Arthur Ferrill's Fall of Rome

[barca]

Has anyone read Arthur Ferrill's The Fall of the Roman Empire?

 

http://www.amazon.com/Fall-Roman-Empire-Arther-Ferrill/dp/0500274959

 

His explanation is based primarily on the eventual collapse of the military as a consequence of bad decisions beginning with Theodosius and his policy of appeasement, which elevated the status of the Visigoths. Instead of trying to extricate himself from them, he sought their help to conduct two civil wars against Western usurpers.

[Gaiseric]

Has anyone read Arthur Ferrill's The Fall of the Roman Empire?

 

http://www.amazon.com/Fall-Roman-Empire-Arther-Ferrill/dp/0500274959

 

His explanation is based primarily on the eventual collapse of the military as a consequence of bad decisions beginning with Theodosius and his policy of appeasement, which elevated the status of the Visigoths. Instead of trying to extricate himself from them, he sought their help to conduct two civil wars against Western usurpers.

 

More skimmed it to get answers. His explanation of the collapse as being the unsupportable system of frontier troops was interesting, since he argues that the troops on the frontier would never get adequate experience while the comitatenses performed the greater role in actual battles. Also, that the reduction of armour and helmets among troops weakend the empire.

[caldrail]

The quality of Roman legions had declined considerably in the 4th century according to sources. however, to place the fall of the empire purely in the hands of a failure in defence policy isn't so much stating the obvious, but rather seeing the collapse as something attributed to a convenient cause.

 

The policy of appeasement toward the goths was something of a necessity. Whilst it might have had disadvantages, the prospect of gothic hordes rampaging around the countryside was not appealing to Theodosius - and the Romans had already experienced what that might be like. It also meant he could call upon the barbarians for reinforcements.

 

There seems to be more of a problem with money. The West was much reduced in financial strength since Constantines reign, and the period was known for their leaders to expend cash purely to look the part. You could argue that was always the case, but whereas emperors of former times had bribed the public to improve their popularity, the later emperors spent money to prove their credibility. Also, the increasing bureaucracy of Roman society was siphoning off money remorselessly, not to mention stifling it with increased sinecures and petty officials throwing their weight around.

 

I'm not saying that politics and defence had no part in the decline ('Fall' is too catastrophic a word, and really belongs to christian criticism of the Romans as fundamentally decadent and immoral madmen who desrved their fate), but rather that the decline resulted from a series of factors. The empire was bloated, inefficient, leaking money, vulnerable, and as always, prone to internal strife.

[Gaiseric]

I would also say that the majority of the emperors for the twilight of the Late Empire weren't capable enough, being mere pawns rather than effective leaders. Majorian may have been the last truly effective military leader, though he was stymied by the treachery the sabotaged the Vandal expedition in Spain. But most of the last emperors in the West were at best ineffectual, at worst incompetent. Avitus, Honorius, Valentinian III, Johannes, Olybrius, Petronius Maximus and Anthemius to name a few. The only effectiveness Olybrius could have had was as a candidate backed by Gaiseric and perhaps gaining some diplomatic ground with the Vandals in the West. Unfortunately (or fortunately, if he had turned out like the other emperors of this period), he died before proving his effectiveness.

 

I do agree that it was more of a 'decline' than a 'fall'. Fall is usually instantaneous, whereas decline is a slow and steady process of decay and diminishing power. But then, those who used the term 'fall' are probably the same who described Alaric's taking of Rome as a 'bloody sack' and a 'despoilment of the city, in which many monuments were reduced to nothing more than ashes and rubble'. Drama is a propagandists' best friend.

 

I mean, would we take Victor of Vita's record of the Vandal persecution of Catholics in North Africa at face value? A man from the same vein as Gregory of Tours who entirely neglects to mention the reign of Gaiseric since he lived long and ruled for 50 years when he was a heretic who wasn't struck down by divine wrath. That's why so many texts from this period are questionable, since they're based on being written to prove a point rather than as pure histories.

 

Vale,

 

Gaiseric

Edited November 15, 2010 by Gaiseric