no the division of the Roman Empire was so that the empire could be easier to govern and so it wasn't the division but actually the emperors. also that is why the Byzantine empire lasted longer.
no romes was bigger
The stationed the bulk of the Roman legions in the frontier provinces of the empire.
At its height the Roman Empire covered the entire Mediterranean coast and much of Western Europe and the far north of Africa such as Egypt.
Historians set 476, the date of the deposition of the last emperor of the western part of the Roman Empire (Romulus Augustus) by a usurper, as the conventional date for the fall of the western part of the Roman Empire.
Rome's corruption eroded public trust in government and institutions, leading to widespread inefficiency and mismanagement. It contributed to social unrest and economic decline, as resources were often diverted to the elite rather than the populace. This corruption weakened the state's ability to respond to external threats and ultimately played a significant role in the fall of the Western Roman Empire.
The leaders of the Roman empire during its decline were the emperors.
The tactical reforms made Marius recruitment technique lead to Romes eventual decline.
which of romes internal problems hurt the empire the most
Romes soilders became less loyal and disiplined
They influenced the Romans history because they were a huge part in causing the roman empire to fall
yes
Christian religious
Carthage
do i look like i can answer? NOPE
no romes was bigger
The ability to engineer great buildings and infrastructure was a Roman ideal. It was not a reason why the Roman Empire declined.
Diocletian sought to stop Rome's decline by instituting a series of reforms that aimed to stabilize the empire's economy and administration. He divided the empire into smaller, manageable provinces and established the Tetrarchy, which created four co-emperors to better govern and respond to local issues. Additionally, he enacted price controls and wage regulations to combat inflation and improve economic stability. These reforms helped temporarily restore order but did not ultimately prevent the empire's long-term decline.