Contents:
His scholarship is thorough enough to always provide the "what" and often to explain the "how," and these are both done in a satisfying, if somewhat chronologically dry fashion. The approach is to highlight the structure of the Roman Empire during its last truly stable period up until Marcus Aurelius , moving on to contrast it with the later periods, where many institutions kept similar names, but worked differently, and a drastically expanded bureaucracy failed to maintain political coherence on a larger scale.
In any case, where "How Rome Fell" fails is the "why. However, a work of this ambition ought to take a glance at answering why this was the case. Why was it necessarily true that ultimate power in the Empire became more and more difficult to grasp? Why did the Eastern Empire survive for so much longer on the same slippery slope? It is these questions that are never posed, and a truly worthy history of the fall of the Roman Empire would at least try. Dec 27, Ray rated it really liked it Shelves: I have always been fascinated by the history of Rome - an obscure farming village which rose to become ruler of the known world with apologies to my Oriental, Antipodean and Colonial cousins.
So how did it fall? This book is about the fall of the Western Empire in AD. The East continued for almost a thousand years to Goldsworthy sets out his theories for the fall. He makes out a compelling case that Rome caused its own downfall. Constant civil war and regime change through usurpatio I have always been fascinated by the history of Rome - an obscure farming village which rose to become ruler of the known world with apologies to my Oriental, Antipodean and Colonial cousins.
Constant civil war and regime change through usurpation created chronic instability. Emperors came to trust no one and would not permit potential rivals to build a power base.
The winner takes all nature of the battle to become Emperor gave army commanders a huge incentive to "go for it", and after every regime change there was massive disruption as supporters were rewarded and the other side purged. And every time a hugely expensive donative for the Army. The tribes on the border exploited the weakness - raiding, plundering and eventually settling in the empire - further eroding the tax base. Goldsworthy makes an interesting point about the Senate in Rome.
Senators had traditionally taken on short term military commissions in the provinces but were gradually frozen out by Emperors. This meant that whereas formerly the Emperor had a relatively small group of potential rivals to keep an eye on - with many based in Rome most of the time - the focus now turned to the army on the borders, where any army leader could potentially be acclaimed as a usurper.
Jul 24, David rated it it was amazing Shelves: Goldsworthy picks up the story of the Roman Empire at the end of the reign of Marcus Aurelius, the last of the five good emperors. In order to tell the best story of how Rome fell, the best place to start is when Rome is at its height. He then takes us through the tumultuous time from when emperor after emperor reigned for short times.
Of course Diocletian and Constantine get their screentime before moving to the end of the west in the s and finishing the story with the east about to Goldsworthy picks up the story of the Roman Empire at the end of the reign of Marcus Aurelius, the last of the five good emperors. Of course Diocletian and Constantine get their screentime before moving to the end of the west in the s and finishing the story with the east about to face the rise of Islam. So why did Rome fall? Goldsworthy emphasizes the internal problems of continuous civil war. It was not repeated barbarian invasions that brought Rome to her knees, for even late in the game Rome could beat back the barbarians if they wanted to.
By "wanted to" you might substitute "able to put together a united front". Unfortunately they fought themselves over and over which weakened them, eventually beyond the point of no return. I definitely want to read more of Goldsworthy's works now.
The Fall of the Roman Empire has been a best-selling subject since the 18th century. Since then, over very diverse reasons have been advocated for the . The Fall of the Roman Empire has been a best-selling subject since the 18th century. Since then over discrete reasons have been advanced for the collapse.
For any fan of Roman history, this is a great read. Mar 05, Jane rated it really liked it Shelves: This was a very interesting and readable history of the late Western Roman Empire: I prefer to term the last centuries as a gradual decline, gaining momentum as the years p "Our history now descends from a kingdom of gold to one of rust and iron. I prefer to term the last centuries as a gradual decline, gaining momentum as the years pass. There was no sudden, cataclysmic event spurring on the end. The decline began after the murders of Commodus and Pertinax and progressed from there.
I'd use the analogy of a snowball rolling downhill and gathering speed as it goes. The author gives his speculations as to how and why the Western Empire fell. Of course, since we lack much information and statistics, he has made educated guesses, which seem logical to me. I learned quite a lot from this book. Most of the book consists of history, but the last two chapters sum up reasons for the 'decline and fall'. There are a few recurring themes: These invasions exploited and undermined the central power, which was growing weaker anyway; the emperors were not concerned with the Empire anymore, but with their own personal survival.
A large number of emperors ruled only for a period of months; there were very few years without civil wars and unrest. The author compares and contrasts the Eastern Roman Empire, which endured for another millenium. The author's final analogy to the empire: He's no longer at the peak of his powers, but sometimes he functions well.
Neglect of his body may well lead to his decay and succumbing to disease. On the whole, the book was most informative and educational, due to a very lucid text. Near the conclusion of the history, the emperors all blurred into one another to me; this was not Mr. Many pictures and maps, very complete chronology, bibliography, footnotes, and index enriched this valuable resource. View all 7 comments. The title is a bit of misnomer though; The Roman Empire and the Army from to approximately would perhaps be more correct. In this book Goldsworthy tries to give his view on what is known as the fall of the Roman Empire most history-books will mention the year when the last Western Roman emperor was deposed and no new emperor proclaimed, which is adequate enough as an artificial divide , a subject which has gotten a lot of attention in the last decades.
Goldsworthy devotes quite a lot of time to discussing popular theories, usually setting out those theories in one or two paragraphs and then moving on to argue for or, more commonly, against them. In actual fact Goldsworthy gives a narrative from the period of Marcus Aurelius to the first half of the sixth century. Larger themes are the relationship of the Roman superpower a theme that comes back time and again with the rest of the world, and the problems faced by the Roman emperors and their administration. Potential readers should note that Goldsworthy is writing both from an academic viewpoint, but with an eye for the more casual reader.
I loved it, though I hesitate to give it five out five stars. It was good and all, but not great. View all 3 comments. Sep 17, Todd N rated it it was amazing Shelves: I loved this book. It's a highly readable history of Rome beginning with the reign of Marcus Aurelius and ending just as the united Arab tribes conquered more than half of the lands of the Eastern Roman Empire.
I have to confess that I wasn't sure if I wanted to read this book, so I downloaded it off of bittorrent. I was amazed to even find it. But as I was getting into the book I felt guilty and bought the Kindle version. This had the advantage of allowing me to read it on my iPhone during a bor I loved this book. This had the advantage of allowing me to read it on my iPhone during a boring week long series of meetings and trainings. The maps are worthless on the Kindle version of this book, so have a handy reference map nearby.
I used the trusty Penguin Historical Atlas of Rome, which allowed me to find the places mentioned in the book. I also relied on the Atlas's handy summaries during the few periods when I got confused. One other minor complaint about How Rome Fell is that characters just pop up and then disappear for a few pages and then pop up again. For people without photographic memory or an encyclopedic knowledge of Roman emperors, their many usurpers, and tribal leaders. There is an excellent timeline and glossary at the end of the book.
This is difficult to use on the Kindle. Also, the footnotes aren't accessible as links, which was disappointing. In fact, maybe this is one of the few books that would be better to read on paper rather than on the Kindle. It's still highly recommended in any format.
Nov 29, Gordon rated it really liked it. What we think of as the Roman Empire didn't so much fall dramatically as steadily slow down, stumble unsteadily for a few centuries, and then keel over quietly somewhere around AD. And that was just the Western Roman Empire.
The Eastern Roman Empire, dubbed centuries later the Byzantine Empire, went on for another thousand years, by which time it was a shrunken remnant of its former self and was felled by a three month siege by the Ottoman Turks in With the exception of ancient Egypt un What we think of as the Roman Empire didn't so much fall dramatically as steadily slow down, stumble unsteadily for a few centuries, and then keel over quietly somewhere around AD.
With the exception of ancient Egypt under the pharaohs, it was the longest-lived empire in history, and left its mark on the present in countless ways: Its physical remnants can be found throughout much of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa, in the form of roads, bridges, aqueducts, amphitheaters, temples and public baths. So, why did it fall -- or keel over? The short answer would be: First, because the Roman Army focused more on killing each other than on fending off invaders. Second, because the Roman Empire came to be ruled by an endless series of upstart generals who seized power by violence, and not by a political class or even by a hereditary monarchy.
The Senate, once the source of many of Rome's rulers, was reduced so much in significance that it no longer even supplied military leaders, let alone emperors. Imperial succession took place by military coup, typically followed by civil war. The next century, the third century, was chaotic. Over a period of a half century, there were about 60 men who claimed the title of emperor. There were so many that historians aren't even sure of the exact number. At times, there were as many as five emperors at once. The result was endless civil war, with far more attention being paid to the struggle for power than to the governance of the empire or to its defense from outside invaders.
The empire at times regained its stability, sometimes for as much as 20 years at a time, but the overall trend remained downhill. By the end of the fourth century, the Romans were struggling to repel invaders in larger numbers, and even suffered major defeats at their hands. The empire broke in half permanently in , and over the next few decades the Western half of the empire withered away altogether. The Vandals took away Rome's richest provinces, in North Africa; Attila the Hun raided on a grand scale; and finally the last Western Emperor, Romulus, was deposed in The western empire was soon replaced by a set of kingdoms ruled by various invading groups: It shrank drastically when the Islamic armies of Mohammed stormed out of the Arabian peninsula in the 's, but its remnants lasted until , when it wasn't much bigger than the city of Constantinople itself.
My overall take is that the book is a great piece of narrative history, but is somewhat unsatisfying in explaining the underlying factors that caused the empire to lose the formula for effective governance. But long periods of Roman history are very poorly documented, and after all these centuries, it may not be possible to definitively explain why it fell. In fact, it may be that the real mystery is not why the empire fell, but why it lasted so astonishingly long.
Jul 24, Rob Atkinson rated it it was amazing.
A beautifully written account of the late Roman Empire, from the 2nd century reign of Marcus Aurelius through the 'Fall' of the western Empire and Justinian's briefly successful efforts to reconquer some of those lost territories in the 6th century. Goldsworthy, one of today's leading Classical historians, manages to be succinct while packing his history with telling detail; within the narrative he also makes clear the key factors leading to this ancient Superpower's decline, which apparently w A beautifully written account of the late Roman Empire, from the 2nd century reign of Marcus Aurelius through the 'Fall' of the western Empire and Justinian's briefly successful efforts to reconquer some of those lost territories in the 6th century.
Goldsworthy, one of today's leading Classical historians, manages to be succinct while packing his history with telling detail; within the narrative he also makes clear the key factors leading to this ancient Superpower's decline, which apparently wasn't inevitable. Chief amongst these was the constant civil war which pulled needed resources away from defense of the frontiers, coupled with the paranoia this engendered in any sitting emperor.
This led to the creation of a huge, unwieldy bureaucracy and division of military resources in an effort to deny potential challengers the power base to mount a significant attempt at usurping the throne. Late Emperors lost a large degree of direct control as a result, making the challenges posed by barbarian raids, famine, plague etc. What surprised this reader was just how much late Rome set the template for Medieval Europe, from the titles of 'Duke' and 'Count' originally designating different types of military commander in the Roman Forces , "Vicars' and "Dioceses" administrative chiefs and their districts , and the like.
By the end of the Western Empire walled cities and 'castles' dominated the landscape, very much as they would for the next thousand years and more. Many barbarians were settled within the Empire with Imperial consent in the last century of the Empire, and they seem to have been only semi-autonomous, assimilating many Roman ways. They most often came not to destroy Rome, but desiring to share in the benefits of its civilization and wealth.
Initially many tribes were satisfied with limited raids and plunder, or were bought off with bribes to temporarily maintain peace.
By the 5th century, however, Rome's poor administration, dwindling resources, and inability to maintain the Empire's border defenses presented an irresistable opportunity for the Goths, Huns, and Vandals to carve up the Western territories left so vulnerable amongst themselves, culminating in the conquest of Italy, and Rome itself. Highly recommended, as is Goldsworthy's "Antony and Cleopatra". Beginning with the death of Marcus Aurelius and the accession of the administratively incompetent megalomaniac Commodus, Goldsworthy seeks to explain the collapse of the Roman empire not, as it is sometimes seen, as a phenomenon created almost exclusively by external pressures but as stemming largely from a cumulative failure of leadership.
The over-reliance of insecure emperors upon the army, the tendency to reward loyalty above merit, the growth of bureaucracy as an end in itself, and the decl Beginning with the death of Marcus Aurelius and the accession of the administratively incompetent megalomaniac Commodus, Goldsworthy seeks to explain the collapse of the Roman empire not, as it is sometimes seen, as a phenomenon created almost exclusively by external pressures but as stemming largely from a cumulative failure of leadership. The over-reliance of insecure emperors upon the army, the tendency to reward loyalty above merit, the growth of bureaucracy as an end in itself, and the decline in revenues caused by buying off enemies with territory, all combined to hollow out the state.
In consequence, its collapse, though slow in coming on account of the sheer size of the institution, was remarkably swift when it finally arrived. This is not to deny the part played by the barbarian invasions. Indeed, Goldsworthy suggests that the reason why the eastern empire survived longer than its western counterpart was that the incursions it faced were less widespread. The Bosporus presented a significant barrier to invaders, and while the Persians posed a formidable challenge, it is arguably easier to face one large adversary that a series of smaller enemies. The eastern empire did not lose as much territory and revenue.
Thus it was able to maintain a large standing army, while in the west the army which looked good on paper was consistently under-manned. Nevertheless, the east suffered from a similar sclerosis to the west. It lingered on after the collapse of its sister, gradually diminishing in size, a venerable and impressive institution but no longer a super-power. Goldsworthy's narrative is clear, comprehensive and, given the speed with which emperors rose and fell in the declining years, remarkably easy to follow.
It offers the reader a satisfyingly coherent over-view of one of the most significant cultural earthquakes in human history. May 14, Omar Ali rated it really liked it. A very readable narrative history of the decline and fall of Rome. His conclusion is that internal rot especially endless civil wars caused the fall, but what caused the internal rot? He does not speculate too much on that. Maybe it was just one of those things..
He makes it clear that it was a real fall, not just a change in rulers i. Mostly, A very readable narrative history of the decline and fall of Rome. Mostly, it is a well written and eminently readable narrative history that gently but firmly rejects some popular theories about why Rome fell. For example, Goldsworthy insists almost certainly correctly that Persia was never that strong an opponent, and the barbarians were not necessarily a bigger threat in the 3rd to 5th century, but he is not a data guy; e. He mentions changes in the Roman army, but again avoids lists and data in this case, he does say that we just don't have enough information to know for sure.
It might have been an even better book if he gave such facts and figures and went more into everyday life, trade, economy and suchlike That said, it is an enjoyable read and covers the basic story very well.. This book's interesting thesis is that it wasn't exterior forces that caused Rome's fall, and that the Persians weren't necessarily "tougher" an enemy than the Parthians, but that Rome collapsed from within. The barbarians just gave it the coup de grace. Combination of wasted resources, possible decay in population, an overgrown bureaucracy, and Emperors who would rather fight each other or would-be Emperors rather than external enemies.
Nov 20, Mark Singer rated it it was amazing Shelves: Civil war, barbarians, civil war, assassinations, civil war, inflation, civil war, bureaucracy, civil war. Civil war it is. As of about AD , the Roman Empire was by far the most powerful state within its known world, and had been for over two hundred years. Three hundred years later, the western half of the Empire had ceased to exist, and the remaining part, while still powerful, no longer held the clear advantage over its neighbors that the earlier empire had.
Adrian Goldworthy's How Rome Fell is technically a re-examination of how this came about. However, while this thesis is talked about at the beginning of the As of about AD , the Roman Empire was by far the most powerful state within its known world, and had been for over two hundred years.
However, while this thesis is talked about at the beginning of the book, and then discussed at the end of the book, there's no real reference to it during the book. Instead, it is just a general history of those three hundred plus years. However, it is a very good history of the period, and I think this would be a great place to start for someone wanting to study Late Antiquity.
Not only is it generally well-written, but it spends a fair amount of time showing how little we truly know about the population, economy, actual size of the Roman army in many periods The concluding chapter is also short on certainties, but long on thoughtful commentary about the various ills of the Empire.
The main conclusion is that the Empire weakened itself through interminable civil wars. Worse, the reaction to these civil wars was to attempt to remodel the Empire to protect emperors from assassination and rivals, and fail. One of the points that Goldsworthy proposes as key, is the removal of the vestiges of political power and importance from the Senate. When senators stopped being the primary pool to get new emperors from when the chancy business of dynastic succession fails , the pool of candidates actually became larger, more dispersed, and impossible to control.
His thoughts on the separate fates of the Western and Eastern Empires mostly come down to geography. Among other effects, the various tribal leaders to cross the frontiers had nowhere else to go than the Western Empire. There were no comparable threats to most of the Eastern frontier, and that part that did have power tribal confederations was the Danube. Thrace and Greece were not places they could get very far in, they couldn't cross the Bosphorus to Asia Minor, and that left In addition, most of the rebellions and usurpers came from the western provinces, why is not clear, but it may just be success breeding more attempts.
And then there is the quasi-subtitle only seen on the title page: Death of a Superpower. Goldsworthy equates Rome as a superpower in that there was no other entity that could come close to matching it's size, wealth, manpower, or ability to project power. Well, China would be an exception, but since it had no way of getting at the Empire, or any of its neighbors, it is ignored.
The final epilogue and much of the introduction talks about the inevitable parallels people try to draw between the Roman Empire and the United States, and dismisses many of them. But he does meditate a bit on the problems of bureaucracy, and the dangers of any institution forgetting what its primary purpose is. Circling back to the content of the bulk of the book, it is a well done survey of the period, and an excellent place to start if you are not well aware of the history of those three to four hundred years.
It is less useful to those who have studied the period I found most of the book familiar ground , but it is still a good single reference book, and there will be some new touches for most people. Oct 05, Cameron rated it did not like it. How Rome Fell — Adrian Goldsworthy I was attracted to this book suspecting a critical review of the current theories for the Fall. In respect of the events unfolding today, it cannot be discounted that the adaptive capacity of a society may be reduced by a rapid change in population, increased societal complexity and institutional destabilization, resulting in massive shifts in social dynamics.
This ominous triplex, which is difficult to ignore today, is especially relevant to Western societies in general, not merely America. Whether or not we like it, we live in an interconnected world. Alarmingly, many today feel that these are the chief events that are leading to our decline. So why was this not also relevant to the Roman Empire? Perhaps mounting social complexity is the most pernicious of the triplex insidiosus. This impacts negatively on institutions note, the military is but an example , which portends failure to deal with mass migration.
Conceivably our problems stem from using technology to create new needs without adequately dealing with existing ones. Analogously, did new needs arise in the late imperium, resulting in it becoming too complex to administer? Truly, I expected an analysis, not a history thrown at the reader who has to decide for himself.
There is within however a monitum for our contemporary targets- and career-driven organisations and governments that forget for what they exist. I surmise from the author's conclusion that if you find yourself working for a corpus corporatum in this way, then, like the aging imperium, there is a good chance that your organization is in decline.
I have now read several of these Roman histories and I am inclined to conclude that essentially they repackage the same information from the same few sources for variable ends. As the difficulties and challenges mounted, the western army became both smaller and less efficient, due to the smaller funding. The diminished Roman army had to give away even more territories which even more undermined the tax flow for the central government. In the opinion of Ward-Perkins, there was no decline of the Empire as such in the 4th century and still around the year AD it was as powerful as ever.
Secondly, the Eastern Empire had no special advantage over the Western. Its survival is entirely due to the differences in geography: The Germanic tribes, Huns, Avars and Slavs could and did devastate the Balkans but these lands, argues Ward-Perkins, were only of the minor importance to the Empire. There was no internal decay of the Roman state prior to its fall, but the disappearance of the Roman rule had some very serious consequences: The population of the West dropped sharply maybe even under the quarter of the number in the late 4th century.
General standard of living was much lover then under the Roman rule. Author also points to the comparatively widespread literacy in the Roman Empire and the situation after its fall, when the mass of population and even much of the ruling elite was illiterate. He believes that overly positive picture of the Late Antiquity and the transformation of the Roman Empire is heavily influenced by modern social and cultural trends and even by the every-day politics, which by itself should merit a high degree of caution.
Not discarding it as a whole, Ward-Perkins, nonetheless, believes that it presents only a partial truth, focusing on some parts and some aspects of a much larger and more complex reality. Heather shares same basic views with Ward-Perkins. Heather draws a picture of comparatively stable, strong, even flourishing state, that is in no way weaker then the Early Empire of 1st to 3rd centuries AD.
Heather also states that Empires supremacy over the peoples beyond its frontiers should always be understood within these limits. Heather argues that there is a connection between these two events, since the removal of Hunic power led to the recomposition of the Germanic and Iranian tribal groups in Central Europe. As a consequence, there emerged several new warrior-kings with substantial military power at their disposal and no one to prevent them from assaulting what was left of the Roman Empire.
Even so, Heather believes that even in the late s not all was lost for the Western Empire and only after the disastrous defeat inflicted on them in by Vandals the final attempt to regain Africa, largely with the aid of the Eastern Empire made the fall of the West inevitable. Heather believes in the simple answer of outside invasion and conquest and rejects any explanation that looks for the internal causes. His book The Fall of the West: Whereas the two Oxford scholars accepted fall but rejected decline, Goldsworthy writes history of decline and fall and argues for the internal causes of the weakness of the Late Empire.
Although this is not a full history of the Late Antiquity but closest to it of all three titles in this review it has narrative form and encapsulates the long period from to AD. Introduction chapter deals with the question of the fall and gives overview of the modern opinions; Goldsworthy too agrees that dominant opinion on the Late Antiquity and the fall of the Roman Empire had gone too far in a wrong direction, and that it is being influenced by current ideology, modern politics and even by popular opinion. Some space in introduction is devoted to the discussion of available sources.
This, he argues, is partly the consequence of over-specialization and lack of the deeper knowledge of the earlier period on the part of students of the Late Antiquity. In contrast to them, Goldsworthy often compares Early and Later Empire, usually at the expense of the latter. The Early Empire was largely bureaucracy-free, with more vital economic base and wide local autonomy. Overall, it was more manageable and much more efficient. The crisis of the 3rd century was due to the loss of the imperial grip over the armies. The logical consequences were disastrous civil wars that destroyed much of the old power- structure and the old system of government.
However, Goldsworthy does not believe that Empire was during 3rd century actually on the verge of fall; the territorial loss was small compared to the whole of the Empire and, in strategic terms, insignificant. Recovery of the Empire in the 4th was only partial and encumbered with too much compromise.
The reform efforts of the Diocletian and the Constantine the Great actually had much more humble aims then it is usually thought. Both efforts were only partially successful and general stability and safety were improved, but only when compared to situation of the 3rd century. Civil wars, assassinations, succession crisis where much more frequent now than in the first two centuries AD.
On the other hand, the increased stability and control where only achieved by creating a large, expensive and unwieldy bureaucratic apparatus. Any decision made by the highest authority took much time and resources to produce result — if there was any result at all, owing to the inefficiency of administration. Goldsworthy also disputes the often stated opinion that outside challenges of the Empire were much greater in the 4th and 5th century than those in earlier times. For example, he argues that new Sassanid Empire was in no respect greater power then its Parthian predecessor: Its Eastern counterpart is also treated, but in much less detail.
Goldsworthy argues that both parts of the Empire shared same problems but that in the West they manifested themselves in a more acute form. The geographical advantage of the East over West is, same as in the works by Ward-Perkins and Heather, also stressed. However, Goldsworthy maintains that in the end, East did not escape the combined external and internal crisis that destroyed the Western Empire; it merely postponed it. It suffered a major crisis from ca.