Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
\'The Fall of the Roman Empire : A New History of Rome &
#1
[amazon]'The Fall of the Roman Empire : A New History of Rome & the Barbarians' by Peter Heather[/amazon].

I'm about a third of the way through this book and it's one of the very best I've ever bought. Using literary and the latest archeological evidence unearthed, Heather debunks many of the popular notions about the Late Empire traditionally held by scholars since Gibbon's day. He convincingly shows that the Empire in the 4th and 5th centuries was not on the brink of any "moral", "social" , or economic, collapse.

A very insightful read Big Grin . And a great buy for anyone who's interested in the Late Empire and/or the fall of Rome.

Peter Heather is often seen on the History Channel. He's currently teaching at Worchester College, University of Oxford.
Jaime
Reply
#2
There's a review here: [url:3a5c1jju]http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2005/2005-07-69.html[/url]. I have not read the book yet (it's on the wish list) but the reviewer, James O' Donnell, usually knows very well what he's talking about.
Jona Lendering
Relevance is the enemy of history
My website
Reply
#3
Quote:The main lines of difference between the New and the New-Old are straightforward. The Reformers speak more often of the eastern empire than of the western, show more interest in religious and cultural history than other streams, speak of rises rather than falls, and are at home in dialogue with similar strains of interpretation in other humanistic disciplines. The Counters focus their attention on the western empire, prefer military and political history to religious, have an Eeyore-like preoccupation with declines and falls, and are in the main untouched by "theory" and other broader academic projects.

Gee, I think I belong in both camps. Is that permissible :?: Big Grin roll: )

Quote:Heather insists that the exogenous causes are of the greatest importance, minimizing blame for overtaxation, moral decay, or religious zealotry.

Yeah, that's the gist of the book.

The first part is the main thrust of his thesis, but the latter part is what interests me more.

What I like is Heather's abillity to cite all the new evidence to back up his conclusions which run against the (old)grain. For example, in Syria there was an archeological find which showed that agriculture in the 4th century was experiencing a boom and not a decline contrary to long held beliefs based on mere quotes taken out of context from the literary sources. Heather says that "overtaxation" has been greatly exagerrated and cites recorded complaints of taxation from the Early Empire showing that this was nothing new (much less a basis to purport the existence of crippling taxes).

Well, like I said, I'm not done with the book so I can't site anything else at the moment.

Quote:One aspect of the book was seriously off-putting to this reader, but may be less so for others: the flippant lecture-platform style.

Too vulgar for his sensibilities. So what :?: :roll:
Jaime
Reply
#4
Well the review got me interested and in particular I'll read Heather with some positive prejudice. My feelings about "The Fall" are mixed, but I, while hoping to not start a heated debate, do feel the pro-barbarian pendulum did maybe swing a tad too far. I welcome a romano-centric work.
Jeffery Wyss
"Si vos es non secui of solutio tunc vos es secui of preciptate."
Reply
#5
I'm also interested in purchasing the book and it's good to see it discussed here.

So would you people agree that the decline of the Imperial City was due to the barbarians?
Reply
#6
I have read several books by Heather and was not as impressed as others with his perceptions. He writes with confidence about the Goths and their history when in fact much of it is based on dubious primary sources such as Jordanes. The best source for the conflict between Stilicho and Alaric is the poetry of Claudianus, which is hardly the most ideal source for historical fact.

One problem is that "experts" become much more convincing in front of the TV camera. They limit the use of possible, likely, probable and other words which come across as weak.

The Fifth Century was a time of internal crisis for both halves of the Roman empire. The eastern half weathered the storms and emerged intact. The western half did not. It can therefore be argued that the situation could have been the reverse. One advantage of the eastern half was the ability to encourage the various barbarian to migrate westward. Those groups that did not were assimilated. In the west, those that called themselves emperor had a tough time imposing their will and were rapidly replaced in the last few decades. It was a mere 20 years between the end of the Theodosian Dynasty in 455 to the fall in 476.

Odoacer acknowledged the eastern emperor as his superior so it can be argued that there was a de jure ruler of a united empire. Historians do not accept this as a reality or at least a plausible scenario. The wars of Justinian and later emperors do suggest that the east still believed it had legitimate claims to the western provinces.
Reply
#7
Well I finished Heathers' "Fall..." and I must say I an impressed. Certainly impressed by the courage to try an overall picture. I had been for years hoping someone take up that challenge after decades of specialists saying interesting and surprising things but shying away from grand pictures. I always suspected these undoubtedly useful near-sighted specialists were just following, it not an ideology, a fashion. That modern historians did not do such outdated things as imagine grand pictures seemed to me like a smoke screen, an alibi, conjured up to hide their impotence or lack of courage.

I am enthusiastic of Heather's book and strongly suggest anyone interested in Rome read it. I learned, re-learned and un-learned many things reading Heather's book and wish to know more. So I will read specialists, recognizing their fundamental role. Found description of the down spiral leading to fall of africa to vandals and tragic failure to recapture it very drammatic. Was anguished! Always felt that eastern half had responsibilities in fall of west but now Heather convinced me otherwise. I am skeptical of some points (like over stressed role of super-composite hun bow).

Frankly Heather's closing remarks let me down a bit. Basically he says the roman empire fell because its huge power inevitably made the weak neighbors evolve, regroup to be able resist roman power and then actually challenge it. Basically he says empires fall because outsiders want in or they will resist and then fight back. It sounds kind of obvious to me. I didn't learn anything new from the concluding remarks. Maybe I just saw to many hollywood movies!
Jeffery Wyss
"Si vos es non secui of solutio tunc vos es secui of preciptate."
Reply
#8
Quote: Well I finished Heathers' "Fall..." and I must say I an impressed. Certainly impressed by the courage to try an overall picture.
I have not read it, but I surely will have to! Big Grin

Quote:Always felt that eastern half had responsibilities in fall of west but now Heather convinced me otherwise.
Does that mean Heather Says that the East no responcibility at all? If so, I don't buy that for a second! The East was happy enough to goad Alaric to attack the West. From the late 4th c. onwards, both East and West were basically embroiled in some sort of 'Cold War', at times in full war, at times in cold peace, at times helping each other.

Quote: Was anguished! I am skeptical of some points (like over stressed role of super-composite hun bow).
I agree with you. Some writers in the past assumed the Goths had stirrups and believed that made them superior somehow.

Quote: Basically he says the roman empire fell because its huge power inevitably made the weak neighbors evolve, regroup to be able resist roman power and then actually challenge it. Basically he says empires fall because outsiders want in or they will resist and then fight back. It sounds kind of obvious to me. I didn't learn anything new from the concluding remarks. Maybe I just saw to many hollywood movies!
Well, he is not wrong, this certainly played a part. But add the that (point one) the inability of the Romans to create a stable succession sytem, resulting ner-ending civil succession wars or (next-to) despotic rulers, all-anxious to remain in power.
The army received too much power as king-makers, we see that the curbing of this power played a part in the survival of the East.
Economics sure play a role, climate too, but so far I'm not convinced if things would have been as bad had these civil wars not wrecked the Emipre.

Barbarians never challenged Rome enough to bring it down. But the ever-increasing army and falling Roman recruit numbers made it neccessary to hire the barbarians, ever again and in ever increasing numbers. Small wonder their role increased and became institutional, up to the point where they did no longer need the Romans. To me, the moment when Gundovald rather returns home to Burgunday to secure his throne (474 AD), instead of becoming the main Man (Patricius) in Rome, signifies the end of the Western Roman Empire, rather than the moment Romulus is sent home to his mum (476 AD).[/quote]
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Syvanne\'s \"Military History of Late Rome 284-361\" Nathan Ross 22 12,660 11-18-2015, 07:30 AM
Last Post: Virilis
  Book on History Of Rome Narukami 5 2,388 12-28-2012, 03:49 AM
Last Post: ANTONIVS MAGNVS
  Greg Woolf - Rome: An Empire\'s Story Epictetus 6 2,640 09-22-2012, 10:05 AM
Last Post: Epictetus

Forum Jump: