Peter Heather\'s "Fall of the Roman Empire"

[Joe92500]

For my first post I would like to discuss Peter Heather's "The Fall of the Roman Empire". I found the book quite illuminating. It inspired me to author a science fiction novel about the collapse of an interstellar empire (which I've just recently submitted). Before I get into that I would like to hear other people's opinions about Heather's book and their views on the fall of the Western Roman Empire. If any of you are science fiction fans then you know that Asimov in his classic "Foundation" series favored Gibbons explanation for the collapse of the Western Roman Empire: decadence and the impact of Chritianity on Rome's warror spirit. I favor Heather's: overextension and Rome's influence on the Gemanic world, in affect Romanizing them, followed by the Hunnic pressure that forced the Germanic tribes westward. Any thoughts?

[markusaurelius]

I read his book and found it a great read as well. His view on the fall of the Roman Empire is intriguing and does pose some good arguments. If you consider the crisis of the 3rd Century, the Roman Empire was likely only one miss step away from falling then. If certain events had unfolded differently in the 5th Century, with some strong emperors, like Diocletian and Constantine in the early 4th Century, the Western Empire may very well have continued on for some time. One can play the "What if" came for some time

I'm just starting to read Jame O'Donnell's "The Ruin of the Roman Empire", in which he argues that the Ostrogothic rulers, were really just Romans to some degree, and maintained a status quo. It was in fact Justinian's invasion in the 6th Century that destroyed Italy, and bankrupt the Eastern empire, leaving the west to fall further into ruin, and leave the East struggling to make a comeback.

[Robert Vermaat]

I moved the thread to the proper section.

I liked Heather's book as well.

Markus, I can't quite agree with your view on the Ostrogothic rulers (though Theodoric would qualify). Though it certainly wasn't Justinian's policy that ruined Italy - it was his inability to send proper reinforcements that made the difference. Plus the lack of supreme authority of Belisarius (several generals ignored him). The conquest had been complete, but Belisarius was called away too soon, leaving inferior general unable to 'win the peace'. But that was hardly a policy.

[Goffredo]

The gothic war was devastating and weakened Italy so much that when the Longobards came there was almost no resistance.

Heather's book is a great read and have recommended successfully it to several friends.
Another book that I am reading is "The fall of Rome and the end of civilization" by Bryan Ward-Perkins (2005). Unlike Heathers' book that I read in four consecutive days (long week-end plus one), I started well enough the book of Ward-Perkins but then I lost steam, not because the book isn't interesting (else I wounldn't be reccommending it). I will certainly finish it before the summer vacation during which my list of books to read is for the moment at Beevor's book on D-Day, Yann Le Bohec's book "L'arme'e romaine sous le Bas-Empire" (italian translation), and "Aristote au Mont-Saint-Michel" (italian traslation) by Sylvain Gougenheim.

Has anyone read Yann Le Bohec's book?

[taira1180]

I have already read Yann Le Bohec's book and made a review in this forum. I wasn't much impressed because it's other book about the early empire is much better.

[markusaurelius]

Good points Robert, I was more referring to Theodoric than the other rulers. Justinian also certainly did not win a swift victory in Italy, which devastated the cities there, for a place that really was not "barbarian" as people imagine. The end results certainly were not favorable either. Clearly not being able to hold the peace so that Italy could rebuild was a failure. Perhaps a swifter win in Italy initially could have left some money and resources to properly defend what had been won.

[Robert Vermaat]

Perhaps a swifter win in Italy initially could have left some money and resources to properly defend what had been won.

No doubt about that. And Belisarius did achieve, initially, a relatively swift victory. But.
In the end I also think that it was the Plague that ruined things - without it, I think that proper reinforcements would have ended Gothic resistance within a year. Procopius for some reason does not mention it, so we are left guessing what influence the pandemic had on the Italian cities and countryside.

[Theodosius the Great]

Great point, Robert.

Too often people tend to see the reconquest of Italy in a vacuum, forgetting the effects of the great plague.

Besides, Italy and Africa were expected to be self-sufficient in paying for their own defence. The latter certainly was and even proved to be an excellent base for Heraclius to launch his bid for power. In Italy, too, many exarchs felt strong enough to break away from Constantinople or even declare themselves emperor.

~Theo

[Nicholas Gaukroger]

For my first post I would like to discuss Peter Heather's "The Fall of the Roman Empire". I found the book quite illuminating. It inspired me to author a science fiction novel about the collapse of an interstellar empire (which I've just recently submitted). Before I get into that I would like to hear other people's opinions about Heather's book and their views on the fall of the Western Roman Empire. If any of you are science fiction fans then you know that Asimov in his classic "Foundation" series favored Gibbons explanation for the collapse of the Western Roman Empire: decadence and the impact of Chritianity on Rome's warror spirit. I favor Heather's: overextension and Rome's influence on the Gemanic world, in affect Romanizing them, followed by the Hunnic pressure that forced the Germanic tribes westward. Any thoughts?

I prefer the arguments laid out in Guy Halsall's "Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West, 376-568" - as I have just noted in another post :lol: