The idea that the Roman Empire experienced a violent, dramatic fall isn’t new to me. I’ve gone through classes where my professors have stressed this point. Ward-Perkins’ viewpoint, however, was unique and almost read as a story rather than real history. I enjoyed reading it, and it was really nice to get a little more insight into the topic, especially after reading Edward Gibbon’s “The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.” ( )

maintains that fall of Western empire led to real declines in culture and material comfort, not assimilation of different cultures

Analiza la caída del Imperio y lo que significó en retroceso para Europa, en cuanto uso de tecnología en todos los campos, arquitectura, confort, economía, viajes y alfabetización de la población. describe el caos en que cayó la civilización cuando cayo roma. ( )

A few decades after the fall of Rome, barbarian kings treasured objects that a few years before peasants discarded. It blew my mind. ( )

A brief (I read it in one sitting) but thorough book making the focused point that the end of the Western Roman Empire was, in fact, violent and calamitous, a once-orthodox position now increasingly challenged by a view emphasizing the peaceful and negotiated transition from Roman to Germanic rule and settlement. Ward-Perkins makes a compelling argument for the narrow version of his thesis, and he's careful to note instances where the end of Rome was less violent or calamitous than others. In particular, his arguments about economic history — the collapse of post-Roman economies to, in some cases, more simple and impoverished versions than even pre-Roman civilizations — are compelling. His arguments for the violence of the fall of Rome are more rooted in interpretations of a scanty literary record, though from my own biases it's also an easier anecdotal case to make that bands of armed men moving into a new territory, even when officially welcomed, might have been violent and disruptive. ( )