I think that it could've been avoided because if the Western half made trades with the Eastern half, then they could've lived longer.
I agree with your desicion Etta.Because when people trade, it makes the people stick and come together.
That could be a small reason but the biggest is that they would need to join army. Remember West Rome was attacked a lot.
I disagree Etta. Even if they were trading with the Eastern part, they would not have been getting the tax money which made the East so powerful. Maybe if the empire didn't split into 2 parts it might have had a chance but even then I still think it was unavoidable. The leaders of the West grew too incompetent and didn't care about the people within the Empire. What goes up must come down.
I agree because the Byzantine empire was getting tons of money from taxing, from trade and the silk road. Also, if Justinian was emperor sooner, I think that he could have traded with the western half to accomplish his goal of regrouping the two empires together.
I agree with Etta not Mr.Kaciuba
I agree with you Etta. Like if one need some more food or weapons they could trade for something the other needed.
I think they could have been avoided to fall. Because if they had stronger army's they could have beaten them and not have fallen. They were OK but they just needed help.
I see your point, Triston, but how would they have a better army without hiring mercenaries? I don't think they could especially with the economy declining they probably wouldn't even be able to pay their own soldiers.
I agree with Triston, because that was also a big part of why they got destroyed. Rome was a big city so they could have got enough people to join the army to defend themselves and the land
I agree with you triston bcause if they had a better army they probley would of lasted longer.
I agree with triston with the soldiers but what if they didn't want to be soldiers.not many people were soldiers.If they made them fight it's basically like they were never from Rome
I don't think that the fall of the Western Roman Empire could be avoided because the Visigoths, Franks, etc. would still cause trouble. If the economy got better from the officials not stealing money, then maybe, but I doubt it. They would need to stop minting coins and stop hiring mercenaries. In my opinion, the rich wouldn't stop that.
I agree with you Sean because the army would have no money to hire mercenaries. So the Visigoths, Franks etc. will keep coming with no defense to stop them.
Good Point I see what your going at and I believe your correct. You went for political and I went for trading and defense type.
I think that the Western half wouldn't avoid falling because all of the trading points go through Constantinople. So all the travelers would get taxed so much they'd practically deliver you a dime. With no money the West could not buy and weapons or have any protecting walls. So there wold be no way to stop the western half from falling.
Very good point, can't fight on that.
I believe that the fall of the western half would of fallen regardless of what happened.I think this, because the western half was in no way able to trade with its neighbors, because Its neighbors were trying to destroy Rome. And when the defenses split, I believe that was the begining of the end.
i agree with you all but the reason why Rome fell also ,is because of the bubonic plague the disease came from egypt and asia
No Kee that's the Byzantines.
that was the bysnitean empire
Maybe, if the Byzantine Empire shared wealth with the Western Romans then they might have been able to fight off the many attackers. The Byzantines would also have to use their army to help the Western Romans but it would still be a struggle. Over all it could happen but it would be tough.
I think the fall of Western Rome could have been avoided, because they could have built the walls like how they did with Constantinople. So if that had happened they could have been protected and then they just had to protect there land by the water attacks. The Western half wouldn't have had to worry about all of there land getting destroyed, only a little bit of it by the water.
I think the western would off bean avoided if the western and eastern traded but however they also wouled of made a biger army to if the eastern needed them
I definitely agree this is what I am saying. If the East and the West had United earlier then they might have survived longer together than apart.
I think if the two empires conquored more land but didnt expand the empire, only get more people for the army, I think it would have been able to save them. I think a lot of people are forgetting that money wasn't the only factor. ANother thing the West would have had to do would be to get a system for choosing and emperor. If they had started a democracy and citizen would vote, that cold have helped them a lot and the falling of the western half could have indeed been avoided for at least another 1000 years. After that they would have to expand because of over population but then it would be to hard to govern etc.
*Conquered more land. Sorry spelling mistake.
I think that it could have been avoided. All they had to do was send a messenger to the East to ask for help and then they could have tried to send over troops and money. If they did that they might have survived maybe a hundred years longer.
I agree with you Mark. If only the East would have helped out then maybe they could have lived for much longer. Whatever half anyone was on, Rome was still Rome so they should have helped out.
I think the fall of the western part of Rome could have been avoided if they had a better army.
I think that the fall of the Western half of the Empire could have been avoided if the Eastern half shared their wealth with them. Well, first off, this problem could have been avoided if Diocletian hadn't split Rome up in the first place. Anyway, going back to the whole sharing the wealth idea. If the Eastern half had only gave money to the other half then the taxes in that half wouldnt have gotten so oppressive.
I think it would not be avoided because they would need more soldiers and they sould have just kept Rome to gether.they would have too different emperors for each side.Still have it together and they would still be together.If it fall both would fall.
The fall of Western Rome could have been avoided. It could have because the Western and the Eastern could have traded to keep it going. Also, if they had a stronger army it would help a lot
Of Course. If the eastern shared a little of it's money, they could stand for... 1 month longer. They could have built a great big wall to defend them. They could use the money to get better tools.
Write something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview.