A Brief Introduction to the Divided Empire

Along the banks of the river Tigris in 363, Julian II ìthe Apostate,î the last legitimate heir of Constantine the Great, met an ignominious end. Julian was replaced by Jovian, a soldier who maintained a unified Empire for almost two years before his own death, which was not in the heat of battle, but from the fumes of a brazier. Shortly after Jovianís death, the chemistry of the Empire changed forever, as its two capitals were destined for permanent separation.

Forcing this separation were the armies of Gaul (which had supported the usurpation of Julian II) and the Eastern armies (which had formerly served under Constantius II). They were forced to cooperate by Julian II during his reign as Augustus (361ñ363), but after his death could not agree on viable candidates for the throne. Initially, they settled on Jovian as a man who was inoffensive to either party, but after his death in 364, they decided that two emperors must reign ó one in the East, and one in the West. When the two armies came to this arrangement with Valentinian I and Valens, civil war was narrowily averted. Except for two half-year periods during the reigns of Gratian (378/9) and of Theodosius I (394/5) and a few later periods (which were as brief as they were inconsequential), the East and West were never without separate emperors again.

The cities of Rome, Milan and Ravenna variously served as capitals of the Western Roman Empire, and Constantinople became the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire. The split formally occurred in 364, but became more severe in 395, when the brothers Honorius and Arcadius inherited their fatherís temporarily united Empire. No longer was one of the emperors senior to the other, instead they were completely equal and independent. Even though the two emperors continued to strike coins in each othersí names, and laws were supposed to be applied universally in the East and West, the sharpness of the division increased with the passage of time. Though both Roman, the two Empires acted with increasing autonomy, and occasional hostility. Indeed, their relations were so poor that war was narrowly avoided on several occasions. After the deaths of Honorius and Arcadius, a more congenial relationship was achieved.

In this era the historian must make a critical choice. Should the last 112 years of the Empire be discussed principally in terms of the East-West division, or in terms of ruling houses of Valentinian, Theodosius and Leo? The latter route has been chosen by most historians, as it offers a comfortable transition from the Tetrarchic and Constantinian eras. But the former is undoubtedly more appropriate. Not only does it offer a true picture of the post-Constantinian world, but also it avoids the chronological chaos of the overlapping reigns in Rome and Constantinople.

THE DIVIDED EMPIRE

A.Formerly the wife of the usurper Magnentius

B.Husband of Maria & Thermantia the Younger (daughters of the Master of Soldiers Stilicho)

C.Daughter of Bauto the Frank

D.Formerly the wife of Athaulf the Visigoth

E.Uncle of the Master of Soldiers Gundobad

Note: Names in Capitals are of emperors; names in italics are of people not found on coinage.

We must remember that although the political interplay between East and West was significant, the life of an average citizen of Constantinople ó even in the most critical of times ó was scarcely affected by current events in Rome. Even so, presentation as a ìdividedî Empire need not be at the expense of understanding the dynastic ties that linked East and West. It is hoped that the accompanying chart and table will be of value in clarifying the historical framework.

The concept of dividing the Empire between two Augusti was nothing new to the Romans. It made its debut more than two centuries before the death of Jovian, when Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus inherited supreme power from Antoninus Pius. But their experiment was little more than a solution for a specific crisis, and it was abandoned as soon as Verus concluded his Parthian campaign (after which the two emperors campaigned together in the West).

A terrifying prospect of a divided Empire emerged after the death of Septimius Severus, for his two sons could not tolerate each other. Though a division along geographic lines would have separated the quarrelsome siblings, it undoubtedly would have resulted in a civil war. For this reason, the division of the Empire was prevented by their mother, Julia Domna. The first bona fide division was achieved by Valerian I and his son, Gallienus, who acted with great autonomy ó the father in Asia, and the son in Europe. When Valerian I was captured by the Sasanians in 260, Gallienus realized the magnitude of his loss as he desperately tried to control his vast Empire alone.

The next division of consequence occurred during the Tetrarchy. Initially it included two members (Diocletian in the East, and Maximian in the West), but in 293 it was expanded to include four members, each of whom was responsible for a specific geographic region. With the last vestiges of the Tetrarchy disappearing in 313, the Empire came to be divided between the two survivors of the system ó Constantine the Great and Licinius I. After nearly a decade of hostility and mistrust, Constantine overcame Licinius and ruled the whole Empire for the next 13 years.

Upon Constantineís death in 337, the Empire was carved up among his three sons. This division was formalized with geographic boundaries, and was revised several times between 337 and 361, with different combinations of brothers and cousins sharing authority. After the last son of Constantine the Great died in 361, the Empire was inherited intact by one of Constantineís nephews, Julian II (361ñ363). Julian ruled the Empire single-handedly for three years until his own death, at which point authority passed to the soldier Jovian (363ñ364), whose brief rule brought the Constantinian Era to a close.

Thus, the end of Jovianís reign in 364 is the ideal point at which to change the arrangement of this catalog. The format is still chronological, except that the two Empires are discussed separately. Though it would have been virtually as practical to separate East from West beginning with the Tetrarchs some 80 years before, the consequences would have been too great. Not only would it have detracted from the historical element of the Tetrarchic and Constantinian eras, but it would have been fundamentally misleading, for the Empire was not yet divided, only partitioned.

The West

The story of the last century is one of deterioration in the West, and prosperity in the East. Over time the western provinces fell one by one: Spain to the Visigoths (ëwise Gothsí) and the Suevi, Gaul to the Franks, Burgundians and Visigoths, North Africa to the Vandals, and eventually Britain to the Saxons, Angles and Jutes. Other European lands once possessed by the Romans were occupied by the Alemanni and Lombards, and by nomadic invaders such as the Gepids, Avars and Bulgars. The most crippling losses, however, were Illyria and Italy, both of which fell to the Ostrogoths (ëbright Gothsí).

Leading up to the fall of Italy were a series of Germanic and Hunnic invasions, during which Rome was sacked by Visigoths in 410, narrowly escaped destruction by Attila the Hun in 452, and was sacked again in 455, this time by the Vandals. In a great stroke of historical irony, this last desecration of Rome was launched from Carthage ó the city which had been the great nemesis of Rome during the ancient Republic. Though the Romans had thoroughly defeated the Punic colonists of Carthage more than six centuries before, the old site was re-occupied in 439 by fair-haired Germans migrating from Spain.

During the last century that Italy was under Roman sovereignty, it was essentially ruled by generals who held the title Master of Soldiers (Master Militum). With names like Arbogast, Ricimer, Orestes and Stilicho, these men were usually of full or partial barbarian parentage. The more famous leaders among the barbarians (such as Geiseric, Odovacar, Alaric and Athaulf) were also influential in western Roman politics. In some cases they married into the royal families or forced the senate in Rome to hail as emperor a candidate of their choosing.

Though the various Germanic nations were enemies of Rome, they were also enemies of each other. The survival of the Romans was due in large part to the skillful exploitation of national rivalries, which caused the ìbarbariansî to fight among themselves. Their other principal tool of survival was gold. It was a long-standing policy of the Romans to buy peace with their enemies by annual or occasional payments of tribute. Indeed, it was a confusing time, for the political environment was ever-changing, based on who was migrating where.

Amid all of this chaos, there existed a curious bond between Roman and most Germanic barbarians, for they had a mutual interest in preserving Christianity and Roman civilization (including all of its spiritual, material and cultural aspects). As such, there existed a fine balance of enmity and unity, resulting in a cultural assimilation during the 4th and 5th Centuries.

Roman rule in Italy ended in August of 476, when the German soldier Odovacar ousted Romulus Augustus. Constitutionally, Roman rule continued until 480, when Julius Nepos (the last legitimate emperor, who since 476 had been in exile in Dalmatia) was murdered. The final blow to Italy, however, did not occur until 489, when the Ostrogothic king, The-odoric, executed Odovacar and took possession of the peninsula in the name of his own people. (For more information on the fall of the Western Roman Empire, see the discussion that follows the biography of Romulus Augustus.)

The East

Meanwhile, the Eastern Roman Empire remained on a relatively steady course that laid the foundation for what is commonly known as the Byzantine Empire. The East was wealthier, and was built upon Greek and Asiatic cultures far older than Rome itself. Based in Constantinople, the Byzantine Empire survived a thousand years after Rome fell, though the Romans of the East had their share of problems along the way.

The main enemy of the Eastern Roman Empire was Persia, which was then under the rule of the Sasanian kings. The Sasanians were fire-worshippers who under their king Shapur I had overthrown the previous rulers, the Parthians, in 224/6. This revolution was considered to be a revival of true Achaemenid rule, which had first been toppled by Alexander the Great and later was usurped by the nomadic Parthians.

Though mortal enemies, the Sasanians and the Romans often cooperated to stem the tide of nomadic invasions from the Asiatic steppes. Just as the western Romans shared a loose cultural bond with the Germanic peoples, so did the Eastern Romans with the Sasanians. But their bond was not built on the similarities of their civilizations, but rather on the fact that both had civilizations. An influx of uncultivated people from the steppes of Asia would serve the interests of neither Roman nor Sasanian.

The Sasanians eventually forfeited their dominion over the non-Roman East to the Arabs, who arose as a united force early in the 7th Century. By the middle of that century their Arabic invasion had ousted the last of the Sasanian kings. But that event, which was succeeded by complex and interesting encounters with Arabs, Venitians and Crusaders, lies well beyond the scope of this work.