What message might these frequent and violent changes in leadership have sent to people outside the roman empire?

Answer 1

That the political system was broken and the Empire was no longer strong and cohesive enough to resist takeover by Eurasian peoples moving in.

Answer 2

The violent changes gave both a sense and a reality of instability . When there were civil wars between pretenders to the imperial titles or wars waged by usurper emperors, the fighting produced devastation in part of the empire which affected the livelihood of people, particularly the rural ones, and left them vulnerable to military violence. Pillaging was also one of the way troops in action sustained themselves. It must also have created disaffection against a state which was unable to guarantee stability and to safeguard the interests of ordinary people.

Answer 3

The people outside the Roman Empire might have thought the Empire was stable and nothing was going on, because they didn't see what was happening in the empire. Or they just left the empire, and found another home.

Answer 4

The frequent violent changes sent both a message and a reality of instability. In the 3rd century there was military anarchy caused by persistent invasions into the empire which put the army under stress and overstretched it. Many emperors were military commanders who were proclaimed emperors by their troops. There was a rapid turnover of emperors and many of them were murdered, sometimes even by their own troops, which had proclaimed them as emperor. There was also 35 usurper emperors who tried to take over power or a a part of the empire with the support of their local troops. All this fighting created instability and often disrupted the countryside and the farms where most people lived.

Answer 5

That the empire was divided, and therefore weaker than it had been.

Answer 6

That the Empire was unstable and ripe for the plucking.

Answer 7

peepeepoopoo is how it should of gone my

is so juice and hqard so i want some girls