Diocletian divided Rome in 258, but the empire ultimately …show more content…
As previously stated, the fall of the Rome can be accredited to division of the empire. Although this made the region easier to govern, splitting the empire into two regions halted the collaboration of the two halves. After the split, Eastern and Western Rome were no longer united, they stopped working as one. When the empire was unified, “resources from the more prosperous East could be redistributed to prop up the unprofitable West. But the separate administrations changed this. The Eastern government, faced with its own barbarian crisis, was reluctant to subsidize the costly West.” Therefore, after the division each half functioned as an independent empire and the emperors for each region no longer found it necessary to assist the other. Which meant that the West could no longer rely on must needed resources from the …show more content…
Constantine fortified the capital of the East by building “the Theodosian Wall, which kept Constantinople secure from foreign attack until the thirteenth century.” On the other hand, in the East, Italy and the City of Rome had minimal protection against outside forces. Overall, the east “had more secure geographical frontiers, a stronger economy, a less well-entrenched senatorial order, a larger population, and a more dependable Roman military recruitment base.” Therefore, all of these factors combined are what allowed the Eastern Empire to survive long after the fall of the West. If the Roman Empire had remained united, it is feasible that the West would not have succumbed to the Barbarian invaders, as they would have had resources from the East to support their