What do you think?
Rate this book
The Fall of the West: The Death of the Roman Superpower
A sweeping narrative of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire.The Fall of the Roman Empire has been a best-selling subject since the 18th century. Since then, over 200 very diverse reasons have been advocated for the collapse of the western half of the Roman Empire. Until very recently, the academic view embarrassedly downplayed the violence and destruction, in an attempt to provide a more urbane account of late barbarian invasions were mistakenly described as the movement of peoples. It was all painfully tame and civilised.But now Adrian Goldsworthy comes forward with his trademark combination of clear narrative, common sense, and a thorough mastery of the sources. In telling the story from start to finish, he rescues the era from the diffident and this is a red-blooded account of aggressive barbarian attacks, palace coups, scheming courtiers and corrupt emperors who set the bar for excess. It is 'old fashioned history' in the best an accessible narrative with colourful characters whose story reveals the true reasons for the fall of Rome.
691 pages, Kindle Edition
First published April 2, 2009
364 people are currently reading
6239 people want to read
About the author
Adrian Goldsworthy
44 books1,534 followersAdrian Goldsworthy, born in 1969, is the author of numerous acclaimed books, including biographies of Julius Caesar and Augustus. He lectures widely and consults on historical documentaries for the History Channel, National Geographic, and the BBC. He lives in the UK.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 267 reviews
March 5, 2019
This is a good book, but I did not enjoy it as much as I anticipated, probably because Goldsworthy emphasizes areas of the Roman experience that are less interesting to me than others: I'm interested in religion, philosophy, literature, daily life and popular culture, and Goldsworthy concentrates on bureaucratic organizational structures (particularly in the army) and obscure military campaigns. He writes well, with remarkable lucidity, and tells a good story, but the stories themselves held little interest for me.
I did however find his thesis compelling and would recommend his two final chapters to anyone interested in understanding the late Roman Empire. Goldsworthy argues that scholars in recent years have overemphasized the effects of external pressure on the late empire: the Persians were never that mighty, and the Franks and Goths lacked the unity to ever be much more than a continual irritation. He says it was not threats from without, but erosion from within, that lead to decline, and that this decay began--as it often does--from the top. ("The fish rots from the head," as the Russian proverb says.)
The early emperors may have divested the senate of any real governing power, but they still treasured it as a noble institution--the source of a governing class of aristocratic amateurs who took pride in the empire and its traditions--and they carefully guarded its privileges and dignity. Every important Roman leader came from the senatorial class, and from the city of Rome the emperors had ample opportunity to observe each of these men in a public role and to assess his abilities as an administrator and his danger as a rival. As the senate decreased in influence throughout the succeeding autocratic years, the administrators of empire--no longer believers in their obligation to the public trust--became more venal and less competent, and the emperors became increasingly fearful of rival claimants, who could now arise from the equestrian commanders of any of the provincial legions, not just from the ranks of the senatorial class. In order to make the support of a rival less likely, the emperors lessened the size of the provinces, increased the central bureaucracy, privatized many services, and become less willing to delegate any authority. All this led to the erosion of individual initiative and a weakening of the basic efficiency of the institutions of empire, resulting in a failure to deal with challenges to order and good government, whether social, economic or military.
Although the parallels are not exact, Goldsworthy sees the same erosion of individual initiative and autonomy at the heart of many British and American institutions, and he ends this survey of the late Roman Empire on a moral, cautionary note.
December 5, 2019
How Rome Fell: Death of a Superpower was my third book by Adrian Goldsworthy. An academic of noteworthy accomplishments, Goldsworthy combined a broad range of documentary sources with more recent archaeological evidence to present a vivid picture of the political, military, economic, and religious landscapes at the end of the Roman Empire. His achievements as a scholar were brought to life by the skillful prose with which he shaped a comprehensive, yet readable, book. He earned a strong Four Stars from me. I recommend How Rome Fell: Death of a Superpower to readers with an interest in the end of the Classical era and the advent of the Dark Ages.
December 7, 2015
I have always been fascinated by the history of Rome - an obscure farming village which rose to become ruler of the known world (with apologies to my Oriental, Antipodean and Colonial cousins). So how did it fall?
NB: This book is about the fall of the Western Empire in 476AD. The East continued for almost a thousand years to 1453.
Goldsworthy sets out his theories for the fall. He makes out a compelling case that Rome caused its own downfall. Constant civil war and regime change through usurpation created chronic instability. Emperors came to trust no one and would not permit potential rivals to build a power base. The winner takes all nature of the battle to become Emperor gave army commanders a huge incentive to "go for it", and after every regime change there was massive disruption as supporters were rewarded and the other side purged. And every time a hugely expensive donative for the Army.
The tribes on the border exploited the weakness - raiding, plundering and eventually settling in the empire - further eroding the tax base.
Goldsworthy makes an interesting point about the Senate in Rome. Senators had traditionally taken on short term military commissions in the provinces but were gradually frozen out by Emperors. This meant that whereas formerly the Emperor had a relatively small group of potential rivals to keep an eye on - with many based in Rome most of the time - the focus now turned to the army on the borders, where any army leader could potentially be acclaimed as a usurper.
NB: This book is about the fall of the Western Empire in 476AD. The East continued for almost a thousand years to 1453.
Goldsworthy sets out his theories for the fall. He makes out a compelling case that Rome caused its own downfall. Constant civil war and regime change through usurpation created chronic instability. Emperors came to trust no one and would not permit potential rivals to build a power base. The winner takes all nature of the battle to become Emperor gave army commanders a huge incentive to "go for it", and after every regime change there was massive disruption as supporters were rewarded and the other side purged. And every time a hugely expensive donative for the Army.
The tribes on the border exploited the weakness - raiding, plundering and eventually settling in the empire - further eroding the tax base.
Goldsworthy makes an interesting point about the Senate in Rome. Senators had traditionally taken on short term military commissions in the provinces but were gradually frozen out by Emperors. This meant that whereas formerly the Emperor had a relatively small group of potential rivals to keep an eye on - with many based in Rome most of the time - the focus now turned to the army on the borders, where any army leader could potentially be acclaimed as a usurper.
March 17, 2024
This is a well-written treatise on the last 200 years of the Roman Empire in the west. It is by no means equal to the scope and literary quality of Edward Gibbons iconic multi volume work “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”. This statement does not take anything away from Adrian Goldsworthy’s How Rome Fell -Death of a Superpower.
In order to better understand the merits of this new treatise on the fall of Roman Empire, it only makes sense to contrast it with Gibbon’s piece de resistance, which arguably has remained eminent even after 250 years.
Where Gibbon’s detached, neutral style anticipated in many ways modern scientific writing, his interspersed moralism was reminiscent of the great ancient historians.
Conforming to contemporary practice, Goldsworthy’s work is devoid of aphorisms and moral lessons.
However, what matters most is that How Rome Fell -Death of a Superpower can be seen as an important addition to Gibbons work.
Goldsworthy’s work injects many up-to-date facts and ideas from newly gathered archeological data but never claims the data to be complete. Therefore, even though Goldsworthy has a clearly defined thesis, he is always realistic enough to point at optional interpretations of the limited data available. In the end, this reader realizes that we know much less about certain eras of history than we have been led to believe. Adrian Goldsworthy’s work, unlike others, does not veil this very important fact, and it manages to make careful and very educated extrapolations utilizing a blend of common sense, awareness of human nature and the accumulated archeological discoveries since Gibbons era.
In order to better understand the merits of this new treatise on the fall of Roman Empire, it only makes sense to contrast it with Gibbon’s piece de resistance, which arguably has remained eminent even after 250 years.
Where Gibbon’s detached, neutral style anticipated in many ways modern scientific writing, his interspersed moralism was reminiscent of the great ancient historians.
Conforming to contemporary practice, Goldsworthy’s work is devoid of aphorisms and moral lessons.
However, what matters most is that How Rome Fell -Death of a Superpower can be seen as an important addition to Gibbons work.
Goldsworthy’s work injects many up-to-date facts and ideas from newly gathered archeological data but never claims the data to be complete. Therefore, even though Goldsworthy has a clearly defined thesis, he is always realistic enough to point at optional interpretations of the limited data available. In the end, this reader realizes that we know much less about certain eras of history than we have been led to believe. Adrian Goldsworthy’s work, unlike others, does not veil this very important fact, and it manages to make careful and very educated extrapolations utilizing a blend of common sense, awareness of human nature and the accumulated archeological discoveries since Gibbons era.
June 5, 2023
Adrian Goldsworthy (along with Victor Davis Hanson) is one of my favorite Classicist Historians. In "How Rome Fell" he uses new research and a masterful knowledge of Roman history to tell us how the Superpower fell.
Starting in 180 CE, with the death of Emperor Marcus Aurelius, Goldsworthy traces the multitude of factors that caused a gradual decline, instead of the oft-assumed cataclysmic implosion, of the Roman Empire. Tracing the events of the Eastern Empire, as well as the crisis of the Third and Fourth Centuries, we see the erosion of Roman military power in a series of self-destructive civil wars gradually leeched away the power of Rome.
Thus when other powers or barbarian tribes began their march on Roman territories, the Empire was unable to truly resist. Though Goldsworthy is quick to emphasize the sheer amount of time this process took. It started in the Third Century, but with a brief "recovery" phase during the Fourth Century, eventually began its "Fall" in the Fifth and Sixth centuries.
The biggest takeaway is that Rome didn't HAVE to fall, but it did, devastated by civil wars and many weak Emperors who invited rivals by their very nature. Superbly researched, well written, and brilliantly argued-Goldsworthy's excellent history of the decline of the Roman Empire is a must-read for anyone who wishes to know the real events that led to the decline, versus the more standard "one day it all vanished" idea that seems to be the more pop-culture take on the demise.
A wonderful addition to my collection and a book I can not recommend enough to fans of Roman history. This one is truly top notch scholarship and an eminently readable book.
Starting in 180 CE, with the death of Emperor Marcus Aurelius, Goldsworthy traces the multitude of factors that caused a gradual decline, instead of the oft-assumed cataclysmic implosion, of the Roman Empire. Tracing the events of the Eastern Empire, as well as the crisis of the Third and Fourth Centuries, we see the erosion of Roman military power in a series of self-destructive civil wars gradually leeched away the power of Rome.
Thus when other powers or barbarian tribes began their march on Roman territories, the Empire was unable to truly resist. Though Goldsworthy is quick to emphasize the sheer amount of time this process took. It started in the Third Century, but with a brief "recovery" phase during the Fourth Century, eventually began its "Fall" in the Fifth and Sixth centuries.
The biggest takeaway is that Rome didn't HAVE to fall, but it did, devastated by civil wars and many weak Emperors who invited rivals by their very nature. Superbly researched, well written, and brilliantly argued-Goldsworthy's excellent history of the decline of the Roman Empire is a must-read for anyone who wishes to know the real events that led to the decline, versus the more standard "one day it all vanished" idea that seems to be the more pop-culture take on the demise.
A wonderful addition to my collection and a book I can not recommend enough to fans of Roman history. This one is truly top notch scholarship and an eminently readable book.
May 14, 2024
I once made a list of every reason people gave for rome falling, I stopped around 67. Most reasons for justifying the dogma or ideology of the declarer.
This is a very readable and meticulously researched history of the last three centuries of the Empire gives an overview of how Rome split into two, with the western empire completely collapsing over 100 years. Going in detail from emperor to emperor, how the Senate’s power waned as more and more emperors assumed absolute power, and how the military became the source of political power, corroding the civil bureaucracy and the effectiveness of an effective society.
“Long decline was the fate of the Roman Empire. In the end, it may well have been ‘murdered’ by barbarian invaders, but these struck a body made vulnerable by prolonged decay... Empire was weakened by the fact that much of the fighting the army did was against other Roman soldiers.”
Goldsworthy’s prose is excellent, even with some of the tame material. significantly he acknowledges in the introduction that sources for much the late Roman Empire either don’t exist or are at best untrustworthy. Even for periods where there are many existing documents, much of the information can be exaggerated.
This is especially true when it comes to battles and how many men participated or were killed (look at Ceasers conquest of gaul), but also regarding how the Roman economic system worked. Goldsworthy is forced to stitch together disparate information from various sources and is not afraid to tell the reader when he’s surmising something, and he gives valid reasons for his hypotheses.
The only major qualm would be the author not giving an organized personal analysis for what he thinks are the primary causes. More analysis and thought at the end would have been a boon. As it is, he leaves it to the reader to draw his/her own conclusions.
This is a very readable and meticulously researched history of the last three centuries of the Empire gives an overview of how Rome split into two, with the western empire completely collapsing over 100 years. Going in detail from emperor to emperor, how the Senate’s power waned as more and more emperors assumed absolute power, and how the military became the source of political power, corroding the civil bureaucracy and the effectiveness of an effective society.
“Long decline was the fate of the Roman Empire. In the end, it may well have been ‘murdered’ by barbarian invaders, but these struck a body made vulnerable by prolonged decay... Empire was weakened by the fact that much of the fighting the army did was against other Roman soldiers.”
Goldsworthy’s prose is excellent, even with some of the tame material. significantly he acknowledges in the introduction that sources for much the late Roman Empire either don’t exist or are at best untrustworthy. Even for periods where there are many existing documents, much of the information can be exaggerated.
This is especially true when it comes to battles and how many men participated or were killed (look at Ceasers conquest of gaul), but also regarding how the Roman economic system worked. Goldsworthy is forced to stitch together disparate information from various sources and is not afraid to tell the reader when he’s surmising something, and he gives valid reasons for his hypotheses.
The only major qualm would be the author not giving an organized personal analysis for what he thinks are the primary causes. More analysis and thought at the end would have been a boon. As it is, he leaves it to the reader to draw his/her own conclusions.
September 8, 2009
A nice thing about this history is that Adrian Goldsworthy states his thesis very clearly in the introduction: as a scholar of the early phases of the Roman Empire, he wishes to provide a different perspective on its fall; he is kind enough to acknowledge the recent classics in the genre (by my reckoning, Heather is the favorite by a fair distance) while insisting that these other accounts have been rather one-dimensional, focusing on the changes in societal structure brought on by Christianity or immigration while not necessarily putting together the whole picture.
Goldsworthy's work only gets three stars due to the lofty expectations which he set out in the introduction. His scholarship is thorough enough to always provide the "what" and often to explain the "how," and these are both done in a satisfying, if somewhat chronologically dry fashion. The approach is to highlight the structure of the Roman Empire during its last truly stable period (up until Marcus Aurelius), moving on to contrast it with the later periods, where many institutions kept similar names, but worked differently, and a drastically expanded bureaucracy failed to maintain political coherence on a larger scale.
In any case, where "How Rome Fell" fails is the "why." Of course, it makes sense that the Roman Empire was doomed to fail due to the fact that every emperor had to spend the majority of his mental capital obsessing over potential internal rivals and usurpers, thereby weakening the whole body's ability to respond to external threats. However, a work of this ambition ought to take a glance at answering why this was the case. Why was it necessarily true that ultimate power in the Empire became more and more difficult to grasp? Why did the Eastern Empire survive for so much longer on the same slippery slope? It is these questions that are never posed, and a truly worthy history of the fall of the Roman Empire would at least try.
Goldsworthy's work only gets three stars due to the lofty expectations which he set out in the introduction. His scholarship is thorough enough to always provide the "what" and often to explain the "how," and these are both done in a satisfying, if somewhat chronologically dry fashion. The approach is to highlight the structure of the Roman Empire during its last truly stable period (up until Marcus Aurelius), moving on to contrast it with the later periods, where many institutions kept similar names, but worked differently, and a drastically expanded bureaucracy failed to maintain political coherence on a larger scale.
In any case, where "How Rome Fell" fails is the "why." Of course, it makes sense that the Roman Empire was doomed to fail due to the fact that every emperor had to spend the majority of his mental capital obsessing over potential internal rivals and usurpers, thereby weakening the whole body's ability to respond to external threats. However, a work of this ambition ought to take a glance at answering why this was the case. Why was it necessarily true that ultimate power in the Empire became more and more difficult to grasp? Why did the Eastern Empire survive for so much longer on the same slippery slope? It is these questions that are never posed, and a truly worthy history of the fall of the Roman Empire would at least try.
June 21, 2021
Rome was one of the largest empires in history, lasts for more than five hundred years, yet by the end of the fifth century, Roman rule had vanished in western Europe and much of northern Africa, and only a shrunken Eastern Empire remained. It has a strong, yet obvious message that most rulers chose to ignore in our time. All autocrats leaders, dynast, or emperors, or any sort of 'rulers' will and must come to an end.
Adrian Goldsworthy discusses from remarkable personas like Marcus Aurelius, the philosopher-emperor, and revolutionary ideas of the time. Goldsworthy argues emphatically that the Roman Empire was a superpower without a peer in its time. It controlled all the lands girdling the Mediterranean Sea, most of the known world one can say. So, who is responsible for the fall of this super empire? The Germans? Parthian empire? The Germans? 'Barbarians'? Goldsworthy doesn't think so.
The Auther claims that It was the Romans themselves who are responsible for their era coming to end, that they sank under their weight, and the barbarians just being the executioners, which is different from most scholars' list of bullets why and how Rome fell. when the crisis came for the Empire, there was no movement on the part of the component peoples of the Roman world to break free or overcome power. None of their potential traits was a match the Roman empire's well-armed and well-supplied military force, the Rome emperors were more interested in civil wars.
Goldsworthy tells the main differences between the emperors and their effect through the centuries. From Augustus, who rely on the senates rather than the military. Then following the assassination of Commodus, the winner of the civil war general Septimius Severus came to power, where the senates started to get ignored.
Later, the consecutive emperors Diocletian and Constantine tried to restore stability after a long period of the danger of a coup being around all the time, various individuals commanding armies into claiming the throne. As a result of Diocletian and Constantine's efforts, the emperors became sacred lords instead of just a first citizen.
One of the things that I find fascinating is, how it says the Roman soldiers were willing to fight and kill each other. We can relate to that to this very day, unfortunately. In this time period, the Empire was weakened by the fact that much of the fighting the army did was against other Roman soldiers. That led Roman emperors toward the end of the Empire to see their own power as more important than the survival of the empire as a nation.
Long story short, this was a great read with tons of information to process, especially it never came easy to track the names through the pages.
Adrian Goldsworthy discusses from remarkable personas like Marcus Aurelius, the philosopher-emperor, and revolutionary ideas of the time. Goldsworthy argues emphatically that the Roman Empire was a superpower without a peer in its time. It controlled all the lands girdling the Mediterranean Sea, most of the known world one can say. So, who is responsible for the fall of this super empire? The Germans? Parthian empire? The Germans? 'Barbarians'? Goldsworthy doesn't think so.
The Auther claims that It was the Romans themselves who are responsible for their era coming to end, that they sank under their weight, and the barbarians just being the executioners, which is different from most scholars' list of bullets why and how Rome fell. when the crisis came for the Empire, there was no movement on the part of the component peoples of the Roman world to break free or overcome power. None of their potential traits was a match the Roman empire's well-armed and well-supplied military force, the Rome emperors were more interested in civil wars.
Goldsworthy tells the main differences between the emperors and their effect through the centuries. From Augustus, who rely on the senates rather than the military. Then following the assassination of Commodus, the winner of the civil war general Septimius Severus came to power, where the senates started to get ignored.
Later, the consecutive emperors Diocletian and Constantine tried to restore stability after a long period of the danger of a coup being around all the time, various individuals commanding armies into claiming the throne. As a result of Diocletian and Constantine's efforts, the emperors became sacred lords instead of just a first citizen.
One of the things that I find fascinating is, how it says the Roman soldiers were willing to fight and kill each other. We can relate to that to this very day, unfortunately. In this time period, the Empire was weakened by the fact that much of the fighting the army did was against other Roman soldiers. That led Roman emperors toward the end of the Empire to see their own power as more important than the survival of the empire as a nation.
Long story short, this was a great read with tons of information to process, especially it never came easy to track the names through the pages.
May 14, 2019
Goldsworthy picks up the story of the Roman Empire at the end of the reign of Marcus Aurelius, the last of the five good emperors. In order to tell the best story of how Rome fell, the best place to start is when Rome is at its height. He then takes us through the tumultuous time from 235-284 when emperor after emperor reigned for short times. Of course Diocletian and Constantine get their screentime before moving to the end of the west in the 400s and finishing the story with the east about to face the rise of Islam.
So why did Rome fall? Goldsworthy emphasizes the internal problems of continuous civil war. It was not repeated barbarian invasions that brought Rome to her knees, for even late in the game Rome could beat back the barbarians if they wanted to. By "wanted to" you might substitute "able to put together a united front". Unfortunately they fought themselves over and over which weakened them, eventually beyond the point of no return.
I definitely want to read more of Goldsworthy's works now. For any fan of Roman history, this is a great read.
So why did Rome fall? Goldsworthy emphasizes the internal problems of continuous civil war. It was not repeated barbarian invasions that brought Rome to her knees, for even late in the game Rome could beat back the barbarians if they wanted to. By "wanted to" you might substitute "able to put together a united front". Unfortunately they fought themselves over and over which weakened them, eventually beyond the point of no return.
I definitely want to read more of Goldsworthy's works now. For any fan of Roman history, this is a great read.
May 10, 2013
-Mirando hacia atrás sin perder la vista de lo que hay delante.-
Género. Ensayo.
Lo que nos cuenta. Relato historiográfico de las circunstancias que llevaron al colapso del Imperio Romano (de Occidente, porque aunque toca el tema del Imperio de Oriente, el autor nos quiere centrar en el fin de la Edad Antigua), desde Marco Aurelio hasta Mahoma.
¿Quiere saber más de este libro, sin spoilers? Visite:
http://librosdeolethros.blogspot.com/...
Género. Ensayo.
Lo que nos cuenta. Relato historiográfico de las circunstancias que llevaron al colapso del Imperio Romano (de Occidente, porque aunque toca el tema del Imperio de Oriente, el autor nos quiere centrar en el fin de la Edad Antigua), desde Marco Aurelio hasta Mahoma.
¿Quiere saber más de este libro, sin spoilers? Visite:
http://librosdeolethros.blogspot.com/...
March 5, 2013
As of about AD 200, the Roman Empire was by far the most powerful state within its known world, and had been for over two hundred years. Three hundred years later, the western half of the Empire had ceased to exist, and the remaining part, while still powerful, no longer held the clear advantage over its neighbors that the earlier empire had. Adrian Goldworthy's How Rome Fell is technically a re-examination of how this came about.
However, while this thesis is talked about at the beginning of the book, and then discussed at the end of the book, there's no real reference to it during the book. Instead, it is just a general history of those three hundred plus years. However, it is a very good history of the period, and I think this would be a great place to start for someone wanting to study Late Antiquity. Not only is it generally well-written, but it spends a fair amount of time showing how little we truly know (about the population, economy, actual size of the Roman army in many periods...), and exploding old certainties.
The concluding chapter is also short on certainties, but long on thoughtful commentary about the various ills of the Empire. The main conclusion is that the Empire weakened itself through interminable civil wars. Worse, the reaction to these civil wars was to attempt to remodel the Empire to protect emperors from assassination and rivals, and fail. One of the points that Goldsworthy proposes as key, is the removal of the vestiges of political power and importance from the Senate. When senators stopped being the primary pool to get new emperors from (when the chancy business of dynastic succession fails), the pool of candidates actually became larger, more dispersed, and impossible to control.
His thoughts on the separate fates of the Western and Eastern Empires mostly come down to geography. Among other effects, the various tribal leaders to cross the frontiers had nowhere else to go than the Western Empire. There were no comparable threats to most of the Eastern frontier, and that part that did have power tribal confederations was the Danube. Thrace and Greece were not places they could get very far in, they couldn't cross the Bosphorus to Asia Minor, and that left... the Western Empire. In addition, most of the rebellions and usurpers came from the western provinces, why is not clear, but it may just be success breeding more attempts.
And then there is the quasi-subtitle (only seen on the title page): Death of a Superpower. Goldsworthy equates Rome as a superpower in that there was no other entity that could come close to matching it's size, wealth, manpower, or ability to project power. (Well, China would be an exception, but since it had no way of getting at the Empire, or any of its neighbors, it is ignored.) The final epilogue (and much of the introduction) talks about the inevitable parallels people try to draw between the Roman Empire and the United States, and dismisses many of them. But he does meditate a bit on the problems of bureaucracy, and the dangers of any institution forgetting what its primary purpose is.
Circling back to the content of the bulk of the book, it is a well done survey of the period, and an excellent place to start if you are not well aware of the history of those three to four hundred years. It is less useful to those who have studied the period (I found most of the book familiar ground), but it is still a good single reference book, and there will be some new touches for most people.
However, while this thesis is talked about at the beginning of the book, and then discussed at the end of the book, there's no real reference to it during the book. Instead, it is just a general history of those three hundred plus years. However, it is a very good history of the period, and I think this would be a great place to start for someone wanting to study Late Antiquity. Not only is it generally well-written, but it spends a fair amount of time showing how little we truly know (about the population, economy, actual size of the Roman army in many periods...), and exploding old certainties.
The concluding chapter is also short on certainties, but long on thoughtful commentary about the various ills of the Empire. The main conclusion is that the Empire weakened itself through interminable civil wars. Worse, the reaction to these civil wars was to attempt to remodel the Empire to protect emperors from assassination and rivals, and fail. One of the points that Goldsworthy proposes as key, is the removal of the vestiges of political power and importance from the Senate. When senators stopped being the primary pool to get new emperors from (when the chancy business of dynastic succession fails), the pool of candidates actually became larger, more dispersed, and impossible to control.
His thoughts on the separate fates of the Western and Eastern Empires mostly come down to geography. Among other effects, the various tribal leaders to cross the frontiers had nowhere else to go than the Western Empire. There were no comparable threats to most of the Eastern frontier, and that part that did have power tribal confederations was the Danube. Thrace and Greece were not places they could get very far in, they couldn't cross the Bosphorus to Asia Minor, and that left... the Western Empire. In addition, most of the rebellions and usurpers came from the western provinces, why is not clear, but it may just be success breeding more attempts.
And then there is the quasi-subtitle (only seen on the title page): Death of a Superpower. Goldsworthy equates Rome as a superpower in that there was no other entity that could come close to matching it's size, wealth, manpower, or ability to project power. (Well, China would be an exception, but since it had no way of getting at the Empire, or any of its neighbors, it is ignored.) The final epilogue (and much of the introduction) talks about the inevitable parallels people try to draw between the Roman Empire and the United States, and dismisses many of them. But he does meditate a bit on the problems of bureaucracy, and the dangers of any institution forgetting what its primary purpose is.
Circling back to the content of the bulk of the book, it is a well done survey of the period, and an excellent place to start if you are not well aware of the history of those three to four hundred years. It is less useful to those who have studied the period (I found most of the book familiar ground), but it is still a good single reference book, and there will be some new touches for most people.
May 2, 2016
"Our history now descends from a kingdom of gold to one of rust and iron." So wrote the Roman historian Dio.
This was a very interesting and readable history of the late Western Roman Empire: Marcus Aurelius, d.180 AD until 476 AD, an artificial date, usually given as the fall; there were no more Western Roman emperors after the last one, Romulus Augustulus, a boy who lived out his years in relative comfort. I prefer to term the last centuries as a gradual decline, gaining momentum as the years pass. There was no sudden, cataclysmic event spurring on the end. The decline began after the murders of Commodus and Pertinax and progressed from there. I'd use the analogy of a snowball rolling downhill and gathering speed as it goes. The author gives his speculations as to how and why the Western Empire fell. Of course, since we lack much information and statistics, he has made educated guesses, which seem logical to me. I learned quite a lot from this book.
Most of the book consists of history, but the last two chapters sum up reasons for the 'decline and fall'. There are a few recurring themes: civil wars, usurpations, assassinations, barbarian migration from outside the empire and barbarian invasions. These invasions exploited and undermined the central power, which was growing weaker anyway; the emperors were not concerned with the Empire anymore, but with their own personal survival. A large number of emperors ruled only for a period of months; there were very few years without civil wars and unrest. The author compares and contrasts the Eastern Roman Empire, which endured for another millenium. The author's final analogy to the empire: a retired athlete. He's no longer at the peak of his powers, but sometimes he functions well. Neglect of his body may well lead to his decay and succumbing to disease. On the whole, the book was most informative and educational, due to a very lucid text.
Near the conclusion of the history, the emperors all blurred into one another to me; this was not Mr. Goldsworthy's fault. Many pictures and maps, very complete chronology, bibliography, footnotes, and index enriched this valuable resource.
This was a very interesting and readable history of the late Western Roman Empire: Marcus Aurelius, d.180 AD until 476 AD, an artificial date, usually given as the fall; there were no more Western Roman emperors after the last one, Romulus Augustulus, a boy who lived out his years in relative comfort. I prefer to term the last centuries as a gradual decline, gaining momentum as the years pass. There was no sudden, cataclysmic event spurring on the end. The decline began after the murders of Commodus and Pertinax and progressed from there. I'd use the analogy of a snowball rolling downhill and gathering speed as it goes. The author gives his speculations as to how and why the Western Empire fell. Of course, since we lack much information and statistics, he has made educated guesses, which seem logical to me. I learned quite a lot from this book.
Most of the book consists of history, but the last two chapters sum up reasons for the 'decline and fall'. There are a few recurring themes: civil wars, usurpations, assassinations, barbarian migration from outside the empire and barbarian invasions. These invasions exploited and undermined the central power, which was growing weaker anyway; the emperors were not concerned with the Empire anymore, but with their own personal survival. A large number of emperors ruled only for a period of months; there were very few years without civil wars and unrest. The author compares and contrasts the Eastern Roman Empire, which endured for another millenium. The author's final analogy to the empire: a retired athlete. He's no longer at the peak of his powers, but sometimes he functions well. Neglect of his body may well lead to his decay and succumbing to disease. On the whole, the book was most informative and educational, due to a very lucid text.
Near the conclusion of the history, the emperors all blurred into one another to me; this was not Mr. Goldsworthy's fault. Many pictures and maps, very complete chronology, bibliography, footnotes, and index enriched this valuable resource.
December 10, 2013
This book was a very interesting read, first of all because I love Roman history, and also because I like Goldsworthy’s style. The title is a bit of misnomer though; The Roman Empire and the Army from 180 to approximately 500 would perhaps be more correct. That’s not strange, as Goldsworthy has made a career out of writing about the Roman army.
In this book Goldsworthy tries to give his view on what is known as the fall of the Roman Empire (most history-books will mention the year 476 when the last Western Roman emperor was deposed and no new emperor proclaimed, which is adequate enough as an artificial divide), a subject which has gotten a lot of attention in the last decades. Goldsworthy devotes quite a lot of time to discussing popular theories, usually setting out those theories in one or two paragraphs and then moving on to argue for or, more commonly, against them.
In actual fact Goldsworthy gives a narrative from the period of Marcus Aurelius to the first half of the sixth century. Larger themes are the relationship of the Roman superpower (a theme that comes back time and again) with the rest of the world, and the problems faced by the Roman emperors and their administration. It’s very interesting to see how Goldsworthy tends to adjudicate the current trends in academia. As always his style is very fluent, and he knows how to make an argument without coming across as tedious or over bearing, even if he does manage to keep coming back to certain themes and theories, in the case of other people’s theories more often than not to show why exactlythey are to be disregarded.
Potential readers should note that Goldsworthy is writing both from an academic viewpoint, but with an eye for the more casual reader. He’s up to speed with academia, but his narrative is designed to appeal to anyone interested in the period.
I loved it, though I hesitate to give it five out five stars. It was good and all, but not great.
In this book Goldsworthy tries to give his view on what is known as the fall of the Roman Empire (most history-books will mention the year 476 when the last Western Roman emperor was deposed and no new emperor proclaimed, which is adequate enough as an artificial divide), a subject which has gotten a lot of attention in the last decades. Goldsworthy devotes quite a lot of time to discussing popular theories, usually setting out those theories in one or two paragraphs and then moving on to argue for or, more commonly, against them.
In actual fact Goldsworthy gives a narrative from the period of Marcus Aurelius to the first half of the sixth century. Larger themes are the relationship of the Roman superpower (a theme that comes back time and again) with the rest of the world, and the problems faced by the Roman emperors and their administration. It’s very interesting to see how Goldsworthy tends to adjudicate the current trends in academia. As always his style is very fluent, and he knows how to make an argument without coming across as tedious or over bearing, even if he does manage to keep coming back to certain themes and theories, in the case of other people’s theories more often than not to show why exactlythey are to be disregarded.
Potential readers should note that Goldsworthy is writing both from an academic viewpoint, but with an eye for the more casual reader. He’s up to speed with academia, but his narrative is designed to appeal to anyone interested in the period.
I loved it, though I hesitate to give it five out five stars. It was good and all, but not great.
September 18, 2009
I loved this book. It's a highly readable history of Rome beginning with the reign of Marcus Aurelius and ending just as the united Arab tribes conquered more than half of the lands of the Eastern Roman Empire.
I have to confess that I wasn't sure if I wanted to read this book, so I downloaded it off of bittorrent. I was amazed to even find it. But as I was getting into the book I felt guilty and bought the Kindle version. This had the advantage of allowing me to read it on my iPhone during a boring week long series of meetings and trainings.
The maps are worthless on the Kindle version of this book, so have a handy reference map nearby. I used the trusty Penguin Historical Atlas of Rome, which allowed me to find the places mentioned in the book. I also relied on the Atlas's handy summaries during the few periods when I got confused.
One other minor complaint about How Rome Fell is that characters just pop up and then disappear for a few pages and then pop up again. For people without photographic memory or an encyclopedic knowledge of Roman emperors, their many usurpers, and tribal leaders.
There is an excellent timeline and glossary at the end of the book. This is difficult to use on the Kindle. Also, the footnotes aren't accessible as links, which was disappointing. In fact, maybe this is one of the few books that would be better to read on paper rather than on the Kindle.
It's still highly recommended in any format.
I have to confess that I wasn't sure if I wanted to read this book, so I downloaded it off of bittorrent. I was amazed to even find it. But as I was getting into the book I felt guilty and bought the Kindle version. This had the advantage of allowing me to read it on my iPhone during a boring week long series of meetings and trainings.
The maps are worthless on the Kindle version of this book, so have a handy reference map nearby. I used the trusty Penguin Historical Atlas of Rome, which allowed me to find the places mentioned in the book. I also relied on the Atlas's handy summaries during the few periods when I got confused.
One other minor complaint about How Rome Fell is that characters just pop up and then disappear for a few pages and then pop up again. For people without photographic memory or an encyclopedic knowledge of Roman emperors, their many usurpers, and tribal leaders.
There is an excellent timeline and glossary at the end of the book. This is difficult to use on the Kindle. Also, the footnotes aren't accessible as links, which was disappointing. In fact, maybe this is one of the few books that would be better to read on paper rather than on the Kindle.
It's still highly recommended in any format.
March 29, 2013
-Mirando hacia atrás sin perder la vista de lo que hay delante.-
Género. Ensayo.
Lo que nos cuenta. Relato historiográfico de las circunstancias que llevaron al colapso del Imperio Romano (de Occidente, porque aunque toca el tema del Imperio de Oriente, el autor nos quiere centrar en el fin de la Edad Antigua), desde Marco Aurelio hasta Mahoma.
¿Quiere saber más de este libro, sin spoilers? Visite:
http://librosdeolethros.blogspot.com/...
Género. Ensayo.
Lo que nos cuenta. Relato historiográfico de las circunstancias que llevaron al colapso del Imperio Romano (de Occidente, porque aunque toca el tema del Imperio de Oriente, el autor nos quiere centrar en el fin de la Edad Antigua), desde Marco Aurelio hasta Mahoma.
¿Quiere saber más de este libro, sin spoilers? Visite:
http://librosdeolethros.blogspot.com/...
July 17, 2025
Het zal geen populaire mening zijn, maar ik vond het boek vrij teleurstellend. De ambities die de auteur in de inleiding noemt, zijn voor mij niet bereikt. De val van Rome is een te groot overzichtswerk met te weinig echt nieuwe inzichten. Er worden veel standpunten van eerdere historici herkauwd vanuit een politiek-militaire invalshoek. Niet bepaald creatief.
Een van de weinige echt goede inzichten die Goldsworthy de lezer biedt, is dat het West-Romeinse rijk vooral door intern conflict viel. Hij legt echter niet duidelijk uit waarom dit zo is gekomen. Pas in de conclusie wordt echt duidelijk verwezen naar de republikeinse sluier van Augustus. Hier had de auteur beter op in kunnen gaan in zijn boek dan de honderden pagina's aan slachtpartijen en coupplegers.
Het boek is vooral een droog feitenrelaas. Misschien dat men dit een decennium geleden nodig had, maar er zijn tegenwoordig ongetwijfeld betere werken van auteurs die wel standpunten durven in te nemen. Goldsworthy gebruikt helaas geen unieke invalshoek zoals microgeschiedenis of global history waar de lezer houvast bij kan hebben. Het boek heeft geleden onder dit gebrek aan richting in het verhaal. Ook al weten we iets niet zeker, dan is het alsnog de taak van de historicus om in zijn tijd een verhaal te reconstrueren. Anders komt het debat niet vooruit.
Kortom, geen aanrader tenzij je op zoek bent naar een algemeen overzichtswerk over de late keizertijd. Er is veel herhaling voor de lezer om het boek te kunnen bijbenen, maar de auteur levert zelden inzichten die zijn eerdere collega-historici al niet hadden geleverd.
Een van de weinige echt goede inzichten die Goldsworthy de lezer biedt, is dat het West-Romeinse rijk vooral door intern conflict viel. Hij legt echter niet duidelijk uit waarom dit zo is gekomen. Pas in de conclusie wordt echt duidelijk verwezen naar de republikeinse sluier van Augustus. Hier had de auteur beter op in kunnen gaan in zijn boek dan de honderden pagina's aan slachtpartijen en coupplegers.
Het boek is vooral een droog feitenrelaas. Misschien dat men dit een decennium geleden nodig had, maar er zijn tegenwoordig ongetwijfeld betere werken van auteurs die wel standpunten durven in te nemen. Goldsworthy gebruikt helaas geen unieke invalshoek zoals microgeschiedenis of global history waar de lezer houvast bij kan hebben. Het boek heeft geleden onder dit gebrek aan richting in het verhaal. Ook al weten we iets niet zeker, dan is het alsnog de taak van de historicus om in zijn tijd een verhaal te reconstrueren. Anders komt het debat niet vooruit.
Kortom, geen aanrader tenzij je op zoek bent naar een algemeen overzichtswerk over de late keizertijd. Er is veel herhaling voor de lezer om het boek te kunnen bijbenen, maar de auteur levert zelden inzichten die zijn eerdere collega-historici al niet hadden geleverd.
September 21, 2025
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐½
Review of How Rome Fell by Adrian Goldsworthy
Adrian Goldsworthy remains my favorite writer of Ancient Rome and antiquity. He writes with a great sense of gravitas and always manages to get the most out of the ancient sources. How Rome Fell is no exception—it’s a sweeping and meticulously researched account of the Empire’s long decline.
I certainly enjoyed the first half of the book more than the second. Goldsworthy’s writing on Marcus Aurelius was absolutely masterful, capturing both the emperor’s strength and the mounting pressures of the age. But I have to admit, I’m not as big a fan of the Roman Empire post-225. The sources grow thinner, the narrative becomes more chaotic, and the emperors seem to drop like flies. For me, the story loses some of its richness as time unravels from the inside out and power shifts more decisively to the East.
That said, Goldsworthy handles the complexity with aplomb. Even in the later sections, where my personal interest wanes, he lays out the events with clarity and insight. His ability to sift through fragmentary sources and construct a coherent narrative is remarkable, and he manages to balance scholarly rigor with readability.
Overall, How Rome Fell is another excellent work from a historian I deeply admire. While my own interests lean more toward the early and high empire, I came away with a richer understanding of Rome’s decline thanks to Goldsworthy’s scholarship and storytelling.
Review of How Rome Fell by Adrian Goldsworthy
Adrian Goldsworthy remains my favorite writer of Ancient Rome and antiquity. He writes with a great sense of gravitas and always manages to get the most out of the ancient sources. How Rome Fell is no exception—it’s a sweeping and meticulously researched account of the Empire’s long decline.
I certainly enjoyed the first half of the book more than the second. Goldsworthy’s writing on Marcus Aurelius was absolutely masterful, capturing both the emperor’s strength and the mounting pressures of the age. But I have to admit, I’m not as big a fan of the Roman Empire post-225. The sources grow thinner, the narrative becomes more chaotic, and the emperors seem to drop like flies. For me, the story loses some of its richness as time unravels from the inside out and power shifts more decisively to the East.
That said, Goldsworthy handles the complexity with aplomb. Even in the later sections, where my personal interest wanes, he lays out the events with clarity and insight. His ability to sift through fragmentary sources and construct a coherent narrative is remarkable, and he manages to balance scholarly rigor with readability.
Overall, How Rome Fell is another excellent work from a historian I deeply admire. While my own interests lean more toward the early and high empire, I came away with a richer understanding of Rome’s decline thanks to Goldsworthy’s scholarship and storytelling.
February 25, 2021
Goldsworthy logra exponer de una forma clara y sencilla algo tan complejo como son todas las fichas que tuvieron que ver en la caída del imperio romano de Occidente. Si bien este libro en ocasiones me ha resultado más denso que otros que he leído de Goldsworthy, recomiendo encarecidamente que lo lea todo aquel que quiera saber más sobre el tema, no necesitas conocimientos previos, solamente tiempo para leerlo y ganas de aprender sobre este tema tan interesante
November 10, 2024
In some ways, this book is excellent, but in others, it feels like a bait-and-switch. There is no doubt that Goldsworthy is an exceptional writer, narrating with inimitable clarity and fastidiousness. He clearly loves writing about Rome. However, to my frustration, this means that he often delves into highly specific and somewhat tedious details that can be discursive at times. Knowing when to skim versus reading thoughtfully is helpful when diving into his work.
Nonetheless, this is a great book. Its scope, comprehensiveness, and clarity are fitting for the many events within the empire that led to its collapse. I found Goldsworthy’s attempts at contextualizing certain periods and individuals within the values of their time very admirable. Great historians need to do this. However, it requires a certain obsession with the Roman Empire that few, including myself, possess. I felt that a third of this book could have been omitted without detracting from its central thesis, which Goldsworthy summarizes beautifully: Rome was corrupted from within. The institutions it maintained were doomed to fail, and the sacking of Rome was more like the murder of a feeble elderly person than a sudden, massive catastrophe.
Nonetheless, this is a great book. Its scope, comprehensiveness, and clarity are fitting for the many events within the empire that led to its collapse. I found Goldsworthy’s attempts at contextualizing certain periods and individuals within the values of their time very admirable. Great historians need to do this. However, it requires a certain obsession with the Roman Empire that few, including myself, possess. I felt that a third of this book could have been omitted without detracting from its central thesis, which Goldsworthy summarizes beautifully: Rome was corrupted from within. The institutions it maintained were doomed to fail, and the sacking of Rome was more like the murder of a feeble elderly person than a sudden, massive catastrophe.
May 3, 2010
This book's interesting thesis is that it wasn't exterior forces that caused Rome's fall, and that the Persians weren't necessarily "tougher" an enemy than the Parthians, but that Rome collapsed from within. The barbarians just gave it the coup de grace. Combination of wasted resources, possible decay in population, an overgrown bureaucracy, and Emperors who would rather fight each other (or would-be Emperors) rather than external enemies.
Read
September 25, 2015Goldsworthy is the author of numerous works of popular history and is very familiar with the form. He provides and excellent and detailed narrative, as well as an analysis focused on political systems.
April 23, 2013
Civil war, barbarians, civil war, assassinations, civil war, inflation, civil war, bureaucracy, civil war.
Civil war it is.
Civil war it is.
April 13, 2025
A few years ago, a viral meme claimed that men think about the Roman Empire several times per day. Interviews between women and men flooded the internet in which men claimed they thought about Romans regularly. It is, of course, ridiculous to paint with too broad a brush. Not only do many men likely never think about the Romans, but with three millennia of history to contemplate, people are unlikely to even think about the same era. Approximately 1,300 years separate the founding of Rome from the fall of its Western Empire. The Eastern Empire persisted for another 1,100 years beyond that!
Of all the eras in the Roman era, the collapse of the Roman Empire is certainly among the most popular. How did Rome descend from near universal notoriety to ignominious collapse? At its height in the third century AD, the Romans controlled territory on three continents. Its borders contained much or all of the modern day countries of England, Spain, Algeria, Syria, Romania, Türkiye, Croatia, and more. However, after the reign of the last emperor of the West ended in 476 AD, the Western Roman Empire barely controlled all of Italy.
Goldsworthy’s “How Rome Fell” is a comprehensive postmortem of the world’s first superpower. It begins with the death of Marcus Aurelius—one of history’s truly great political leaders. From there, Goldsworthy traces the gradual atrophy of the Roman state. To the people living during the long period of Roman decline, Rome’s collapse likely appeared an impossibility. The power of Rome ensured that nothing—not even the sacking of its former capital city—could rapidly unravel the state.
I love to study Rome’s collapse because it is a paradox. It is a complex, nuanced topic with a fairly simple answer. Goldsworthy agrees. He dedicates the last two chapters of his history to the answer. Spoiler alert: it’s mostly corruption.
Corruption is the ultimate enemy of any given political state. It is the constant companion of power. (The Founding Fathers of the United States developed a novel political system designed to mitigate its effects. Not even they—themselves avid students of Rome—could build a bulletproof solution.) Autocratic governments are the most efficient governments humans can design. However, with that efficiency comes ample opportunity for corruption. Corruption, when married to autocracy and efficiency, is always lethal. No state can withstand its rot, not even Rome.
Toward the end of the book, Goldsworthy draws a strained comparison between Rome and the United States. He states flatly that comparisons between the two superpowers (and the United States’ predecessor, the United Kingdom) are frequently inappropriate. There are substantial, material differences between the superpowers of yesteryear and those of today. Despite that, Goldsworthy shows how we may avoid their mistakes. Unfortunately, we seem to have mistaken his warning for a recipe.
Of all the eras in the Roman era, the collapse of the Roman Empire is certainly among the most popular. How did Rome descend from near universal notoriety to ignominious collapse? At its height in the third century AD, the Romans controlled territory on three continents. Its borders contained much or all of the modern day countries of England, Spain, Algeria, Syria, Romania, Türkiye, Croatia, and more. However, after the reign of the last emperor of the West ended in 476 AD, the Western Roman Empire barely controlled all of Italy.
Goldsworthy’s “How Rome Fell” is a comprehensive postmortem of the world’s first superpower. It begins with the death of Marcus Aurelius—one of history’s truly great political leaders. From there, Goldsworthy traces the gradual atrophy of the Roman state. To the people living during the long period of Roman decline, Rome’s collapse likely appeared an impossibility. The power of Rome ensured that nothing—not even the sacking of its former capital city—could rapidly unravel the state.
I love to study Rome’s collapse because it is a paradox. It is a complex, nuanced topic with a fairly simple answer. Goldsworthy agrees. He dedicates the last two chapters of his history to the answer. Spoiler alert: it’s mostly corruption.
Corruption is the ultimate enemy of any given political state. It is the constant companion of power. (The Founding Fathers of the United States developed a novel political system designed to mitigate its effects. Not even they—themselves avid students of Rome—could build a bulletproof solution.) Autocratic governments are the most efficient governments humans can design. However, with that efficiency comes ample opportunity for corruption. Corruption, when married to autocracy and efficiency, is always lethal. No state can withstand its rot, not even Rome.
Toward the end of the book, Goldsworthy draws a strained comparison between Rome and the United States. He states flatly that comparisons between the two superpowers (and the United States’ predecessor, the United Kingdom) are frequently inappropriate. There are substantial, material differences between the superpowers of yesteryear and those of today. Despite that, Goldsworthy shows how we may avoid their mistakes. Unfortunately, we seem to have mistaken his warning for a recipe.
March 19, 2024
Ihan ok.
Varsin kummalliset alkusanat ja epilogi, joka ei ole ollut tyypillistä muuten Goldsworthyn kirjoille. Sisällöllisesti vähän listaavaa, paljon vain käydään läpi eri keisareiden lyhyitä valtajaksoja ja valtaannousuja läpi. Jonkin verran riipastaan sotilashallintoa, pieni raapaisu siviilihallintoa ja siihenpä se vähän jääkin. Ei tästä nyt sivumääräisesti niin hirveän hyvää kuvaa saa siitä kuitenkaan että mitä Goldsworthy yrittää sanoa. Toisaalta väittää että jatkuvat sisällissodat ja vallankaappaukset söivät imperiumin perustan, toisaalta väittää että Rooma oli lähtökohtaisestikin niin heikko, että oli ihme että se pysyi pystyssä niin kauan. Kuitenkin ihan mielenkiintoinen kun oma tietämys tästä ajanjaksosta on melko vähäistä. Ei kuitenkaan sellainen fiilis jäänyt, että tämä olisi ainoa kirja mitä asiasta tarvitsisi lukea.
Varsin kummalliset alkusanat ja epilogi, joka ei ole ollut tyypillistä muuten Goldsworthyn kirjoille. Sisällöllisesti vähän listaavaa, paljon vain käydään läpi eri keisareiden lyhyitä valtajaksoja ja valtaannousuja läpi. Jonkin verran riipastaan sotilashallintoa, pieni raapaisu siviilihallintoa ja siihenpä se vähän jääkin. Ei tästä nyt sivumääräisesti niin hirveän hyvää kuvaa saa siitä kuitenkaan että mitä Goldsworthy yrittää sanoa. Toisaalta väittää että jatkuvat sisällissodat ja vallankaappaukset söivät imperiumin perustan, toisaalta väittää että Rooma oli lähtökohtaisestikin niin heikko, että oli ihme että se pysyi pystyssä niin kauan. Kuitenkin ihan mielenkiintoinen kun oma tietämys tästä ajanjaksosta on melko vähäistä. Ei kuitenkaan sellainen fiilis jäänyt, että tämä olisi ainoa kirja mitä asiasta tarvitsisi lukea.
January 4, 2025
‘The Fall of the West: The Death of the Roman Superpower’ is an unmissable look into the fall of the Roman Empire in the West, the misconceptions surrounding it, and the circumstances of its fall.
Goldsworthy has such an easy style of writing that you find yourself being pulled into, even better than other writers of the subject of Rome like Holland. He never overfills his text with too much jargon and fact, he just gives you the necessary details to ford through the proverbial bog which is the fall of Western Rome.
The subject matter Goldsworthy deals with is astounding. Never did I know just how chaotic and self-destructive Rome became before it finally fell with a whimper. It’s incredible.
Overall, I’d recommend this to anyone looking for an introductory source into the fall of the Western Roman Empire, in addition to the beginnings of the Byzantine Empire.
Goldsworthy has such an easy style of writing that you find yourself being pulled into, even better than other writers of the subject of Rome like Holland. He never overfills his text with too much jargon and fact, he just gives you the necessary details to ford through the proverbial bog which is the fall of Western Rome.
The subject matter Goldsworthy deals with is astounding. Never did I know just how chaotic and self-destructive Rome became before it finally fell with a whimper. It’s incredible.
Overall, I’d recommend this to anyone looking for an introductory source into the fall of the Western Roman Empire, in addition to the beginnings of the Byzantine Empire.
June 12, 2022
A Good Review of Rome’s Fall
Still so complex I can’t easily get my head around it, this book on Rome’s fall helps. Good to read and as comprehensible as can be.
Still so complex I can’t easily get my head around it, this book on Rome’s fall helps. Good to read and as comprehensible as can be.
June 28, 2025
Very learned, but suffering a bit from professional historian syndrome: too much equivocation, too little narration and assertion.
October 28, 2022
Book: How Rome Fell: Death of a Superpower
Author: Adrian Goldsworthy
Publisher: Yale Univ Pr (28 September 2010)
Language: English
Paperback: 531 pages
Item Weight: 794 g
Dimensions: 15.24 x 3.81 x 23.75 cm
Price: 2110/-
`The decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness. Prosperity repined the principle of decay; the causes of destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest; and as soon as time or accident had removed the artificial supports, the stupendous fabric yielded to the pressure of its own weight. The story of its ruin is simple and obvious; and instead of inquiring why the Roman empire was destroyed, we should rather be surprised that it lasted so long.' - Edward Gibbon
This 560 page book is unerringly what a classic looks like – economy of words, incorporation of psychoanalysis and thoughts, each and every chapter vigilantly carved out, leading to a commonsensical and very very reasonable conclusion.
The author has divided the book in three sections, chronologically leading to a crescendo.
Part One entitled, ‘Crisis? The Third Century’ has the following chapters:
1. The Kingdom of Gold
2. The Secret of Empire
3. Imperial Women
4. King of Kings
5. Barbarians
6. The Queen and the `Necessary' Emperor
7. Crisis
Part Two entitled, ‘Recovery? The Fourth Century’ has the subsequent chapters:
8. The Four - Diocletian and the Tetrarchy
9. The Christian
10. Rivals
11. Enemies
12. The Pagan
13. Goths
14. East and West
Part Three entitled, ‘Fall? The Fifth and Sixth Centuries’, has the following chapters:
15. Barbarians and Romans: Generals and Rebels
16. The Sister and the Eternal City
17. The Hun
18. Sunset on an Outpost of Empire
19. Emperors, Kings and Warlords
20. West and East
21. Rise and Fall
Let’s start from the end.
The author says: ‘The Roman Empire continued for a very long time. Successive blows knocked away sections of it, as attackers uncovered its weaknesses.
Yet at times the empire could still be fearsome and did not simply collapse. Perhaps we should imagine the Late Roman Empire as a retired athlete, whose body has declined from neglect and an unhealthy lifestyle. At times the muscles will still function well and with the memory of previous skill and training.
Yet, as the neglect continues, the body becomes less and less capable of resisting disease or recovering from injury. Over the years the person would grow weaker and weaker, and in the end could easily succumb to disease. Long decline was the fate of the Roman Empire.
In the end, it may well have been ‘murdered’ by barbarian invaders, but these struck at a body made vulnerable by prolonged decay…’
When we think of the fall of Rome, we picture the forceful and celebrated Empire at its peak falling to hordes of Barbarians. But like any decline, it was a comprehensive and extended procedure, with many stops and starts along the way. In actual fact, when one speaks of Rome falling, one does not have a precise date to focus his attention on.
A key date, in any case from a representative viewpoint, is 476 AD.
In that year, Odoacer toppled the last Emperor of Western Rome, a so-called “barbarian” general. This is a good place to terminate the narrative since there would never again be a Roman Emperor in Rome.
However, that was not in reality the conclusion of the Empire.
Well before the city of Rome was conquered, the Empire had cracked into two. For years Empire had been wracked by civil wars, rebellions, and all sorts of strife. The events of the 3rd Century in Roman History are often named the “calamity of the third century.”
Empires kept rising and facing brutal death, and out-of-control inflation caused a harsh fiscal catastrophe.
The ruling elites split it into two in 284, giving the Western Empire to Diocletian and the Eastern Empire to Constantine the Great. Constantinople and the Eastern Empire outlasted the Western Roman Empire by almost 1000 years. Therefore, one could make a sensibly persuasive case that the Roman Empire in the larger sense only fell in 1453 when Mehmed the Conqueror took Constantinople and made it the capital of the Ottoman Empire.
A major part of this book throws light on the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the city of Rome. Several dilemmas eroded the composition of the Roman Empire in its later years. Perhaps the best known, and perhaps the most noteworthy, was the invasion of the territory of the Empire by tribes which the Romans called “barbarians.”
When we think of barbarians, we envisage savage fighters in loin clothes covered in paint. Some tribes the Romans called by that name fit that description! However, in this milieu, the word means someone who speaks a foreign language. The Greeks used it to portray people who didn’t speak their language, and accordingly the words sounded like gabble to them.
The foremost groups of barbarians which troubled the Western Roman Empire were Germanic tribes.
The Romans had fought against tribes in that region for generations to enlarge their border north and eastward. However, after a devastating loss in the Battle of Teutoburg Forest, the great Emperor Augustus determined that it was time to stop trying to get bigger and create a border between Rome and the barbarians, centering on the Rhine, the area’s major river.
Over time, the groups began to pass through that frontier and settle on Roman territory. Sometimes, they did so against the wishes of the Imperial government – and other times, with its blessing.
One might conjecture why the Romans could not keep the barbarian tribes out, considering all of their might. However, it was not that simple.
The author shows that, borders are thought of as a point where one country begins, and another ends, but that is not how the Roman Empire – or any other Imperial structure at that time – was built. Instead, the tribes and political systems had been around the border area for generations.
Most of their leaders were client kings who paid tribute to Rome frequently and were considered friends of Rome. What changed is not so much that they entered the territory but rather that Emperor had lost control over them.
Hence, the decisive query is, why did Rome lose power over those tribes?
There were powers at play further than those of even the mightiest Emperor, such as the earth’s climate. The author shows that climate change had begun to push more than a few groups away from the steppes of central Asia eastward, most particularly a nomadic group called the Huns.
The barbarians began to journey further inland into the Empire at a time known as the Great Migration. The Huns movement towards Eastern Europe terrorized the locals, forcing many to wander into the Roman Empire. There were just too many people for the Romans to prevent.
To make matters more multifaceted, some of these tribes had been allies of Rome and were only asking for a secure place to call home. In some cases, the Emperors felt indebted to help.
Besides, the Empire was in no shape to deal with a new predicament as it had run into some ruthless economic mess. Rome had overextended and was spending far too much money on military campaigns and the administration of insubordinate provinces. That meant they could no longer expand as they once did.
The answer? Tax the populace.
Roman taxes became so officious and overbearing that, farmers sank into dearth and Roman elites tried to flee and conceal their property from the tax man. Also, to keep their Empire in order, the Romans granted citizenship to loads of migrants and those in areas they ccupied.
While it was great for those people, the policy caused a stern trouble by lowering the ready supply of slaves that had fed economic augmentation for generations.
As we know from more recent history, nothing fuels economic growth more than free and ill-treated labour. However, with this policy, Rome could not inflate and could not overpower the people it had conquered because they were citizens. Therefore, it began to experience a grim labour deficiency.
This predicament was increased by the barbarian tribes running rampant in the former territories of the Empire.
In 428, a tribe called the Vandals – formerly from southern Poland – took over the North African provinces. This was a historic blow to the economy and configuration of the Empire. To make matters worse, they adopted piracy and began to prey on the Roman trade routes in the Mediterranean.
As more and more tribes made their homes within the Empire, the centralized authority of Rome had more intricacy collecting taxes and fighting them off. Instead, some of these tribes ruled large areas, taxing them themselves. They often were aided by a limited aristocracy that was pleased to have an opportunity to shake off Roman domination and the elevated taxes that came with it.
As the tribes gained power within the Empire’s territory, they sacked and looted its wealthiest cities. One of the most dramatic symptoms of this crisis was the renowned sack of Rome.
The Gauls had already laid siege to the city in 387 BC, but that was before it had become a massive power.
It must have been an unlimited surprise to Rome’s people when Alaric and the Visigoths entered the sanctified city; they were familiarized with seeing themselves as the seat of world power.
Still, if you one conceives a colossal destruction and slaughter, he’s mistaken. Alaric and his followers had immense admiration for Rome and no craving to annihilate a civilization they considered superior to their own. All they were after was wealth.
Alaric also wanted to use the capture of the city as leverage over the Emperor. He hoped to receive a large and dangerous donation of land for his Visigoth tribe in exchange for leaving the city. The barbarians left Rome and allowed power to recommence, but it was a wake-up call to the thinning capabilities of the once-mighty Empire.
When the last Emperor died in 476 and Rome was annexed to the barbarian government Kingdom of Italy, it was almost anti-climactic.
Rome had been a despondent remnant state for quite some time by then. The city of Rome had fallen, and the Empire it had sustained was gone. But the concept of the Roman Empire endured.
The author shows that it did so in quite a few forms. The Eastern Roman Empire, which we call Byzantium, continued to refer to its leaders as Roman Emperors. And indeed, as they built on a state established by Constantine the Great, they were heirs to its power.
Besides, future leaders in other parts of the world, such as Charlemagne and Peter the Great, claimed power derived from the Roman Emperors.
The Church in Rome grew in standing over the years and continued to claim much of the esteem and influence of the Empire that once governed the city. The Catholic Church wielded that influence globally, becoming a significant player throughout the world in areas as far afield as sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America, stretching over territory a Roman Emperor could only dream of.
The book ends with this note – kindly follow this intimately, dear reader –
‘In the meantime, something unexpected by either Rome or Persia had occurred to the south. A merchant named Muhammad from the Arab trading town of Mecca preached a new religion and united the Arab tribes. He taught that there was only one God - not a Trinity of complex definition as the Christians had claimed and argued over.
Jesus was revered as a prophet, one in a succession that culminated in Muhammad, the greatest of them all. Muhammad died in 632, but his followers swept on to success after success. Both Persia and Rome had exhausted their strength in their long conflicts with each other. Sassanid Persia was the first to fall, collapsing in just a few years. Then in 636 the Arabs won an overwhelming victory over the Romans near the River Yarmuk.
They soon took Palestine, Syria and, not long afterwards, Egypt itself. Later their armies would sweep across North Africa and overwhelm the Roman provinces there.
How the Arabs united and achieved such incredible conquests is a fascinating story, but it is too long a tale to tell here. By the end of the seventh century the Eastern Empire survived, as it would do until the fifteenth century, but it was a minuscule rump even of the territories ruled by Justinian.
The superpower had died centuries before his day.
By the time of the Arab conquests the shape of medieval Europe was still developing. Society there lacked the comforts common in the centuries of Roman rule.
It was also less sophisticated, with low levels of literacy and patterns of trade far reduced in distance and quantity from the height of the empire. By comparison the Muslim world preserved far more aspects of Greco-Roman civilisation, to which the Arabs would add ideas and refinements of their own.
In part this was because their heartland lay in regions that had known civilisation long before the arrival of the Greeks and Romans.
Both the Islamic world, and in time the `barbarians' of the west, would develop further, rediscovering old ideas or inventing new ones. Marcus Aurelius understood that the world was always changing, but by the seventh century it is doubtful that he would have seen much that was familiar in the lands that had once been his empire….’
Most recommended for history aficionados.
Author: Adrian Goldsworthy
Publisher: Yale Univ Pr (28 September 2010)
Language: English
Paperback: 531 pages
Item Weight: 794 g
Dimensions: 15.24 x 3.81 x 23.75 cm
Price: 2110/-
`The decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness. Prosperity repined the principle of decay; the causes of destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest; and as soon as time or accident had removed the artificial supports, the stupendous fabric yielded to the pressure of its own weight. The story of its ruin is simple and obvious; and instead of inquiring why the Roman empire was destroyed, we should rather be surprised that it lasted so long.' - Edward Gibbon
This 560 page book is unerringly what a classic looks like – economy of words, incorporation of psychoanalysis and thoughts, each and every chapter vigilantly carved out, leading to a commonsensical and very very reasonable conclusion.
The author has divided the book in three sections, chronologically leading to a crescendo.
Part One entitled, ‘Crisis? The Third Century’ has the following chapters:
1. The Kingdom of Gold
2. The Secret of Empire
3. Imperial Women
4. King of Kings
5. Barbarians
6. The Queen and the `Necessary' Emperor
7. Crisis
Part Two entitled, ‘Recovery? The Fourth Century’ has the subsequent chapters:
8. The Four - Diocletian and the Tetrarchy
9. The Christian
10. Rivals
11. Enemies
12. The Pagan
13. Goths
14. East and West
Part Three entitled, ‘Fall? The Fifth and Sixth Centuries’, has the following chapters:
15. Barbarians and Romans: Generals and Rebels
16. The Sister and the Eternal City
17. The Hun
18. Sunset on an Outpost of Empire
19. Emperors, Kings and Warlords
20. West and East
21. Rise and Fall
Let’s start from the end.
The author says: ‘The Roman Empire continued for a very long time. Successive blows knocked away sections of it, as attackers uncovered its weaknesses.
Yet at times the empire could still be fearsome and did not simply collapse. Perhaps we should imagine the Late Roman Empire as a retired athlete, whose body has declined from neglect and an unhealthy lifestyle. At times the muscles will still function well and with the memory of previous skill and training.
Yet, as the neglect continues, the body becomes less and less capable of resisting disease or recovering from injury. Over the years the person would grow weaker and weaker, and in the end could easily succumb to disease. Long decline was the fate of the Roman Empire.
In the end, it may well have been ‘murdered’ by barbarian invaders, but these struck at a body made vulnerable by prolonged decay…’
When we think of the fall of Rome, we picture the forceful and celebrated Empire at its peak falling to hordes of Barbarians. But like any decline, it was a comprehensive and extended procedure, with many stops and starts along the way. In actual fact, when one speaks of Rome falling, one does not have a precise date to focus his attention on.
A key date, in any case from a representative viewpoint, is 476 AD.
In that year, Odoacer toppled the last Emperor of Western Rome, a so-called “barbarian” general. This is a good place to terminate the narrative since there would never again be a Roman Emperor in Rome.
However, that was not in reality the conclusion of the Empire.
Well before the city of Rome was conquered, the Empire had cracked into two. For years Empire had been wracked by civil wars, rebellions, and all sorts of strife. The events of the 3rd Century in Roman History are often named the “calamity of the third century.”
Empires kept rising and facing brutal death, and out-of-control inflation caused a harsh fiscal catastrophe.
The ruling elites split it into two in 284, giving the Western Empire to Diocletian and the Eastern Empire to Constantine the Great. Constantinople and the Eastern Empire outlasted the Western Roman Empire by almost 1000 years. Therefore, one could make a sensibly persuasive case that the Roman Empire in the larger sense only fell in 1453 when Mehmed the Conqueror took Constantinople and made it the capital of the Ottoman Empire.
A major part of this book throws light on the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the city of Rome. Several dilemmas eroded the composition of the Roman Empire in its later years. Perhaps the best known, and perhaps the most noteworthy, was the invasion of the territory of the Empire by tribes which the Romans called “barbarians.”
When we think of barbarians, we envisage savage fighters in loin clothes covered in paint. Some tribes the Romans called by that name fit that description! However, in this milieu, the word means someone who speaks a foreign language. The Greeks used it to portray people who didn’t speak their language, and accordingly the words sounded like gabble to them.
The foremost groups of barbarians which troubled the Western Roman Empire were Germanic tribes.
The Romans had fought against tribes in that region for generations to enlarge their border north and eastward. However, after a devastating loss in the Battle of Teutoburg Forest, the great Emperor Augustus determined that it was time to stop trying to get bigger and create a border between Rome and the barbarians, centering on the Rhine, the area’s major river.
Over time, the groups began to pass through that frontier and settle on Roman territory. Sometimes, they did so against the wishes of the Imperial government – and other times, with its blessing.
One might conjecture why the Romans could not keep the barbarian tribes out, considering all of their might. However, it was not that simple.
The author shows that, borders are thought of as a point where one country begins, and another ends, but that is not how the Roman Empire – or any other Imperial structure at that time – was built. Instead, the tribes and political systems had been around the border area for generations.
Most of their leaders were client kings who paid tribute to Rome frequently and were considered friends of Rome. What changed is not so much that they entered the territory but rather that Emperor had lost control over them.
Hence, the decisive query is, why did Rome lose power over those tribes?
There were powers at play further than those of even the mightiest Emperor, such as the earth’s climate. The author shows that climate change had begun to push more than a few groups away from the steppes of central Asia eastward, most particularly a nomadic group called the Huns.
The barbarians began to journey further inland into the Empire at a time known as the Great Migration. The Huns movement towards Eastern Europe terrorized the locals, forcing many to wander into the Roman Empire. There were just too many people for the Romans to prevent.
To make matters more multifaceted, some of these tribes had been allies of Rome and were only asking for a secure place to call home. In some cases, the Emperors felt indebted to help.
Besides, the Empire was in no shape to deal with a new predicament as it had run into some ruthless economic mess. Rome had overextended and was spending far too much money on military campaigns and the administration of insubordinate provinces. That meant they could no longer expand as they once did.
The answer? Tax the populace.
Roman taxes became so officious and overbearing that, farmers sank into dearth and Roman elites tried to flee and conceal their property from the tax man. Also, to keep their Empire in order, the Romans granted citizenship to loads of migrants and those in areas they ccupied.
While it was great for those people, the policy caused a stern trouble by lowering the ready supply of slaves that had fed economic augmentation for generations.
As we know from more recent history, nothing fuels economic growth more than free and ill-treated labour. However, with this policy, Rome could not inflate and could not overpower the people it had conquered because they were citizens. Therefore, it began to experience a grim labour deficiency.
This predicament was increased by the barbarian tribes running rampant in the former territories of the Empire.
In 428, a tribe called the Vandals – formerly from southern Poland – took over the North African provinces. This was a historic blow to the economy and configuration of the Empire. To make matters worse, they adopted piracy and began to prey on the Roman trade routes in the Mediterranean.
As more and more tribes made their homes within the Empire, the centralized authority of Rome had more intricacy collecting taxes and fighting them off. Instead, some of these tribes ruled large areas, taxing them themselves. They often were aided by a limited aristocracy that was pleased to have an opportunity to shake off Roman domination and the elevated taxes that came with it.
As the tribes gained power within the Empire’s territory, they sacked and looted its wealthiest cities. One of the most dramatic symptoms of this crisis was the renowned sack of Rome.
The Gauls had already laid siege to the city in 387 BC, but that was before it had become a massive power.
It must have been an unlimited surprise to Rome’s people when Alaric and the Visigoths entered the sanctified city; they were familiarized with seeing themselves as the seat of world power.
Still, if you one conceives a colossal destruction and slaughter, he’s mistaken. Alaric and his followers had immense admiration for Rome and no craving to annihilate a civilization they considered superior to their own. All they were after was wealth.
Alaric also wanted to use the capture of the city as leverage over the Emperor. He hoped to receive a large and dangerous donation of land for his Visigoth tribe in exchange for leaving the city. The barbarians left Rome and allowed power to recommence, but it was a wake-up call to the thinning capabilities of the once-mighty Empire.
When the last Emperor died in 476 and Rome was annexed to the barbarian government Kingdom of Italy, it was almost anti-climactic.
Rome had been a despondent remnant state for quite some time by then. The city of Rome had fallen, and the Empire it had sustained was gone. But the concept of the Roman Empire endured.
The author shows that it did so in quite a few forms. The Eastern Roman Empire, which we call Byzantium, continued to refer to its leaders as Roman Emperors. And indeed, as they built on a state established by Constantine the Great, they were heirs to its power.
Besides, future leaders in other parts of the world, such as Charlemagne and Peter the Great, claimed power derived from the Roman Emperors.
The Church in Rome grew in standing over the years and continued to claim much of the esteem and influence of the Empire that once governed the city. The Catholic Church wielded that influence globally, becoming a significant player throughout the world in areas as far afield as sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America, stretching over territory a Roman Emperor could only dream of.
The book ends with this note – kindly follow this intimately, dear reader –
‘In the meantime, something unexpected by either Rome or Persia had occurred to the south. A merchant named Muhammad from the Arab trading town of Mecca preached a new religion and united the Arab tribes. He taught that there was only one God - not a Trinity of complex definition as the Christians had claimed and argued over.
Jesus was revered as a prophet, one in a succession that culminated in Muhammad, the greatest of them all. Muhammad died in 632, but his followers swept on to success after success. Both Persia and Rome had exhausted their strength in their long conflicts with each other. Sassanid Persia was the first to fall, collapsing in just a few years. Then in 636 the Arabs won an overwhelming victory over the Romans near the River Yarmuk.
They soon took Palestine, Syria and, not long afterwards, Egypt itself. Later their armies would sweep across North Africa and overwhelm the Roman provinces there.
How the Arabs united and achieved such incredible conquests is a fascinating story, but it is too long a tale to tell here. By the end of the seventh century the Eastern Empire survived, as it would do until the fifteenth century, but it was a minuscule rump even of the territories ruled by Justinian.
The superpower had died centuries before his day.
By the time of the Arab conquests the shape of medieval Europe was still developing. Society there lacked the comforts common in the centuries of Roman rule.
It was also less sophisticated, with low levels of literacy and patterns of trade far reduced in distance and quantity from the height of the empire. By comparison the Muslim world preserved far more aspects of Greco-Roman civilisation, to which the Arabs would add ideas and refinements of their own.
In part this was because their heartland lay in regions that had known civilisation long before the arrival of the Greeks and Romans.
Both the Islamic world, and in time the `barbarians' of the west, would develop further, rediscovering old ideas or inventing new ones. Marcus Aurelius understood that the world was always changing, but by the seventh century it is doubtful that he would have seen much that was familiar in the lands that had once been his empire….’
Most recommended for history aficionados.
July 14, 2024
(3.5) Turns out I don’t care enough about the fall of the Roman Empire to read a big-ass book about it but here we are! I did it anyway! Notable:
-Someone died on every page.
-There was an emperor named JULIAN Caesar. Can you imagine being at a party and yelling that you’re a Julian Caesar scholar and having to be like, no I said JULIAN.
-The answer to why Rome fell is essentially 🤷♀️
-The last line of this is so weird and so off-tone from the rest of the dry, plodding, academic book that it’s almost like an Easter egg to prove you read the book.
-Atilla the Hun died choking on his own vomit because he drank too much.
OK good talk!
-Someone died on every page.
-There was an emperor named JULIAN Caesar. Can you imagine being at a party and yelling that you’re a Julian Caesar scholar and having to be like, no I said JULIAN.
-The answer to why Rome fell is essentially 🤷♀️
-The last line of this is so weird and so off-tone from the rest of the dry, plodding, academic book that it’s almost like an Easter egg to prove you read the book.
-Atilla the Hun died choking on his own vomit because he drank too much.
OK good talk!
February 26, 2023
Buy.
Honestly, it's Goldsworthy and its Ancient Rome, so you should buy it. Fantastic, professional and a constant page turner as always.
Honestly, it's Goldsworthy and its Ancient Rome, so you should buy it. Fantastic, professional and a constant page turner as always.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 267 reviews