\'The Fall of the Roman Empire : A New History of Rome &

[Robert Vermaat]

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!

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.

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.

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]