3-4 Sentence Response
2-3 Sentence Reply
Do you think the fall of Western Rome could have been avoided? If so how? If not why?
3-4 Sentence Response 2-3 Sentence Reply
40 Comments
matthew s
1/13/2016 09:44:26 am
No I dont think it could have been avoided. One reason is it was getting attacked and could not stand all the pressure and power of the other armies. Also it was devastating money and when u read u find Constatinople had all the cash
Reply
Tyler M.
1/13/2016 11:22:43 am
Yes i agree with you Matthew, to a certain degree anyways. However, if the army was stations differently and if Rome was not letting invaders live inside it could have been avoided.
Reply
Kelsey H.
1/13/2016 11:34:24 am
I think you are totally right.I think it was super right about them getting attacked was great
Reply
Kennedi M.
1/14/2016 09:13:32 pm
that is exactly what i would have said. I feel like other people would have attacked the poor endways
Reply
brett m
1/18/2016 02:58:21 pm
I agree with you because they had A lot of pressure on them because they were attacked from each side.
Reply
matthew s
1/13/2016 11:27:12 am
Tyler I am seeing your point.I think you are right to. If they were only smart enough to hire more not mecenaires but loyal citizans, they can defend perfectly.
Reply
Tyler M.
1/13/2016 11:34:06 am
exactly... i should meant to put that in my response
Reply
Thomas S
1/13/2016 11:29:40 am
No because of money and defense. The Western part of Rome had little money and little soldiers. Therefore when they had to defend or trade the couldn't.All because the Eastern part had taken all of the money and soldiers.
Reply
Kelsey H.
1/13/2016 11:30:44 am
I think it probably would fall because one way of another it was to big. A lot of other places had the chance to win but they did not. I mean the in army there was only a few were guarding the wall.
Reply
Thomas S
1/13/2016 11:35:34 am
Yes I agree because It was still too big. Also they just had way to many enimies.
Reply
Bryan Carlos
1/13/2016 11:48:49 am
I agree with you because it was kind of big. Also it had not to much soldiers to guarding the wall's. You are right other places had a chance to win.
Reply
Torrance H.
1/16/2016 05:19:33 pm
I agree with you Kelsey. It was just too big to defend all around the boarders and in the middle of the city.
Reply
Tyler M.
1/13/2016 11:31:56 am
Yes I think it could have been avoided because if Rome was not letting the invaders live inside Rome they would not have to be fighting the huns and those invaders. Even though the army was weak after the war they could have defended against the vandals if the invaders were not inside Rome. Another thing they could have done to avoid it is station the army differently. Before Rome fell the Army was stationed on the borders of Rome. The problem with that is as soon as the invaders had gotten in it was easy to invade anything. There was also some things weighing down on Rome that would make me lean a little bit to the ¨NO¨ side of the question. Their economy was suffering at the time. The taxes were high and they were minting coins because the seneters were stealing money for their own good. The emperors were also awful causing murders every 1 year or less! Even with those cons to Rome, they still could have avoided falling.
Reply
Sela V
1/13/2016 11:47:34 am
I have to agree. You proved many good points with your comment. Thats probably the biggest reason.
Reply
Matthew M.
1/16/2016 04:41:20 pm
I agree with you Tyler because there armies were stationed in bad places. They could have been stationed in better places, so it would be easier to defend. if they had some of their armies on the inside of the borders it would be harder to attack Rome.
Reply
Bryan Carlos
1/13/2016 11:38:27 am
No I think it wouldent have last. Because they don't have to many money. And with out to many money that means they dident have to many soldiers. Those are all the reasons why it couldent last.
Reply
Mr. Kaciuba
1/14/2016 08:47:48 am
Bryan I agree with you. A big reason why Rome fell was because they didn't have money any more. All of the money was in the East and without money an empire can not survive. Even if the Byzantines helped them, Rome would still run into the problem of size. Rome was just to large to govern effectively without the convenience of modern day technology like phones, internet, and transportation.
Reply
EthanC.
1/17/2016 10:58:02 am
i agree with you because the soldiers wear station around the border.So they could jest fight the main battle and have free run of the city.
Reply
Sela V.
1/13/2016 11:43:34 am
It probably could've been avoided because of the fact that it was their fault it fell. They should've had it better protected with more than just an army on the edges. It is the main reason that it fell. Since there was only an army on the edges when they went to fight there was a clear opening.
Reply
Rylee S.
1/13/2016 02:49:26 pm
This is exactly what I'm saying. They could of avoided all of the attacks by just not letting invaders on their land. They should have tried to protect their land better.
Reply
Vivian F.
1/16/2016 04:29:11 pm
I agree with you Sela.If they were better protected it could have been all avoided.
Reply
Rylee S.
1/13/2016 02:46:27 pm
Yes the fall of the western half Rome could have been avoided. The decisions they made were a big part of the reason the western half of Rome fell. If they wouldn't have let invaders live in their territory then they wouldn't have been able to attack. Invaders are the reason the western half fell, if the people of Rome tried to protect their land none of this would have happened.
Reply
Logan s
1/16/2016 01:14:13 pm
I agree with you rylee they did not let invaders in they probably could last long and could possible last a little bit longer
Reply
Lena E
1/16/2016 04:14:36 pm
I agree with you Logan that if they did not let the invaders in they could probably for another couple of decades.
Reply
Vivian F.
1/16/2016 04:28:01 pm
Yes I think the fall of western Rome could have been avoided.If they had more soldiers to protect all of Rome not just the edges of Rome.Another reason it could have been avoided if there were more good emperors because most of the emperors were bad emperors and got assassinated every year.
Reply
Logan s
1/16/2016 04:37:36 pm
I agree with you sela if they had more then just a army around the edges the invaders probably would have never gotten into Rome at all.
Reply
Matthew M.
1/16/2016 04:38:28 pm
Yes, I think the fall of the western side of Rome could of been avoided. I think if they had more people in their military it would of helped because they needed more people to guard the inside of Rome. So, if an army got through their first defense there would be more Romans in the inside of Rome to defend.
Reply
Collin M.
1/18/2016 09:29:16 am
Tyler, I definitely agree with you. I their army was bigger they would've had a way bigger chance to survive.
Reply
Collin M.
1/18/2016 09:31:28 am
Sorry Matt I thought you were Tyler for some reason...
Matthew O
1/18/2016 06:14:59 pm
I agree with you Matthew. If they had more people on the inside, they would have not fallen.
Reply
Torrance H.
1/16/2016 05:26:46 pm
I think it would have fell mostly because it was just too big to defend. They didn't have enough soldiers to defend the boarders and the middle of the city. They didn't have enough soldiers because Rome didn't have alot of money to pay mercinaries. Over all the Western part would have fell no matter what happened.
Reply
Javia R. Mitchell
1/17/2016 08:26:36 am
I agree with your comment beacuse yours make sense then mine
Reply
Kailey. S
1/17/2016 10:16:01 pm
I agree that it was to big and it was hard to defend so they didn't have a enough solders so they couldn't defamed the boarders.
Reply
Lena E
1/16/2016 07:08:40 pm
I agree with you Torrance it was way to big if they made it smaller it would be easy to protect it from invaders and it was smaller they could possible give that land to the invaders they don't get attacked by them anymore .
Reply
1/17/2016 08:25:01 am
No beacuse of the great Romen Fire. By the way I do not think that my answer is correct.😐
Reply
EthanC.
1/17/2016 10:46:49 am
No I don't think they could have avoided it. I think this because they could not have avoided the plague. government was staling money.
Reply
Kailey. S
1/17/2016 10:11:26 pm
I don't think is would have been avoided because the sickness was un stopple so the people would have still died and half the population would have been gone so I still don't think it would have been whipped out.
Reply
Collin M.
1/18/2016 09:26:54 am
I think it inevitable. Almost everyone surrounding them was attacking them.Rome didnt have that big of an army to protect the whole of western Rome. I think if they had more money had more soldiers they might have survived.
Reply
brett m
1/18/2016 02:55:46 pm
I think it could not have been avodable because once they were in they were unstoppable. This was because they had no armmys on the inside . this was because it was WAY to big. therefor I don't think it was avoidable.
Reply
Matthew O
1/18/2016 06:13:01 pm
I think the fall of Rome could have been avoided. If there Guards weren't placed on the borders, then they would not have fallen. Since there Guards were on the borders, if the enemy defeated one side of guards, they had access to the inside of Rome.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
May 2017
Categories |