Until very recently, the academic view embarrassedly downplayed the violence and destruction, in an attempt to provide a more urbane account of late antiquity: It was all painfully tame and civilised. But now Adrian Goldsworthy comes forward with his trademark combination of clear narrative, common sense, and a thorough mastery of the sources. In telling the story from start to finish, he rescues the era from the diffident and mealy-mouthed: It is 'old fashioned history' in the best sense: This is the third try I've had at this big question.
Gibbon was, of course the first. Goldsworthy wants to understand the past in its own context and wants to downplay the "Lessons for modern America Goldsworthy states that he is not an expert in this period, which actually makes the book better for the general reader as he examines a variety of perspectives on various controversies Adrian Goldsworthy has a doctorate from Oxford University. A full-time author, he regularly contributes to TV documentaries on Roman themes. Until very recently, the academic The Fall Of The West: 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 for this exemplar, chapter upon chapter present yet another history of the imperium heavily focused on the army to transform or pad out an underdeveloped essay into a book. Unfortunately it makes tedious reading unless academically inclined. It all seems a lost opportunity!
The Fall Of The West : The Death Of The Roman Superpower
The book may even have been publisher-pushed. Eheu, infelix ego et destitute. Feb 03, Doug Welch rated it really liked it.
- Computergrafik für Ingenieure: Eine anwendungsorientierte Einführung (German Edition)!
- Bestselling Series.
- How Rome Fell: Death of a Superpower by Adrian Goldsworthy;
While not as readable or feel-good fuzzy as Durant's work, Goldsworthy's book is worth your time if you are curious as to how Western Europe went from being Hellenistic, pagan, and an economic commonwealth to the barbarian dominated, Christian and provincial set up that prevailed until the Renaissance, then this weighty tome is for you. Sadly, while Durant was oftentimes willing to jump to conclusions, and thereby fills in the blanks with assertions that seemed likely when he wrote early s Goldsworthy hews closer to the actual evidence at hand, but is not willing to make any guesses.
This leaves the reader with the fact, but some questions in mind such as: What factors led to the rash of military coups in the 3rd Century?
Get one month’s free unlimited access
Why was the Roman army so nearly invincible from BCAD, but then rarely able to pull off a victory after that? Still a book incorporating all the new data we have uncovered over the last 60 years was long overdue, and although this volume is rather dry, it provides a good set of partial answers for the question inferred fromt he its title. Aug 09, Will James added it.
A truly masterful and all encompassing history of the decline of the Roman Empire. Goldsworthy makes a powerful argument for the argument that the Roman Empire certainly in the West declined over a long period of time, not because of any single or combined external challenges, but because of successive internal weakening due to a whole range of factors civil wars, fear of usurpation, barbarian settlement within the empire, declining tax revenue.
The conclusion and epilogue cumlinates in an A truly masterful and all encompassing history of the decline of the Roman Empire. The conclusion and epilogue cumlinates in an especially conservative argument about the slow yet debilitating effects of bureaucratic short-sightedness on organisations whether they be ancient empires, modern states or private global businesses. Goldsworthy's pithy scepticism of accepted historical opinion makes this an enjoyable and often challenging read.
Mar 13, Carl rated it really liked it. A good book, but it seemed like the author was mushing two books into one. This includes a useful chronology and glossary. The other book much shorter was like a case study from an MBA program: I am vaguely aware that historians have suggested various reasons for the Fall: But the author makes a good case that the overriding cause was the almost constant civil wars between rivals for the corner office. These caused enormous interference with the proper running of the enterprise, and failure to maintain market share. Jan 24, Danne rated it it was amazing.
Sep 01, Sam rated it really liked it. I enjoyed this book because I have become a big fan or Roman history and I am big fan of the author. He covered a large amount of time very quickly and briefly covered every emporer during that period and how they came to power and then fell.
His second to last chapter put forward his theory and his last chapter compared it with Pax Americana. All in all it was a good book. In short his theory was, and I basically support it Rome began to fall when the political culture and system changed so t I enjoyed this book because I have become a big fan or Roman history and I am big fan of the author. Rome began to fall when the political culture and system changed so that personal political interest and imperial interest significantly diverged and overwhelmingly encouraged personal advancement and survival in political decision making over the good of the empire.
Apr 16, Andrea rated it it was amazing Shelves: Goldsworthy states that he is not an expert in this period, which actually makes the book better for the general reader as he examines a variety of perspectives on various controversies rather than presenting the reader with a neat analysis. I am working my way through Gibbon and found this to be the most helpful overview so far of the period and the debates surrounding it. Very readable for a non-specialist. It does focus mainly on politics and military issues.
If you want something Excellent. If you want something about the life and times of the ordinary person, there is not much here. Jan 15, Thom Dunn rated it really liked it. Stresses the internal strife of Rome's frequent civil wars from 2nd to 6th century --rather than pressure from without. When pressure came, Rome had weakened itself too much internally to adequately defend itself. My partner in publishing, Rich Erlich, says he spent time when young wondering why all this academic tsouris on the Fall of Rome.
One day it dawned on him: Aug 22, Chandy John rated it it was ok. This book starts off so well. You feel you're on the threshold of some great discovery. Sadly, after a while it gets mired down in pointless biography and myriad details of treachery. This is more of a narrative of the decline and fall of Rome rather than a fresh look at the reasons for the same. All the same it is interesting in parts. Sep 25, AskHistorians added it Shelves: Goldsworthy is the author of numerous works of popular history and is very familiar with the form.
He provides and excellent and detailed narrative, as well as an analysis focused on political systems. Mar 29, Krzysztof Klosin rated it really liked it. One of the goals of "How Rome Fell" appears to be to present a quite radically different viewpoint on the causes of the fall of the Western Empire. Heather goes as far as claiming that Rome could have as well survived in the new reality of strong Barbarian neighbors if it had managed to recover Africa in the botched attempt to do so in s.
Goldsworthy on the other hand takes a viewpoint of gradual decline that starts around the time of death of Marcus Aurelius and continues more or less unabated until late 5th century. This is in some sense a return to classical tradition of Gibbon who saw the reasons for the fall being of internal rather than external nature.
In "How Rome Fell" we will read a history of Roman wars starting in late 2nd century and we will constantly be reminded that they would never take priority over civil wars for power within the empire. These latter wars would gradually undermine the ability of the state to defend itself from foreign aggression. Heather certainly acknowledges this constant attribute of the late Roman Empire, but tries to convey the idea that because they were so pervasive, so chronic, the Roman state has in some sense adjusted to them and was able to function in that less-than-perfect reality.
Goldsworthy makes a somewhat controversial claim that the Empire was weaker in AD than it was in AD and still weaker than in AD , which certainly fits into the narrative of a gradual decline.
Top Authors
However, in AD the Roman world was beginning to recover from the crisis of the 3rd century which Goldsworthy plays down calling it "crisis? After reading both books I find Heather's arguments more convincing. In a sense a crisis that lasts years is hardly a crisis, it is the status quo! Goldsworthy's book is easier to read than Heather's and it contains a more detailed account of the 3rd and 4th century.
- Accessibility Links.
- The Promise: (Prequel to Scottish Dream Trilogy)!
- Swordfish: A Biography of the Ocean Gladiator.
- Account Options?
- God Bless Our Native Land.
- Dr Adrian Goldsworthy - The Fall Of The West!
It is certainly worth reading if one is interested in why the western Roman Empire fell and I not being a historian find it intriguing how modern scholars can have such radically different views on one of the most momentous and consequential events in the Western history. And Goldsworthy really doesn't like the Emperor Julian. Mar 15, Andrew Dockrill rated it liked it. This is the second book of Goldsworthy's that I've read and while I was a huge fan of his book Augustus, I found this one to be a bit of a slog.
The book starts out with an exciting introduction but then it devolves and gets lost in biography and narrative of all of the different emperors, which can be quite interesting but after awhile becomes plodding. I honestly found myself getting a little bored which was disappointing for me as I am a big lover of Goldsworthy, but I am partially to blame f This is the second book of Goldsworthy's that I've read and while I was a huge fan of his book Augustus, I found this one to be a bit of a slog.
I honestly found myself getting a little bored which was disappointing for me as I am a big lover of Goldsworthy, but I am partially to blame for it as well, as I may have set out into this book with a different idea of what it would read like in mind. Long story short, Rome was extremely strong and no one could really put a dent into her empire, all they could really ever do was take nibbles at her, win the occasional guerrilla skirmish or beat one of their more incompetent emperors in battle.
The Fall Of The West : Adrian Goldsworthy :
Rome was simply too well entrenched and equipped in Europe and the East. The only real threat to them was Persia and even then, Persia could not sustain success after success against Rome. Goldsworthy thinks that the leading factor for the fall of Rome was self-inflicted problems such as constant usurpation and inability to keep the army happy. It is kind of like the metaphor that Rome had a large cushion of comfort you could say, but through the century eventually all that was slowly trimmed away until they were left rather bare and exposed.
But he makes an interesting point in saying "we should not ask what made Rome fall, but instead ask, how did it last as long as it did? I think he largely takes this question from earlier writers such as Gibbon, but it was a question I had never reflected on before. My concluding thought was that this book was very approachable as is all popular history books and it is a nice light read with no real critical thinking required. You may need the occasional wiki search to keep track of all of the names if your not that familiar with Roman history and their emperors but you should not have too hard of a time.
I did find myself getting rather bored after the point when Pertinax and Macrinus died and then you run into the slew of emperor after emperor and in the mix, Goldsworthy talks about different factors such as monetary problems etc. I was hoping I guess for a more theorizing book and not just an overview of the history of from Commodus onward to Justinian. It is mostly chronological and follows the documentary record. But it also provides context where it can based on the archaeological evidence and modern scholarship. On the whole, I think this makes for a readable approach.
Goldsworthy voices skepticism where appropriate of the official histories and admits the limi "How Rome Fell" follows a traditional historical narrative that traces the actions of the emperors that succeed Marcus Aurelius, as well as the resulting usurpers and generalissimos. Goldsworthy voices skepticism where appropriate of the official histories and admits the limits of the evidence. The shadow of Gibbon's "Decline and Fall" is acknowledged by the author and engaged; I particularly appreciated the reminders of how Christianity has biased many of the sources we have and even their modern interpretations.
The Fall of the West: The Slow Death of the Roman Superpower by Adrian Goldsworthy
Goldsworthy's thesis, as best as I can summarize, is that Rome fell because it forgot what it was for. Over the course of three centuries, emperors gradually placed less and less importance on the public good and more and more on their personal benefit—and immediate personal survival. Institutional changes effected to ensure the emperor's survival—for example, the exclusion of senators from provincial leadership due to the fear that they would become successful usurpers—resulted in less effective administration and diminished military might.
And the benefits did not materialize, as the pool of potential usurpers expanded to include just about any man of status who could command the loyalty of enough soldiers. To continue with this argument, the fundamental flaw is the Roman Empire, dating back to Augustus and the Principate, lacked a generally accepted and reasonably effective means of determining the imperial succession. Neighboring foreign powers and barbarian nomads may be the proximate, opportunistic causes of the fall, but would have insufficient ones without an already ailing body politic.
I would recommend the book strongly to any general reader interested in the subject with at least a passing familiarity with the age. My only criticism is that the sections comparing the Roman Empire to the vintage American empire feel dated at the present moment, when our contemporary symptoms of decline feel much more obvious and exigent. No doubt many people, myself included, will read it for just such reason. Feb 26, Paul Spence rated it it was amazing Shelves: The Roman Empire, which at one time was the most powerful force in the ancient world, saw a decline in its later centuries.
The decline itself was a long process and this book tells that story. Goldsworthy begins the book by starting with the death of Emperor Marcus Aurelius in and the beginning of Commodus' sole rule of the empire. He then traces the many events until the collapse of the empire.
This includes the civil wars, the Crisis of the Third Century, the reign of Diocletian who set up The Roman Empire, which at one time was the most powerful force in the ancient world, saw a decline in its later centuries. This includes the civil wars, the Crisis of the Third Century, the reign of Diocletian who set up the tetrarchy, though that system collapsed, the reunion of the empire under Constantine, and the final split into western and eastern halves. The Western Roman Empire would continue on, constantly battered by barbarian invasions, until the final emperor was forced to abdicate in The Eastern Roman Empire, sometimes called the Byzantine Empire by historians, went on for much longer.
Under Justinian, the Eastern Empire reclaimed some former territory such as north Africa and Italy, though these gains would soon be lost. The Eastern Empire would continue on until the fifteenth century, though never more than a minor regional power. Goldsworthy mainly contends that the Western Roman Empire finally fell because of its long decline.
He mainly seems to argue that ineffective government was one of the main causes of it.
Starting in the third century, emperors often lived in not entirely unjustifiable fear of usurpation and the resources of the Roman state were subsequently guided to avoid this. Roman armies too often fought other Romans instead of external threats and the costs of this required money be redirected from other concerns. Indeed, he seems to ask not why the empire fell but why it lasted so long. It seems that the empire, despite the inefficiencies, was still powerful both militarily and economically and this required a long time to finally collapse. I found this book to be a good history of the long decline of the Roman Empire.
I would recommend this book to those interested in Ancient Rome. Aug 05, Franz rated it liked it. The Roman Empire is at its height power and glory. February 15 , In AD the last emperor of Rome was overthrown in a coup orchestrated by a German general. The deposed emperor was little more than a child, the last and weakest of a series of puppet rulers on the Roman throne. It was a nice irony that his name was Romulus, the same as the legendary founder of the city.
There could be no better symbol of the decline and fall of an ancient superpower. More than a millennium after the foundation of the city, this second Romulus was no charismatic hero like the first - but such a juvenile nonentity that as Adrian Goldsworthy puts it in The Fall of the West he was not even "worth the trouble of killing". He spent the rest of…. Get The International Pack for free for your first 30 days for unlimited Smartphone and Tablet access.