|
How Rome Fell: Death of a Superpower |  | Author: Adrian Goldsworthy
Publisher: Yale University Press
List Price: $32.50
Buy New: $13.44
as of 11/22/2009 03:14 CST details
You Save: $19.06 (59%)
New (39) Used (16) Collectible (3) from $12.98
Seller: ANX Store
Rating:  27 reviews
Sales Rank: 2257
Media: Hardcover
Pages: 560
Number Of Items: 1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 2.2
Dimensions (in): 9.4 x 6.3 x 1.7
ISBN: 0300137192
Dewey Decimal Number: 937.09
EAN: 9780300137194
ASIN: 0300137192
Publication Date: May 12, 2009
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
| |
| Features:
|
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
| |
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
BRAND NEW - QUICK SHIP - EXPEDITED AND INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING AVAILABLE
Amazon.com Review
Amazon Best of the Month, May 2009: Adrian Goldsworthy's Caesar: Life of a Colossus was a masterly fusion of vivid historical biography and scholarly detail, an impeccably researched work that also succeeded as a compelling read. With How Rome Fell, Goldsworthy's eye turns to the forces that ultimately destroyed the Roman Empire, challenging the traditional assumption that Rome was sacked by ultimately irrepressible foreign armies. Goldsworthy asserts that Rome's foes in the death throes of empire weren't any more formidable than those at its peak, but that the cutthroat nature of its political system fractured and diverted forces better spent maintaining the integrity of provincial borders--it was civil war and paranoia that destroyed the empire from within. Drawing parallels to modern societies might be tempting, but Goldsworthy is interested in Rome and resists foreboding or moralistic tones--even making a point of acknowledging the different dynamics that drive the rise and fall current powers. In just over 400 pages, How Rome Fell speeds the both the casual and Rome-savvy reader through 400 years of tumultuous and world-changing history--it's a worthy successor to the triumph of Caesar.--Jon Foro
|
| Customer Reviews:
Showing reviews 1-5 of 27
 History Rx November 15, 2009
Dr. Margaret Cochran (Los Gatos, CA USA)
So many historians treat history like a cadaver, it's dead, dead, dead. By Dr. Goldsworthy revives the patient and treats us to stories about our past that are relevant, alive and well. I thoroughly enjoyed having his as a guest on my show and I can't wait until his novel comes out! For those of you suffering from historical post-traumatic stress disorder Dr. Goldsworthy's book will cure what ails you. Carpe Diem!
Excellent history October 4, 2009
Saul Rosenthal (San Antonio Tx)
The author does a great job in describing a government falling in on itself, as each Emperor lived in constant threat of assassination, constantly purged his officers, and felt it was much more important to prevent rebellions than guard the frontiers. There were almost constant civil wars, and each time troops were pulled off the frontiers to fight. Almost no Emperors died of natural causes. almost all were assassinated or killed in battle against usurpers. In fact many lasted only months and the average was only a couple of years or so. If someone lasted 10 years he was practically setting records. When each was replaced, the new, victorious usurper killed many of the old administrators as loyal to the old Emperor. You can imagine what effect this had on moral and consistency. Officials came in with the idea of making as much money as fast as possible, and few cared at all about good governing. It seems fairly evident after reading the book that this was the cause of the fall, rather than any overwhelming power destroying the Empire. The powers that existed at the time of the fall would have been crushed by the early Empire.
My only complaint, and it's a small one, is that the author must have written the chapters separately instead of sequentially, so that he frequently repeats in one chapter what he had stated in a different context in another. Perhaps it was intentional as he felt it was important in both contexts, but it was occasionally off-putting.
Good book--but it could have been great. September 21, 2009
Cato
2 out of 2 found this review helpful
I want to start off by noting that any book dealing with the fall of the Roman Empire will be unsatisfactory to some because an author has only two choices: 1) cram as much info into a set amount of space to make the book marketable or 2) publish an academic treatise. In this regard, any commercial work on the subject will not be fully complete.
Operating within these confines, this is a good book. To answer another commentator, this book is intended for the serious amateur or armchair historian and provides a great narrative of the last centuries of the glory that was Rome and a convincing explanation for the primary cause of its collapse. This book is also clearly meant to refute Peter Heather's work, which claims that Rome fell not because of internal weakness, but because of the superiority of newly formed barbarian supergroups.
What I find fascinating is that both authors use the same evidence to reach drastically different conclusions. For instance, a cache of weapons found in a lake in Northern Europe is used by Heather to demonstrate that the Germanic tribes had achieved a new level of sophistication and material wealth, as well as weapons equal to that of Rome. Goldsworthy uses the same find to conclude that only the top echelon of Germanic tribes had access to such weapons.
Although I believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle, I believe Goldsworthy has the better argument. Although I do not find Goldworthy's assessment that the Germanic tribes were no different than those facing Caesar to be persuasive (on this point Heather wins), at the same time I cannot accept Heather's conclusion that Rome post-3rd century crises was as vibrant and stable as before.
Here is where Goldsworthy really shines. To me, it seems a matter of common sense that the main contributing factor to the demise of the Roman Empire was the almost constant civil wars from the beginning of the third century. Almost everything else--debased currency, changed social order, new religious beliefs--all flows from the fact that beginning in the 3rd century, the Roman Empire was operated essentially as a logistics base for the army. The wealth of Rome was based on looting and demolishing of other societies and civilizations. Once Rome stopped expanding, the wealth stopped coming in and the enemies of Rome were no longer worth conquering. However, the army still needs to be paid, and the generals still needed to find glory.
As such, Rome went from conquering other peoples to conquering itself. Unlike past civil wars, these conflicts were not about ideology or social issues--the were purely about money and power. Whereas the troops in Caesar's time were fighting for land grants and citizenship, by the time of Diocletian, citizenship was universal, money was worthless, and land ownership on a small scale was cost-prohibitive due to high taxation. In every civil war more and more Roman troops were killed, more cities were looted, more land was devastated, more "ordinary" people began to see the imperial power as oppressive and turned to new religion. The coinage was debased because emperors needed to pay (bribe) the troops to pay for wars against contenders for the throne; the senatorial order was destroyed to prevent usurpations; resources previously used to build civic monuments and facilities were instead used to build walls and fortify cities; the middle class was destroyed by oppressive taxation, etc. In the end all of Roman society was reorganized for a singular purpose: to provide resources for emperors to fight each other.
Here is where Goldsworthy could have offered more detail and analysis and really thrown a knock-out punch so-to-speak. However, the narrative takes up so much space, that there is little time left for analysis and empirical study. Also, while Goldsworthy should be praised for indicating areas where the historical and archeological records are incomplete (or not known at all), I would have liked Goldsworthy to attempt to fill-in-the blanks using available sources and logical deduction.
However, Goldsworthy's thesis is ultimately sound: For three centuries emperors and so-called usurpers fought over the same pie of resources. After each civil war the pie got smaller and smaller and yet the fighting continued. "Barbarians" were only dealt with once the new Augustus had secured his place (usually by wiping out a significant portion of Rome's available manpower). Eventually, Rome became too weak fighting itself to fight others.
I give this book four stars instead of five because Goldsworthy should have shortened the narrative and expanded his discussion and analysis of the real economic and social effects of constant civil warfare. Also, the "modern analysis" at the end was quite unnecessary and felt like a scrap thrown to the table to appease fellow academics.
What I would really like to see is a book that combines Goldsworthy's narrative and thesis with an economic and sociological analysis of the effects of the three centuries of constant warfare both internally and how this affected Rome's foreign policy. Maybe Goldsworthy, Heather and Brian Ward-Perkins can team up to write such a book.
Long story short (too late, I know)--this is a good book that provides a compelling narrative, but falls short of greatness.
 Does not deliver even 1% September 15, 2009
Peter R. Dinella (North Granby, CT)
4 out of 21 found this review helpful
I simply cannot believe how bad this book is. The reviewers that gave it a 1 star were right on.
After reading 150 pages I gave up. I skipped to the last two chapters hoping it would offer some information about why Rome fell, but those chapters were vague and indecisive.
So, the book is 424 pages long filled with boring information about this guy killing that guy, which barbarians raided Italy, etc., etc., etc. The last two chapters were 20 pages long and did make some academic statements like: "In spite of its propaganda, no empire-or, for that matter, superpower-is guaranteed its supremacy. This is as true for modern America as it was of Rome." Duh! And Duh again.
Man, what a hot bit of information found on page 422. Goldsworthy really put his neck on the line with that bold statement.
I am going to donate this book to the local library for their annual sale. The title and the front cover will have some poor person offer up $1.50 for it, so I guess it will do someone some good.
Yale University Press should be ashamed of themselves.
good stuff September 14, 2009
D. Carlton (Austin, Texas USA)
0 out of 2 found this review helpful
We know that we can't predict the future, but it is news that it is difficult to predict the past as well. History keeps changing. Who knew? This book is not your grandfather's history. History gets better and better with more archeology and less cultural prejudice. For some reason, the fall of Rome is hot right now. Is it because everyone draws a parallel to current US history?
Showing reviews 1-5 of 27
|
|
|
|
Return to Math.com | |
