The Fall of the Roman Empire

by Michael Grant

This fall of the Roman Empire has always been regarded as one of the most significant transformations in the whole of human history. A hundred years before it occurred, Rome was an immense power defended by an invincible army. A hundred years later, the power and the army had vanished.

The Fall of the Roman Empire succinctly describes the invasions from outside, and the weaknesses that arose within, that finally reduced the Empire to total paralysis. Grant pinpoints thirteen defects that, in his view, combined to reduce the Empire to its final state of ruin. Each defect consists of a specific disunity that splits the Empire apart, thereby crippling Rome's capacity to handle outside aggressors. The social and political differences within the Empire became so irreconcilably violent that the entire structure of society was threatened and eventually destroyed.

Hailed by Alan Massie, as "the greatest popularizer of this century." Michael Grant presents in The Fall of the Roman Empire a dynamic, and incisive discussion of one of history's most impressive empires and its dramatic demise.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Ancient History, Classics, World History, Roman History, Military History

252 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1976

About the author

Michael Grant was an English classisist, numismatist, and author of numerous popular books on ancient history. His 1956 translation of Tacitus’s Annals of Imperial Rome remains a standard of the work. He once described himself as "one of the very few freelances in the field of ancient history: a rare phenomenon". As a popularizer, his hallmarks were his prolific output and his unwillingness to oversimplify or talk down to his readership.

Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name. See this thread for more information.

Reviews

[Jan-Maat]

Short chapters help to keep this book readable. It's designed for the general reader with a brief historical introduction that leads into the main discussion.

It seems a little odd to say that the book is about the fall of the Roman empire because the contrast between the fall of the western half and survival of the eastern half is only explicitly made in a short appendix. Rather it is an exploration of the role of disunity in the eventual end of the western half of the empire.

This disunity is explored by Grant in a series of chapters each looking at an element in the social fabric, be that the attitudes of different social classes towards the state, the tension between the people and the army, what drop outs like monks have to tell us about attitudes towards society as a whole and so on. After a few chapters the wonder is that the Empire existed at all, but it's hard to say if all of these were unique to the later empire or if like the spread of monasticism and celibacy they were on a large enough scale to make a significant difference to, for example, population levels or patterns of land ownership. Again the effects were not evenly spread throughout the empire but the end results were decisively different (ie empire came to an end in the west, but survived in the East).

The later Roman empire and it's fall is an interesting topic. Read one book on the subject and you can think that you understand the issues, read a few and the more complex and engaging the question becomes.

However even if you were never to read another book on the decline and fall you would be left with a picture of a world in which the law forbade men to castrate themselves or have their thumbs chopped off as a means of evading military service, the poor sold their children into slavery and the rich used force to drive the tax collectors from their gates while writing letters full of prejudice and learning to each other.

[Jim · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've had this book sitting around for years and finally got around to reading it before donating it for a library book sale. The book is only 200 or so pages long, so a very short book to cover one of the most significant events of Western history--the fall of the Roman Empire ( actually the Western Roman Empire, as the Eastern part of the Empire continued on for almost 1000 years!).
British historian Michael Grant (1914-2004) identified thirteen divisions or defects in the Roman Empire that led to its demise.
I wrote more but somehow it got erased when I posted this. I will add to this later.

[Elentarri · Rating 4 out of 5]

Originally published in 1976, this concise summary of the fall of the Western half of the Roman Empire highlights the thirteen internal defects that Michael Grant believes had a detrimental impact (especially when combined) on the unity of the Empire, leading to is inability to deal with outside aggressors and, eventual, disintegration. The social and political differences within the Empire became so irreconcilably violent that the entire structure of society was threatened and eventually destroyed. The book has a few archaic terms, but it is interesting and still relevant. The internal defects of the Roman Empire are strikingly similar to current global events. I can't help but think of the accuracy of the aphorism: "Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.*"

*quoted by Winston Churchill. Various iterations of a similar sentiment have been attributed to Spanish philosopher George Santayana: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," and Irish statesman Edmund Burke is often misquoted as having said, “Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.”

[Jonathan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Michael Grant's The Fall of the Roman Empire was a quick non-fiction 'hit' that I needed after reading too much fiction. It is a 200-page summary of the reasons behind the fall of the Roman Empire. This can be a bewildering subject as there are no easy answers to the question 'why did the Roman Empire fall?' Listed below is an even more condensed version of the reasons why. For anyone that wants an even simpler explanation Michael Grant sums it up in the introduction by saying 'It was brought down by two kinds of destruction: invasions from outside, and weaknesses that arose within.' The list below is an elaboration of these 'destructions' and will hopefully be of interest to some.

Thirteen Reasons for the Fall of the Roman Empire in the West:

The Generals against the State - There was no effective method of succession. Each emperor was in effect dependent on the army which resulted in endless coups détat and civil wars.
The People against the Army - Rich and poor didn't want to serve in the army. The state had to depend increasingly on German troops.
The Poor against the State - The taxes to pay for the army fell disproportionaly on the poor driving them into destitution, banditry, slavery or death.
The Rich against the State - The rich Senators evaded taxes and did not get involved in political life. They were snobbish and opposed to change.
The Middle Class against the State - The middle class of merchants and small landowners were squeezed out of late Imperial life. The population consisted mainly of rich and poor.
The People against the Bureaucrats - The late Roman bureaucracy was oppressive and allowed very little social mobility. The civil service was inefficient, bloated, corrupt and resistant to change.
The People against the Emperor - The later Roman Emperors had little contact with the outside world. Their only contact with their subjects was via sycophantic or scheming courtiers.
Ally against Ally - The split between the West and East became more pronounced during this period. Both halves of the Empire failed to co-operate which made it easier for the Germans to take over the West.
Race against Race - Rome was unable to assimilate the German tribes that took refuge within its borders.
Drop-outs against Society - With the rise of Christianity in the Empire many people were attracted to asceticism and became nuns, monks and hermits. As such they became divorced from their community and contributed little towards the Roman state.
The State against Free Belief - Once Catholic Christianity became the dominant religion its proponents began to attack paganism, Jewish faith, Manichaeanism and other Christian faiths thereby causing disunity throughout the Empire.
Complacency against Self-Help - The pagans relied too much on the glories of the past, they neglected practical subjects in their education and concentrated on grammar, rhetoric etc.
The Other World against This World - Many Christians seemed reluctant to support the state even after the Empire became officially Christian. Some even saw the barbarian attacks as divine punishment. Some pagans viewed the world to be in perpetual decline since the Golden Age of the past. Both views led to pessimism.

[Andrea · Rating 4 out of 5]

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

[John Isles · Rating 5 out of 5]

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

[Miri · Rating 4 out of 5]

Skvěle napsané, jedna z kvalitních knih, kde se na 160 stranách dozvíte to nejdůležitější z dějin Římské říše od cca roku 200 až po pád Západu, roku 476.🫶🏻 Jen kdyby autor pořád chybně neopakoval, že milánským ediktem v roce 313 bylo zavedeno křesťanství jako státní náboženství, to bylo až na konci 4. století za Theodosia I.🤔

[Martin Drobník · Rating 3 out of 5]

couldnt finish it, way too long im sorry

[Gille Liath · Rating 2 out of 5]

If you look beyond Gibbon there’s a surprising dearth of good books for the general reader on this subject, which I’m afraid this one does little to redress (you have to wonder whether someone who wrote such a large number of books could really be any good at it). Lacking a unified narrative and indifferently written (‘to describe this state of affairs as disunity was [sic] putting it mildly’), it’s not so much a history as a case for the prosecution; and though it somehow gives the physical impression of being a substantial book, actually the main text is less than 200 pages of fairly large print. It’s the sort of thing a history professor could toss off in his lunch hours without taxing himself too much.

One of the great un-mysterious mysteries of history is why, when the Western Empire fell, the Eastern Empire continued to stand for another thousand years. In noting that the explanation could not be anything that applied just as much to West as to East, Grant implicitly rejects Gibbon’s comically simplistic blaming of Christianity. Yet his two suggestions do not bear examination either:
1. Geographical position. That the Eastern Empire was not geographically less vulnerable to invasion was demonstrated throughout her subsequent history, in recurring attacks by Bulgars, Serbs, Russians, Avars, Persians, Arabs and Turks. Even the Goths invaded the East first, humbling the Romans at Adrianople, before going on to the West.
2. Better economic conditions, ie greater wealth. As a suggested reason why the East was not invaded, this is just risible. If you were a barbarian horde, why would you invade the poorer half and not the richer?

Actually I think the answer is very simple, in fact one word: Constantinople. Whereas the Roman seat of government had been separated from its population centre, and both were open and vulnerable to attack, in Constantinople was unified the heart, mind, and nerve centre of the Eastern Empire. With its superb fortifications and natural defences it was, in medieval conditions, practically impregnable. The barbarians could come up to the very gates, and they often did; but the city would last them out and, when they retreated, was able to put things straight relatively quickly and easily. Only with the advent of large cannon did this situation end, and allow the Empire to be conquered by the Turks.

[Nicolas Perrault · Rating 4 out of 5]

An overall excellent book. Every chapter inspects one kind of disunity that afflicted the Empire. The author recognises the failures in the military as the immediate cause of the Western Roman collapse, and then shows how the disunities (in religion, in wealth, in race) prevented the army from fulfilling its role. One thing that I disliked was the constant chronological jumping around. The author often passes from the early fourth to the late fifth century and back dazzingly fast, and has the bad habit of doing so without telling the reader.

[Roger · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is a serviceable book that describes in broad terms the author's view on how the Western Roman Empire came to collapse in the Fifth Century AD. Unfortunately I have to state at the beginning of this review there are much better books covering the subject. Grant's style is workmanlike at best, his lack of footnotes is annoying given how many quotations are used in the text, and he can tend to some post facto explication of the fall of the West, especially when it comes to the influence of Christianity on the fall of the Empire.

After an introductory chapter, which focusses on the events of the last hundred or so years of the Western Empire, Grant then catalogues the factors that went into causing the fall. The headings for the sections of his book The Failure of the Army, The Gulfs between the Classes, The Credibility Gap, The Partnerships that Failed, The Groups that Opted Out, The Undermining of Effort, cover his main themes. The first two in particular are crucial to the final downfall of the once great institution that was the Roman Empire.

It's clear that as time went on, the Roman Empire became more and more militarized as the "Germans" pressed more heavily on their frontiers. As Grant explains in an appendix, the Western Empire with its much longer "barbarian" border, had to provide a much stronger military force than the Eastern Empire. This led to a requirement for a very large army, and the high taxation required to keep it running. In earlier times, service in the army was a path to Roman citizenship, but after Caracella decreed that all free people in the Empire were automatically citizens in AD 212, that encouragement to service was removed. Each province of the Empire needed to provide a certain number of recruits for the army, but many bought their way out of service: their money was used to pay for German soldiers. The dilution of the Roman portion of the army led to a less professional force, a less reliable force, and a smaller force. Grant point out that evidence suggests that in the last century of the Empire, it seems the biggest offensive forces to deal with breaches in the Empire struggled to reach ten thousand men, a far cry from the huge Roman armies of earlier times.

Grant also explains how the Empire crumbled from within - the crippling taxes levied particularly on agricultural production were inequitably enforced, with wealthy citizens able to evade or reduce their taxes more than middle classes. This type of activity led to what Grant calls the "Credibility Gap", where the disconnect between the vital middle classes and the government meant that when the Empire needed their citizens, those citizens were often not too interested in helping.

Grant also points out that while Rome was happy to have Germans come into the West to fight or farm for the Empire, it did little to embrace those Germans or make them feel welcome. The aggressive suppression of any religions other than Roman Catholicism in the West also did little to encourage people to feel like they were part of something bigger than their own group or sect. The East and the West also gradually drifted apart, failing to support each other, and developing differing interpretations of religion.

Grant makes much of the rise of Monasticism and asceticism, suggesting that the call to turn away from the earthly life to a life of contemplation and peace was a factor in the fall of the Empire. I think his theory is problematic on a couple of fronts. Firstly, much of the evidence he provides is from a period later than the fall of the Western Empire, and he extrapolates that evidence backwards, which is risky. He also fails to convince me that the numbers of people who would actively turn away from the earthly life would be significant enough to affect army recruitment, for example. Where he does make a valid point in my opinion with regards to clerical expansion is that many people who could have become good imperial administrators instead turned to the church. This change seems due to laws that meant that civil servants were often responsible for raising taxes, or covering the costs of the taxes they failed to raise. The Church was a less stressful career.

The lack of footnotes is a real concern to me in this book - whenever I wondered at a quotation or a point, there was nothing for me to go back to and check. This book seems to want to rise above a popular history, but it doesn't quite get there. When I got to the end of the book I felt that I knew a lot about Grant's thinking about the fall of the Empire, but somewhat less as to why he came to the conclusions that he did. I would recommend other books before this if you are interested in the fall of the Roman Empire.

Check out my other reviews at http://aviewoverthebell.blogspot.com.au

[Christopher · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Fall of the Roman Empire is Michael Grant unusual interpretation on why the Western Roman Empire fell. The The Fall of the Roman Empire structure and analysis is clearly heavily seen through the lens of his own world view and the book reflects this. Grant takes us through the 4th and 5th centuries of the Roman Empire and points to various factors that he believes were pivotal in his view to the collapse of the Empire. Through out he does make valid observations on the corruption during certain decades of the Imperial Governance system and during the 5th century and the increasing demands on the Romans territories the book focuses on the minutiae of certain events that while they could indeed contribute to the troubles the Empire was facing they cannot account for the scale of events that were taking place throughout the Empire! Grant's dismissal throughout most of the book of the Eastern Empire that would survive conflict on it borders for another 1000 years undermines the arguments that he makes throughout the book. Rather than fitting the facts Grant viewpoint tries to pick and choose and ascribe more Empire shaking effects to his chosen topics! His attempt to envision a Cold War situation between the East and West does come across an attempt to shore his arguments up but is a creation that really didn't exist in the way portrayed in here!

This is not to say that The Fall of the Roman Empire doesn't contain useful and great nuggets of information throughout though and the observations do contain humour which have you laughing! Grant does make the point that not only many of the provinces and cities of the Empire form part of the modern world but that also many of the rich of the Empire possessed such great estates that they have gone to become parts of modern countries themselves! :D

I have given The Fall of the Roman Empire a high star review as it does form a dramatic glimpse into a counter argument and insight into how easy it is to present such an argument while picking and choosing your facts and letting your own world view colour interpretation! The Fall of the Roman Empire is full of nuggets and and insight into the view of the Empire told from this perspective! Highly recommended but treat with caution!

[Elizabeth · Rating 4 out of 5]

My dad gave me The Fall of the Roman Empire to read, and I have no idea where he got it. The copy he shared has a stamp from a library in Spartanburg, SC, so it's definitely had a journeyed existence.

Anyway, this was a decent, brief overview of the causes leading to the fall of the Roman Empire, and I was easily able to finish it (unlike Gibbon's magnum opus).

Written in 1976, though, it does show its age in some weird respects. Grant constantly refers to the Germanic tribes, for example, as "Germans." Did these people speak Germanic languages? Yes. But were they "German" in the sense that they represented a single nation? Not that I'm aware of. He also calls the "Germans" a different "race" from the Romans, and in the first chapter makes at least two references to the "fair" and "noble" mien of some of the emperors.

It's sometimes hard in 2020 to judge the motives of a person writing in 1975. Does Grant have weird views on race, or is he just writing in the normal style of his day? I honestly don't know.

Overall, it seems like a fine book, but I'm sure there are more modern works that are easier to find and reflect more recent scholarship.

[Aaron Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

Decline of the army—standing army huge expense which could not be paid.

Heavy taxes—especially on the poor

Large welfare state in Rome

Wealthy—Tax evasion, withdrawal from public life, selfish concern with personal gain

Decline of the middle-class

Loss of freedom—“The individual spirit of initiative that alone could have kept the commonwealth alive was stifled and stamped out by the widespread deprivation of personal freedom, which thus became one of the most potent reasons for Rome's collapse.”

Religious intolerance—attempting to Christianize the empire

Large corrupt bureaucracy

Leadership—emperors

Disunity within the empire—west vs. east—German vs. Roman—“Heaven forbid that we ourselves should have a monolichic society without any internal disunities at all, or any differences of character or opinion. But there can arrive a time when such differences become so irreconcilably violent that the entire structure of society is imperiled. That is what happened among the ancient Romans. And that is why Rome fell.”

[Imre Bártfai · Rating 4 out of 5]

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

[Farhad Zaker · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is a book written to be taught in a classroom. The author is very sure of his understanding and narrates the history like it is set in stone. As a summary of the most classic view of the fall of Rome, this is a good book. But at the same time, it is very much outdated. It is practically an updated view of E. Gibbon from 18th century: well-written with interesting (but dogmatic) arguments. My advice is to look for updated books, and do not waste your time reading something that has been written six decades ago.

[Eyjolfur · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very readable 20th-century revision of the reasons for the fall of the Roman empire, based on Gibbon's original work. Would recommend for anyone looking to brush up on this part of ancient history.

Parts that fell flat were probably the latter chapters on religion, where it felt it got a bit drawn-out, and where the author attempts to put the different reasons for the fall of Rome into "perspective" with the situation of the US and UK in the 1970s.

[Daniel Svoboda · Rating 5 out of 5]

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

[Angus · Rating 4 out of 5]

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

[Kenny · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very excellent overview of the causes of Rome’s collapse.

[Peter Lipták · Rating 4 out of 5]

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

[Gloo The third · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ein wenig zu trocken geschrieben für meine Verhältnisse.

[George Murray · Rating 3 out of 5]

Outlines the conditions of Western Rome’s collapse but doesn’t really explain how those conditions came to be. For a 200 page book on such a huge topic, it does what it can.

[chris · Rating 5 out of 5]

Why did the an Empire that was no longer ruled from Rome - instead was ruled jointly in the periphery by highly romanised Gauls, Britons, Spaniards, North Africans, Italians collapse in the west - whilst in the East the maily Jewish-Coptic-Greek Eastern Empire survived?

Had the Western Romans in Gibbons opinion really become pygimies?

Or had the need for a central capital and Emperor become obsolete?

Grant deals with various reasons
1. Religion and the affect pasive christainity had on the Empires resolve to fight
2. Lack of Roman idenity
3. Economy
4. Weak central control and fighting for purple
5. Decline of Roman Army

Well worth reading - if only as an overview.

[Robert Gould]

A quick read. It was exactly what I wanted. I had been hearing on the radio how the US was in some respects similar to Rome and following in some of the same footsteps as Rome, prior to it's fall. This addressed issues in a very readable way on how Rome fell, or at least issues that likely helped lead to its fall. I was then able to decide for myself if there was some similarity with the way the US is now.

[Scott · Rating 4 out of 5]

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

[Sean · Rating 4 out of 5]

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

[Padraic · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ever feel you've stumbled into a textbook?

[Michael · Rating 5 out of 5]

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

[Chad · Rating 5 out of 5]

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