0
The Empire had become too large to control in a pre-mechanical transport and pre-electronic communications age. He split it into four parts, the two larger - east and west - ruled by their own emperor, the two lesser ones by a caesar. This gave each ruler a manageable area to control.
Clarabelle Ernser
Wiki User
∙ 12y agoI am not 100% sure if this is the correct subject, but here goes. Eastern and Western Rome were separate because of Religion. In the beginning, they all lived under Christianity. However, kings who thought things should be done strictly and the old way created the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Roman Catholics were annoyed by this, but what later happened is the true answer.
Many Orthdox members hated the idea of having symbolism, or pictures/sculptures of Jesus, because people were worshipping them too much. This broke up the two churches completely, and therefore broke up Rome.
Later, somewhere between 1964-1969, the leaders of both churches came together as Christians again instead of spearate churches and areas. Even though this is true, many people still consider themselves as Roman Catholics or Easter Orthodox.
Wiki User
∙ 12y agoThe division of the Empire into East and West was because the Eastern Half was much more prosperous, well defended, and simply more competent than the Western Half. Effectively, Diocletian cut out the West to save the East - and that is what happened when the West fell in 476 CE.
Wiki User
∙ 11y agoDiocletian did not divide the Roman Empire into eastern and western halves. The division called "east" and "west" was an artificial division concocted by historians in order to clarify their writings. In fact, Diocletian divided the empire into four parts, not two.
Diocletian did not divide the Roman empire into eastern and western halves. The division called "east" and "west" was an artificial division concocted by historians in order to clarify their writings. In fact, Diocletian divided the empire into four parts, not two.
Diocletian did not divide the Roman empire into eastern and western halves. The division called "east" and "west" was an artificial division concocted by historians in order to clarify their writings. In fact, Diocletian divided the empire into four parts, not two.
Diocletian did not divide the Roman empire into eastern and western halves. The division called "east" and "west" was an artificial division concocted by historians in order to clarify their writings. In fact, Diocletian divided the empire into four parts, not two.
Diocletian did not divide the Roman empire into eastern and western halves. The division called "east" and "west" was an artificial division concocted by historians in order to clarify their writings. In fact, Diocletian divided the empire into four parts, not two.
Diocletian did not divide the Roman empire into eastern and western halves. The division called "east" and "west" was an artificial division concocted by historians in order to clarify their writings. In fact, Diocletian divided the empire into four parts, not two.
Diocletian did not divide the Roman empire into eastern and western halves. The division called "east" and "west" was an artificial division concocted by historians in order to clarify their writings. In fact, Diocletian divided the empire into four parts, not two.
Diocletian did not divide the Roman empire into eastern and western halves. The division called "east" and "west" was an artificial division concocted by historians in order to clarify their writings. In fact, Diocletian divided the empire into four parts, not two.
Diocletian did not divide the Roman empire into eastern and western halves. The division called "east" and "west" was an artificial division concocted by historians in order to clarify their writings. In fact, Diocletian divided the empire into four parts, not two.
Wiki User
∙ 6y agoThe Empire had become too large to control in a pre-mechanical transport and pre-electronic communications age. He split it into four parts, the two larger - east and west - ruled by their own emperor, the two lesser ones by a caesar. This gave each ruler a manageable area to control.
Wiki User
∙ 11y agoDiocletian did not divide the Roman empire into eastern and western halves. The division called "east" and "west" was an artificial division concocted by historians in order to clarify their writings. In fact, Diocletian divided the empire into four parts, not two.
Wiki User
∙ 11y agoThe Roman Empire was not actually divided. The eastern and western parts of the empire were parts of the same empire. Eastern and Western Empire are terms coined by historians to distinguish the two parts of the empire. The Romans did not use these terms. They only used the term Roman Empire.
In 286 emperor Diocletian created a co-emperorship which one co-emperor in charge of the west and one co-emperor in charge of the east and an imperial capital in the west (Milan) and one on the east (Nicomedia in northwestern Turkey, which was subsequently moved to Constantinople). Diocletian stressed that the empire was indivisible. He did this because he thought that it was too difficult or one man to rule the empire alone and to improve the defence of the vast frontiers of the empire which were under repeated attacks.
Historians say that the two parts of the empire became slit after the death of Theodosius the Great in 395. However, this was not due to a decision to divide the empire. It was the result of powerful politicians in the west and east conspiring against each other as there were two young and weak emperors in the west and the east and, above all, the beginning of the fall of the western part of the empire. This part of the empire crumbled under the weight of the invasions by the Germanic peoples.
Wiki User
∙ 13y agoThe main rason the Roman empire was split was because of its size. It simply had grown too large to be effectively ruled from one place.
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What was the size of the roman empire from east to west?
The roman empire extended for about 4500 miles from west to east.
A successor of the Roman Empire was?
There was no successor in the west besides a thing called the Holy Roman Empire which had nothing to do with ancient Rome. In the east it was the Ottoman empire.
What time period do you call the roman empire?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Roman Empire is said to have begun when the Senate granted the title Augustus to Octavian on January 4, 27 BC. The date of the fall of the Roman Empire is usually given as 476 AD, though the empire did not really fall on that date. The Roman Empire divided and was reunited several times, the last division being in 395. The event of 476 was the abdication of the last Emperor of the West, in favor of the Emperor of the East. But the West Roman Empire had already become a chaotic mess and never recovered. The emperors of the East Roman Empire tried to reconquer the West, but never got very far. The East Roman Empire finally fell in 1453. Our current historians refer to the East Roman Empire from about 500 AD to 1453 as the Byzantine Empire. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Political effects of the spread of christianity into the roman empire?
The spread of Christianity had political ramifications for the Roman Empire. The empire split into two, Constantinople to the east and Rome to the west
Who is in charge of the roman empire?
The One Responsible For the end of the Roman Empire is Diocletian. Diocletian Ended the Roman Empire By Splitting the Roman Empire Into West and East. Diocletian thought it would make it easier to rule. Diocletian Gave The East to His Trusted Friend. The Empire Fell Because The West Was Captured by different barbaric groups and tribes. The East Turned into The Byzantine Empire With The Capitol City Of Constantinople. The Empire was Successful until the 1400's. The Empire Was Taken Over. And Made Into A Country That Is Now Know As Turkey.
What was the size of the roman empire from east to west?
The roman empire extended for about 4500 miles from west to east.
Why did The emperor Diocletian divide the Roman Empire into and eastern and western empire?
Diocletian did not divide the Roman Empire into eastern and western halves. The division called "east" and "west" was an artificial division concocted by historians in order to clarify their writings. In fact, Diocletian divided the empire into four parts, not two.Diocletian did not divide the Roman empire into eastern and western halves. The division called "east" and "west" was an artificial division concocted by historians in order to clarify their writings. In fact, Diocletian divided the empire into four parts, not two.Diocletian did not divide the Roman empire into eastern and western halves. The division called "east" and "west" was an artificial division concocted by historians in order to clarify their writings. In fact, Diocletian divided the empire into four parts, not two.Diocletian did not divide the Roman empire into eastern and western halves. The division called "east" and "west" was an artificial division concocted by historians in order to clarify their writings. In fact, Diocletian divided the empire into four parts, not two.Diocletian did not divide the Roman empire into eastern and western halves. The division called "east" and "west" was an artificial division concocted by historians in order to clarify their writings. In fact, Diocletian divided the empire into four parts, not two.Diocletian did not divide the Roman empire into eastern and western halves. The division called "east" and "west" was an artificial division concocted by historians in order to clarify their writings. In fact, Diocletian divided the empire into four parts, not two.Diocletian did not divide the Roman empire into eastern and western halves. The division called "east" and "west" was an artificial division concocted by historians in order to clarify their writings. In fact, Diocletian divided the empire into four parts, not two.Diocletian did not divide the Roman empire into eastern and western halves. The division called "east" and "west" was an artificial division concocted by historians in order to clarify their writings. In fact, Diocletian divided the empire into four parts, not two.Diocletian did not divide the Roman empire into eastern and western halves. The division called "east" and "west" was an artificial division concocted by historians in order to clarify their writings. In fact, Diocletian divided the empire into four parts, not two.
When did Greece stop being part of the roman empire?
In 395 the Roman empire split into two pieces: the west and the east. Rome and Italy were part of the west and Greece was part of the east.
Who is considered the founder of the Eastern Roman Empire?
There is no founder of the eastern Roman empire. The Roman empire was divided into east and west by historians, not Romans. This was done for ease in relating events that occurred in either the west or the east. For example, when the western part of the empire fell to the barbarians, the Romans considered it a loss of territory, not a loss of half of an empire as some historians did.There is no founder of the eastern Roman empire. The Roman empire was divided into east and west by historians, not Romans. This was done for ease in relating events that occurred in either the west or the east. For example, when the western part of the empire fell to the barbarians, the Romans considered it a loss of territory, not a loss of half of an empire as some historians did.There is no founder of the eastern Roman empire. The Roman empire was divided into east and west by historians, not Romans. This was done for ease in relating events that occurred in either the west or the east. For example, when the western part of the empire fell to the barbarians, the Romans considered it a loss of territory, not a loss of half of an empire as some historians did.There is no founder of the eastern Roman empire. The Roman empire was divided into east and west by historians, not Romans. This was done for ease in relating events that occurred in either the west or the east. For example, when the western part of the empire fell to the barbarians, the Romans considered it a loss of territory, not a loss of half of an empire as some historians did.There is no founder of the eastern Roman empire. The Roman empire was divided into east and west by historians, not Romans. This was done for ease in relating events that occurred in either the west or the east. For example, when the western part of the empire fell to the barbarians, the Romans considered it a loss of territory, not a loss of half of an empire as some historians did.There is no founder of the eastern Roman empire. The Roman empire was divided into east and west by historians, not Romans. This was done for ease in relating events that occurred in either the west or the east. For example, when the western part of the empire fell to the barbarians, the Romans considered it a loss of territory, not a loss of half of an empire as some historians did.There is no founder of the eastern Roman empire. The Roman empire was divided into east and west by historians, not Romans. This was done for ease in relating events that occurred in either the west or the east. For example, when the western part of the empire fell to the barbarians, the Romans considered it a loss of territory, not a loss of half of an empire as some historians did.There is no founder of the eastern Roman empire. The Roman empire was divided into east and west by historians, not Romans. This was done for ease in relating events that occurred in either the west or the east. For example, when the western part of the empire fell to the barbarians, the Romans considered it a loss of territory, not a loss of half of an empire as some historians did.There is no founder of the eastern Roman empire. The Roman empire was divided into east and west by historians, not Romans. This was done for ease in relating events that occurred in either the west or the east. For example, when the western part of the empire fell to the barbarians, the Romans considered it a loss of territory, not a loss of half of an empire as some historians did.
How old is Roman Empire?
The Roman Empire dates to 27 BC, when Octavian was given the title Augustus by the senate. It divided permanently in 395 AD into the East Roman Empire and the West Roman Empire. The date usually given for the fall of Rome is 476, when the last emperor of the West Roman Empire was deposed. The East Roman Empire, however, survived until 1453. There is a link below.
Who conqured the Phoenicians?
They were absorbed into the Persian Empire in the east, and Carthage was absorbed into the Roman Empire in the west.
A successor of the Roman Empire was?
There was no successor in the west besides a thing called the Holy Roman Empire which had nothing to do with ancient Rome. In the east it was the Ottoman empire.
What two churches formed after the division of the Eastern Roman Empire and the Western Roman Empire?
The Catholic Church in the West and the Orthodox Church in the East
How far west did the Roman Empire extend its height?
At its peak, the Roman Empire stretched as far west as the tip of the Iberian Peninsula, as far south as Egypt, as far north as England, and as far east as the Middle East. A map of the Roman Empire at its height can be viewed under Related links.
What time period do you call the roman empire?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Roman Empire is said to have begun when the Senate granted the title Augustus to Octavian on January 4, 27 BC. The date of the fall of the Roman Empire is usually given as 476 AD, though the empire did not really fall on that date. The Roman Empire divided and was reunited several times, the last division being in 395. The event of 476 was the abdication of the last Emperor of the West, in favor of the Emperor of the East. But the West Roman Empire had already become a chaotic mess and never recovered. The emperors of the East Roman Empire tried to reconquer the West, but never got very far. The East Roman Empire finally fell in 1453. Our current historians refer to the East Roman Empire from about 500 AD to 1453 as the Byzantine Empire. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Political effects of the spread of christianity into the roman empire?
The spread of Christianity had political ramifications for the Roman Empire. The empire split into two, Constantinople to the east and Rome to the west
Why was the fall of the Roman Empire not a complete fall?
The Roman Empire had been divided into the East Roman Empire, with its capital at Constantinople, and the West Roman Empire, with its capital either at Rome or Ravenna, in 395. The West Roman Empire was in a state of chaos, with various Germanic kingdoms forming, and though they nominally acknowledged the fact that they were in the Roman Empire, for the most part, they were not really under control. In 476, the last emperor of the West Roman Empire was deposed, and the emperor of the East Roman Empire was asked to assume control of the whole. This is the event referred to as the Fall of the Roman Empire. The Roman Senate, which had operated in Rome since before the Roman Republic continued to operate after the purported fall, and its last known act was after the year 600. The East Roman Empire continued to operate until Constantinople fell to the Turks in 1453.
