The Western Empire Under Valentinian I

[Emperor Goblinus]

When he split the empire between he and his brother, Valens, Valentinian I took for himself the western provinces, and made sure that he ruled the greater number of provinces. Not too many years after Valentinian, the West began to crumble. Now Valentinian wouldn't have purposefully taken on the mantle of the crappier half of the empire (unless he felt that it was better off in his hands than his brother's). During the reign of Valentinian, was the West already in worst shape than the East, or was it fairly stable under Valentinian?

[Neos Dionysos]

When he split the empire between he and his brother, Valens, Valentinian I took for himself the western provinces, and made sure that he ruled the greater number of provinces. Not too many years after Valentinian, the West began to crumble. Now Valentinian wouldn't have purposefully taken on the mantle of the crappier half of the empire (unless he felt that it was better off in his hands than his brother's). During the reign of Valentinian, was the West already in worst shape than the East, or was it fairly stable under Valentinian?

 

 

Crappier? I would not say crappier... it was still a strong half. Valentian was also the last emperor of Rome to choose to rule the West over the East when faced with dividing the empire up.

 

The Western Empire was a fairly strong half and Valentian along with his brother Valens worked hard to weed out corruption and fix the economy, mainly the debasement of the coinage. Both Valentian and Valens had experience running administrative tasks as they ran the estates of thier father in Pannoia, though when it came to finance, Valentian followed the lead of his younger brother because he had more experience. The one ironic problem from this is that by making the coinage as pure as possible only helped the economy a little, whereas is there was a little debasement it would have made for greater economic prosperity... though they could hardly have known this. In all other matters of adminstration, religious and foriegn policy Valentian lead and his brother Valens emulated similar actions in the East. In all though, if you want a good understanding of these institutions I suggest reading or overviewing, "Failure of Empire: Valens and the Roman State in the Fourth Century AD", because while the book focuses on the East, it speaks a lot of Valentian's actions in the West and many actions taken by Valens are because he is following the example of his brother in the West.

[Emperor Goblinus]

I actually read that book, and it was quite a good read. I may in fact use it for an upcoming research paper. It was quite clear, but as you said, it focused more on the East and Valens, rahter than the western empire, so I didn't get a full picture of the West. I do know that when Julian was the Caesar in the West, despite his impressive successes, there were serious border problems, like when he had to beat off a horde of tens of thousands of Alemanni and alliances of other tribes. When I read the Valens book, they did talk alot about the military restructuring, including how more and more Germanics were entering the Roman military, and how that was not all the bad thing that it has been made out to be. Thanks for clearing some things up.

Thanks for reminding me about that book. I think that I'll add it on the Book Recommendation thread.

[metforce]

When he split the empire between he and his brother, Valens, Valentinian I took for himself the western provinces, and made sure that he ruled the greater number of provinces. Not too many years after Valentinian, the West began to crumble. Now Valentinian wouldn't have purposefully taken on the mantle of the crappier half of the empire (unless he felt that it was better off in his hands than his brother's). During the reign of Valentinian, was the West already in worst shape than the East, or was it fairly stable under Valentinian?

 

 

I believe the western half of the empire would have been considered more "rural" than the eastern part at the time of Valentinian I. It would have had longer borders to protect and fewer resources to draw from. But while the east had more resources and a smaller border to protect it bordered Persia, an ancient super power that would take some skill to keep at bay. In other words it was no cake walk either.

 

It was always my understanding that Valentinian I took the western half because he felt it was the more difficult half to govern. Valentinian I doesn't seemed to have had much conviction in his brother's abilities; but the army clamored for another Emperor to share the burdens of the state and Valentinian I seems to have trusted him so it seemed more of a marriage of convenience. (source Ammianus Marcellinus)

[Neos Dionysos]

It was always my understanding that Valentinian I took the western half because he felt it was the more difficult half to govern. Valentinian I doesn't seemed to have had much conviction in his brother's abilities; but the army clamored for another Emperor to share the burdens of the state and Valentinian I seems to have trusted him so it seemed more of a marriage of convenience. (source Ammianus Marcellinus)

 

I have no doubt that Valentinian did not trust his brother, in fact it was his best choice, who better to have govern the other half than your younger brother, the chances of a 'rival' are almost rendered non-existant, espeically given thier past together. In almost all matters of administration and policy, Valentinian would et the tone for the policy, (example being he would begin by setting what foreign policy should be, agressive or passive, and would begin administrative programs first), and his brother would always very soon after follow his lead in the East, the only case where Valentinian followed Valens was in the case of economic conerncs and facitilies, since Valens had the greatest knowledge in this area to draw from after years of running large estates in Pannonia.

 

Also, another reason he may chosen the West over the East, (besides the need to look after the half that was in the greatest danger, what with a rapid decline in many areas that were once the staple of the west), was that in the West he would have no trouble taking up the throne, there was no cultural issues. In the East, Valens had many obstacles, espeically because he was not 'Greek', or 'Eastern Roman', he did not speak Greek and so had to use translators for many of his dealings, his was almost entirely surrounded by non-Western Romans and so he felt isolated and alone, and his policy of bringing in Western Romans into the adminstration brought him the contempt of those under him, so much so that in the same year he took power there was an attempt on the throne by someone who would've had no chance had there been no cultural/language barriers...

 

This is in addition to the fact Valens was seen as a 'idotic brute', not because of his personality, but simply because he was Pannonian, and so unfit to rule the East. The ideal had nothing to do what Valens actually was capable of, since he was a very capable ruler in the end, but simply because he was not to the liking of those established in the East. I always found an interesting side note to all of this, that Valens hated the people of Constantinople with a passion, mainly because they always showed him disrespect when he was in the city and because they had been behind the main support group of the Procopius Revolt in 365AD. He hated them so much that just before his departure from the city to meet the Gothic threat in the Eastern Empire in 378, he vowed on his return to level the city to the ground and create a new capital... (which most likely would have been at Marcianople)... because they had rioted in Constantinople while he was there and were very violent toward him and his image...

[Neos Dionysos]

Coming back to this topic, I find that there really is little written on Valentinian or his family. (Save for Lenski's work). Much is done on Theodosius, (I think this is due to his stance with Chrisitanity), but little is written then of the Valentinian Dynasty and the later Valentinian-Theodosian since they were tied together.

 

It would be, I think, an excellent thing if a scholar did a comprehensive work on at the very least Valentinian since he seems to be the last Emperor to truely rule the West and a man who all around had excellent qualities of a leader, his only fault perhaps being his love of his family*, and his anger problems which probably caused him to have an anyersium and die.

 

*I say family because Ammianus relates that when he was deciding on a collegue to rule with, he was advised, "If you love your relatives, most excellent emperor, you have a brother; if it is the state that you love, seek out another man to invest."

Edited May 30, 2006 by Neos Dionysos

[Gini]

The book on the fall of the Roman Empire - the End of Civilisation by Bryan Ward-Perkins is a very good read for a factual account of the fall of the West He bases it on scientific evidence rather than a barrow to push. He estimates that the west was still stronger than the East whe it fell but it has difficult borders to protect etc whereas Constantinople had a dream location