Student’s Name
Course/Unit Name
Professor’s Name
Date of Submission
Roman Empire
Various scholars have attributed the fall of the Rome empire to its internal issues; however, this is not true, according to Ferrill, who relates the fall to the weakening of its army. In his book, “The Fall of the Roman Empire,” Arther Ferrill criticized the twentieth-century scholars who have narrowed the issues that led to the fall and subsequently discounting a military that made Rome a superpower in ancient times. For instance, Ferrill finds Late Antique’s assertions offensive whereby he perpetuated a narrative that the barbarians acted in good faith for the Romans’ interests and were therefore innocent of all the atrocities attributed to them. Despite Rome’s strength when it comes to war, they failed to maintain discipline, morals, and adequate leadership greatly affected the entire empire. Poor decisions like incorporating barbarian tribes into the army as allies contributed to their downfall. Ferrill best described the barbarians as cancer that slowly attacked the Romans from within until their downfall. The barbarians grew in major ranks within the army and influenced the whole squad with their bad habits that spread easily. Ferrill further likens the barbarians to a plague that spread so fast throughout the empire, assertions appreciated by readers of his previous works. Ferrill used an easily comprehendible volume and is relatable to his previous writings supplemented by the use of illustrative images and maps. Therefore, Ferrill’s book is a perfect overview of the Roman empire and what informed its fall.
Ferrill’s first chapter introduces the historical debate that encompasses the Roman Empire’s whole idea and its fall. Ferrill investigates assertions made by Edward Gibbon and A.H.M. Jones. Here, he disagrees with Gibbon’s universally agreed opinion on the Romans’ history and subsequently backs Jones’ option, which he feels is more detailed and informed. According to Ferrill, Jones’ assertions were stronger because he passionately understood the Empire’s internal affairs, hence attributed their fall to external forces. Therefore, Ferrill’s stand can be substantiated since Jones, a scholar and had no military background or knowledge, effectively-liked the fall of the Roman Empire solely at the barbarians’ hands. Unlikely as it may sound, Ferrill is convinced that the barbarians were the masterminds who orchestrated the Roman Empire’s downfall; a stand not even Peter Brown could persuade him otherwise.
Subsequently, Ferrill’s second chapter addressed the whole conspiracy and specific strategies by the Romans. Here, Ferrill expounds on Constantine’s idea of frontier squads to the interior. He identifies that the Roman troops were well equipped with weapons and machinery, enough supplies, and a stable logistics system. The Romans’ access to roads that connected her to all her frontier provinces and a stable communication line gave the troops morale. However, such advantages made some scholars conclude that the fall of the Roman Empire was because they could not fight wars in more than one frontiers. Ferrill argues that peaceful negotiations could completely eliminate many perils in Rome might as well have chosen to avoid any conflicts and not till tries to convince that all those things were dependant on the army’s ability to fight. Of second priority were the walls, forts and any other set up infrastructure. Diocletian evidenced himself as a powerful ruler who replenished and ensured the empty ire was organized. Constantine succeeded Diocletian and he brought in a strategy of deep defense that would subsequently paralyse the frontiers’ activities. ” The spirit de corps and Effi defense of the military suffered paralyze under Constantine’s grand strategy.
Generally, throughout the book, Ferrill highlights crises faced along the frontiers. He applies the same in chapter three, where he narrates the campaign of Julian in Persia. Ferrill lightly briefs the tactical errors, miscalculations, and fails of Julian to capture Ctesiphon. The deflated self-confidence and Julian’s troop’s diminished morale are, however, focused on by Ferrill. Ferrill also discusses the unceremonious demise of in his own words, ‘the best soldier- Emperor since the times of Constantine and Diocletian. An important briefing to the fight between The Goths and The Eastern Romans and the Adrianople is credited to the well-done summary of provided events. Arguing that Adrianople was won by the Roman tactical blunders and not by the Gothic cavalry Ferrill used the account of Ammianus Marcellinus on Adrianople’s battle. In Ferrill’s opinion, that the Roman Cavalry was inferior to the barbarian cavalry is nothing but a myth passed in by many historical scholars.