uring the fourth century, when the decision was made to divide the Roman Empire into its western and eastern parts. The Emperor Diocletian first divided the Empire during his reign in the early fourth century. Under the Emperor Constantine, the Empire was temporarily reunited in the year 324. In the year 395, the Emperor Theodosius again divided the Empire between his two heirs, with one son, Flavius Honorius, taking control of the western Empire and the other, Flavius Arcadius, taking control of the eastern Empire. The eastern Empire was somewhat isolated from the west and was thus incapable of doing much to stop the west's rapid decline when the latter was invaded by barbarian tribes. In this regard, it has been noted that the eastern emperors "were deter-mined to hold their nearly impregnable fortress at Constantinople regardless of the fate of their western counterparts" (Ferrill, 1988, p. 82).
Thus, the division of the Empire was a political event, which contributed strongly to the fall of Rome in the west. In this regard, it may be noted that the sacking of Rome itself also stemmed from a political blunder on the part of the Roman leaders. Alaric and the Visigoths did not at first intend to conquer the Romans but rather came onto Roman territory in an attempt to flee from the Huns who were sweeping down from the north. However, the members of the Visigoth tribe became more aggressive in their attacks on the western Roman Empire when they crossed the Danube River and found themselves "maltreated and oppressed by the Roman officials" (Cornell, 1982, p. 209).
Yet another political factor in Rome's fall can be seen in the deterioration of its army which took place during its final years. As early as the second century A.D., due to a period of sustained peace, there began to be a decline in the collective fighting spirit of the Roman soldiers (Cornell, 1982, p. 212). Over the following century, the army of Rome also beg...