no harbor nicely well worth the point out, the partitions weren't 0.5 as good as those of Constantinople. while Rome fell, the empire fell.

Answer 3

Excellent question. It's partly a matter of definition (what we mean by the words 'Roman Empire', but let's revisit the historical facts. In 411 Constantine moved the capital of the Roman Empire (East and West)) to the Greek city of Byzantium which was promptly renamed Constantinople by the inhabitants. Rome was still part of the Roman Empire, but it was no longer the capital.

The 'reasons' for the move give some background to the Eastern and Western Empires subsequent fates. Part of the reason is that Constantine perceived that Rome did not occupy a 'strategic' position (as a land based power), stuck out as it was on the Italian peninsula and 'cut off' from Europe to the north by the Alps. Hostile German tribes were located not far north of the Alps, a little too close to Romes communication routes with the rest of the Empire for comfort.

Byzantium (as the Eastern Roman Empire is known to us today) on the other hand was in the middle of a significant recruiting pool of soldiers in Anatolia (modern Turkey), and adjacent to what he saw as the greatest threats to Roman civilization, the Persians. Situated on the Bosphorus it controlled all land traffic (and a very wealthy trade) between Europe and the Middle East.

Within a hundred years of Constantine moving the capital the Goths had sacked Rome, and they and allied tribes controlled most of the Western Roman Empire. If Constantine had not moved the power base to Byzantium, Rome might have held out longer, but it would probably have ultimately failed, and in doing so would have certainly lost the Eastern Empire with it. Apart from some brief forays onto the Italian peninsula by Byzantine troops that was effectively the end of the Imperial Roman Empire in the West. It was however replaced by the Papacy which saw itself as the successor to the Caesers, and by their 'sponsored' Kings (Holy Roman Emporers), the first being Charlegmagne. This is where the 'definition' thing comes into play.

In the East meantime, with the authority that came from being the seat of the 'Imperial' house and a line of succession back to Imperial Rome, Byzantium 'carried on'. Trade kept it rich, Anatolian troops kept it powerful, and Greek learning kept it technologically superior to just about everyone else on the planet (except perhaps the Chinese) in both abstract learning and military science.

The suggestion that the Byzantines eschewed War in favour of bribery and covert operations sowing discord among it's enemies is perfectly true (most of the time). But Byzantium was no different in this respect to either Rome or later Venice. Byzantium's survival, until the 1400's, was ultimately down to the ability to recruit and equip powerful military forces. It was, however, fatally wounded when attacked by a combination of Venetian and Norman forces who were supposed to be on a Crusade to the Holy Land. The Venetians saw more profit in sacking Constantinople.

In a sense the Venetians were the successors to the Byzantines, reflecting how 'power' in the Mediterranean at that time shifted from land based forces, to maritime forces. Byzantium had a navy, which at times was a considerable 'force' in the Mediterranean, but it has to be said that they 'neglected' it in times of peace, and didn't give it enough priority in times of war. By the 1400's northern Italian cities such as Venice, Genoa and Pisa were taking control of the trade with the Middle East (using ships sailing direct into Arab ports) bypassing the Byzantines and reducing the Byzantines ability to pay for their wars. At the same time the Turks were becoming a powerful force, and eventually took control of the whole of the Anatolian peninsual, removing another source of wealth, and most importantly, the recruiting ground for Byzantium's best soldiers.