- This topic has 3 voices and 5 replies.
-
Posts
-
What would have happened if Constantine had not moved his permanent home to Constantinople? I'm assuming here that his successors would have followed suit and remained in Rome as well.
But perhaps you say that presuming that resources would have been divided as they eventually were with Constantine in the East. If Constantine stayed in Rome (and his successors), there would have been more at stake in Italy and more efforts to defend it, no?
The western empire was more tired and decadent to begin with, Constantine revived the East when he moved there. I am not sure he could have done the same in the WEST. The founding of Constantinople was of decisive importance for the vitality of the Eastern Empire, absent that it would have fallen as well.. I think Ski is right on this one.
The western empire was more tired and decadent to begin with, Constantine revived the East when he moved there. I am not sure he could have done the same in the WEST. The founding of Constantinople was of decisive importance for the vitality of the Eastern Empire, absent that it would have fallen as well.. I think Ski is right on this one.
Constantinople was easier to defend than was Rome, and the East had a larger number of Christians, and I believe it was wealthier as a whole. So for those reasons, I can see how the East would have outlasted the West any way we look at it. I just am not convinced that Rome would have fallen as soon as it did had Constantine not left.
It may have dragged on for another hundred years or so longer, the pressure from the Goths and Huns was much stronger in the west than in the east. Rome itself was sacked less than 100 years after Constantines death.
