Could have the Western Empire Rome survive? | AskHistorians Archive Observer

We will unfortunately never be able to say whether or not the absence or presence of certain factors would have saved the Western Empire, such speculation is by it’s nature ahistorical. That said, I would caution against characterizing any state as being “doomed to fail.”

The Western Roman Empire in the 5th century faced a number of problems it’s Eastern counterpart did not. It was plagued by barbarian raids, which the East, and especially it’s wealthiest provinces of Egypt and Syria, was largely shielded from. The effect of these raids was made far worse by reoccurring bouts of civil war, which broke out more frequently in the West. Civil wars cost large numbers of trained soldiers, which weakened frontier defenses and encouraged further raids. It was ruled by a series of ineffectual emperors, who were usually dominated by senior military officials. The West also had less aggregate wealth than the East. These underlying problems were compounded by the loss of North Africa to the Vandals in the 430s. North Africa was one of the wealthiest regions of the Western Empire, supplying the bulk of Italy’s grain and it’s tax revenue underwrote the enormous costs of the army. The loss of North Africa critically undermined the West’s ability to maintain an effective army, and from here it’s possible to see a swift decline in the West’s fortunes. So while it’s impossible to say whether or not the West could have survived had North Africa remained in Imperial control, it’s loss was clearly a debilitating blow.