This is a well-written treatise on the last 200 years of the Roman Empire in the west. It is by no means equal to the scope and literary quality of Edward Gibbons iconic multi volume work “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”. This statement does not take anything away from Adrian Goldsworthy’s How Rome Fell -Death of a Superpower.

In order to better understand the merits of this new treatise on the fall of Roman Empire, it only makes sense to contrast it with Gibbon’s piece de resistance, which arguably has remained eminent even after 250 years.

Where Gibbon’s detached, neutral style anticipated in many ways modern scientific writing, his interspersed moralism was reminiscent of the great ancient historians.
Conforming to contemporary practice, Goldsworthy’s work is devoid of aphorisms and moral lessons.

However, what matters most is that How Rome Fell -Death of a Superpower can be seen as an important addition to Gibbons work.
Goldsworthy’s work injects many up-to-date facts and ideas from newly gathered archeological data but never claims the data to be complete. Therefore, even though Goldsworthy has a clearly defined thesis, he is always realistic enough to point at optional interpretations of the limited data available. In the end, this reader realizes that we know much less about certain eras of history than we have been led to believe. Adrian Goldsworthy’s work, unlike others, does not veil this very important fact, and it manages to make careful and very educated extrapolations utilizing a blend of common sense, awareness of human nature and the accumulated archeological discoveries since Gibbons era. ( )

Argues that civil wars and the growing frequency of usurpers did in the Empire in the West. Also made the comparison to modern day and bureaucracies that forget their larger purpose. ( )

Ultimately unsatisfying narrative of the decline of the western Roman Empire. The author does a better job than most in admitting the various uncertainties and gaps in the sources, but Goldsworthy seems to decide in the end we can’t really say how the Empire fell because there is too little we actually know. This is unsatisfactory, no matter how correct, for a book entitled How Rome Fell. He actually forms a pretty good argument for the empire disintegrating due to internal strife but fails to nail it.

There are a couple of useless chapters that try to draw a parallel (or non-parallel) to America. Interestingly he states that since the Civil War, America was never subject to an armed insurrection. I guess this was true at the time.

Complaints that the middle section reads like a list of names is unfair since the Empire after Marcus Aurelius was more or less a revolving door of emperors and usurpers for 300 years. Read Gibbon, still the best history of the Roman Empire, and you’ll get the same impression at times. ( )

emphasis on internal conflict and subsequent weakness as reason for fall of the western empire

I'd been looking forward to reading this for years. He starts by comparing Rome to the US a few times, then saying that he's not going to compare Rome to the US in this book. Then chapter one makes the comparison another couple times. Not what I wanted to read...