Fall of the Roman Empire

Rating:
Summary: TRUCULENT WRITING STYLE
Review: Almost all good intentions Mr. Ferrill had when writing this book were wasted due to his bad writing skills. The book is rough, truculent, some topics that would be easy to follow are boring because the writing is so bad. Anyway, the Roman Empire is decently focused in this book, as well as the explanations for its fall.

Rating:
Summary: boring...
Review: Ferrill is a great historian, but in this book he failed miserably in holding the reader's attention.

Rating:
Summary: a direct and to-the-point treatment of the topic
Review: Ferrill speaks from exceptionally detailed knowledge of the military history of the ancient world; I know because I've heard him lecture and had to pass his exams. In this book he advances and defends the view that the fall of the Roman Empire (in the West) was a military collapse above all. In so doing he goes against the grain of many historians, who are eager to downplay the history of war and who often minimize its impact. Ferrill understands that war's impact is never minimal if you're in it.

It is rare indeed to find a succinct yet strongly credible account of such an oft-discussed topic. We either get bloviation (from the academics) or glib gloss-overs (from the non-academics). Ferrill's economy with words, and the frank style in which he uses them, make this an interesting read. Recommended without reservation for readers of all levels.

Rating:
Summary: Somewhat enlighting.
Review: I enjoyed reading Ferrill's work. It was generally well written and easy to understand for a non scholar. Some areas were glossed over; why the Eastern Empire survived in spite of the Eastern army suffering two major defeats-Adrianople and Julian's abortive Persian campaign. I liked his thesis that barbarian armies were not composed of mostly cavalry which is a common misconception. Ferrill does defend the Western emperor Honorius in spite of history's judgement that he was a do nothing emperor and basically ensured the destruction of the west. He does not explain certain key events: namely why the Goths after victory at Adrianople became federoti under Theodosius only to rebel a generation later, culminating with the sack of Rome.

Overall, this work is worth reading for its simple style and essentially correct assessment of the Western Empire's demise.

Rating:
Summary: Accessable yet Authoritive
Review: I found the book refreshingly easy to read and understand, and it certainly kept my attention. For the first time the answer to the question "OK now we know why the Western Empire fell, why did the Eastern last another 1,000 years?"

Simple, the Western armies weren't up to it. It was a military defeat or series of defeats and the nation could not withstand the invasions which followed.

One quibble, probably unfair. There are indications now emerging from tree-rings and global climate indicators as well as historical records, that there was some sort of natural but global catastrophe in the sixth century that helped finish off the Western areas still with some elements of Roman culture eg Britannia. Of course though, the author of this book would not have been aware of those later findings.

Rating:
Summary: Accessable yet Authoritive
Review: I found the book refreshingly easy to read and understand, and it certainly kept my attention. For the first time the answer to the question "OK now we know why the Western Empire fell, why did the Eastern last another 1,000 years?"

Simple, the Western armies weren't up to it. It was a military defeat or series of defeats and the nation could not withstand the invasions which followed.

One quibble, probably unfair. There are indications now emerging from tree-rings and global climate indicators as well as historical records, that there was some sort of natural but global catastrophe in the sixth century that helped finish off the Western areas still with some elements of Roman culture eg Britannia. Of course though, the author of this book would not have been aware of those later findings.

Rating:
Summary: What really happened, and why
Review: There is a lot of nonsense in circulation about the Fall of the Western Empire. Ferrill gets past all of it by starting from one obvious but often neglected criterion: Any explanation of the Fall of the Western Roman Empire must also account for the survival of the Byzantine East. From there he goes on, in a very readable manner, to the military events, and their consequences.

Rating:
Summary: Fall of the Roman Empire by Arther Ferrill
Review: When I first read this book, it was still under its original title of The Fall of the Roman Empire: The Military Explanation. That pretty much says it all right there. Being a military historian myself, such a title naturally attracted me to the text. Unfortunately, Ferrill presents a rather thinly argued text that will prove a disappointment to serious historians or even knowledgeable amateurs. I happen to agree that military reasons; Roman and barbarian, brought down the empire in the west. However, Ferrill's theory taking to task Constantine's frontier strategy fails to take into account the realities faced by that emperor. Theodosius was patently guilty of weakening both the Eastern and Western empires, and Ferrill at least gets that right. His addendum concerning the essentially infantry composition of later barbarian enemies of Rome is interesting, but again hardly proven by the author's sketchy argumentation. Ferrill is right in contending that military matters are preeminent in the explanation of Rome's fall, but fails in presenting convincing arguments to that end.