How Rome Fell: Death of a Superpower by Adrian Goldsworthy

How Rome Fell: Death of a Superpower Reviews

• 
  Bill Kerwin

  
  This is a good book, but I did not enjoy it as much as I anticipated, probably because Goldsworthy emphasizes areas of the Roman experience that are less interesting to me than others: I'm interested in religion, philosophy, literature, daily life and popular culture, and Goldsworthy concentrates on bureaucratic organizational structures (particularly in the army) and obscure military campaigns. He writes well, with remarkable lucidity, and tells a good story, but the stories themselves held little interest for me.
  
  I did however find his thesis compelling and would recommend his two final chapters to anyone interested in understanding the late Roman Empire. Goldsworthy argues that scholars in recent years have overemphasized the effects of external pressure on the late empire: the Persians were never that mighty, and the Franks and Goths lacked the unity to ever be much more than a continual irritation. He says it was not threats from without, but erosion from within, that lead to decline, and that this decay began--as it often does--from the top. ("The fish rots from the head," as the Russian proverb says.)
  
  The early emperors may have divested the senate of any real governing power, but they still treasured it as a noble institution--the source of a governing class of aristocratic amateurs who took pride in the empire and its traditions--and they carefully guarded its privileges and dignity. Every important Roman leader came from the senatorial class, and from the city of Rome the emperors had ample opportunity to observe each of these men in a public role and to assess his abilities as an administrator and his danger as a rival. As the senate decreased in influence throughout the succeeding autocratic years, the administrators of empire--no longer believers in their obligation to the public trust--became more venal and less competent, and the emperors became increasingly fearful of rival claimants, who could now arise from the equestrian commanders of any of the provincial legions, not just from the ranks of the senatorial class. In order to make the support of a rival less likely, the emperors lessened the size of the provinces, increased the central bureaucracy, privatized many services, and become less willing to delegate any authority. All this led to the erosion of individual initiative and a weakening of the basic efficiency of the institutions of empire, resulting in a failure to deal with challenges to order and good government, whether social, economic or military.
  
  Although the parallels are not exact, Goldsworthy sees the same erosion of individual initiative and autonomy at the heart of many British and American institutions, and he ends this survey of the late Roman Empire on a moral, cautionary note.
• 
  Manray9

  How Rome Fell: Death of a Superpower was my third book by Adrian Goldsworthy. An academic of noteworthy accomplishments, Goldsworthy combined a broad range of documentary sources with more recent archaeological evidence to present a vivid picture of the political, military, economic, and religious landscapes at the end of the Roman Empire. His achievements as a scholar were brought to life by the skillful prose with which he shaped a comprehensive, yet readable, book. He earned a strong Four Stars from me. I recommend How Rome Fell: Death of a Superpower to readers with an interest in the end of the Classical era and the advent of the Dark Ages.
• 
  Ray

  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?
  
  NB: This book is about the fall of the Western Empire in 476AD. The East continued for almost a thousand years to 1453.
  
  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 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.
• 
  Sud666

  Adrian Goldsworthy (along with Victor Davis Hanson) is one of my favorite Classicist Historians. In "How Rome Fell" he uses new research and a masterful knowledge of Roman history to tell us how the Superpower fell.
  
  Starting in 180 CE, with the death of Emperor Marcus Aurelius, Goldsworthy traces the multitude of factors that caused a gradual decline, instead of the oft-assumed cataclysmic implosion, of the Roman Empire. Tracing the events of the Eastern Empire, as well as the crisis of the Third and Fourth Centuries, we see the erosion of Roman military power in a series of self-destructive civil wars gradually leeched away the power of Rome.
  
  Thus when other powers or barbarian tribes began their march on Roman territories, the Empire was unable to truly resist. Though Goldsworthy is quick to emphasize the sheer amount of time this process took. It started in the Third Century, but with a brief "recovery" phase during the Fourth Century, eventually began its "Fall" in the Fifth and Sixth centuries.
  
  The biggest takeaway is that Rome didn't HAVE to fall, but it did, devastated by civil wars and many weak Emperors who invited rivals by their very nature. Superbly researched, well written, and brilliantly argued-Goldsworthy's excellent history of the decline of the Roman Empire is a must-read for anyone who wishes to know the real events that led to the decline, versus the more standard "one day it all vanished" idea that seems to be the more pop-culture take on the demise.
  
  A wonderful addition to my collection and a book I can not recommend enough to fans of Roman history. This one is truly top notch scholarship and an eminently readable book.
• 
  Jan

  A nice thing about this history is that Adrian Goldsworthy states his thesis very clearly in the introduction: as a scholar of the early phases of the Roman Empire, he wishes to provide a different perspective on its fall; he is kind enough to acknowledge the recent classics in the genre (by my reckoning, Heather is the favorite by a fair distance) while insisting that these other accounts have been rather one-dimensional, focusing on the changes in societal structure brought on by Christianity or immigration while not necessarily putting together the whole picture.
  
  Goldsworthy's work only gets three stars due to the lofty expectations which he set out in the introduction. 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." Of course, it makes sense that the Roman Empire was doomed to fail due to the fact that every emperor had to spend the majority of his mental capital obsessing over potential internal rivals and usurpers, thereby weakening the whole body's ability to respond to external threats. 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.
• 
  ntnl

  Rome was one of the largest empires in history, lasts for more than five hundred years, yet by the end of the fifth century, Roman rule had vanished in western Europe and much of northern Africa, and only a shrunken Eastern Empire remained. It has a strong, yet obvious message that most rulers chose to ignore in our time. All autocrats leaders, dynast, or emperors, or any sort of 'rulers' will and must come to an end.
  
  Adrian Goldsworthy discusses from remarkable personas like Marcus Aurelius, the philosopher-emperor, and revolutionary ideas of the time. Goldsworthy argues emphatically that the Roman Empire was a superpower without a peer in its time. It controlled all the lands girdling the Mediterranean Sea, most of the known world one can say. So, who is responsible for the fall of this super empire? The Germans? Parthian empire? The Germans? 'Barbarians'? Goldsworthy doesn't think so.
  
  The Auther claims that It was the Romans themselves who are responsible for their era coming to end, that they sank under their weight, and the barbarians just being the executioners, which is different from most scholars' list of bullets why and how Rome fell. when the crisis came for the Empire, there was no movement on the part of the component peoples of the Roman world to break free or overcome power. None of their potential traits was a match the Roman empire's well-armed and well-supplied military force, the Rome emperors were more interested in civil wars.
  
  Goldsworthy tells the main differences between the emperors and their effect through the centuries. From Augustus, who rely on the senates rather than the military. Then following the assassination of Commodus, the winner of the civil war general Septimius Severus came to power, where the senates started to get ignored.
  
  Later, the consecutive emperors Diocletian and Constantine tried to restore stability after a long period of the danger of a coup being around all the time, various individuals commanding armies into claiming the throne. As a result of Diocletian and Constantine's efforts, the emperors became sacred lords instead of just a first citizen.
  
  One of the things that I find fascinating is, how it says the Roman soldiers were willing to fight and kill each other. We can relate to that to this very day, unfortunately. In this time period, the Empire was weakened by the fact that much of the fighting the army did was against other Roman soldiers. That led Roman emperors toward the end of the Empire to see their own power as more important than the survival of the empire as a nation.
  
  Long story short, this was a great read with tons of information to process, especially it never came easy to track the names through the pages.
  
• 
  David

  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 235-284 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 400s 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. For any fan of Roman history, this is a great read.
• 
  Olethros

  -Mirando hacia atrás sin perder la vista de lo que hay delante.-
  
  Género. Ensayo.
  
  Lo que nos cuenta. Relato historiográfico de las circunstancias que llevaron al colapso del Imperio Romano (de Occidente, porque aunque toca el tema del Imperio de Oriente, el autor nos quiere centrar en el fin de la Edad Antigua), desde Marco Aurelio hasta Mahoma.
  
  ¿Quiere saber más de este libro, sin spoilers? Visite:
  
  
  http://librosdeolethros.blogspot.com/...
• 
  Rindis

  As of about AD 200, 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 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...), and exploding old certainties.
  
  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... the Western Empire. 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.
• 
  Jane

  "Our history now descends from a kingdom of gold to one of rust and iron." So wrote the Roman historian Dio.
  
  This was a very interesting and readable history of the late Western Roman Empire: Marcus Aurelius, d.180 AD until 476 AD, an artificial date, usually given as the fall; there were no more Western Roman emperors after the last one, Romulus Augustulus, a boy who lived out his years in relative comfort. 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: civil wars, usurpations, assassinations, barbarian migration from outside the empire and barbarian invasions. 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: a retired athlete. 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. Goldsworthy's fault. Many pictures and maps, very complete chronology, bibliography, footnotes, and index enriched this valuable resource.
• 
  Ton

  This book was a very interesting read, first of all because I love Roman history, and also because I like Goldsworthy’s style. The title is a bit of misnomer though; The Roman Empire and the Army from 180 to approximately 500 would perhaps be more correct. That’s not strange, as Goldsworthy has made a career out of writing about the Roman army.
  
  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 476 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. It’s very interesting to see how Goldsworthy tends to adjudicate the current trends in academia. As always his style is very fluent, and he knows how to make an argument without coming across as tedious or over bearing, even if he does manage to keep coming back to certain themes and theories, in the case of other people’s theories more often than not to show why exactlythey are to be disregarded.
  
  Potential readers should note that Goldsworthy is writing both from an academic viewpoint, but with an eye for the more casual reader. He’s up to speed with academia, but his narrative is designed to appeal to anyone interested in the period.
  
  I loved it, though I hesitate to give it five out five stars. It was good and all, but not great.
• 
  Todd N

  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 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.
• 
  Olethros

  -Mirando hacia atrás sin perder la vista de lo que hay delante.-
  
  Género. Ensayo.
  
  Lo que nos cuenta. Relato historiográfico de las circunstancias que llevaron al colapso del Imperio Romano (de Occidente, porque aunque toca el tema del Imperio de Oriente, el autor nos quiere centrar en el fin de la Edad Antigua), desde Marco Aurelio hasta Mahoma.
  
  ¿Quiere saber más de este libro, sin spoilers? Visite:
  
  
  http://librosdeolethros.blogspot.com/...
• 
  Susanna - Censored by GoodReads

  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.
• 
  Mark Singer

  Civil war, barbarians, civil war, assassinations, civil war, inflation, civil war, bureaucracy, civil war.
  Civil war it is.
• 
  Lynn

  A Good Review of Rome’s Fall
  
  Still so complex I can’t easily get my head around it, this book on Rome’s fall helps. Good to read and as comprehensible as can be.
• 
  Pritam Chattopadhyay

  Book: How Rome Fell: Death of a Superpower
  Author: Adrian Goldsworthy
  Publisher: ‎ Yale Univ Pr (28 September 2010)
  Language: ‎ English
  Paperback: ‎ 531 pages
  Item Weight: ‎ 794 g
  Dimensions: ‎ 15.24 x 3.81 x 23.75 cm
  Price: 2110/-
  
  `The decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness. Prosperity repined the principle of decay; the causes of destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest; and as soon as time or accident had removed the artificial supports, the stupendous fabric yielded to the pressure of its own weight. The story of its ruin is simple and obvious; and instead of inquiring why the Roman empire was destroyed, we should rather be surprised that it lasted so long.' - Edward Gibbon
  
  This 560 page book is unerringly what a classic looks like – economy of words, incorporation of psychoanalysis and thoughts, each and every chapter vigilantly carved out, leading to a commonsensical and very very reasonable conclusion.
  
  The author has divided the book in three sections, chronologically leading to a crescendo.
  
  Part One entitled, ‘Crisis? The Third Century’ has the following chapters:
  
  1. The Kingdom of Gold
  2. The Secret of Empire
  3. Imperial Women
  4. King of Kings
  5. Barbarians
  6. The Queen and the `Necessary' Emperor
  7. Crisis
  
  Part Two entitled, ‘Recovery? The Fourth Century’ has the subsequent chapters:
  
  8. The Four - Diocletian and the Tetrarchy
  9. The Christian
  10. Rivals
  11. Enemies
  12. The Pagan
  13. Goths
  14. East and West
  
  Part Three entitled, ‘Fall? The Fifth and Sixth Centuries’, has the following chapters:
  
  15. Barbarians and Romans: Generals and Rebels
  16. The Sister and the Eternal City
  17. The Hun
  18. Sunset on an Outpost of Empire
  19. Emperors, Kings and Warlords
  20. West and East
  21. Rise and Fall
  
  Let’s start from the end.
  
  The author says: ‘The Roman Empire continued for a very long time. Successive blows knocked away sections of it, as attackers uncovered its weaknesses.
  
  Yet at times the empire could still be fearsome and did not simply collapse. Perhaps we should imagine the Late Roman Empire as a retired athlete, whose body has declined from neglect and an unhealthy lifestyle. At times the muscles will still function well and with the memory of previous skill and training.
  
  Yet, as the neglect continues, the body becomes less and less capable of resisting disease or recovering from injury. Over the years the person would grow weaker and weaker, and in the end could easily succumb to disease. Long decline was the fate of the Roman Empire.
  
  In the end, it may well have been ‘murdered’ by barbarian invaders, but these struck at a body made vulnerable by prolonged decay…’
  
  When we think of the fall of Rome, we picture the forceful and celebrated Empire at its peak falling to hordes of Barbarians. But like any decline, it was a comprehensive and extended procedure, with many stops and starts along the way. In actual fact, when one speaks of Rome falling, one does not have a precise date to focus his attention on.
  
  A key date, in any case from a representative viewpoint, is 476 AD.
  
  In that year, Odoacer toppled the last Emperor of Western Rome, a so-called “barbarian” general. This is a good place to terminate the narrative since there would never again be a Roman Emperor in Rome.
  
  However, that was not in reality the conclusion of the Empire.
  
  Well before the city of Rome was conquered, the Empire had cracked into two. For years Empire had been wracked by civil wars, rebellions, and all sorts of strife. The events of the 3rd Century in Roman History are often named the “calamity of the third century.”
  
  Empires kept rising and facing brutal death, and out-of-control inflation caused a harsh fiscal catastrophe.
  
  The ruling elites split it into two in 284, giving the Western Empire to Diocletian and the Eastern Empire to Constantine the Great. Constantinople and the Eastern Empire outlasted the Western Roman Empire by almost 1000 years. Therefore, one could make a sensibly persuasive case that the Roman Empire in the larger sense only fell in 1453 when Mehmed the Conqueror took Constantinople and made it the capital of the Ottoman Empire.
  
  A major part of this book throws light on the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the city of Rome. Several dilemmas eroded the composition of the Roman Empire in its later years. Perhaps the best known, and perhaps the most noteworthy, was the invasion of the territory of the Empire by tribes which the Romans called “barbarians.”
  
  When we think of barbarians, we envisage savage fighters in loin clothes covered in paint. Some tribes the Romans called by that name fit that description! However, in this milieu, the word means someone who speaks a foreign language. The Greeks used it to portray people who didn’t speak their language, and accordingly the words sounded like gabble to them.
  
  The foremost groups of barbarians which troubled the Western Roman Empire were Germanic tribes.
  
  The Romans had fought against tribes in that region for generations to enlarge their border north and eastward. However, after a devastating loss in the Battle of Teutoburg Forest, the great Emperor Augustus determined that it was time to stop trying to get bigger and create a border between Rome and the barbarians, centering on the Rhine, the area’s major river.
  
  Over time, the groups began to pass through that frontier and settle on Roman territory. Sometimes, they did so against the wishes of the Imperial government – and other times, with its blessing.
  
  One might conjecture why the Romans could not keep the barbarian tribes out, considering all of their might. However, it was not that simple.
  
  The author shows that, borders are thought of as a point where one country begins, and another ends, but that is not how the Roman Empire – or any other Imperial structure at that time – was built. Instead, the tribes and political systems had been around the border area for generations.
  
  Most of their leaders were client kings who paid tribute to Rome frequently and were considered friends of Rome. What changed is not so much that they entered the territory but rather that Emperor had lost control over them.
  
  Hence, the decisive query is, why did Rome lose power over those tribes?
  
  There were powers at play further than those of even the mightiest Emperor, such as the earth’s climate. The author shows that climate change had begun to push more than a few groups away from the steppes of central Asia eastward, most particularly a nomadic group called the Huns.
  
  The barbarians began to journey further inland into the Empire at a time known as the Great Migration. The Huns movement towards Eastern Europe terrorized the locals, forcing many to wander into the Roman Empire. There were just too many people for the Romans to prevent.
  
  To make matters more multifaceted, some of these tribes had been allies of Rome and were only asking for a secure place to call home. In some cases, the Emperors felt indebted to help.
  
  Besides, the Empire was in no shape to deal with a new predicament as it had run into some ruthless economic mess. Rome had overextended and was spending far too much money on military campaigns and the administration of insubordinate provinces. That meant they could no longer expand as they once did.
  
  The answer? Tax the populace.
  
  Roman taxes became so officious and overbearing that, farmers sank into dearth and Roman elites tried to flee and conceal their property from the tax man. Also, to keep their Empire in order, the Romans granted citizenship to loads of migrants and those in areas they ccupied.
  
  While it was great for those people, the policy caused a stern trouble by lowering the ready supply of slaves that had fed economic augmentation for generations.
  
  As we know from more recent history, nothing fuels economic growth more than free and ill-treated labour. However, with this policy, Rome could not inflate and could not overpower the people it had conquered because they were citizens. Therefore, it began to experience a grim labour deficiency.
  
  This predicament was increased by the barbarian tribes running rampant in the former territories of the Empire.
  
  In 428, a tribe called the Vandals – formerly from southern Poland – took over the North African provinces. This was a historic blow to the economy and configuration of the Empire. To make matters worse, they adopted piracy and began to prey on the Roman trade routes in the Mediterranean.
  
  As more and more tribes made their homes within the Empire, the centralized authority of Rome had more intricacy collecting taxes and fighting them off. Instead, some of these tribes ruled large areas, taxing them themselves. They often were aided by a limited aristocracy that was pleased to have an opportunity to shake off Roman domination and the elevated taxes that came with it.
  
  As the tribes gained power within the Empire’s territory, they sacked and looted its wealthiest cities. One of the most dramatic symptoms of this crisis was the renowned sack of Rome.
  
  The Gauls had already laid siege to the city in 387 BC, but that was before it had become a massive power.
  
  It must have been an unlimited surprise to Rome’s people when Alaric and the Visigoths entered the sanctified city; they were familiarized with seeing themselves as the seat of world power.
  
  Still, if you one conceives a colossal destruction and slaughter, he’s mistaken. Alaric and his followers had immense admiration for Rome and no craving to annihilate a civilization they considered superior to their own. All they were after was wealth.
  
  Alaric also wanted to use the capture of the city as leverage over the Emperor. He hoped to receive a large and dangerous donation of land for his Visigoth tribe in exchange for leaving the city. The barbarians left Rome and allowed power to recommence, but it was a wake-up call to the thinning capabilities of the once-mighty Empire.
  
  When the last Emperor died in 476 and Rome was annexed to the barbarian government Kingdom of Italy, it was almost anti-climactic.
  
  Rome had been a despondent remnant state for quite some time by then. The city of Rome had fallen, and the Empire it had sustained was gone. But the concept of the Roman Empire endured.
  
  The author shows that it did so in quite a few forms. The Eastern Roman Empire, which we call Byzantium, continued to refer to its leaders as Roman Emperors. And indeed, as they built on a state established by Constantine the Great, they were heirs to its power.
  
  Besides, future leaders in other parts of the world, such as Charlemagne and Peter the Great, claimed power derived from the Roman Emperors.
  
  The Church in Rome grew in standing over the years and continued to claim much of the esteem and influence of the Empire that once governed the city. The Catholic Church wielded that influence globally, becoming a significant player throughout the world in areas as far afield as sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America, stretching over territory a Roman Emperor could only dream of.
  
  The book ends with this note – kindly follow this intimately, dear reader –
  
  ‘In the meantime, something unexpected by either Rome or Persia had occurred to the south. A merchant named Muhammad from the Arab trading town of Mecca preached a new religion and united the Arab tribes. He taught that there was only one God - not a Trinity of complex definition as the Christians had claimed and argued over.
  
  Jesus was revered as a prophet, one in a succession that culminated in Muhammad, the greatest of them all. Muhammad died in 632, but his followers swept on to success after success. Both Persia and Rome had exhausted their strength in their long conflicts with each other. Sassanid Persia was the first to fall, collapsing in just a few years. Then in 636 the Arabs won an overwhelming victory over the Romans near the River Yarmuk.
  
  They soon took Palestine, Syria and, not long afterwards, Egypt itself. Later their armies would sweep across North Africa and overwhelm the Roman provinces there.
  
  How the Arabs united and achieved such incredible conquests is a fascinating story, but it is too long a tale to tell here. By the end of the seventh century the Eastern Empire survived, as it would do until the fifteenth century, but it was a minuscule rump even of the territories ruled by Justinian.
  
  The superpower had died centuries before his day.
  
  By the time of the Arab conquests the shape of medieval Europe was still developing. Society there lacked the comforts common in the centuries of Roman rule.
  
  It was also less sophisticated, with low levels of literacy and patterns of trade far reduced in distance and quantity from the height of the empire. By comparison the Muslim world preserved far more aspects of Greco-Roman civilisation, to which the Arabs would add ideas and refinements of their own.
  
  In part this was because their heartland lay in regions that had known civilisation long before the arrival of the Greeks and Romans.
  
  Both the Islamic world, and in time the `barbarians' of the west, would develop further, rediscovering old ideas or inventing new ones. Marcus Aurelius understood that the world was always changing, but by the seventh century it is doubtful that he would have seen much that was familiar in the lands that had once been his empire….’
  
  Most recommended for history aficionados.
  
• 
  Mac

  Buy.
  
  Honestly, it's Goldsworthy and its Ancient Rome, so you should buy it. Fantastic, professional and a constant page turner as always.
• 
  Gordon

  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 476 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 1453.
  
  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: our language, our laws, our concept of civic duty, our literature, our art, our civil engineering, and much more. 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 glory days of the Roman Empire were the first and second centuries, the Roman Republic having been killed off by Julius Caesar's adopted son Octavian in 31 BC. 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 395, 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 476. The western empire was soon replaced by a set of kingdoms ruled by various invading groups: Visigoths (Spain), Ostrogoths (Italy), Franks and Burgundians (France), and so on.
  
  The Eastern Roman Empire -- now called the Byzantine Empire by historians -- went on much longer. It shrank drastically when the Islamic armies of Mohammed stormed out of the Arabian peninsula in the 600's, but its remnants lasted until 1453, 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.
• 
  Rob Atkinson

  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. far more difficult to deal with.
  
  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".
• 
  Brian

  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.
  
• 
  Omar Ali

  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.e. things like trade and living standards really did regress in much of Europe), but the economic and environmental evidence is not a focus of this book. 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.g. he does not specify how large (or small) the economy and population of Persia were, or what we know of barbarian numbers and any changes therein.. 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..
• 
  Andrea

  Excellent. 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 about the life and times of the ordinary person, there is not much here.
• 
  AskHistorians

  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.
• 
  saïd

  Originally read for university. Pretty solid book; more or less in line with how I feel about the "fall" of the Roman Empire. More focus on the militaristic facet than I'd personally have liked, but that's just me.
• 
  Jon Ureña

  As I keep telling to anyone who might listen, there are two main things I would change if I owned a time machine: the Western Roman Empire wouldn't have fallen, and it wouldn't have become Christian. Regardless of my regrets regarding our collective past in this part of the world, this book is great at shining some light at the catastrophe that was half of the Roman Empire imploding/exploding.
  
  No, not a single event or battle ruined the western half of the empire. It even survived for decades after Rome itself was sacked. But this book made clear (for me) that there were a few definitive culprits:
  
  1) Marcus Aurelius was the last emperor of the period of tranquility that historians call the Pax Romana. Afterwards, the Romans seemed more interested in sparking civil wars every ten years on average so a random prick could become the emperor, with disastrous effects for the areas the conflicts affected. Roman emperors considered rival claimants far more dangerous than any foreign enemy, and when such troubles arised at home, many emperors bribed the foreign enemies they were fighting a moment ago, so they would remain quiet while the emperor took care of home affairs.
  
  2) Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the empire by manipulating the bureaucracy so the public officials had to be Christians to get anywhere. Julian, the last pagan emperor and major edgelord, almost succeeded at reversing this disaster, but unfortunately he forgot that people should wear armor to a battle. In a couple of generations, virtually the entire empire was Christian. Fuck you, Constantine. Although this author seems to reject the gradualist notion that Rome was "transformed" instead of having fallen, he makes it seem like the Roman mindset adapted easily to a significantly incompatible religious ideology that favored a different heritage than their own. For a better book on this subject alone, I suggest Catherine Nixey's
  The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World.
  
  I vividly remember that when Rome was sacked, one of the leading thinkers of the time (a Christian theologian, of course) said, as Rome was burning, that Romans shouldn't be that concerned that the capital had fallen, because the only city whose survival they should worry about was Jerusalem. Can you imagine the average Roman, let alone one of their prominent thinkers, saying such a blasphemy before their mindset was corrupted? The adoption of Christianity by this part of the world feels to me more like a hijacking of the Western mind than any adoption; the mindset of a distinct collective of people that share the same heritage (however you want to call it) should focus on their own survival and prosperity first, as does everyone else's, but we have remained in a submissive, deferential state ever since, turning weakness and meekness into virtues. A mindset fit for slaves.
  
  3) The Romans let vast groups of foreigners pass through their borders intending to settle them in some areas and then use them as manpower. However, partly because the Romans couldn't feed these groups properly, and partly because the Romans acted like dicks at inopportune times, they faced major rebellions that they couldn't handle properly. The damage was already done, and they couldn't organize their forces to push those large, rebelling groups of foreigners out of Roman lands.
  
  For a couple of centuries, the Romans, now fully Christian, seemed to stop believing in their own strength or in fighting at all (the were many and ridiculous instances in this period of entire legions or other significant armies having disappeared, only existing on paper, and a terrifying lack of Roman soldiers or anyone willing to defend their lands), and instead let these rowdy groups of foreigners kill others for them. In a short while, the top dogs of the Roman empire were of non-Roman origin, to the extent that one of the last great defenders of Rome (Stilicho) was a descendant of Vandals. In any case, I recall that thinkers at the time considered that these groups of rowdy, often violent, almost entirely illiterate foreigners who looked for their own kind first could be allowed in safely, because they would adopt Christianity and that would pacify them. Well, whether those thinkers were right or not (these disctinct tribes eventually formed kingdoms all over what used to be the Western Roman Empire), it certainly didn't happen before that half of the empire fell. For the most part, these groups just looked after their own kind, created their own niches, and fought with each other for territory, which eventually led to the creation of many countries in Europe that everybody recognizes. For the last couple hundred of years until the western half of the empire fell, it was almost unrecognizable. I kept wondering, "what the hell happened to you guys? You used to be cool."
  
  As we know, after the western half of the empire fell, the eastern half stood strong for a few centuries, and then remained, although much weaker, for a thousand years more until it was conquered by Turks (Constantinople remains occupied, merely renamed, so does most of its territory for that matter). The history narrated in this book ends abruptly in the 7th century; the eastern emperors were making gains around the Mediterranean, occasionally bickering with the neighboring Sassanid Empire (which for the last few hundred years was almost equal in power, and suffered the same internal issues Rome did; for the most part the two empires just attacked each other from time to time to make small political gains at home), when suddenly the third blight of Abraham sparked in Arabia. In a shockingly short amount of time the Sassanid Empire was swallowed, the Eastern Roman Empire lost a lot of territory, Egypt fell, the regained North African kingdoms were occupied, etc., and the black flood continued westwards. Such a shame.
  
  4) Partly the blame of the entire thing lies on Julius Caesar. If he hadn't destroyed the Republic, we wouldn't have had a wacky series of claimants popping up every few years, gathering a bunch of soldiers and wanting to kill their way to the throne, which means that Rome wouldn't have kept busy destroying itself. Damn gamblers ruining everything.
  
  5) As a lesser point, the Roman Empire was just too damn overextended. There are plenty of stories of the people in power being unable to communicate properly with remote territories, nor being able to figure out what was going on because of more or less corrupted officials. The technology for holding together such numerous, diverse communities just wasn't there. I doubt most of the territories knew or cared who was the emperor at the time, but they had bought into the idea of being Roman, of being civilized and enjoying such cool architecture and the arts. Even when Britain was left to fend for itself, those who organized themselves into new governments retained the Roman customs for the most part, until Britain was invaded by new waves of foreigners who imposed their own shit.
  
  Anyway, cool history, cool book. Too bad about Rome falling, but what can you do.
• 
  Berk

  Kitap Roma'nın çöküşünün nedenlerini, Marcus Aurelius'un ardından tahta geçen Commodus'un öldürülmesi ile başlayıp son batı Roma imparatorunun tahttan indirilmesiyle biten iktidar mücadeleleri ve taht gaspları üzerinden inceliyor. 2. Yy'dan 5. Yy'a kadarki Roma tarihi, her bir yüzyılın kendi baskın karakteristiğinin işlendiği bölümlere ayrılarak anlatılmış. Örneğin 3. Yy ardı arkası kesilmeyen tahtı gasp girişimleri ve 30'a yakın imparator çıkarırken 4. Yy birden çok imparatorun, imparatorluğun farklı yerlerini işbirliği içinde birlikte yönettiği ya da yönetmeye çalıştığı bir döneme denk geliyor. 5. Yy Roma'nın barbar istilalarına karşı koyamayacağı kadar güçten düştüğü dönem olarak anlatılmış.
  
  Tüm bu yüzyıllarda İmparatorlar için en büyük tehdit dışarıdan değil, tahtı gasp girişimlerinden geliyor. Bazı imparatorlar tahtta kalmalarını kısa vadede sağlamlaştıracaklarına inandıkları ve ileride geri alınması mümkün olmayacak idari değişiklikler yapıyor ve uzun vadede bu idari değişiklikler imparatorların astları üzerindeki iktidar gücünün altını kazıyor.
  
  En sonunda doğu ve batı Roma ayrıldıkları anda birbirlerinin dengiyken batı Roma çökerken doğu Roma'nın nasıl 1000 yıl daha ayakta kaldığı inceleniyor.
  
  Metnin zorlaştığı bölümlerin daha akışkan bir Türkçe'ye çevrilmesi ihtiyacı dışında çeviride bir kusur görmedim.
• 
  Arend

  An example of history being “just one damn thing after another.” An informed but not a very rewarding read. After a while the litany of emperors and generals gets dull, and excursions into territories other than the military are rare and limited by source materials. At times the author rails a bit too much against his fellow historians, which is distracting, and reduces confidence in the story being told.