How and why did the eastern half of the Roman Empire not only survive but prosper?

Answer 1

There is no evidence that the eastern part of the Roman Empire did not suffer the same decline as the western part. The main difference was that the west fell under the weight of the Germanic invasion, whereas the east was not affected by these invasions and continued to exist for nearly 1,000 years.

The archaeological evidence suggests that there were areas of the Roman Empire which declined and others which did not and that this did not occur along east/west lines. It seems that the areas which declined were the ones near the borders of the empire, while the more inner ones did well. Northern Gaul, which had been ravaged by Germanic raids, remained devastated, while southern Gaul did well. In Italy there was an economic and population decline in the north, but there was economic and population growth in the south. The province of Africa (Tunisia and western Libya), which was in the west, prospered. In the east, there was decline in some areas along the River Danube, a mixture of prosperity and decline in Egypt and in Syria there was an increase in olive growing.

Answer 2

The Eastern Roman Empire survived, because they had developed a well organized system of government, a stable administration or civil service, a good army. Most importantly, it was far from the areas which suffered the Germanic invasions which precipitated the falls of the western part of the empire. However, not long afterwards it suffered invasions by Arabs and Slavs which led to the loss its territories in Egypt, Asia, apart from Turkey and part of the Balkan peninsula.

Answer 3

The whole of the Roman Empire suffered a decline. Both east and west were hit hard by the economic crisis caused by the hyperinflation of the third century and the socio-economic structure of both was transformed by the crisis. Runaway inflation led to a breakdown in trade as the currency became worthless. This hit the urban economy because it was geared for manufacture for long distance trade. Many people migrated to the countryside. Agricultural production became geared towards production for local barter instead for the sale of crops to the towns. Although the problem of inflation was then solved, the mentioned changes proved irreversible.

There is no actual evidence that the western part of the empire was hit harder than the eastern one. If this was the case, it would have been because: a) Italy was the most highly urbanised area in the empire, b) overall, the west was hit harder by raids from across the frontier (the countryside of northern Gaul was ravaged so much that agriculture collapsed), c) the eastern part had Egypt, which produced half of the corn in the empire.

Perhaps the main difference between the west and the east was that the former was subjected to the invasions of the Germanic peoples which led to its fall, while the latter was not affected by them and continued to exist for another 1,000 years.