Product Description

The Fall of the Roman Empire has been a best-selling subject since the 18th century. Since then over 200 discrete reasons have been advanced for the collapse of the western half of the Roman empire. Until very recently, the academic view downplayed the death and destruction, to spin a positive story of the 'world of late antiquity'. Barbarian invasions are described in neutral language: the movement of peoples. It is all painfully 'politically correct'. 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 beginning to end, he rescues the era from the mealy-mouthed and diffident: this is a red-blooded account of barbarian invasions, palace coups, scheming courtiers and corrupt emperors who set the gold standard for dissipation. It is 'old fashioned history' in the best sense: an accessible narrative with colourful characters whose story reveals the true reasons for the fall of Rome.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #22416 in Books
• Published on: 2009-02-26
• Original language: English
• Binding: Hardcover
• 560 pages

Review
"the implication of of Goldworthy's book is that we are now living in a modern version of a late-Roman world - and one about to collapse." (MARY BEARD, SUNDAY TIMES )

"Goldsworthy ponders why Rome eventually fell and points to the increasing and obsessive bureaucratisation of the government, the self-interest of political leaders and the target-oriented culture of the state." (THES )

"Both as a narrative history of the western empire's last years and as an analysis of events this book is an invaluable read for anyone interested in later Roman History." (Philip Matyszak www.unrv.com )

About the Author
Adrian Goldsworthy has a doctorate from Oxford University. His first book, The Roman Army at War was recognised by John Keegan, the general Editor of The History of Warfare, as an exceptionally impressive work, original in treatment and impressive in style. His other books include The Punic Wars, and the volume on Roman Warfare in John Keegan's Cassell History of Warfare series. He has lectured on Roman history in both the UK and USA.

Customer Reviews

Excellent - but mistitled!
I take issue with and agree with some of the other reviews in about equal measure. I agree with a previous reviewer that calling this book the Fall of the West is somewhat misleading - and I suspect that the editors are to blame for this, because when one reads Goldsworthy's introduction is is quite clear that he is not purporting to cover just the fall of the West (likewise misleading - as a second reviewer notes - is the title's reference to "superpower", inviting a parallel with the US which the introduction expressly disavows). The point re "Fall of the West" links with a third reviewer's comment: "Why not just read Peter Heather?". Again the answer is to be found in the introduction - and actually again and again throughout the text - Heather starts later and really does deal with the fall per se; what Goldsworthy is aiming to do is something quite different. Indeed this book is in part designed as a riposte to Heather who starts his story in 376 and posits as his starting point a strong Empire which falls from that date. Goldsworthy's central point (which I think he makes very well indeed) is that the academic retreat from the picture given by Gibbon of a long decline predating the fall of the Roman Empire has been overdone. Yes, the Empire was strong in the C4 compared to most of the individual threats, but it was not the same empire that it had been 2 centuries earlier (and in fact if it had been a number of those threats might not have emerged). So if (like me) you read Heather and thought "Oh, so Gibbon was all wrong then?", do read this!!
Goldsworthy of course really is a military historian, and his strength in making his point lies in the military assessments - from the changes in locations and types of towns (from fortified pre Rome, to open in the apogee back to fortified as the decline progresses- through the organisation of the forces, the assessment of individual battles and what one can infer from the results, and indeed the troop deployments; through to (my personal favourite) his rubbishing of the paper strength of the Roman army in the "Notitia Dignitatum" - which is rounded off with a devastating parallel to Hitler's notional divisions towards the end of WWII.
As with previous books Goldsworthy really does write well - a very good engaging style, with no excessive stylistic tricks, and maintains a very strong narrative flow - which when one deals with the declining years of the Eastern and Western Empires is no mean feat!
It is not faultless however. Aside from the overbroad promise implied by the title, the linking passages (which are quasi Gibbon, quasi Norwich) are not really incisive, nor do they convey any real sense of analysis or commitment. It may be for this reason that the only howlers I have found are in the linking/chronological sections (NB readers - and if it is not too late editors of the paperback edn!) (1) the family tree of Valentinian/Theodosius is wrong: Theodosius II is the brother of Pulcheria and son of Arcadius (not the grandson of Galla Placidia!!) and (2) in the index the Eudoxia at p 293 is the mother of Theodosius II, and should not appear in the same entry as Eudoxia the wife of Theodosius II. (I know, I know, I should get a life!)

Disappointing
As a big fan of both Goldsworthy and Late Empire History I was looking forward to this. Sadly I should have saved my money. Goldsworthy hardly gets to the subject matter in hand till the last third of the book, the rest is unwanted padding. He should stick to what he knows best Republican Rome or Military History. Read Peter Heather if you want a real insight into this fascinating period. You will learn nothing new from Goldsworthy.

Good but not exactly what title suggests
I love all Goldsworthy previous books and even if this one is still etremely accurate and no less interesting I confess a bit dissapointed. Actually is more a history on late roman empire from Marcus Aurelius to Justinian than an overall view of the roman fall context. I missed deeper analysis and I found that the book focus too much on political history rather than social, economic, or military (which is even more strage considering who the author is). The title is confusing. I don't regret because I enjoyed a lot anyway, but I expected a different book, more personal and analytic. A good Goldsworsthy, but not the best, at least in my modest opinion.