Did the emperors bring about the need for a split empire?

[caldrail]

The reasons that rome became divided was the same reasons rome fought civil wars. Too many people wanted their own slice of the pie, or indeed all of it, against an empire which is increasingly costly and inefficient. Its true certain emperors changed government and military structures, but did that really change things, or was it merely a sign of the times? There's a little bit of both in the answer I think. Where these changes had long term effects then its significant. otherwise the emperors were simply plastering over the cracks or sticking fingers in dams. An important point to realise is that emperors made decisions on the spur of the moment for issues affecting the empire at that time. By and large the long term effects weren't something that concerned them, particularly since so many of them ruled for short periods.

[Ursus]

It should also be noted that if it weren't for Aurelian, the Empire would have been split into Three sectors in the middle of 3rd century.

 

And again, the reasons for the split are illuminating: one imperial center was not sufficient to govern so large an area, especially with at least two fronts of fighting. It was not large enough to give all the provincial elites a fair share of the imperial pie. And there were appreciable regional differences involved - not only betwen East and West, but within the West between the highly Romanized areas of Italy and North Africa on one hand, and the less Romanized areas of Britain and northern Gaul on the other.

[M. Porcius Cato]

And there were appreciable regional differences involved - not only betwen East and West, but within the West between the highly Romanized areas of Italy and North Africa on one hand, and the less Romanized areas of Britain and northern Gaul on the other.

 

I think this latter issue is more important than any other: Britain and northern Gaul were completely un-Hellenized backwaters, making it difficult and expensive to rule them. They were an albatross hanging around the neck of the Empire, and no rational decision-making process ever went into their initial acquisition anyway. The question shouldn't be--why was the Empire split?--but why was the Empire split East/West instead of North/South? Seems to me that if Gaul and Britain had been thrown back to the barbarians, the Romans could have done quite well just by continuing the consolidation of Northern Africa and the eastern Mediterranean.

[Ursus]

Well, Southern Gaul was very Romanized. But in general I agree with you Cato - the legions in Britain and Northern Gaul could have been put to better use. If the Romans had kept their expansion confined to the Mediterranean areas they would have been better off in the long run.

[Segestan]

A Division of the Empire could only have been advantageous to the enemies of that empire not it