INTRODUCTION

Date fall of Western Empire to death of Augustus – argued further on but only on technicality.
Yet East survived and continued for another two years. Talk about sacred rhetoric of internal factors – i.e.social, psychological economic
Esaay hope to define, establish those and link with the external factors

INTERNAL PROBLEMS

Shear number of political rulers compared with the – post Val 3 – only few usurpations in Eastern Empire
Quality of men defeated – Aetius – petty political struggle 0 Aetius killed, Stilicho and West very petty
Decline of civil responsibility – political institutions lessen. Leads to centralisation, loss of control, landowners don’t see Empire. Also leads to inefficient bureaucracy in the machinery of government.
Landowners therefore turn to nearest power, military source – invading tribe. Reluctant to give up troops.
Talk about lack of middle clas sin power – thus inefficient and slef - interested

Some argue Christianisation negative influence – economically an expensive resource. Jones refers to “idle” mouths another layer unproductive people – also less willing to fight
Refers to deep schisms it creates – Arian, Nicea tribes for example. Less patriotic than Paganism.
Countered by Liebeshuetze – saw positive bit of Christianity. If anything it si the divide – EE more chrisitianised and consistnet

Peasnats – none landowners unlike the East, tenant farmers. Yet in West heavily taxed – in terms of conscription and war. Also collapse citizenship etc likens them to slaves. Whilst De Croix Marxist view deliberate ploy from aristos etc, the upper classes where never keen to aid their peasants – slavery, huge taxes, few immunities. Counter productive as rural population declines – less food – and conscription become a problem
Exacerbated a larger landowners had more control of more conscripts if they all worked for him. Peasants rarely aided invaders – passively accepted them and on occasion revolted
Link point about heavy political superstructure on a weak and declining agrarian base

Had to use non – Romans – increasingly dependent on Foderati – link to Gibbon’s quote on Atantic to Volga.
Careful not overplay – Roman military rarely loss to invading tribe? But with barbarians discipline fell and numbers hard to recruit (chopping thumbs off etc).
Simply over stretched – lurching one internal crisis to another, many seemingly unnecessary – why did the east go to war less easily? Empires within empires increase workload and leave frontiers indefensible.
More and more army needed – thus economic burden a swell.

Relatively sudden emergence Huns. Characterised as ferocious attackers of Romans – but 376 and 405/6 pressurisation of tribes into Roman Empire. Caused empires within empires – problems shown above
Huns – helped Aetius tec, and when that help disappeared at certain time then Romans again exposed.
Vandals in Africa hastened collapse – Africa fertile lands, but great position to attack Romans – which they did. Sacking Rome etc etc.
Relations with east hardy beneficial – no aid and persistent squabbling.

More fertile land, economically more powerful. More people. Yes did have external pressure, but not to the same extent.
Egypt and Africa
Less borders – attacks from Huns and other tribes, but never any other warriors in the land. Thus internal weaknesses which undoubtedly existed not exposed as much

· Sacred Rhetoric not false – there were internal problems that hastened collapse

· These also existed in the Eastern Empire – but empires within empires, borders etc exacerbated, highlighted and intensified internal problems