The Fall of the Roman Empire: A Reappraisal

by Michael Grant

Book Overview

No Synopsis Available.

• Format: Hardcover
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0517524481
• ISBN13: 9780517524480
• Release Date: January 1976
• Publisher: Annenberg School Press
• Length: 336 Pages
• Weight: 2.65 lbs.

Customer Reviews

Highly Readable And Informative

Ancient history re-examined with contemporary sophistication. Writing is brisk and content is entertaining. Probably be a keeper in my ever shrinking personal library (moving some studies to online).

It couldn't last for ever, could it?

The fall of the Western Roman empire was one of the most significant transformations throughout the whole of human history. A hundred years before it happened, Rome was an immense power, defended by an all-conquering army. A hundred years later the power and the army had vanished. Michael Grant identifies thirteen effects which he sees as being responsible for the fall of the Roman empire. These flaws within the society of ancient Rome set Romans against Romans, dividing the nation and thereby destroying its ability to resist invasion. Michael Grant explores the past with clarity and depth, and brings a fresh light to this endlessly intriguing subject.

Excellent summary of a complex subject

The author is a schollar with a long list of published works on classical civilization, and this title didn't disappoint the reader. As a thematic overview of the subject at hand its absolutely excellent, in 13 chapters explaining each of the main reasons that weakened and finally ended with the western Roman empire (forgetting silly theories or folklore). The internal divisions and the idea that it wasn't worth defending the empire in its various battles (not only physical,but also social, theological and intelectual) is the main theme of this work. Obviously it was the "barbarian invasions" that led to political change, but these barbarians originally worked for Rome! And in the past the Empire had survived several invasions of similar magnitude. The numbers of troops were misleading, and mostly poorly armed and motivated "limitanei", the impressive number of exemptions from military service overloaded the nonimmune classes, encouraging owners to "give" to the army the most useless workers , etc. Economically the oppressive tax system was based on land; the small owners bearing almost the entire tax burden, eventually putting themselfes at the service of large landowners (the beginnings of feudalism), also a lot of isentions led to the breakdown of the system. The rich Senators, removed from the military commands and certain positions, moved away from the management of the state, concerning themselves only about their personal properties. Incredibly the state also has divested the small urban middle class Curiale, forcing it to assume the roles of management and collection of taxes, subjecting them to absurd laws that included corporal punishment! The imperial bureaucracy was impressive with real armies of rogue officials and laws of dubious usefulness, causing the entire population to unite against these bureaucrats. The exaggeration of pomp, ceremony, courtesans intrigue and limited access to the sacred person of the emperor, kept him not only far from the eyes of its people, but also from their hearts. Also of note its the failure of alliance between East and West (the help was always minimal). Racial differences and prejudices of the Germans, who at the end of the empire were the main protectors and soldiers of the empire, the lack of tolerance, integration, respect of their religion and a common sense of purpose led to the failure of the foedus experience (federated allies). At a time of such great need of human resources for the army and tilling the land, the huge number of elements that become monks, completely dependent of other citizens, led to a worsening of the circumstances. Intolerance in religious matters and in disputes between Catholics and Aryans (among other heresies such as the donatists in Gaul) and between Christians and Pagans, has led to another huge division in society; especially when thinkers such as St. Augustine began to promote "forced" conversions. Matters of culture and ways of thinking also influenced th

a book with lessons for our own day

Grant gives a new perspective about the last century of the (western) Roman Empire. When the average layman thinks of the fall of the Roman Empire, he (or she) thinks of the Rome of the early Caesars: a libertarian, libertine kind of place, full of fun and debauchery. But Grant convincingly shows that late Rome suffered not from decadence but from puritanism, not from too much liberty but from crushing taxes. Late Rome was more like Soviet Russia than like America today: a place suffering from too much government in every sphere of life, from Christian intolerance ...to bureaucratic overregulation of the economy. The perfect gift for your libertarian friends!

Good read for a beginner, but to limited for much else.

There are many books disecting and explaining the Roman Empire's rise and fall, and many of them may indeed be more detailed than "The Fall of the Roman Empire" by Michael Grant, but none capture the actions of that age and explain it in such a manner that it is comprehensible to someone without a Harvard degree. Mr. Grant writes in a methodical and clear way that keeps the reader interested and excited. He divides his book in to thirteen chapters, each one describing thirteen points that led to the empire's downfall. He addresses issues not only of military importance, but that of the internal and social struggles, such as the slaves, peasants, generals and nobles. He also includes a series of maps one what the empire looked like at various times throughout its decline. The contents of the book are reason enough to buy it, but the introduction is a general overview of the entire empire, and is very well done. That's the positive side. However, I don't think he was quite detailed enough! I realize that the entire book was intended to be a general run over, but some areas he glazed over, and others he ignored completly. For example, he explained the Weastern Empire in depth, but almost completly ignored the Eastern. He only refered to it when it affected the other. The only other nuance I disliked was that every so often he would contradict himself, like in referece to the social impact of the poor against the state being the most important of the internal struggles that brought down the fall, while he later says the credibility gap was the cause of the decline. After weighing the pros against the cons, I believe this is a very worthwhile book to read if you are just begining a study of that era.