New Book from Adrian Goldsworthy: How Rome Fell

[Epictetus]

That rather outdated view of 'land-hungry tribes, pushing across the borders, threatening an endangered West'. I don't think that the Germans were more (or less) aggressive than any other enemy of Rome.

Yes, I agree. I quoted that sentence out of context just to illustrate his writing style, but he was speaking of earlier times when there were more raids and less land-grabbing. He points out that once some raids had success, this encouraged more and more raiders. So I think that his point is that they did not become more aggressive, but they were opportunistic. As Rome weakened and the percentage of successful raids increased, this encouraged more attacks. Think of it like a gambler who has a lucky streak going and decides to keep gambling instead of taking a break.

I agree that this was a problem, but that was more due to the corruption and other signs of an incompetent system than to the sheer size of it I think.

I suppose his point is that inefficiency and corruption increased with size. As an example he gives a case in Africa where a citizen got fleeced by an official and had to go through multiple layers of bureaucracy before reaching the honest emperor with his petition. Crooks along the way derailed his complaint and the victim was executed for bringing a “false” charge. Later it was revealed that the victim had been right all along, but of course it was too late for him. With a smaller bureaucracy it would have been easier to reach the emperor.

What was an emperor to do if not deal with the usurper?

True, but let me quote something from the book:

[Stilicho] was promptly executed, once again ordering his men not to protect him. His end was dignified, especially since it was rare for a senior Roman commander to accept death rather than take the chance of fighting a civil war. Perhaps he realised that he had been utterly outmanoeuvred and that his own position was now too weak for him to have any prospect of winning a struggle with Honorius. However, it is hard not to want to believe that he put the good of the empire before his own fate. It may even be true.

I suppose the idea of “dying for your country” seems a bit odd to us in this context, as he was not fighting a foreign foe. Regardless, Goldsworthy is clearly captivated by the idea and seems to admire Stilicho for not putting the Empire through another civil war in order to save his own skin. I think that he is implying that the same concept should apply to an emperor: sometimes it is best for everyone involved to fall on your sword instead of putting the Empire through a civil war.

I suppose he thinks that foreign foes should be dealt with first. He also semi-praises the break-away Gallic Empire and Zenobia’s Palmyrene Empire when they dealt with external foes instead of trying to march on Rome.

By the way, here is another thing I forgot to mention: Goldsworthy follows that newer idea of having one footnote for every paragraph and there listing all his sources. I have a habit of looking at other sources mentioned in footnotes when I read something, but this can be problematic in this format. A long paragraph may have 10 different sources in the footnote. Sometimes help is given for specific sections, but other times you are left to sift through each and every source to find which one you are looking for. It is rather frustrating.