The Fall of the Roman Empire by Michael Grant

The Fall of the Roman Empire Reviews

• 
  Jan-Maat

  Short chapters help to keep this book readable. It's designed for the general reader with a brief historical introduction that leads into the main discussion.
  
  It seems a little odd to say that the book is about the fall of the Roman empire because the contrast between the fall of the western half and survival of the eastern half is only explicitly made in a short appendix. Rather it is an exploration of the role of disunity in the eventual end of the western half of the empire.
  
  This disunity is explored by Grant in a series of chapters each looking at an element in the social fabric, be that the attitudes of different social classes towards the state, the tension between the people and the army, what drop outs like monks have to tell us about attitudes towards society as a whole and so on. After a few chapters the wonder is that the Empire existed at all, but it's hard to say if all of these were unique to the later empire or if like the spread of monasticism and celibacy they were on a large enough scale to make a significant difference to, for example, population levels or patterns of land ownership. Again the effects were not evenly spread throughout the empire but the end results were decisively different (ie empire came to an end in the west, but survived in the East).
  
  The later Roman empire and it's fall is an interesting topic. Read one book on the subject and you can think that you understand the issues, read a few and the more complex and engaging the question becomes.
  
  However even if you were never to read another book on the decline and fall you would be left with a picture of a world in which the law forbade men to castrate themselves or have their thumbs chopped off as a means of evading military service, the poor sold their children into slavery and the rich used force to drive the tax collectors from their gates while writing letters full of prejudice and learning to each other.
• 
  Jonathan

  Michael Grant's The Fall of the Roman Empire was a quick non-fiction 'hit' that I needed after reading too much fiction. It is a 200-page summary of the reasons behind the fall of the Roman Empire. This can be a bewildering subject as there are no easy answers to the question 'why did the Roman Empire fall?' Listed below is an even more condensed version of the reasons why. For anyone that wants an even simpler explanation Michael Grant sums it up in the introduction by saying 'It was brought down by two kinds of destruction: invasions from outside, and weaknesses that arose within.' The list below is an elaboration of these 'destructions' and will hopefully be of interest to some.
  
  Thirteen Reasons for the Fall of the Roman Empire in the West:
  
  The Generals against the State - There was no effective method of succession. Each emperor was in effect dependent on the army which resulted in endless coups détat and civil wars.
  The People against the Army - Rich and poor didn't want to serve in the army. The state had to depend increasingly on German troops.
  The Poor against the State - The taxes to pay for the army fell disproportionaly on the poor driving them into destitution, banditry, slavery or death.
  The Rich against the State - The rich Senators evaded taxes and did not get involved in political life. They were snobbish and opposed to change.
  The Middle Class against the State - The middle class of merchants and small landowners were squeezed out of late Imperial life. The population consisted mainly of rich and poor.
  The People against the Bureaucrats - The late Roman bureaucracy was oppressive and allowed very little social mobility. The civil service was inefficient, bloated, corrupt and resistant to change.
  The People against the Emperor - The later Roman Emperors had little contact with the outside world. Their only contact with their subjects was via sycophantic or scheming courtiers.
  Ally against Ally - The split between the West and East became more pronounced during this period. Both halves of the Empire failed to co-operate which made it easier for the Germans to take over the West.
  Race against Race - Rome was unable to assimilate the German tribes that took refuge within its borders.
  Drop-outs against Society - With the rise of Christianity in the Empire many people were attracted to asceticism and became nuns, monks and hermits. As such they became divorced from their community and contributed little towards the Roman state.
  The State against Free Belief - Once Catholic Christianity became the dominant religion its proponents began to attack paganism, Jewish faith, Manichaeanism and other Christian faiths thereby causing disunity throughout the Empire.
  Complacency against Self-Help - The pagans relied too much on the glories of the past, they neglected practical subjects in their education and concentrated on grammar, rhetoric etc.
  The Other World against This World - Many Christians seemed reluctant to support the state even after the Empire became officially Christian. Some even saw the barbarian attacks as divine punishment. Some pagans viewed the world to be in perpetual decline since the Golden Age of the past. Both views led to pessimism.
  
  
  
• 
  John Isles

  A detailed account of the events and causes leading to the fall of the West Roman Empire - but not of the East, which survived many centuries longer. The author identifies the main causes of the fall of the West as the growing power of the "barbarians," mismanagement by the Roman government, and disruption by anti-government pacifist and fatalist forces among Christians. I've enjoyed all Michael Grant's books, but this one especially for its thorough analysis.
• 
  Andrea

  If you are a non-specialist like me (the target reader of this book, I think) you may find the first chapter or two a little rough going, as Grant lays out the entire time frame he will be discussing in the book. Since I was only vaguely familiar with many of the important historical figures he mentions, I got a little discouraged. But I kept going and quickly found the book understandable and enlightening. Grant uses not only economics and politics but also cultural points to explain some of the problems that led to the disintegration of the Roman Empire. This is not a "character" driven study, so he doesn't spend a lot of time on the lives or habits of any of the major figures, but, instead, focuses on the larger trends and how the decisions of the rulers, and the upper and middle classes gradually changed Roman life.
• 
  Christopher

  The Fall of the Roman Empire is Michael Grant unusual interpretation on why the Western Roman Empire fell. The The Fall of the Roman Empire structure and analysis is clearly heavily seen through the lens of his own world view and the book reflects this. Grant takes us through the 4th and 5th centuries of the Roman Empire and points to various factors that he believes were pivotal in his view to the collapse of the Empire. Through out he does make valid observations on the corruption during certain decades of the Imperial Governance system and during the 5th century and the increasing demands on the Romans territories the book focuses on the minutiae of certain events that while they could indeed contribute to the troubles the Empire was facing they cannot account for the scale of events that were taking place throughout the Empire! Grant's dismissal throughout most of the book of the Eastern Empire that would survive conflict on it borders for another 1000 years undermines the arguments that he makes throughout the book. Rather than fitting the facts Grant viewpoint tries to pick and choose and ascribe more Empire shaking effects to his chosen topics! His attempt to envision a Cold War situation between the East and West does come across an attempt to shore his arguments up but is a creation that really didn't exist in the way portrayed in here!
  
  This is not to say that The Fall of the Roman Empire doesn't contain useful and great nuggets of information throughout though and the observations do contain humour which have you laughing! Grant does make the point that not only many of the provinces and cities of the Empire form part of the modern world but that also many of the rich of the Empire possessed such great estates that they have gone to become parts of modern countries themselves! :D
  
  I have given The Fall of the Roman Empire a high star review as it does form a dramatic glimpse into a counter argument and insight into how easy it is to present such an argument while picking and choosing your facts and letting your own world view colour interpretation! The Fall of the Roman Empire is full of nuggets and and insight into the view of the Empire told from this perspective! Highly recommended but treat with caution!
• 
  Elizabeth

  My dad gave me
  The Fall of the Roman Empire to read, and I have no idea where he got it. The copy he shared has a stamp from a library in Spartanburg, SC, so it's definitely had a journeyed existence.
  
  Anyway, this was a decent, brief overview of the causes leading to the fall of the Roman Empire, and I was easily able to finish it (unlike Gibbon's magnum opus).
  
  Written in 1976, though, it does show its age in some weird respects. Grant constantly refers to the Germanic tribes, for example, as "Germans." Did these people speak Germanic languages? Yes. But were they "German" in the sense that they represented a single nation? Not that I'm aware of. He also calls the "Germans" a different "race" from the Romans, and in the first chapter makes at least two references to the "fair" and "noble" mien of some of the emperors.
  
  It's sometimes hard in 2020 to judge the motives of a person writing in 1975. Does Grant have weird views on race, or is he just writing in the normal style of his day? I honestly don't know.
  
  Overall, it seems like a fine book, but I'm sure there are more modern works that are easier to find and reflect more recent scholarship.
• 
  Aaron Michael

  Decline of the army—standing army huge expense which could not be paid.
  
  Heavy taxes—especially on the poor
  
  Large welfare state in Rome
  
  Wealthy—Tax evasion, withdrawal from public life, selfish concern with personal gain
  
  Decline of the middle-class
  
  Loss of freedom—“The individual spirit of initiative that alone could have kept the commonwealth alive was stifled and stamped out by the widespread deprivation of personal freedom, which thus became one of the most potent reasons for Rome's collapse.”
  
  Religious intolerance—attempting to Christianize the empire
  
  Large corrupt bureaucracy
  
  Leadership—emperors
  
  Disunity within the empire—west vs. east—German vs. Roman—“Heaven forbid that we ourselves should have a monolichic society without any internal disunities at all, or any differences of character or opinion. But there can arrive a time when such differences become so irreconcilably violent that the entire structure of society is imperiled. That is what happened among the ancient Romans. And that is why Rome fell.”
  
• 
  Imre Bártfai

  Michael Grant's The Fall of the Roman Empire is a fascinating read. He distinguishes 13 reasons of Rome's fall, among them: elites who don't care about the people or political duty, stagnating culture, political passivism and pacifism, highly unequal social stratification... Strangely reminiscent of something...
  " Who can find words to describe the enormity of our present situation? Now when the Roman commonwealth, already extinct or at least drawing its last breath in that one corner where it still seems to retain some life, is dying, strangled by the cords of taxation as if by the hands of brigands, still a great number of wealthy men are found, the burden of whose taxes is borne by the poor; that is, very many rich men are found whose taxes are murdering the poor. Very many, I said: I am afraid I might more truly say all.".Salvian
• 
  Eyjolfur

  Very readable 20th-century revision of the reasons for the fall of the Roman empire, based on Gibbon's original work. Would recommend for anyone looking to brush up on this part of ancient history.
  
  Parts that fell flat were probably the latter chapters on religion, where it felt it got a bit drawn-out, and where the author attempts to put the different reasons for the fall of Rome into "perspective" with the situation of the US and UK in the 1970s.
• 
  Daniel Svoboda

  I read Gibbon's book a while back, but this book has a more relevant take on the reasons why it fell. It always puzzled me how Rome seemed to field less numerical armies despite having a huge territory. The author lists how increasing draft dodging due to overburdening from the bureaucratic system made the army decline and rely more on barbarians. Also eye opening was how Christianity created a drop-out culture not unlike the hippies of the 60's.
• 
  Petr Bylok

  Že by vzestup křesťanství, katolické církve a mnišství přispělo mimo jiných k zániku Římské říše? Nemyslím si, spíš měl autor nějaký osobní problém, když popisuje všechny svaté jako nenávistné pronásledovatele pohanů.
• 
  Angus

  I wonder. Written in the 1970s, when things were funky politically. Even so, I have the feeling this is as much about the present as it is about the past.
  
• 
  Kenny

  Very excellent overview of the causes of Rome’s collapse.
• 
  Peter Lipták

  Nie je to zlé, ale ani to nie je najlepšia kniha od Granta. Viac esejové ako faktografické.
• 
  Scott

  Very good at it's goal -- to summarize the dozen or so sources of disunity that led to the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476. It does that well, and quickly, and the parallels with our own world are eerily familiar. It's striking how effective the fleeing society was at undermining the Empire. Large number of folks "Went Galt," fleeing to caves, monasteries, the countryside, or just refused to support and participate in society and government. Good quick read. Recommended.
• 
  Sean

  Aside from a slightly stodgy, Christian worldview which peeks through the surface every now and again, a solid overview of many of the faultlines of the late Roman world.
• 
  Padraic

  Ever feel you've stumbled into a textbook?
• 
  Michael

  He identifies 13 defects of the empire that became responsible for it's fall.
• 
  Chad

  A really concise but ambitious look at multiple causes for the Roman Empire's collapse; I'd go so far as call it a must for anyone even slightly interested in antiquity or the early Middle Ages.
• 
  Debby

  I did not read this.