Is the Roman Empire better than the Byzantine?

You're right, that is a stupid question. Quot homines, tot sententiae.

File: 1463239208353.png (379KB, 600x840px) Image search: [Google]

379KB, 600x840px

>>1251417
constructive criticism is appreciated

>>1251404
Basically your asking classical Rome vs Late Antiquity ERE.

I would much rather live during Pax Romans, back when the Empire was unchallenged and highly urbanized.

Better in what way?

File: 1461993825640.jpg (1MB, 2204x1492px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2204x1492px

>>1251452
I need specifics, for example, perseverance through tough times and/or better military and tactics.

>>1251466
Individually late Roman troops were far better and had more demanded of them. Instead of fighting in mass formations against bum-fuck barbarians they used longswords called spatha and inferior chainlink armour. Ammianus Marcellinus makes clear that pitched battles became far more rare, with most fighting being done by small detachments of Roman troops waging guerilla warfare against barbarian groups. There was a lot more use of powerful artillery, cavalry and long-ranged weaponry. The army was also mostly made up of burly Germanic soldiers. The enemies that the Romans fought later on were more dangerous than during the Pax Romana with larger confederations of tribes, many of whom were Roman military trained and armed with similar armaments to the Romans.

Classical Roman army is somewhat overrated if you ask me. Too many people falling for Roman Total War memes and Gibbonian values.