Reddit Reddit reviews The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians

We found 17 Reddit comments about The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

History
Books
Ancient Civilizations
Ancient Roman History
The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians
Check price on Amazon

17 Reddit comments about The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians:

u/svatycyrilcesky · 12 pointsr/badhistory

My favorite combo is Rome and the Barbarians: 100 BC to 400 AD, which argues that Rome and the Barbarians slowly developed a sort of synergy or acculturation that gradually transitioned into a Roman-barbarian hybrid society by the 400s. This is contrasted with The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians, which argues that in the 400s there was a major shift in the balance of power that ultimately lead to aggressive barbarians invasions actively destroying the Western Empire. It's just interesting to me because whenever I read one of the books, I nod my head and agree 100%, and when I read the second book, I nod my head and am thoroughly convinced, and then I realize that they are arguing opposite positions.

u/100002152 · 6 pointsr/AskHistorians

One of the best books I've read on the history of the late (Western) Roman Empire was Peter Heather's The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians. He provides a great deal of the latest research on the origins and movements of the different "barbarian" tribes and their relationships with the Roman Empire, including the Visigoths. The book is excellently written and accessible to someone (like myself when I first read it) who is new to the topic.

For more information on the Visigoths after the official end of the Western Roman Empire in 476 CE, Chris Wickham's The Inheritance of Rome: Illuminating the Dark Ages 400-1000 provides a very detailed chapter on the Iberian peninsula under the Visigothic kingdom.

If you do decide to check these books out, I'd recommend reading Heather first for both the obvious reason of chronology and because Wickham is a much more daunting read.

u/methinks2015 · 5 pointsr/AskHistorians


Have you read Fall of Roman Empire by Peter Heather (not to be confused with more famous book by Gibbon)? If so, what's your opinion on it?

From that book, I got an impression that in principle Rome could have held it together if it had clear succession of strong rulers. Every once in a while a strong general like Stilicho or Aëtius would emerge, consolidate power, drive back the barbarians, and start reconquering land. Then they'd face a setback, be deposed, and a period of chaos would follow when Visigoths, or other Germans, or whoever else, would reclaim the territory and then some.

u/GeneralLeeFrank · 5 pointsr/AskHistorians

It's a good read for historiographies, but I'm sure ancient historians have gone past some of his theories. Nevertheless, it's still regarded as a classic.

If you want more modern books, check out: Peter Brown's World of Late Antiquity and Peter Heather's The Fall of the Roman Empire

There are different theories on the fall, you could probably go through an entire library of them. I just picked selections I had from class, as I think these were more readable.

u/omaca · 4 pointsr/ancientrome

Start with the books of Adrian Goldsworthy, the author of many well regarded books on Roman history, including biographies and especially Roman military history.

Simon Baker's Ancient Rome is also a good "one volume" history of the Eternal City.

Finally, Peter Heather published a new history on the fall of Rome called The Fall of the Roman Empire a few years ago that received lots of praise. I haven't read this, but the reviews looked good.

u/FlavivsAetivs · 3 pointsr/Imperator

The standard textbook history right now appears to be The Romans: From Village to Empire.

Klaus Bringmann's A History of the Roman Republic also still seems to be the standard introduction to that period (i.e. the time period of Imperator).

If you want to read about the end of the Roman Republic and Caesar/Augustus, it's hard to turn down Caesar: Life of a Colossus which is great for the general reader, alongside his Augustus: First Emperor of Rome.

He also writes pretty solid books on other major Roman figures, such as In the Name of Rome: The Men who won the Roman Empire.

If you want to get a pretty good introduction to Roman History, but more of what life was like for the average citizen, SPQR by Mary Beard is actually a good choice.

Older, but still solid, is Peter Garnsey's The Roman Empire: Economy, Society, and Culture which covers a lot of things Beard doesn't.

For the Roman army, Adrian Goldsworthy's The Complete Roman Army is a solid introduction.

However you'll want to break that down into several books if you want to go deeper:

Roman Military Equipment by MC Bishop and JCN Coulston

The Roman Imperial Army of the First and Second Centuries AD by Graham Webster

A Companion to the Roman Army by Paul Erdkamp

For the collapse of the Western Roman Empire I'd recommend both Peter Heather's The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians combined with the more scholarly Guy Halsall's Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West.

For the forgotten half of Roman History, often mistakenly called the "Byzantine Empire," it's hard to cover with just one book, but Warren Treadgold's A History of the Byzantine State and Society has become the standard reading. John Haldon's The Empire that would not Die covers the critical transition during the Islamic conquests thoroughly.

Of course I have to include books on the two IMO most overrated battles in Roman history on this list since that's what people love:

The Battle of the Teutoberg Wald: Rome's Greatest Defeat by Adrian Murdoch

The Battle of Cannae: Cannae: Hannibal's Greatest Victory is sort of the single book to read if you can only pick one. However, The Ghosts of Cannae is also good. But if you actually want to go really in depth, you need Gregory Daly's dry-as-the-Atacama book Cannae: The Experience of Battle in the Second Punic War. When I say dry as the Atacama, I mean it, but it's also extraordinarily detailed.

I'd complement this with Goldsworthy's The Punic Wars.

For other interesting topics:

The Emergence of the Bubonic Plague: Justinian's Flea and Plague and the End of Antiquity.

Hadrian's Wall: Hadrian's Wall by Adrian Goldsworthy

Roman Architecture: Roman Architecture by Frank Sear (definitely a bit more scholarly but you can probably handle it)

I may post more in addendum to this list with further comments but I think I'm reaching the character count.

u/lichlordgodfrey · 3 pointsr/KotakuInAction

I was going off of what I remembered - the info is from this book, The Fall of the Roman Empire

I apologize and may have gotten some things wrong (or maybe a lot). Edit I'll stand by my post, not even strikethrough - downvote please for inaccuracies, if you've the time, point out said inaccuracies (though it was a really dirty/fast summary).

u/plsTRUMPavengeBERNIE · 2 pointsr/worldnews

Rome fell because they let millions of barbarians into their territory in a failed bid to increase their tax coffers.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195325419/brusselsjournal-20/ref=nosim

u/superherowithnopower · 2 pointsr/Christianity

It's a massive load of bantha poodoo, and only goes to illustrate the person's ignorance of history.

You might take a look at a book called Atheist Delusions: the Christian revolution and its fashionable enemies by David Bentley Hart. He addresses basically this exactly line of reasoning and dismantles it.

Another fun book is The Fall of the Roman Empire by Peter Heather. That's a more secular work, focused on the history, not on Christianity, though you simply cannot discuss the end days of the Western Roman Empire without addressing Christianity in some sense. It will give you a bit more context as to 1) why, exactly, the Empire fell, and 2) what led to the so-called Dark Ages.

Here's a hint, though: The reason most any knowledge at all was preserved during the "Dark Ages" was due to its being preserved both in Christian monasteries in the West and in the Christian Byzantine Empire in the East (the Renaissance being partly kicked off by the flight of Byzantine humanists to the West as the Turkish invaders were approaching Constantinople).

In fact, the Medieval Period was very much not a time of stagnation; there were advances in metallurgy and agriculture, for example, the latter, combined with a period of warmth, led to a population boom which, ultimately, led to the devastation of the Black Death, which caused a massive upheaval in European society helping to pave the way to the modern world. Also cannons!

u/Guckfuchs · 2 pointsr/AskHistorians

The Constitutio Antoniniana which granted Roman citizenship to all free inhabitants of the empire was issued in 212 AD and there is quite a lot of Roman history after that. Soon follows the so called “crisis of the 3rd century” between 235 and 284 AD throughout which the empire was shaken by internal as well as external problems. Next comes Late Antiquity, a period which has attracted a lot of scholarly attention in recent decades. It saw some huge changes like Christianity’s rise to dominance or the final partition of the empire into a western and eastern half that you mentioned. And while the western part already disappeared throughout the 5th century the Eastern Roman Empire would survive for a long time further. The rise of the first Islamic caliphate in the 7th century AD cost it much of its territory and caused further transformations. This surviving remnant of the Roman Empire, now centred around Constantinople, is usually called the Byzantine Empire. Its eventful history would continue through the entire Middle Ages until 1453 AD when it was finally conquered by the Ottomans. So all in all there is more than a millennium of further Roman history to cover.

u/erkomap · 1 pointr/serbia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qh7rdCYCQ_U

Poslusaj video ukoliko imas vremena.

Svi izvori upotrebljeni u ovom videu:

The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0307700763/?tag=freedradio-20



Ancient Rome: The Rise and Fall of An Empire by Simon Baker
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1846072840/?tag=freedradio-20


The History of the Ancient World: From the Earliest Accounts to the Fall of Rome by Susan Wise Bauer
http://www.amazon.com/dp/039305974X/?tag=freedradio-20


The Rise of Rome: The Making of the World's Greatest Empire by Anthony Everitt
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0812978153/?tag=freedradio-20


A History of Ancient Rome by Mary Beard
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0871404230/?tag=freedradio-20


Rubicon: The Last Years of the Roman Republic by Tom Holland
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1400078970/?tag=freedradio-20


The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0195325419/?tag=freedradio-20


The Twilight of American Culture by Morris Berman
http://www.amazon.com/dp/039332169X/?tag=freedradio-20


The Fate Of Empires by Sir John Glubb
http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf

u/Hezekiah_the_Judean · 1 pointr/history

Here are two possible books. One is "How Rome Fell" by Adrian Goldsworthy: http://www.amazon.com/How-Rome-Fell-Death-Superpower/dp/0300164262

And here is "The Fall of the Roman Empire" by Peter Heather: http://www.amazon.com/The-Fall-Roman-Empire-Barbarians/dp/0195325419

u/WanderAndDream · 1 pointr/ancientrome

This is one of my favorite books on Roman history, and it focuses closely on the relationship of the Empire and the Germanic tribes on its borders. It's written in an engrossing narrative style and is very easy to read.

"The Fall of the Roman Empire" by Peter Heather.

https://www.amazon.com/Fall-Roman-Empire-History-Barbarians/dp/0195325419/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

u/Irish_machiavelli · 1 pointr/changemyview

You are clearly a “true believer” in your own system, because you are defending an abstract concept with passion and vigor. Not necessarily a bad thing, but own up to it, because that's what you're doing and that's what you advocate; a non-existent system; you know, like heaven or nirvana. With that said, let’s try to grapple with a couple chunks of your reasoning.

First off, it's not bullshit. You are advancing a theoretical model that has, by your own admission, never existed. So then, how is one supposed to critique this model in a way that you can't defend in some equally rhetorical way? One probably cannot, therefore it's on par with a religious ideology. However, I’m going to give it a try, because I like to think people have the ability to change positions when confronted with new arguments.

On the Roman bit, I’m not critiquing that you didn’t write a thesis, I’m saying you lack nuance because you clearly don't know what you're talking about, yet insist on debating me on the particulars of a system of which you lack a sufficient amount of knowledge; again much like a religious argument against something like evolution.

Patronage was the dominant societal glue that transcended the fall of the republic into the era of empire. That’s not just my position, that’s the position of almost every Roman scholar who has written on the topic. Further, the only scholars that I’ve read who disagree are also the ones who also believed in the genetic inferiority of the “barbarians.”

“Corruption” is like the devil/Satan of your way of thinking. It’s a throwaway term that can be used to vilify everything, but actually means nothing. On that note, monarchy is still the norm, and I'd bet you'd agree, but the problem is that you agree for the wrong reasons. A strong executive branch was central to the Roman Republic and it is central to our own system, because the framers were essentially obsessed with the Roman model. In fact, the attendees of the Constitutional Convention debated the merits of a triumvirate, when figuring out how the Executive branch would function. So, in saying it was outside the scope of the debate, I was attempting to allow you to politely bow out of a topic in which you are outclassed. It is well within the scope, but I just don’t suppose that the finer points can be debated meaningfully until you attain more knowledge on the topic. Rest assured “corruption” is not really the answer you think it is.

So, you see, your understanding of Roman history doesn't require a thesis, but guess what? Corruption is baked into the entire system. The Constitutional framers knew it, just as the Romans did. Corruption is part of the political process, and arguably is the political process itself.

Now, let’s move away from Rome, and talk about your proposition itself. Am I defending our democracy as it stands? Of course not; it has many problems. However, you’re seemingly more interested in rhetoric than logic, so let’s play the rhetorical game. Democracy is bullshit, because the people don’t know their ass from a hole in the ground. Guess who ordered that Socrates be put to death? Guess who wanted to maintain segregation in the south? Guess who has stood in the way of LGBT rights? It wasn’t a monarch, the corporate system, or any other abstract evil; it was the people.

Now more rhetoric: What system has higher quality? I’d say your model is totally lacking in quality, because it would assure majority rule. You think of the people in highly vaunted terms, but you should not. The people are every bit as tyrannical and misguided as the leaders that they elect, and that’s the true problem with our current system. Our government is designed, in part, to safe guard the minority against the very system you advocate. Could the civil rights bill have been passed with your system? No. Nor could any of the other laws founded on progressivism. The majority doesn’t know shit about shit. PERIOD. Your majority rule concept is shallow, but that’s no matter, because you know in your heart of hearts that you’re right. You know; just like the religious.

“actually, yes it does. my approval +50% of people.” Okay, so do I really need to point out the flaw here? You say we don’t have a democracy, then say you plus 50% is required for approval. I struggle to articulate the silliness of this statement, so I guess I’ll merely say that you know exactly what I was saying. You advocate a non-existent system, yet democracy has and does still exist. Therefore, your definition is completely irrelevant. Also, what if me plus 50% agreed you’re totally wrong? Would you still be wrong, or would you suddenly advocate Gandhi’s position that “the truth is still the truth in a minority of one?” Hmmm…

So, have I come across as a condescending dick? Yes. Is there a purpose behind it? Yes. I believe a lot of the same things you do, but when you run around talking about invisible chains and the subverted will of the people, you make progressives look just as dogmatic as ultra conservatives, because you are advancing a belief, not a logical argument. Below is a list of books I’d suggest you read, if you really, REALLY want to know about the topics upon which you currently so freely expound, and the ones which have informed my viewpoint. Your dogmatic tone and the fact that I have little faith that your viewpoint is changeable makes me trust that you’ll need to have the last word on the topic, so I’ll give it to you. However, I do implore you to actually allow the holes in your way of thinking to bother you… at least some day.
Here’s the list
http://www.amazon.com/Fall-Roman-Republic-Penguin-Classics/dp/0140449345

http://www.amazon.com/The-True-Believer-Movements-Perennial/dp/0060505915

http://www.amazon.com/Brilliant-Solution-Inventing-American-Constitution/dp/0156028727

http://www.amazon.com/The-Fall-Roman-Empire-Barbarians/dp/0195325419

u/Leadpipe · 1 pointr/AskReddit

There's an awful lot of fiction in this thread. My reading tends more toward the classical history end of things.

Favorites in this regard are:

Caesar: Life of a Colossus

Ghost on the Throne

The Fall of the Roman Empire

u/[deleted] · 1 pointr/books

On a bit of a history kick lately, right now I'm almost done with Rubicon by Tom Holland and have the following in mind:

  1. Augustus by Anthony Everitt

  2. The Fall of the Roman Empire by Peter Heather

  3. Perdido Street Station by China Mieville Just finished Embassytown last week and liked it. Thought I'd give another one of his books a try.

  4. The three Third Reich books by Richard Evans

  5. Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller by Ron Chernow
u/Daynebutter · 1 pointr/ancienthistory

I've been listening to Fall of the Roman Empire by Peter Heather. He goes into detail on the multiple factors of why it fell and focuses on the human element of it through personal accounts of the time, and how modern historians understand it.

Here is the link to the paperback version:

The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians https://www.amazon.com/dp/0195325419/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_Ps2pDbWPZ9QQS