The breakthrough of the Limes

Why the Barbarian preferred to invade the Western Roman Empire? I'm talking about the period next the 395, when the Empire where divised between Arcadius and Onorius. I know that the West was in the "edge" of collapse, but why it was so much interesting for the Barbarians? Why they didn't choose the East, nearer than the the western territory??

Of course I talk about a full-scale invasion, not exactly like the Visigoths that after Adrianople sacked the Greece and then went to West. Waiting for you answers : )

Why the Barbarian preferred to invade the Western Roman Empire? I'm talking about the period next the 395, when the Empire where divised between Arcadius and Onorius. I know that the West was in the "edge" of collapse, but why it was so much interesting for the Barbarians? Why they didn't choose the East, nearer than the the western territory??

Of course I talk about a full-scale invasion, not exactly like the Visigoths that after Adrianople sacked the Greece and then went to West. Waiting for you answers : )

I've read some analysis that refers to the movement of the barbarians (at least during the 4th Century) as more of an immigration rather than an invasion. The Huns movement West had a large part to do with it. The Huns scared everybody - Romans and Barbarians alike. So they couldn't move eastward towards Asia since the Huns were already there.

There was movement South (like across the Danube) which led to Adrianople in 378. At the end of the 4th Century and early 5th, the Empire had some success at repelling attacks - Stilicho defeated Radagaisus in Raetia. He twice defeated Alaric in modern Italy - first near Milan and then Pollentia. I believe those two may have battled more than those two times. In early 400s, the Barbarians crossed the Rhine en masse.

I'm sure others will have more details than I can provide, but it seems like the Barbarians were sort of bursting at the seams of their territories...their only options were to move South and West. The Huns were in the East. Geography limited movement North. And so they ultimately burst through South and West.

Why the Barbarian preferred to invade the Western Roman Empire? I'm talking about the period next the 395, when the Empire where divised between Arcadius and Onorius. I know that the West was in the "edge" of collapse, but why it was so much interesting for the Barbarians? Why they didn't choose the East, nearer than the the western territory??

Of course I talk about a full-scale invasion, not exactly like the Visigoths that after Adrianople sacked the Greece and then went to West. Waiting for you answers : )

I've read some analysis that refers to the movement of the barbarians (at least during the 4th Century) as more of an immigration rather than an invasion. The Huns movement West had a large part to do with it. The Huns scared everybody - Romans and Barbarians alike. So they couldn't move eastward towards Asia since the Huns were already there.

 

There was movement South (like across the Danube) which led to Adrianople in 378. At the end of the 4th Century and early 5th, the Empire had some success at repelling attacks - Stilicho defeated Radagaisus in Raetia. He twice defeated Alaric in modern Italy - first near Milan and then Pollentia. I believe those two may have battled more than those two times. In early 400s, the Barbarians crossed the Rhine en masse.

 

I'm sure others will have more details than I can provide, but it seems like the Barbarians were sort of bursting at the seams of their territories...their only options were to move South and West. The Huns were in the East. Geography limited movement North. And so they ultimately burst through South and West.

And the Huns? Have they attacked or invaded the Eastern Empire?

The Huns extracted massive cash subsidies and land grants south of the Danube from Constantinople. As time went on, both huns and East Romans found this arrangement to their advantage; the frontier was moved back to the Danube and the Huns, bereft now of Attilla and squabbling in various factions, found it profitable to fight as auxilliaries for Constantinople.

Why the Barbarian preferred to invade the Western Roman Empire? I'm talking about the period next the 395, when the Empire where divised between Arcadius and Onorius. I know that the West was in the "edge" of collapse, but why it was so much interesting for the Barbarians? Why they didn't choose the East, nearer than the the western territory??

Of course I talk about a full-scale invasion, not exactly like the Visigoths that after Adrianople sacked the Greece and then went to West. Waiting for you answers : )

As it was previously explained, the Barbarians preferred to invade and immigrate to wherever they had any chance; the Huns and the Germanic peoples actually attacked both Empires.

The East survived the fifth century for other reasons, presumably at least partially because Constantinople had better defenses than Rome.

Why the Barbarian preferred to invade the Western Roman Empire? I'm talking about the period next the 395, when the Empire where divised between Arcadius and Onorius. I know that the West was in the "edge" of collapse, but why it was so much interesting for the Barbarians? Why they didn't choose the East, nearer than the the western territory??

Of course I talk about a full-scale invasion, not exactly like the Visigoths that after Adrianople sacked the Greece and then went to West. Waiting for you answers : )

As it was previously explained, the Barbarians preferred to invade and immigrate to wherever they had any chance; the Huns and the Germanic peoples actually attacked both Empires.

 

The East survived the fifth century for other reasons, presumably at least partially because Constantinople had better defenses than Rome.

As a matter of tactics, easyer pickings

I think because the West was already in decay. The Western Empire was easier pickings for the barbarians because the West was getting weaker and weaker. The West had been defending against barbarians for years, and it finally took the toll around 250AD onwards.

They were attacked by Picts and Saxons in Britain, Gaul etc was being attacked by German tribes who were fleeing from the Huns. Constantinople was a newer city with newer defenses, and was able to stand up to attack. Rome was not.

In my opinion it was because of Romes weakness and the Huns.

Money. The German tribes wanted their slice of the action. There were tax initiatives in the late empire to encourage Germans to settle in Roman lands for the purposes of bringing them into the Roman fold and using them as reinforcements for their shrinking recruitment pool. There were also a number of tribes who weren't invited and saw the lands south of the river as wealthier than their own temperate rainforests and heathland. They were right. It was. Not just because of rural success, which was sometimes under strain due to military recruitment, but also because as the empire drew to a close there was a tendency for rural communities to opt out of governmental control, thus avoiding taxes and the draft.

I think that the invaders wanted to plunder or/and to became an elite in roman lands rather then becoming peasants and local militia.

Arguably, all along universal History the reasons from hostile neighbors to invade each other have remained essentially the same.

Meroveo's original question was on why the West was invaded more frequently than the East, and my best guess is still that it wasn't so; as far as I can tell, both empires were equally attacked by Germanics and Huns.

I think because the West was already in decay. The Western Empire was easier pickings for the barbarians because the West was getting weaker and weaker. The West had been defending against barbarians for years, and it finally took the toll around 250AD onwards.

Arguably, all along universal History the reasons from hostile neighbors to invade each other have remained essentially the same.

Meroveo's original question was on why the West was invaded more frequently than the East, and my best guess is still that it wasn't so; as far as I can tell, both empires were equally attacked by Germanics and Huns.

 

I think because the West was already in decay. The Western Empire was easier pickings for the barbarians because the West was getting weaker and weaker. The West had been defending against barbarians for years, and it finally took the toll around 250AD onwards.

That is indeed a common explanation. Depending mostly on the operational definition, evidence of "decay" can usually be found for the V century Western Roman Empire (and BTW, for the late Julio-Claudian period too). The main problem for that line of argumentation is that virtually all the evidence of decay of the West was equally present in the East.

This is largely true; however, the towns of Gaul and Hispania never really recovered after the barbarian forays of the 3rd century, whereas urban centres enjoyed a flowering in the East from about 300 to 500. Thus, the tax base of the West was severely eroded compared to that of the East, resulting in the shrinkage of the Army proper after 406 and increasing reliance on foederatii whose land grants in return for service eroded the tax base further still.

It seems this thread is now trying to explain why the West fell and the East didn't.

This is largely true; however, the towns of Gaul and Hispania never really recovered after the barbarian forays of the 3rd century,...

... whereas urban centres enjoyed a flowering in the East from about 300 to 500 ...

On the other hand, it seems the non-invaded territories (again in both sides) were as a whole barely surviving and hardly "flowering" by any objective measure, especially the urban centres.

... Thus, the tax base of the West was severely eroded compared to that of the East, resulting in the shrinkage of the Army proper after 406 and increasing reliance on foederatii whose land grants in return for service eroded the tax base further still.

I tend to agree with Ward-Perkins; the erosion of the tax base would have been the main cause, not the effect of the shrinkage (and even worse, rebellion) of the army (either "proper" or "non-proper").

Ward-Perkins set the significant tax erosion of the West a generation later, ie. after the Vandal conquest of Africa.

This seems to me to be an excellent explanation for a differential factor, because the main sources of taxes for the East (Egypt, Asia & Syria) were left essentially untouched by the invasions.

It seems this thread is now trying to explain why the West fell and the East didn't.

This is largely true; however, the towns of Gaul and Hispania never really recovered after the barbarian forays of the 3rd century,...

I suppose you mean "late IV century" for Gaul and "V century" for Hispania.

No, I refer here specifically to Barbarians crossing the limes in the mid 3rd century. This resulted in walls being thrown up around the centres of towns, the extremities of which whithered away due to the prevailing state of insecurity. Thereafter the towns of Gaul, with the exceptions perhaps of Arles and Trier, became little more than fortified posts, as the economy and population in the area declined.

The question as to why the west fell and the East didn't is an interesting tangential point which naturally arises when one discusses the West's growing inability to maintain the Rhine and Danube limes.