What do you think?
Rate this book
The End of the Ancient World & the Beginnings of the Middle Ages
Serious academic study of the late Roman Empire and early Middle Ages, by a distinguished French historian.
Mass Market Paperback
First published January 1, 1927
8 people are currently reading
128 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
December 29, 2025
I've now read this book twice, the first time as a history-loving tween kid who ran across it in the public library. I was aware of the great prestige of Gibbon's monumental The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, but was intimidated even back then by its five-volume length; so I figured that reading Lot's book would be a quicker way of covering the same basic content. (Now, of course, I realize that the two treatments are not particularly similar, and don't actually even cover the same chronological content, since Gibbon continues his narrative down to the fall of Constantinople in 1453; but that was my reasoning at the time.) My recently completed reread was a result of checking the book out by interlibrary loan, with the idea of doing a retrospective review. Although I still recalled much of what I'd read, I quickly decided I needed a second read to genuinely do the book justice.
French academic historian Ferdinand Lot (1866-1952) enjoyed a distinguished teaching career, capped by 27 years at the Sorbonne in Paris. He wrote a number of books, some of which are referred to in the 4 1/2 page Appreciation of the author by his fellow historian Fernand Vercauteren that's included in the front matter here (though the titles are given in French). But this book, begun in 1913 as Lot's contribution to the multi-author French historical book series The Evolution of Humanity and completed in 1921 after a long interruption (probably related to World War I?), but not published until 1927, is generally seen as his masterpiece. It was translated into English in 1931; this 1961 Harper reprint has an 8 1/2 page Introduction of its own by Glanville Downey (then Professor of Byzantine Literature at Harvard), as well as the original over 17-page Preface by Henri Berr, the series editor. All three of these preliminary pieces (which each have their own documentary footnotes) interact seriously with Lot and other writers in the field, so they add constructively to the book's content. (Lot's own Introduction is quite short, and paginated as part of the main text.)
The major questions this study attempts to answer are: why, and when, did the western Roman Empire fall? Regarding the latter question, the traditional date is 476 A.D., when the last western emperor was deposed. As Lot points out, that's a somewhat arbitrary date, adopted by historians for pedagogical convenience (academic courses on ancient and medieval history have to have some line of demarcation between them). While I recognize this point, I'm content enough with the 476 date to continue using it. But I also appreciate the reminder that actual major historical changes are usually very gradual processes, during which the people living through them aren't necessarily aware of sudden sharp periodizations in a particular year. IMO, you can recognize, and teach, that fact while still using the traditional Ancient/Medieval/Modern divisions and dating as a useful conceptual framework. Lot, however, is inclined to see the ancient world as lingering on, and the Middle Ages not truly beginning, until the rise of the Carolingian monarchy in the late 700s. (This is similar to the thesis more famously advocated by his contemporary Henri Pirenne.)
As to why the empire fell, he doesn't really present a very concise and explicit statement of his theory in one place; the reader has to piece ideas together from the narrative as a whole. But he does make it clear that the empire was in drastic trouble as early as the mid-200s A.D, and from causes that were already foreshadowed in the first century. Rome was a single city-state whose institutions and patriotism were local, and whose policies were aimed at its own interests. It never really developed a sense of trans-local community and stake in the empire among its conquered peoples, and its own economy was never very productive of goods; it bled its provinces of their wealth while not giving much in return. (The exhaustion of the then-known gold and silver mines, and resulting debasement of the currency, didn't help.) Almost from the beginning, occupation of the imperial throne rested on military force, so emperors were made and unmade by the army; and once the "civilized" populace became too debased to rely on for military recruitment, the army came to consist of barbarians hired to keep out other barbarians. In reading this, you rapidly get the idea that the empire's fall wasn't surprising; it was surprising that it lasted as long as it did.
After his Introduction, and before his also very short Conclusion, Lot divides most of his 407-page main text into three Parts: the empire from the 3rd-century "military anarchy" down through the reign of Constantine; the "Downfall" from about 350 on down to 476 (or, in the East, 518); and "After the Downfall" down to the time of Charles Martel. During each of these periods, he gives a lot of attention to economic, cultural, and religious conditions, as well as the political and military ones. Although, as he indicates in one place, the author himself was not a religious believer, his analysis and description of the role of Christianity in the life of the later Empire and the early medieval period seems to be mostly sound; though I disagree with his idea that strong beliefs of any kind always lead their adherents to persecute those who differ. (It's also factually incorrect that from the fifth century, Christian witness to individuals ceases, replaced entirely by attempts to convert pagan kings, who can then force the new faith on their people. There's ample evidence of preaching by Christian missionaries to whole pagan populations, of all social classes.)
While Lot wrote some popular-level history books in his older years, this book is academic history, aimed at college-level faculty and graduate students. A lot of familiarity with the period is taken for granted, and there are a number of untranslated Latin words and phrases. The detailed narrative of the bloody vicissitudes of the political/military history can be eye-glazing in places, as can the minute descriptions of Constantine's administrative reforms, and the style can be dry. It was heavy sledding to read, especially as a kid, and even as an adult. But already as a kid, the book did answer a big question I'd had. I knew about feudalism, and understood how kings could grant land to warriors in return for military service. But I didn't understand how such grants could include serfs living on the land, and bound to it (that's not a feature of Germanic tribal law). The answer is that the binding of the tillers to the soil was already a feature of Roman law, starting with legislation by Diocletian; the barbarians simply left Roman law in place for their "Roman" subjects. That put a key piece of the historical jigsaw puzzle into place for me!
Altogether, this book has 28 pages of original bibliography, divided by the Parts of the book that it relates to (I-II together and III separately). The listed works are numbered with Roman numerals, and the documentary footnotes cite these (which makes them hard to refer to, so I didn't try). Lot had an obvious considerable familiarity with the primary sources for these periods, and refers to them frequently; but the bibliography only includes secondary sources --mostly books, in several languages, but some articles. (Gibbon and Pirenne were the only names I recognized.) This edition also adds a few pages of additional sources published after 1927. There's a 17 1/2 page index, but it's not comprehensive. Three black-and-white illustrations of art works, and three black-and-white maps (mostly grouped in the middle of the book, rather than with the parts of the text they relate to), don't really add much to the whole.
I'd recommend this primarily as a read for serious history students, not for casual lay readers.
French academic historian Ferdinand Lot (1866-1952) enjoyed a distinguished teaching career, capped by 27 years at the Sorbonne in Paris. He wrote a number of books, some of which are referred to in the 4 1/2 page Appreciation of the author by his fellow historian Fernand Vercauteren that's included in the front matter here (though the titles are given in French). But this book, begun in 1913 as Lot's contribution to the multi-author French historical book series The Evolution of Humanity and completed in 1921 after a long interruption (probably related to World War I?), but not published until 1927, is generally seen as his masterpiece. It was translated into English in 1931; this 1961 Harper reprint has an 8 1/2 page Introduction of its own by Glanville Downey (then Professor of Byzantine Literature at Harvard), as well as the original over 17-page Preface by Henri Berr, the series editor. All three of these preliminary pieces (which each have their own documentary footnotes) interact seriously with Lot and other writers in the field, so they add constructively to the book's content. (Lot's own Introduction is quite short, and paginated as part of the main text.)
The major questions this study attempts to answer are: why, and when, did the western Roman Empire fall? Regarding the latter question, the traditional date is 476 A.D., when the last western emperor was deposed. As Lot points out, that's a somewhat arbitrary date, adopted by historians for pedagogical convenience (academic courses on ancient and medieval history have to have some line of demarcation between them). While I recognize this point, I'm content enough with the 476 date to continue using it. But I also appreciate the reminder that actual major historical changes are usually very gradual processes, during which the people living through them aren't necessarily aware of sudden sharp periodizations in a particular year. IMO, you can recognize, and teach, that fact while still using the traditional Ancient/Medieval/Modern divisions and dating as a useful conceptual framework. Lot, however, is inclined to see the ancient world as lingering on, and the Middle Ages not truly beginning, until the rise of the Carolingian monarchy in the late 700s. (This is similar to the thesis more famously advocated by his contemporary Henri Pirenne.)
As to why the empire fell, he doesn't really present a very concise and explicit statement of his theory in one place; the reader has to piece ideas together from the narrative as a whole. But he does make it clear that the empire was in drastic trouble as early as the mid-200s A.D, and from causes that were already foreshadowed in the first century. Rome was a single city-state whose institutions and patriotism were local, and whose policies were aimed at its own interests. It never really developed a sense of trans-local community and stake in the empire among its conquered peoples, and its own economy was never very productive of goods; it bled its provinces of their wealth while not giving much in return. (The exhaustion of the then-known gold and silver mines, and resulting debasement of the currency, didn't help.) Almost from the beginning, occupation of the imperial throne rested on military force, so emperors were made and unmade by the army; and once the "civilized" populace became too debased to rely on for military recruitment, the army came to consist of barbarians hired to keep out other barbarians. In reading this, you rapidly get the idea that the empire's fall wasn't surprising; it was surprising that it lasted as long as it did.
After his Introduction, and before his also very short Conclusion, Lot divides most of his 407-page main text into three Parts: the empire from the 3rd-century "military anarchy" down through the reign of Constantine; the "Downfall" from about 350 on down to 476 (or, in the East, 518); and "After the Downfall" down to the time of Charles Martel. During each of these periods, he gives a lot of attention to economic, cultural, and religious conditions, as well as the political and military ones. Although, as he indicates in one place, the author himself was not a religious believer, his analysis and description of the role of Christianity in the life of the later Empire and the early medieval period seems to be mostly sound; though I disagree with his idea that strong beliefs of any kind always lead their adherents to persecute those who differ. (It's also factually incorrect that from the fifth century, Christian witness to individuals ceases, replaced entirely by attempts to convert pagan kings, who can then force the new faith on their people. There's ample evidence of preaching by Christian missionaries to whole pagan populations, of all social classes.)
While Lot wrote some popular-level history books in his older years, this book is academic history, aimed at college-level faculty and graduate students. A lot of familiarity with the period is taken for granted, and there are a number of untranslated Latin words and phrases. The detailed narrative of the bloody vicissitudes of the political/military history can be eye-glazing in places, as can the minute descriptions of Constantine's administrative reforms, and the style can be dry. It was heavy sledding to read, especially as a kid, and even as an adult. But already as a kid, the book did answer a big question I'd had. I knew about feudalism, and understood how kings could grant land to warriors in return for military service. But I didn't understand how such grants could include serfs living on the land, and bound to it (that's not a feature of Germanic tribal law). The answer is that the binding of the tillers to the soil was already a feature of Roman law, starting with legislation by Diocletian; the barbarians simply left Roman law in place for their "Roman" subjects. That put a key piece of the historical jigsaw puzzle into place for me!
Altogether, this book has 28 pages of original bibliography, divided by the Parts of the book that it relates to (I-II together and III separately). The listed works are numbered with Roman numerals, and the documentary footnotes cite these (which makes them hard to refer to, so I didn't try). Lot had an obvious considerable familiarity with the primary sources for these periods, and refers to them frequently; but the bibliography only includes secondary sources --mostly books, in several languages, but some articles. (Gibbon and Pirenne were the only names I recognized.) This edition also adds a few pages of additional sources published after 1927. There's a 17 1/2 page index, but it's not comprehensive. Three black-and-white illustrations of art works, and three black-and-white maps (mostly grouped in the middle of the book, rather than with the parts of the text they relate to), don't really add much to the whole.
I'd recommend this primarily as a read for serious history students, not for casual lay readers.
April 5, 2012
This book is one of the classic studies on that evasive stretch of history covering the mid 4th through the early 8th centuries AD. Lot's argument is that in that stretch of time, Western Civilization collapsed into barbarism to the point where people living at the ends of that stretch of time would not have recognized each other.
Lot breaks the book into three parts: "The Crisis of the Third Century and the Restoration of the Empire;" "The Downfall;" and "After the Downfall."
It shows that Lot is writing in a pre-Peter Robert Lamont Brown era, since the big question he asks is not "did Rome actually fall?" (he assumed that everyone believed it did), but rather "why did Rome fall?" His overall answer is that Rome fell because of the decline of public spirit, brought about by the failure of the Romans to transition properly from a city-state into an Empire. That is, he argues that Rome as a Republic functioned quite well on the local level. But, when that Republican government was required to bind together an Empire spanning three continents, the Romans could never quite bring themselves to put in place the bureaucracy and infrastructure necessary for such a government (Diocletian's and Constantine's attempts to build such a structure failed spectacularly). The result was that the Roman Empire remained in reality nothing more than a collection of cities bound together by allegiance to an Emperor. The result of this lop-sided structure was the collapse of public spirit, since ultimate allegiance could no longer be given to the city (which was now subordinate to the Empire), but neither could it be given to the Emperor (which lacked the structures to harness and cultivate it for future generations). As a result, the "citizen body" became the "mob", and when the barbarians broke down the borders, there was no one capable of rallying to the defense of Rome (unlike the previous German invasions under the Republic).
Interestingly, Lot seems to interpret the German invasions not so much as destructive from the Roman perspective, but rather as attempts to use the energy of the Germans to revitalize the Empire. (Similar to the attempt by Constantine to tap into the energy of Christianity in his restructuring of the Empire.) I think this is probably a fairly unique view for the time, and does a great deal to set up Peter Brown's argument that the Roman Empire didn't really collapse so much as transition into the Middle Ages.
The strengths of this book:
-It's well written and readable, especially that this is a challenging time to study with difficult (and few) primary sources.
-The narrative up through Justinian is engaging and comprehensive.
-The arguments are clear and, I think, reasonably convincing. Darn it, there was something wrong with Roman public spirit at the end of hte Empire.
The weaknesses:
-Christianity is almost ignored as a force. Which, to be fair, may have been practical- the book was already 400 pages long, and dealing with Christianity may have made it unbearable. Still, it's a factor at the end of hte Roman Empire and beginning of the Middle Ages that really should have been engaged more.
-The end of the book, what with the lists of barbarian kings and descriptions of 5th, 6th, and 7th century France was interminable. I mean, good Lord that section just went on forever. I know, I know, it was necessary to demonstrate how different the time was from the end of the Roman Empire, but still...
Recommended to those interested in ancient history, Medieval history, or political theory.
Lot breaks the book into three parts: "The Crisis of the Third Century and the Restoration of the Empire;" "The Downfall;" and "After the Downfall."
It shows that Lot is writing in a pre-Peter Robert Lamont Brown era, since the big question he asks is not "did Rome actually fall?" (he assumed that everyone believed it did), but rather "why did Rome fall?" His overall answer is that Rome fell because of the decline of public spirit, brought about by the failure of the Romans to transition properly from a city-state into an Empire. That is, he argues that Rome as a Republic functioned quite well on the local level. But, when that Republican government was required to bind together an Empire spanning three continents, the Romans could never quite bring themselves to put in place the bureaucracy and infrastructure necessary for such a government (Diocletian's and Constantine's attempts to build such a structure failed spectacularly). The result was that the Roman Empire remained in reality nothing more than a collection of cities bound together by allegiance to an Emperor. The result of this lop-sided structure was the collapse of public spirit, since ultimate allegiance could no longer be given to the city (which was now subordinate to the Empire), but neither could it be given to the Emperor (which lacked the structures to harness and cultivate it for future generations). As a result, the "citizen body" became the "mob", and when the barbarians broke down the borders, there was no one capable of rallying to the defense of Rome (unlike the previous German invasions under the Republic).
Interestingly, Lot seems to interpret the German invasions not so much as destructive from the Roman perspective, but rather as attempts to use the energy of the Germans to revitalize the Empire. (Similar to the attempt by Constantine to tap into the energy of Christianity in his restructuring of the Empire.) I think this is probably a fairly unique view for the time, and does a great deal to set up Peter Brown's argument that the Roman Empire didn't really collapse so much as transition into the Middle Ages.
The strengths of this book:
-It's well written and readable, especially that this is a challenging time to study with difficult (and few) primary sources.
-The narrative up through Justinian is engaging and comprehensive.
-The arguments are clear and, I think, reasonably convincing. Darn it, there was something wrong with Roman public spirit at the end of hte Empire.
The weaknesses:
-Christianity is almost ignored as a force. Which, to be fair, may have been practical- the book was already 400 pages long, and dealing with Christianity may have made it unbearable. Still, it's a factor at the end of hte Roman Empire and beginning of the Middle Ages that really should have been engaged more.
-The end of the book, what with the lists of barbarian kings and descriptions of 5th, 6th, and 7th century France was interminable. I mean, good Lord that section just went on forever. I know, I know, it was necessary to demonstrate how different the time was from the end of the Roman Empire, but still...
Recommended to those interested in ancient history, Medieval history, or political theory.
November 9, 2022
這本是上海經典人文書庫的叢書，前陣子剛再版，不過我買的是舊版。
作者是法國人，也是從某一套叢書中抽出來翻譯的，主題是三世紀末的羅馬帝國到“中世紀”的過程。這主題蠻浩大而且熱門，這段時間以來對於“衰亡”的討論開始有了“轉型”的新說，在國外是新的議程，對岸也寫了幾篇論文。不過本書主要還是舊式的討論。
這篇感想主要先說的，還是翻譯的部分....真的是不忍卒讀。恰好最近也看了陳穎青的《老貓學出版》，看到他對這個主題的討論，真的心有戚戚焉。最專業的學者，未必就是好的譯者。更何況本書恐怕只是一群研究生接力作，裡面的許多錯誤，與其說是原作的問題，我寧願相信是譯者自己理解偏差所致。我光是讀前面一章就已經快要暈倒，但是還是把它看完，主要是本書有幾個亮點，讓筆者能堅持下去。
首先，是他對於君士坦丁、基督教的討論。
這位皇帝的改宗是出於本心的虔誠還是政治上的利益，是個無解的問題，但他的舉止，卻是歷史上的轉折點，這毋庸置疑。君士坦丁堡的建立，將地中海的重心轉移，雖說帝國兩分、一邊存續一邊崩潰絕非其所能料到，可結果正是如此。君士坦丁企圖利用基督教來完成羅馬國家的再凝聚，但是這個宗教本身擴張的太快，手段粗暴，把一些龍蛇渾雜的人都包容進來，摧毀了己身的純淨，也增加的對立的風險。許多所謂的“異教徒”都打著上帝的旗號悄悄的混進來，把這個宗教搞得烏煙瘴氣是顯而易見。神學上的撕裂更是造成兩三個世紀內的動盪不安的因子，也讓國家的包容度急速下降。當帝國因為蠻族的遷移備感壓力，在無法消滅而需要用同化吸收的時候，卻因為彼此對於上帝的解釋不一造成更大的敵視，難道這就是君士坦丁最初所想見的嗎？
其二，作者對於羅馬經濟的討論則有別於羅斯采夫托夫，主張城市的規模不足，手工業等只為了特殊需求而存在，奢侈品的貿易是階級專屬，也羅馬下層社會追求樸素生活的風氣，始終發展不出一種“需求”來產生“消費市場”，帶動商業的發展，更遑論“資本”。此外，羅馬的富裕其實是來自於征服所掠奪過來的資產，取得這些資源的上層階級並不是拿來投資產業，而是購置地產與發放高利貸。這些對於整體國家的財富的增進十分有限，而隨著漫長時間的消耗，帝國的經濟衰退也就是必然了。
其三，羅馬的慶典文化在城市(特別是羅馬城本身)養出了許多無業遊民，依靠國家的救濟存在，無所事事，在殘忍的角鬥士文化薰陶下，變成冷血又膽小如鼠，面對政府壓迫或者外敵入侵都激不起抵抗欲望，猶如行屍走肉。而上層階級被皇帝從權力核心逐出，甚至長期受到監視，變成只關心自己的產業，對於政治冷漠。整個帝國從上到下都失去對公共利益的關心，道德淪喪，已經不可能再看到當年齊心對抗漢尼拔的那種眾志成城的精神，羅馬“回不去了”。
最後，一開始取代羅馬帝國的哥特等異族，尚且只是因襲了過去的舊制，在各處依然見的殘影。自從查士丁尼為了挑戰再次復興大業，將他們都驅散拔除後，取而代之的則是諸如法蘭克人、倫巴第等羅馬化較淺的國家，一切都就真正的成為過去了。克洛維建立的王朝一度強大，但他把國家私產化，公共精神消亡，法律只為某些階級服務，貴族只談利益，墨洛溫迅速成為明日黃花也就不讓人奇怪了。
中世紀也就此開始。
以上就是筆者閱讀後的一些所得，提出來與大家分享。
除此之外，本書不值得跟大家推薦。
作者是法國人，也是從某一套叢書中抽出來翻譯的，主題是三世紀末的羅馬帝國到“中世紀”的過程。這主題蠻浩大而且熱門，這段時間以來對於“衰亡”的討論開始有了“轉型”的新說，在國外是新的議程，對岸也寫了幾篇論文。不過本書主要還是舊式的討論。
這篇感想主要先說的，還是翻譯的部分....真的是不忍卒讀。恰好最近也看了陳穎青的《老貓學出版》，看到他對這個主題的討論，真的心有戚戚焉。最專業的學者，未必就是好的譯者。更何況本書恐怕只是一群研究生接力作，裡面的許多錯誤，與其說是原作的問題，我寧願相信是譯者自己理解偏差所致。我光是讀前面一章就已經快要暈倒，但是還是把它看完，主要是本書有幾個亮點，讓筆者能堅持下去。
首先，是他對於君士坦丁、基督教的討論。
這位皇帝的改宗是出於本心的虔誠還是政治上的利益，是個無解的問題，但他的舉止，卻是歷史上的轉折點，這毋庸置疑。君士坦丁堡的建立，將地中海的重心轉移，雖說帝國兩分、一邊存續一邊崩潰絕非其所能料到，可結果正是如此。君士坦丁企圖利用基督教來完成羅馬國家的再凝聚，但是這個宗教本身擴張的太快，手段粗暴，把一些龍蛇渾雜的人都包容進來，摧毀了己身的純淨，也增加的對立的風險。許多所謂的“異教徒”都打著上帝的旗號悄悄的混進來，把這個宗教搞得烏煙瘴氣是顯而易見。神學上的撕裂更是造成兩三個世紀內的動盪不安的因子，也讓國家的包容度急速下降。當帝國因為蠻族的遷移備感壓力，在無法消滅而需要用同化吸收的時候，卻因為彼此對於上帝的解釋不一造成更大的敵視，難道這就是君士坦丁最初所想見的嗎？
其二，作者對於羅馬經濟的討論則有別於羅斯采夫托夫，主張城市的規模不足，手工業等只為了特殊需求而存在，奢侈品的貿易是階級專屬，也羅馬下層社會追求樸素生活的風氣，始終發展不出一種“需求”來產生“消費市場”，帶動商業的發展，更遑論“資本”。此外，羅馬的富裕其實是來自於征服所掠奪過來的資產，取得這些資源的上層階級並不是拿來投資產業，而是購置地產與發放高利貸。這些對於整體國家的財富的增進十分有限，而隨著漫長時間的消耗，帝國的經濟衰退也就是必然了。
其三，羅馬的慶典文化在城市(特別是羅馬城本身)養出了許多無業遊民，依靠國家的救濟存在，無所事事，在殘忍的角鬥士文化薰陶下，變成冷血又膽小如鼠，面對政府壓迫或者外敵入侵都激不起抵抗欲望，猶如行屍走肉。而上層階級被皇帝從權力核心逐出，甚至長期受到監視，變成只關心自己的產業，對於政治冷漠。整個帝國從上到下都失去對公共利益的關心，道德淪喪，已經不可能再看到當年齊心對抗漢尼拔的那種眾志成城的精神，羅馬“回不去了”。
最後，一開始取代羅馬帝國的哥特等異族，尚且只是因襲了過去的舊制，在各處依然見的殘影。自從查士丁尼為了挑戰再次復興大業，將他們都驅散拔除後，取而代之的則是諸如法蘭克人、倫巴第等羅馬化較淺的國家，一切都就真正的成為過去了。克洛維建立的王朝一度強大，但他把國家私產化，公共精神消亡，法律只為某些階級服務，貴族只談利益，墨洛溫迅速成為明日黃花也就不讓人奇怪了。
中世紀也就此開始。
以上就是筆者閱讀後的一些所得，提出來與大家分享。
除此之外，本書不值得跟大家推薦。
May 27, 2015
Copious and comprehensive describes Ferdinand Lot's The End of the Ancient World and the Beginning of the Middle Ages. The scope of information over hundreds of years reaches back into ancient history to compare the advancements, artistry, and lack thereof through the ages among many civilizations in the known world; basically Asia, Europe, and North Africa. Charlton Griffin, the narrator, uses just the right amount of snobbery in his articulation of events and the arts that demarcate the Ancient from the Middle Ages.
A great historian fascinated with the decline of the Roman Empire and the rise of Medieval times, Lot, for the first time, reveals the reasons Rome fell other than political and military. With perfect diction and pronunciation, Griffin explains that the mere size of the Roman Empire, with its asymmetrical demands, lead to the wealth transferring from the West, the needy, to the East, the providers. To meet the needs of the poor, increased taxation of that population only leads to despair and hopelessness. Suffice it to say, such a civilization is depressed and vulnerable to barbarian invasion.
Lot describes the barbarians and the existing empire through their architecture, literature, paintings, sculpture, geography, politics, social structure, linguistics, belief systems, as well as military prowess. A marked erosion of the pure art form becomes evident when a practical approach to life becomes more universal as wave after wave of marauders disturb the establishments of an anemic society. In some cases, the conquerors allow the existing social structures to remain for better compliance by subjects to their reign. In many other cases, the invaders impose their own customs upon the people and this change is responsible for furthering the distance between progress and stagnation.
This reader finds the subject of this book most interesting because the details of past civilizations are repeating in today's world. The trend of blossoming in a free society is evident more than it is in a suppressed one. Even in a strong, stable society, there are pitfalls that slowly wear away the best accomplishments. The characteristics about which Lot writes are prone to the flaws of man. The arts suffer, the military weakens, the economy is filtered through the greedy, and individuals are taxed into despair. The government must assert more power over the governed in order to make ends meet in the meantime. The powers that be in the realms of religion act in the same manner as the secular powers for preservation's sake.
A book that eloquently shows the reader outcomes from past mistakes is necessary if a society desires to prevent complacency and rigidity in the extremes that lead to darker ages in the future.
A great historian fascinated with the decline of the Roman Empire and the rise of Medieval times, Lot, for the first time, reveals the reasons Rome fell other than political and military. With perfect diction and pronunciation, Griffin explains that the mere size of the Roman Empire, with its asymmetrical demands, lead to the wealth transferring from the West, the needy, to the East, the providers. To meet the needs of the poor, increased taxation of that population only leads to despair and hopelessness. Suffice it to say, such a civilization is depressed and vulnerable to barbarian invasion.
Lot describes the barbarians and the existing empire through their architecture, literature, paintings, sculpture, geography, politics, social structure, linguistics, belief systems, as well as military prowess. A marked erosion of the pure art form becomes evident when a practical approach to life becomes more universal as wave after wave of marauders disturb the establishments of an anemic society. In some cases, the conquerors allow the existing social structures to remain for better compliance by subjects to their reign. In many other cases, the invaders impose their own customs upon the people and this change is responsible for furthering the distance between progress and stagnation.
This reader finds the subject of this book most interesting because the details of past civilizations are repeating in today's world. The trend of blossoming in a free society is evident more than it is in a suppressed one. Even in a strong, stable society, there are pitfalls that slowly wear away the best accomplishments. The characteristics about which Lot writes are prone to the flaws of man. The arts suffer, the military weakens, the economy is filtered through the greedy, and individuals are taxed into despair. The government must assert more power over the governed in order to make ends meet in the meantime. The powers that be in the realms of religion act in the same manner as the secular powers for preservation's sake.
A book that eloquently shows the reader outcomes from past mistakes is necessary if a society desires to prevent complacency and rigidity in the extremes that lead to darker ages in the future.
July 2, 2016
This book was an eye opener to me. Simply magnificent how it transports you into this period has always been like the missing link for me in understanding how the world seemed to have regressed so much between Roman times and the Middle AgesI understand that recent findings have cast doubt over some of the views held in the book but it is still a must read.
April 26, 2024
De longe o melhor livro sobre Antiguidade que já li. Discordo de sua interpretação em diversos pontos, principalmente em relação ao papel de Igreja, mas o livro abarca uma quantidade impressionante de informação.
September 14, 2022
I had fun listening to the audiobook, but it would be an understatement to say that this book did not age well.
September 3, 2015
I have just started this tome, and I hope it may give a slightly different view than Gibbon's excellent work. This book starts at the time of Alexander Severus.
June 13, 2016
Quási 500 páginas em letra miùdinha deram trabalho a ler. Mas foi com satisfação.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews