I really enjoy your great channel and have been subscribed for a long time. With respect, the only thing that I can think of that could be a hindrance to the success of your channel is your accent. I am a native English speaker and have lived in Spain for 29 years, my accent isnt so good when I speak Spanish. Your accent is better than mine but if you could adapt your accent to better suit your channel you may get more views and subs. Thanks for all the cool vids mate.

The East lasted longer

That's because the Sassanids had their hands full dealing with the Hepthalites (White Huns) in their Eastern borders with Peroz III getting slain alongside his entire army and his son Kavadh being taken as a hostage by the Huns.

​@@phuntshodorji3903 Yes..Imagine if sassanids and Romans were allies

@@alessandrogini5283 Apparently there were attempts to cooperate in the face of Arab conquest, but that didn't work out - there were many differences between two states. Most known example if it can be believed, was battle of Firaz, where Byzantine garrison sallied out to assist Sassanids threatened by Khalid ibn al-Walid. The whole account is treated with some scepticism, as it came from later sources and it's unknown if it was just an attempt to flex Arab superiority on two big empires.

@@phuntshodorji3903 not neccesarily

Not even a hundred - barely _80_ years lol.

Well , lots has to do with the level of competition and against who they fought against , a bad streak of emperors is not a black and white aproach.

@@AnthonyGarcia-sy3yk not black and white no, but even if accidentally the Eastern half had advantages that led to it outlast the Western. It managed to set up a more secure system for succession (very very relative though considering their regular civil wars) and even if geography was on their side compared to the west (with only the north Balkans and east anatolia to worry about as land borders and most the territory being coastal so open to naval commerce, transport and quick response) their advantages still led them to lasting much much longer. Its like with ancient Egypt or China, if your nation has lasted long enough that people debate did they evolve away from being 'truly Roman' through sheer age then you did something right

@@Rynewulfthe west was doomed the second Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the empire and then moved the capital, himself, and most of the rich people all the way to Byzantine.

Britain had the only large Tin mine in Europe, the next closest one was in Afghanistan EDIT: I should add that if you watch some other videos made by Maiorianus he mentions often how Plague had depopulated the West to such a degree mining locations were abandoned and never re populated. So the argument you began saying may not actually be a very valid one. Even if yes the West did have more ores to mine than the east, they never actually managed to utilize any of them after the 3rd century crisis.

@@Iason29 Thanks for the info! Yes, that is what I had in my mind - also lead, silver (Hispania) etc. All these metals needed to be imported by the East, but not by the West.

The Eastern Empire had multiple Copper, Iron, Silver and Gold Mines throughout Asia Minor/Eastern Balkans/ Western Armenia, and Copper Mines in Syria and Cyprus. Eastern Balkans notably having lead Mines. Balkan output was of Course reduced by the Gothic, Slavic and Turkic raids/invasions

Very good suggestions for future considerations. I am writing this down, thanks !

@@Iason29 Good point, thank you! I have to admit up until recently I was just a "mainstream" Rome admirer and I sorely miss more context - that is why I try to find out more and this channel is a very useful source with a very knowledgeable community. Thank you for your inputs!

The west only had Spain ( where the mines had depleted) and Italy with its highly developed economy to back the army. While the east had almost any province being either rich of highly populated.

The east is the reason the west fell. You can’t take all that power, the emperor, the rich people and move to the east and not expect the west to fall

Yes Western Rome had bigger borders but that was the only border they had to worry about. Hispania was super stable so it just needed one field army, Africa (before migrations) was quite stable as well and needed little military force. So all that needed to be guarded was the Rhine frontier and Pannonia. Brittania was a massive waste but it was still not that difficult to defend, the northern border was guarded by the Wall and the rest of the Island could be defended easily by the Roman Navy which was far superior to the Barbarians' rag tag "fleets" of row boats. Compare this to the East- they had to guard the Danube, the entire Eastern front from Armenia to Arabia needed to be guarded against the rival superpower in the form of the Persian Empire which was an order of magnitude above the Barbarians when it came to how big of a threat it posed to the Empire. The Eastern Empire always, *always* needed to keep 2/3rds of its armies guarding the East to deter the Persians. Unlike the Parthians, the Sassanids were quite aggressive and expansionist, looking to restore the old Achaemenid borders. Unlike the West, the East also didn't have the luxury of stable provinces- the Levant and Egypt always needed to be pacified especially after the spread of Christianity. The East also needed to spend a good amount of resources to keep its puppets propped up (such as Lazica, Armenia and the Ghassanids) to keep the Persians contained. The West fell due to sheer corruption. It had everything going for it and yet it squandered it all away. The East stayed vigilant and it endured.

​@@zippyparakeet1074 imagine if majorian wouldnt have been treasoned but the other romans would have just stopped filling their pockets for once and stabbing anyone competent

Illyria also produced many great emperors with knack for military command. Other provinces like Britannia and northern Gaul were just drain on resources, though.

They make the mistakes of using hindsight.

The East was very lucky to have survived the 7th and early 8th century. As soon as the Islamic conquests started, it was a downward spiral. They lost the Levant and Egypt in the blink of an eye and soon had the invaders ok their doorstep at Constantinople. Had only a few things gone different, the East would have fallen in the 2-3 centuries after the fall of the west. Constantinople's superhuman fortification is one of the main reasons that it didn't. The almost 10 centuries the East lived longer were no easy times. And especially at the beginning, it really seemed like it was only a matter of time, and it could have been. The East struggled hard. You really have a point, but looking at the East in the 7th century, it seems like an absolute miracle that it didn't fall.

⁠@@muscledavis5434To call the eastern Roman Empire’s survival ‘lucky’ or a ‘miracle’ really undermines the years, and great amounts of decisions, strategies, ideas, policies, wars, that the empire had to go through to survive. It was definitely not lucky, Heraclius did a calculated decision to retreat back to Anatolia, centuries of continuously frontier guerilla warfare were an adaptation, the siege of 717 was a brillant, the economic and state policies, none of that was a ‘miracle’ it was the result of the ideas of a past civilization, all those diplomatic efforts and military efforts culminating in the Macedonian golden age, or Alexios maneuvering of the crusades to get back Asia Minor and even after the 4th crusade, the restoration of the Roman Empire by the Nicean emperors wasn’t a ‘miracle’ most of John III Laskaris work was through determination, and cleverness. Even to the individual, tons of hardworking Roman citizens paying their taxes, giving men to the military, and so on. Overall, the East could’ve fallen, but it didn’t, not because of luck, or miracles, but because of its people, its leadership, its culture, its state, etc

@@muscledavis5434 I know Constans II is not the most popular Emperor but he truly deserves credit for creating the themata system in Anatolia that would prove to be a bulwark against invading Arab. As great as the fortifications of the capital was, without the manpower and wealth Anatolia brought in the capital would have soon fell much like the 15th century with the Ottomans. The Themata just made conquering Anatolia an even more difficult goal than capturing the capital due to the vast area near the border being essentially no man's land (making conquering Anatolia a logistic nightmare), on top of a dense concentration of soldiers in Anatolia thanks to Constans II clever decision to grant military lands + a small monetary pay which allowed the now drastically poorer Empire to maintain a higher amount of soldiers than simply paying the soldiers with just cash as was the case during the times of Maurice and Justinian. Also the fact that soldiers are now defending their own hard earned lands and income gave them more motivation in preventing Anatolia from falling to Arab hands.

Yeah it’s remarkable how long Rome lasted, I mean Rome in the Middle Ages wouldn’t be recognisable to a Roman at the time of the republic so I get differentiating it, the Arabs & Crusaders didn’t conquer *the* Rome that’s famous, but still it’s the legacy of it.

Yes but when Rome and Parthia were st peace oh boy could they get stuff done

@@BiggestCorvid Yeah. But when not, the half of the Empire could be peeled off. Imagine if the Parthians were having one of their stronger rulers in times of Roman civil wars and disunity and came to conquer Egypt and Levant and then stick to it for hundreds of years? Now that was a prospect.

true but the east had extremely more mountainous and defendable geography. asia minor is like a thorny fortress of mountains while greece is full of choke points and mountains and islands as well. compared to west which had almost no significant natural border in gaulia or african side.

It depends on whether you judge better on longevity or peak performance. On peak performance, the west wins easily.

?? The Western Empire was always poor and Vulnerable with a Depopulated population and Unstable Political Scene, Their peak performance was completely overshadowed by the East Economic and Military Might even in Development the East existed as a Beacon of Light during the Collapse of Roman power @@popmonika

What peak performance😅​@@popmonikayou mean losing territory and lossing every war they faced with goth and hunnic?

​@@popmonikaLmao sure 😂

​@@popmonikaThe Byzantines had like 10 peaks, choose one so we can compare

I think they had more units, because they had more ground to cover, as WRE had much wider frontier with not so much natural barriers to protect themselves. Maybe at some point they even had more soldiers inside them. Then they started to struggle keep them staffed and operational. Fighting in civil wars, which forced to shuffle units from one regions to another, mounting losses forcing WRE to rely more on foederati of varied quality and loyalty, losing provinces which also affected their tax base. It's safe to say that what really killed WRE was losing Africa to Vandals *and* not being able to retake it despite multiple attempts. Unpaid soldiers could become as big of a trouble as barbarians they were supposed to defend against.

Le pestilenze decisero il destino dell'impero d'occidente

He’s obvi a pre split/western Roman empire fan but I hope he stops contributing to Eastern Roman erasure via constantly staying Byzantine because I legit like his content

Roman Emperor: Brother, why do we attack Sicily or Egypt and leave Anatolia? Are we stupid?

Is there enough trade going to/from the bay of Biscay or West African coast and the Mediterranean to justify that? Byzantion existed for centuries before Constantine showed up, I don't know how long permanent settlements have been at Gibraltar

@@BiggestCorvid Well, there is sub-Saharan trade. Plus, Mansa Musa is known as the richest man in the world for obvious reason. You know that. And that is the trade route the Romans can rely upon. With gold and salt coming in from West Africa, this western version of Constantinople will be quite profitable. In fact, this is the very reason why the monarchs of Castile kept the Emirate of Granada around for so long.

And around 60 of those years were ruled by Honorius and Valentinian III, the two of the worst emperors to have ever ascend the imperial purple.

A significant reason why that is, is due to, once again, the thanks towards Rome and Greece, mediterranean culture👍 (along with the golden age of the middle east), and unfortunately, the black death. Its what caused the renaissance.

@@lyricofwise6894 and those established trade routes being more heavily taxed than sending some ships west, hoping they come back at all. That resulted in continents that they could pillage freely for centuries.

@@BiggestCorvidDang, youre like Einstein. Said people are not responsible for barbarian kingdom evildoers free choice, in which case to SIMPLY fufill more of their greed, ESPECIALLY to that extent of how much to do that colonialism, how many, how long, etc. etc....

Nahh

Egypt

It's called the "fertile crescent " for a reason and don't forget Egypt which was the biggest grain producer in the Mediterranean sea

@@omaraboal-azm8705 That name describes the region as it existed 5,000+ years ago. Since then there has been lots of over-farming and climate change in the region.

I'm talking about the region from 3,000 BCE to 1500 AD

I thought about this before. How far east would they have to go to make a secure border?

Idk man that would have just pushed the border further and a new enemy. However germania would have given more and greater manpower and making gaul economically more strong due to not having to be defended anymore while germany would have needed to be developed massively in infrastructure and economics. Maybe going up and taking denmark while sweden had a super small population and norway maybe southern parts being conquered. Then comes the question where would be a good border to draw. Probably at the 1914 german russian border going along a river in modern day poland. However I think the biggest problem then would be that their new enemys would be more and more nomads, which roman infantry armies sucked hard against relying on infantry

​@@dawdoh3226this is a very good question. Germania Magna was one of the biggest problems the empire had and I think conquering it all would have changed a lot. But then there are other Barbarians to the east. And then further east only more Barbarians... so maybe in the end it wouldn't even be such a big difference, only that the invaders in the end wouldn't be Germanic tribes but someone else.

the west also had to protect their portion of the Danube which was the portion that didn't have a whole dacia in between it

Implying if it would not get islamified? Who knows.

That’s certainly not part of late roman history, i don’t think it’ll be covered.

You were right.

The roman east lacked warrior-culture recruitment areas outside of Thrace and Galatia (gaulish heritage). Easterners from Syria to Egypt were notoriusly bad at war, so the armies relied mostly on foreign mercenaries until the rise of Islam turned Anatolia into a warzone, making it a new ideal place to recruit people used to fight.

​@@TheUrobolos Armenians and Isaurians were great warriors, Arab mercenaries were also frequently recruited in Syria from the Ghassanids, Dacia (the Moesian province) and Thrace also had good soldiers plus the major advantage the Eastern Empire had was the equestrian culture it borrowed from the Persians which meant that it had access to super heavy cavalry such as the Clibanarii and the Catafractarii as well as mounted archers. They also frequently recruited Gothic foederati from beyond the Danube.

Why do you think the WRE had to deal with Germanic raids, pray tell? Did you ever consider that it was because they were simply weaker from a military standpoint, and thus an easier target?

@@johanlassen6448 Yes, I considered this and then I ruled it out. The West was weaker not due to the quality of its military, but due to a number of other factors, including: climate change and Hunnic migration pushed the Germanic tribes westward across the Rhine; the WRE was more overstretched than the ERE; the WRE suffered from corruption and decentralisation, such as emerging feudal enclaves; the Germanic folk were already entrenched within the WRE.

@@cerdic6586 Except for getting its ass kicked by pretty much every invader of course. You left out that little detail. Besides that I am sure the WRE looked stronger. Also - more overstretched? The ERE had the Sassanids to deal with, a far greater threat than Germanic invaders.

west had more frequent usurpations and at least east continued more than 1000 years after the fall of west

Italy was the only highly profitable province of the West the issue was that Spain the second most profitable had recently run out of Gold and silver.

Charlemagne isn't a legit Roman Emperor

@@Iamnotracistlmao Charlemagne was the legitimate Roman Emperor since he was crowned by the Pope, and Byzantium recognized his title in 812. At the same time, the province of Byzantium, the Duchy of Rome, voluntarily seceded from Byzantium and became part of the restored Western Roman Empire; it would later become known as the Papal States. By the way, the Republic of Venice was the heir of Byzantium, since until the mid-9th century it was its province as part of the Ravenna Exarchate!

@@user-kf3dg3ud5m "crowned by the pope" what kinda cope is this? No legit Roman Emperor has been crowned by the pope in history of Rome

@@user-kf3dg3ud5m Charlemagne's "Roman" Empire wasn't very Roman

@@Iamnotracistlmao Most of the inhabitants of the restored Western Roman Empire spoke and wrote in Latin, Romanesque architecture continued to exist and the citizens of Charles Augustus were Christians, as they had been in the 5th century. At a time when Byzantium was no longer Latin-speaking, it did not have the city of Rome itself and it lost most of its lands to the Arabs and Turks!

Actually it was the other way around. The wealth of the East was what propped up the West. The West could have survived had it still had a sizeable tax base (i.e. Africa, by some distance its wealthiest province) to train, equip and maintain a standing army. As soon as the Vandals conquered Africa, the court at Ravenna was cut off at the knees, the armies folded, the admin was on a shoestring budget, barely able to pay for mercenaries and the West entered freefall.