02-27-2013, 10:40 PM
Part of my fascination with the late period is that so much is unknown. Part of it is intellectual curiosity about how a complex civilization deteriorates.
Goldworthy's book is one of my favorites. I also really enjoy Ian Hughes' work on Aetius and Stilicho, as well as Brian Ward Perkins' work
Another part of my draw was my desire for independent research to counter what I saw as the indoctrination of my collegiate history professor, who was hooked on the "there was no fall" theory.
In my worthless view, I have come to the conclusion that Goldsworthy is right...that the deciding factor in the West was the constant civil wars, depletion of the army, and corresponding loss of tax base. Hughes does a really nice job of pointing out how the losses due to Theodisius' 2 civil wars had the same effect on the western army as the loss at adrianople had on the eastern army. Theodisius IMHO, did more to weaken the west than any other emperor. So many people ignore the loss of human capital involved in Rome's civil wars....
As I wrote in one of my reviews on amazon, the story of the fall of the west is the story of the western empire eating itself over and over and the "barbarians" picking up the pieces. That is not to say I discount Heather. I think he makes excellent points concerning the sophistication of the goths by this time....I just vehemently disagree with his "everything was hunky dory in rome in the 4th century" theory.
I am also fascinated or appalled by the fact that the West could have remained a political entity had its leaders not been so selfish & shortsighted...then again, human nature is what it is (people will always chose short term gain over short term loss for future gain).
Goldworthy's book is one of my favorites. I also really enjoy Ian Hughes' work on Aetius and Stilicho, as well as Brian Ward Perkins' work
Another part of my draw was my desire for independent research to counter what I saw as the indoctrination of my collegiate history professor, who was hooked on the "there was no fall" theory.
In my worthless view, I have come to the conclusion that Goldsworthy is right...that the deciding factor in the West was the constant civil wars, depletion of the army, and corresponding loss of tax base. Hughes does a really nice job of pointing out how the losses due to Theodisius' 2 civil wars had the same effect on the western army as the loss at adrianople had on the eastern army. Theodisius IMHO, did more to weaken the west than any other emperor. So many people ignore the loss of human capital involved in Rome's civil wars....
As I wrote in one of my reviews on amazon, the story of the fall of the west is the story of the western empire eating itself over and over and the "barbarians" picking up the pieces. That is not to say I discount Heather. I think he makes excellent points concerning the sophistication of the goths by this time....I just vehemently disagree with his "everything was hunky dory in rome in the 4th century" theory.
I am also fascinated or appalled by the fact that the West could have remained a political entity had its leaders not been so selfish & shortsighted...then again, human nature is what it is (people will always chose short term gain over short term loss for future gain).
There are some who call me ......... Tim?
