Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="willpax" data-source="post: 280082" data-attributes="member: 1602">Most of the time, it wasn't about repelling the barbarians, but accomodating them. The reason the east didn't fall is that it had a higher population density, so there was nowhere to take up farming. In the west (which was never as developed), there was room in Gaul. As the empire descends from its peak (3rd - 4th centuries) the burden of defending so much border begins to grow too great (not enough citizens willing to join the army, taxes becoming burdensome with not much to show for it--the same old story). Then the Western Emperors actually contract out some defensive work to the federates--German tribes that have entered the Empire peacefully, trading land for a promise to fight on the side of the Romans in battle. So the Romans had actually become quite used to armed Germans in the neighborhood well before the Western Empire fell. Many historians see the fall of Rome as lying in problems in its own administration (growing lack thereof) and economy (slave based, leading to no incentive to invest or even produce)--the barbarians simply took advantage of a growing weakness. That's at least one version of it. I'm sure there are others.</blockquote>