### q3 the impact of geography and invasion on Byzantine-era Greece > in the late 4th century both cities were still sizeable, but then the Goths under Alaric swept in Greece and sacked them both. The next century, the Slavic and Avar invasions of Greece led to a massive influx of Slavs into most of the Peloponnese and in fact most of western Greece, except those cities on the east coast Constantinople could more easily reach and protect. So if I had to point to one factor, it would be this: Athens was on the eastern coast and closer to Constantinople, as well as in a desirable port location, so that Constans II and other emperors could set up garrisons there and rebuild what the Goths and Slavs had damaged. Sparta, further off to the south-west, had no such luck, and was virtually emptied. It is in fact a matter of debate whether it was entirely emptied for a while, or whether a small population remained - and whether they were chiefly Greeks or Slavs, and whether the region was later replenished with Greeks, Slavs were Hellenised, or whether the population had ever been mostly expelled. What is true is that Sparta was reduced at most to the population of a small village, and its major buildings reduced to ruins. > > Athens could more easily be retaken and defended by Constantinople after the Gothic and Slavic invasions, while Sparta was further away and inland; any village-sized habitation of Sparta was overshadowed by the nearby fortress of Mystras in the Middle Ages; - [[on the longevity of Athens instead of Sparta#q3 the impact of geography and invasion on Byzantine-era Greece|View in Vault]]