As well as facing diminishing resources, the West also had longer borders to defend. Western collapse was inevitable from that point out. Romans made no changes to the structure of their army after this battle. Far more important event was the division of the empire in 395 between Arcadius and Honorius, the two sons of Theodosius, which robbed the empire of strategic depth, with few transfers of money or troops between the two parts. The loss of Africa had severe financial and strategic consequences on the empire. It not only lost one of the wealthiest provinces from western control but also exposed the Mediterranean to barbarian raids. A third critical event was the murder of Majorian. This denied them a last chance of recapturing Africa and holding the Western empire together. The prevalence of civil war during the fourth and fifth centuries did not help either. The frequent occasions on which the Roman armies were forced to fight its self caused constant drain of resources that could have been used against external enemies. Although civil war was a political problem, it had severe military effects. This often provoked barbarian raids and weakened imperial ability to respond to them. It is difficult to reach a conclusive verdict on why the Western Roman Empire fell. As these arguments show, it was a long and complex process, made more difficult to understand by the shady evidence that we do have. If there were a simple answer, the Romans surely would have found it. Whatever the reasons, throughout the fifth century, when emperors could find the money and assemble troops, the Roman army was a powerful and effective force (Corbishley, 88). If there was a single reason for the collapse of the Roman Empire, it was poor leadership, not military failure. While the Empire in the West broke apart, the Empire in the East survived for another 1000 years. But why did the Eastern Empire, and not the West, survive? The main reason is economy. The...
