How was the collapse of the Roman Empire more Sever in Western Europe than in the Eastern Mediterranean?

Question

I am currently working on a series reaserch problems for my College level high school history class and I was wondering what other people view on this topic though. I have a base of what lead to this but I need some more facts on the subject. Also if you have any reliable refrence sources on the subject please list them in your answer or send them to my email at [e-mail]

Thanks Everyone!

Answer 1

The Roman Empire was an outgrowth of Greece - hence the therm Greco-Roman, so it always had some base in the East. The second capitol was set up at Constantinople and it was this split in power base that led to the decline of the city of Rome and therefore control over Western Europe. The east had much better trade and trade routes for the Romans than Western Europe, so it remained economically strong.

Also remember that the Vikings traded from the Volga to Ireland, so in effect the Romans were replaced more efficiently; trade with 'barbarians' was conducted by the Romans but it was through border posts, from areas they had not conquered, these naturally expanded with the retreat of the Romans.

The transformation of the Roman into the Holy Roman Empire is long and complex (500 years or so) but the Western European groups had a set of religious structures that were independent of the Eastern/ Judeo Christian model, so when the Romans retreated, the indigenous groups got on with their own thing.

Answer 2

The crumple of the Roman Empire brought about the darkish a while in Europe, which replaced into type of one thousand years of no progression. Feudal lords ruled over serfdoms, and have been loosely related with the aid of their allegiance to kings and royal families.

Answer 3

THE WAVES OF BARBARIANS THAT CONTINUOUSLY INVADED EUROPE WERE ALWAYS NORTH OF THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE AND WERE PUSHED BY SUCCEEDING INVADERS TO OVERRUN AND DISPLACE THE WESTERN ROMANS.