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
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.
I think you are totally right.I think it was super right about them getting attacked was great
that is exactly what i would have said. I feel like other people would have attacked the poor endways
I agree with you because they had A lot of pressure on them because they were attacked from each side.
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.
exactly... i should meant to put that in my response
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.
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.
Yes I agree because It was still too big. Also they just had way to many enimies.
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.
I agree with you Kelsey. It was just too big to defend all around the boarders and in the middle of the city.
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.
I have to agree. You proved many good points with your comment. Thats probably the biggest reason.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I agree with you Sela.If they were better protected it could have been all avoided.
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.
I agree with you rylee they did not let invaders in they probably could last long and could possible last a little bit longer
I agree with you Logan that if they did not let the invaders in they could probably for another couple of decades.
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.
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.
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.
Tyler, I definitely agree with you. I their army was bigger they would've had a way bigger chance to survive.
Sorry Matt I thought you were Tyler for some reason...
I agree with you Matthew. If they had more people on the inside, they would have not fallen.
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.
I agree with your comment beacuse yours make sense then mine
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.
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 .
No beacuse of the great Romen Fire. By the way I do not think that my answer is correct.😐
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Write something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview.