|
| 
 enlarge | Author: Peter Heather
Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA
Category: Book
List Price: $19.95
Buy New: $10.23
You Save: $9.72 (49%)
New (27) Used (15) from $9.44
Rating:  42 reviews
Sales Rank: 16581
Media: Paperback
Pages: 576
Number Of Items: 1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1.9
Dimensions (in): 9 x 5.9 x 1.5
ISBN: 0195325419
Dewey Decimal Number: 937
EAN: 9780195325416
ASIN: 0195325419
Publication Date: June 11, 2007
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Shipping: International shipping available
Condition: Brand new item. Over 3.5 million customers served. Order now. Selling online since 1995. Order with confidence. Code: A20081204114439W
|
| Customer Reviews:
 Changes views of the ancient world, is hugely readable. January 22, 2008
Patrick McCormack (New Brighton, MN USA)
This book is accessible, written in a conversational style, and the narrative moves crisply. The author creates a new view of the end days of Rome. br / br /The research is up to date, weaving modern archaeology and new translations of barbarian writers to update our view of what a "barbarian" is... br / br /The result is a sharp, to the point new view of how Rome ended its power... The rise of technologies among nearby peoples gave Rome technological competitors, able to create war and generate surpluses. The Hunns pushed the Goths out of central Europe and into the Western Empire in the years 375 - 420, just when the Goths had military might sufficient to challenge the Empire. br / br /The Western Empire lacked a stable political system, a reserve military force, fast communications and large surpluses. The scope of the Empire worked against its ability to be nimble. Political factions whose wealth was based on land had an incentive to support new groups of "barbarians" over established Roman power centers. br / br /Still, Rome was strong. Rome had a slow ability to work back into powerful positions, only to be swamped by wave after wave of sophisticated attackers. The author builds a view of Rome the unresilient... br / br /This book gives one pause. Perhaps the so-called decline and fall of Rome was less of a decline, and more of a systemic inevitability. As a layered view of the fall of Rome is delivered, analogies to the West today fade... Rome fell in the end, perhaps, because Rome grew too big to survive. Maybe it was not the moral decline of Rome that killed it, maybe it was the unsustainable scope and successes of Rome, that over-extended it and tilted it off balance. br / br /This book is a wonderful book to read, and the writer captures many small vignettes that illuminate, layering these with his judgments, to show a Rome suffering a systems collapse. Along the way, casually and in an off-hand manner, the author teaches more about the Roman Empire than dozens of other books. This is a must-have...
Interested Newcomer December 25, 2007
David A. Storm (Houston, Texas United States)
1 out of 2 found this review helpful
I really loved this book. I was suspicious at first. I usually don't like "new history" or "revisionist history" per se, but the author's interpretation of the events and relationships between the romans and barbarians is so clear and compelling, that I feel I now have the beginnings of an understanding of this interesting period. Professor Heather certainly knows his stuff, and is a most entertaining writer. He gives you the feeling that you are there, a first hand witness. There are so many statements that I have read by other authors, and puzzled over, that are analyzed and put in an understandable context. I must admit however that I am not completely convinced by his treatment of the religious, economic and cultural factors. He raises the question: Why didn't the romans get more roman soldiers to fight the barbarians? I wasn't convinced by his answer, but I liked his analysis.
Good Scholarship: Solid Empirically Backed Arguments November 10, 2007
R. J Szasz (Tokyo, Japan Japan)
0 out of 2 found this review helpful
If I were ever to think about taking a course in Roman History, this is the man I would want to take a course from. Heather knows his stuff and marshalls his arguments in a way that is both pleasing and devoid of ideological content (about as far away from the axe-grinding methods of Victor Davis Hanson as one can imagine). Refreshing...!!! br / br /There is too much to get into here, but let me mention something about the style of Heather. Heather's advances some novel arguments about the fall of the empire. Some such that the barbarians essentially became "more like the Romans" are counter-intuitive. Also the notion that many aspects of the empire were essentially uncorrupted.. or rather neither more corrupted nor less corrupted than Rome at its hieght, also strikes one as unusual if you were raised on Gibbon, Plutarch, Tacitus or Livy. Gone is the notion of internal decay and decadence... that is at first a hard notion to get ones mind around, but Heather does this beautifully. br / br /1) He is tremendously empirical in his approach. He cites modern archeological records, recently discovered medieval texts written on recycled roman records. Recently excavated Roman garbage and personal letters. These he skillfully interweaves with the general empirical records, tax incomes, statements of army strength. br / br /2) He then also puts his strong historical insight to put the pieces together in historical time-line. Too many times historians are too immersed in details of history to check where they fit in the historical time line. Heather will take a general statement; then he will analyse the tax record and army strength to see if such an event or statement is buttressed by the historical record of the exact time. He is aware the different rulers and political crisis necessitated different responses to the barbarian threat. That the tax revenue in one decade may be radically different from that of another decade. Gone are manay of the generalisations of Roman culture and method of war that we have grown used to. br / br /3) This is not really a military history. Campaigns are analysed almost year by year, battles noted and the impact of battles on peoples and government properly related. But the real emphasis is upon motivation of peoples and leaders. From Attila to the Vandals, their motivations may appear less clear than we assume: they are not merely maurauding barbarians intent on closing on Rome and sacking her, but rather allies, potential Roman citizens and warriors, and also Roman Emperors in waiting. br / br /All of this is a far cry from the traditional interpretation of Rome collapsing as a result of internal decay. But Heather is not saying that Barbarians became Romans in all ways. He is saying that they became Roman enough to eventually subdue her, but not Roman enough to carry on the Empire -- they never developed the internal political and societal culture to stop their empires from atomising into historical nothingness, as witnessed by the swift dissipation of the Hunnic Empire upon the death of Attila. br / br /Heather has good prose style and keeps a good pace while all the time ploughing new ground in historical scholarship.
 Comprehensive and well written November 6, 2007
A. D. Levy (New York)
2 out of 2 found this review helpful
This is a great book. It is well researched and reads like the best of narrative history. The Roman world from 376-476 is described and interpreted in a fascinating way that argues the external forces (Goths, Huns) were the catalyst for the dissolution of the Roman Empire (not internal decay). The first third of the book is a bit sluggish and not really narrative history but more of a context-setting section. If you can get through that, the second two thirds are five star.
Why the Western Roman Empire collapsed September 30, 2007
Craig MACKINNON (Thunder Bay, Ontario Canada)
4 out of 5 found this review helpful
Many causes have been given for the fall of the Roman Empire. Some speculate that the increasing wealth of Roman citizens caused economic and military senescence. Other claim the introduction of Christianity softened the military edge of Roman leaders. Even the presence of lead in the water supply (from the pipes) has been blamed. Often these conclusions were based on historical bias (naturally, a Marxist-leaning historian would look to economic causes) or lack of proper information (only recently has it been archaeologically proven that Roman farm output did not decline over the course of the 5th century). Exacerbating the problem is the fact that most of the records of the Roman Empire have been destroyed over the years, and records from outside the Western Empire are non-existent due to the illiteracy of the Germanic and other "barbarian" peoples. br / br /Author Peter Heather is an historian and expert on the late Western Empire and its Germanic and Hunnic neighbours. Using the latest archaeological discoveries, and sifting through original papers and classic histories (e.g. Gibbons), he brings us this new and eminently readable treatise on the fall of the Western Empire over the course of one hundred years from 376 (when two Gothic tribes arrive on the Imperial frontier demanding asylum) to the deposition of the last Western emporer (476). In that time, he builds a convincing argument that the Barbarian invasions over those 100 years were directly responsible for the fall of Rome. That this is the most obvious explanation based on the historical record does not diminish his thesis, as he successfully demolishes the more esoteric "deeper" arguments of his predescessor historians (such as Gibbon, who pointed to Christianity as the cause). br / br /Thus: At a time when the Persian Empire was rejuvenated as a united political entity (and thus pressuring the Eastern Empire as a rival superpower), the Huns invaded the lands of eastern Europe, displacing the Goths and others westward into the lands of the Romans. Over the course of the previous 300 years, diplomatic interference in the Germani's internal affairs, periodic punitive expeditions, and especially trade had transformed their cultures to a point where they were able to coalesce into supergroups (Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Vandals) capable of directly challenging Roman military forces. As they carved out niches for themselves (Vandals in Africa, Visigoths in Gaul/Spain, etc.), the losses in tax revenues sapped the strength of the military (unable to pay for soldiers). Thus, when Attila himself appeared, the Roman military was already in a downward spiral. Basically, the loss of tax income caused by wave after wave of Barbarian invasion (ultimately fueled by Hunnic expansion) crippled Rome's ability to field enough military strength to preserve the Empire. br / br /Such an analysis could be dry and academic, but Heather brings the book to life with vivid portraits of everyone from the smallest Imperial usurpers to Attila the Hun. He even instills sly humour (he describes an experiment with his 11-year-old son on how long it would take to shout the obligatory acclamations to the Emporer in the Senate) and deliberate anachronisms (comparing one archaeologist to Indiana Jones) to bring variety to the narrative. There is also an ample supply of maps and some pictures. Thus, it's an entertaining book to read. Unfortunately, it lasts a bit too long for my tastes, and becomes a little repetitive, thus robbing it of a 5th star. Still, recommended for anyone interested in the latest thoughts on the demise of the Western Roman Empire.
|
|
|
Powered by Associate-O-Matic
| |
