New Book from Adrian Goldsworthy: How Rome Fell

[Robert Vermaat]

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 wonder whether he read that situation right. Was Stilicho so very self-sacrificing? His family also bore the brunt of his death and he might have tried saving them. We were not there and we can only rely on damning or flattering commentators. I doubt that Stilicho was such a very nice person, given some of his previous actions.
As to Goldsworthy, I do think that in this case he aims too high. Given human nature, self-presevation comes first to most of us, and it cannot be held as a treat of a dying empire.

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.

Here, I am positive that he did not read the situation right. The Gallic and Palmyrene 'empires' do not seem to have been interested in marching on Rome, but rather more in making the best situation for their own region. With that, i think they are rightly seen as precursors of what happened later in the West (especially), when control over Rme was seen as less desirable than control of your own region. The Palmyrenes weren't Romans to begin with, but the Gauls (the provinces) had clearly different ideas than earlier usurpers. And of course stable and safe borders were part of those ideas.

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.

Goldsworthy or his publisher perhaps?

How do you feel that Goldsworthy treats the question that should be asked with any theory about the fall of the West: why did the West fall and the East survive? He seems to mention a lot of things that would normally be the same for both parts of the empire.