How Rome Fell: Death of a Superpower by Adrian Goldsworthy is definitely NOT light summer reading. I am in awe of Goldsworthy's scholarship and his grasp of the material. The book addresses two major questions: first, why Rome "fell" and second, do any of the myriad of current tomes about the lessons to be learned by the United States from the fall of Rome hold water? (this second question, as you have no doubt already guessed has been rephrased by this reviewer -- Goldsworthy is much more eloquent).
This is not light reading - and, in some cases is mind-numbingly difficult to remember - the speed at which emperors are created, rule, and discarded is often faster than I could comprehend. Covering the period from Marcus Aurelius (161 C.E.) to the fall of the Western Empire (roughly 600 C.E), there are probably more than 50 Emperors (for the combined empire and then following the Western Empire once split), and at least that many defeated usurpers if not more. We have the Huns, the Goths, the Ostrogoths, the Visigoths, and the Vandals, not to mention the Persians, Parthians, and others. Truth told, I could not retain it all.
However, the "simple answer" to the first question is that Rome beat itself and devolved into tribal kingdoms. No enemy really ever rivaled Rome's power, not even the Persians (who were by far the closest). By devoted so much of its energy and resources to maintaining the safety of the Emperors - though dividing responsibilities to avoid creating rivals to the throne, civil wars, defeating numerous usurpers (and sometimes losing) and being stretched very thin, Rome became unable and unwilling to mass its power. The decline started in the third century and by the sixth, power had devolved to the kings - the senate had been effectively emasculated, and there simply was no longer the centrifugal force to keep the empire together. The loss of the power of the senatorial class also meant that rivals to the Emperor now could arise from almost any source - the military mostly, but also the civil administration. As Emperor after Emperor tried to keep his throne, he weakened the very forces that supported the Empire - strong, centralized armies, strong centralized politics (the senate), and stong battle-hardened Emperors. More reliance on "foreign" sources of manpower as the Empire's need's grew. Bureaucracy and corruption increased, Emperors became more isolated, armies became localized and eventually, slowly, but inexorably, the fabric of empire (institutions, traditions, fealty, and purpose) was worn down.
Lessons for the today's only superpower...only a few and some of them surprising. First, a reliance on other than regular army (mercenaries for Rome, and private companies for the US) weaken the regular armed forces capabilties...and what was once "a choice then becomes an unavoidable necessity and alongside this goes a loss of control". And, Goldsworthy adds, a loss of purpose, loyalty, and the risk of personal gain superceding the wider needs of the country. Interesting, eh?
Rome never had a true competitor, and thus the growth of bureaucracy (at the expense of the armed forces) does not necessarily reward talent or efficiency and effectiveness - and Goldsworthy notes that "it is very easy for a large institution to lose sight of its real purpose ...government can all too easily become a question of trying to stay in power under any circumstances...real success or failure is hard to measure, especially in the short term. Targets and personal gain are attractive alternatives". Message received...remind anyone of standardized test results and body counts?
Finally, it took a very long time for Rome to decline, "from the third century onwards Roman emperors lost a sense of their wider role and instead concentrated on survival...the rot began at the top....sheer size meant that for a very long time the Romans either kept winning, or at the very least, did not suffer defeats that were catastrophic....the empire was in decline, but able to continue for many lifetimes". Message received...remind anyone of our two political parties?
Goldsworthy ends by saying "decline is not inevitable, but the risk is always there", and then quotes a urbane student of his discussing schisms within the Church in the fifth and sixth centuries...{in a fake rural accent} "you know, people are kinda stoopid".....no truer words have ever been spoken.
Comments