Collapse and Recovery of the Roman Empire (Routledge Key Guides) 1st Edition by Michael Grant (PDF)

Description

Collapse and Recovery of the Roman Empire presents a study of third century Rome, which is lavishly illustrated and a lucid read, typical of Michael Grant’s inimitable style.In Collapse and Recovery of the Roman Empire, Michael Grant asserts that the fact that the Roman empire of the third century AD did not collapse is one of the miracles of history. He argues that at that time the empire seemed ripe for disintegration and expresses amazement that it continued, in the west, for another two hundred years, and in the east, for far longer.Michael Grant examines the reasons for collapse, including analyses of the succession of emperors, the Germans and the Persians and also, the reasons for its remarkable recovery, including discussions of strong emperors, a reconstituted army, finance and coinage and state religion.

User’s Reviews

Editorial Reviews: From Booklist Grant’s great gift has been to make the basic trends of classical civilization accessible to general readers while maintaining first-rate standards of scholarship. In this compact volume, Grant examines the causes for the near disintegration of the empire in the mid-third century A.D., including the problems of imperial succession, Germanic encroachments on the frontiers, and chronic conflicts with the Persians in the East. He then convincingly asserts that the empire possessed hidden strengths that allowed for a vigorous recovery from these dangers and survival for another two centuries in the West (and another millennium in the East). Despite the relative brevity of his survey, Grant probes with great insight various critical aspects of third-century Roman civilization, including religious life, the reconstitution of the army, and economic stability. This work is a worthy and necessary addition to both academic and public library collections on classical history. Jay Freeman Review ‘A good read, a good introduction and a useful book for anyone even slightly hesitant in their later Roman history.’ – JACT Review’Grants gift has been to make the basic trends of classical civilization accessible to general readers while maintaining first-rate standards of scholarship.’ – Booklist Chicago About the Author Michael Grant is author of numerous books, including most recently, From Rome to Byzantium (1998) and The Severans (1996), both published by Routledge. Read more

Reviews from Amazon users which were colected at the time this book was published on the website:

⭐This book is a complete waste. It consists of quotes taken from the Oxford Classical Dictionary with only the small connecting segments written by the “author” himself. I’m not even kidding. Only perhaps an eighth of the book is actually the author’s own material. How this is not considered plagiarism I don’t know. There are only 65 pages of text followed by a long appendix of about half that length. As if that isn’t enough there are 21 pictures which take up most or all of the page. So not only is he ripping off other writers, he’s not even including much of their work.I thought it was interesting to see his justification for this in his first paragraph: “The interesting thing about this period is that the Roman empire […] showed every sign of collapse. But it did not collapse – it went on, in the west, for another two hundred years, and in the east for far, far longer. Why and how was this? I have never seen this issue frankly and adequately discussed. Certainly, any number of people have written about the third century and its personalities, and in this book I have not been afraid to quote from them. Indeed, I have done so to such an extent that I may be held guilty, I am aware, of patchwork or pastiche. But I have done so on purpose, because in my view it would be too egotistical to suppose that no one had written about the period at all, or to any purpose.” So it would be egotistical not to copy other people’s work and write your own? Interesting. For the record there are many good books on this period including the

⭐from which he copies,

⭐,

⭐,

⭐, and the old standby

⭐. Worse he already wrote a book on the subject (

⭐) which is superior in every way. It might be less explored than other periods but it has hardly never been “frankly and adequately discussed.”So, onto the contents of the book itself. The first chapter covers the history of the emperors from Maximinus through Valerian (235-260). This section includes portraits or coins of all the emperors discussed, which is nice, but it is also so choppy due to the excerpts that you’ll never be able to follow the progression of emperors unless you know what’s going on already. The next two chapters focus on the enemies of the Romans: the Germans and the Persians. Only three of the citations for the Germans are from the Oxford Classical Dictionary, which would be more impressive if the entire chapter was over three pages. That’s a full page more than the Persians get. Part 2 is labeled “Recovery” and deals with, as you might imagine, the recovery of the Roman Empire. “Strong Emperors” covers Gallienus through Carus (253-283) in much the same manner as the first chapter. The next chapter covers the reorganization of the army in four pages. The reforms of Diocletian, coinage and finance, state religion, and philosophy and private religion are all covered in five pages each. Then at the end he deals with Heliodorus in four. Because why not? Except for that last one this is a really good division of chapters. It is neither strictly narrative nor strictly thematic and places the chapters in all the right places. If only there had been something to fill them with.The Appendix is clearly the sole reason he “wrote” this book. In fact, it’s the only section where he actually wrote the majority of the material himself. There are still large chunks from other writers in here but it is mostly his own work. In the first part he summarizes all of European history from the Minoans to the fall of Rome (2500 years) in five pages. I don’t even know why he bothered. The next twenty pages consist of his explaining why it is so important to study the Classics and why it is so relevant today. Now I’m fascinated by the Romans but I don’t buy a lot of his ‘arguments’ which are basically somewhat pompous quotes taken from other writers saying exactly the same thing he is. The uniqueness and superiority of classically-derived civilization is not an inherent truth that must be accepted in an increasingly globalized world. And I don’t think that it is vitally important that every English-speaking student learn a dead language as part of their basic curriculum. I do believe that learning other languages is important for a proper education, but it’s better to teach our kids a living language that they might actually use. Leave Greek and Latin to those students who actually wish to learn it. A very strong case can be made justifying the study of Ancient Civilizations, but this work is not it. There is nothing in here that will win new converts and plenty that will reinforce the impression that Classics is a field adrift in its own pomposity. Adding this to the end of a series of excerpts about the third century collapse does not help his case for the originality and excitement of the field. To sort of demonstrate my point I include the last paragraph of the book.”At the age of 51 I resigned from a very interesting university post in order to devote myself, whole time, to writing about the Classics. And I have never regretted it. It is an inexhaustible theme, and I have tried to outline in this Appendix some of the many reasons why it is worthwhile to concentrate on the Classics. The book as a whole, however, deals with the period when the Roman empire seemed to be breaking down, but miraculously recovered.” Even he knows how out of place it is yet he feels compelled to add it anyway. I truly feel sad for this once great scholar.So that’s basically it. You can probably work through this book in less than an hour. It has no real value either to beginners or those experienced in the field. About the only item of any value is the bibliography but even this is mostly useless. The list of original sources is very incomplete. It looks very impressive at first, but when you actually examine it you notice that most of them have nothing to do with the time period. Authors like Homer (8th Century BC), Thucydides (5th Century BC), and Julius Caesar (1st Century BC) really have no place in a book about the 3rd Century AD. As for the sources of that era it doesn’t include even the most basic of authors like Ammianus Marcellinus, Aurelius Victor, Eutropius, Zosimus, or Zonarus. In fact, the only source he mentions consistently is the Historia Augusta which, as he acknowledges, is basically fictitious. Out of the 54 authors listed only 13 come from this time period or after. It’s a complete disgrace. The secondary sources are somewhat better though it isn’t very thorough and includes no less than twenty of his books. Still, it may be of use to someone. After all, the books I listed above are generally pricey. While this book has a list price of $85 (which is disgusting) it usually sells for under a dollar. Perhaps that price is worth it for the index, but I can’t say I’d recommend it.

⭐First, you should know that I own near 75% of Michael Grant’s works, so I am a bit biased. This work is a quick read for the lay-person in History. It is a small work on the Crisis of the 3rd Century, with an appendix that dominates at least 1/3 of the entire work. It features quite a few snippets of quote text from the Classical Dictionary and original sources (most likely from Grant’s own translations). The Appendix is mainly about why “we” today should care about the study of Classics. Dr. Grant ask that question in many of his works and answers it again her lucidly. I serviceable effort by an enlightened classicist.

⭐The book taken for what it is–a broad consideration of the topic presented in the form of a brief essay–can only be considered a masterpiece. Now. Be warned. This is just an essay, not a detailed treatment of any particular Imperial device. The emphasis here is not on details of military activity, of social life, of religion. The idea of the book is this: Rome was falling apart in the early third century due to the juxtaposition of many complex factors–porous borders, rigid bureaucracy, weak leadership, factional politics, economic stagnation. Strong emperors, such as Diocletian and Constantine, reversed the trends by recognizing them and instituting reforms that restored the confidence of the citizens and strengthened the Pax Romana. This book is a masterpiece for that simple insight. It is a vivid portrait of how cult of personality, therapeutic politics, popular religion, and self-serving consumer economics can soothe the anxieties of a vast empire otherwise consumed with corruption and ennui. Doesn’t this scenario sound familar? Grant’s ability to grasp the archetypes amid the chaos is astonishing, and his presentation is lucid and powerfully argued.

⭐great condition

⭐This short, condensed book covers the Roman Empires from AD 235 to AD 305. It’s more a focus on the how the emperors reacted and were proactive with the influence of other invading cultures during this time period upon the Roman Empire.”The fact that the Roman empire did not collapse in the 260s or 270s AD is one of the miracles of history, and shows how careful we ought to be in asserting what will happen, or ought to happen…. the empire did not collapse, but recovered. When it recovered, it was by no means the same as it was before.” p. xvii”Decius was a staunch upholder of the old Roman traditions. His assumption of the additional surname of Trajan promised an aggressive frontier policy, and his persecution of Christians resulted from his belief that the restoration of state cults was essential the preservation of the empire.” p. 9I enjoyed mostly how the author related the Roman empire in his conclusion to the frontier of the western world in relation to the rest.”The Roman imperial phenomenon does ring a bell, because it odes contain points of relevance to what is happening today, or rather to what will be happening before long. For what is likely to be happening, although not all of us will be alive to see it, is a confrontation between the western world and those outside it.” p. 68Overall, I do recommend this book, just keep in mind that it is short, condensed, and mostly a re-cap of things historians have already said.

⭐This isn’t a coherent book in it’s own right but a series of quotations from the secondary literature, barely threaded together. In a given chapter, Grant has added perhaps only six sentences. I’m not exaggerating. In an attempt to forestall this criticism, in the introduction Grant writes that he deliberately chose to patch quotations together so as to acknowledge that there is existing work on this theme – a perverse rationalisation. Just because there’s writing on your topic doesn’t mean that you can’t craft your own narrative, instead simply quoting others. In any case, there’s little to be learned about the third-century crisis from this book. I strongly advise readers not to waste their time and money on it. I’m looking to Steven Williams biography of Diocletian as an alternative; it looks promising.

Keywords

Free Download Collapse and Recovery of the Roman Empire (Routledge Key Guides) 1st Edition in PDF format
Collapse and Recovery of the Roman Empire (Routledge Key Guides) 1st Edition PDF Free Download
Download Collapse and Recovery of the Roman Empire (Routledge Key Guides) 1st Edition 1999 PDF Free
Collapse and Recovery of the Roman Empire (Routledge Key Guides) 1st Edition 1999 PDF Free Download
Download Collapse and Recovery of the Roman Empire (Routledge Key Guides) 1st Edition PDF
Free Download Ebook Collapse and Recovery of the Roman Empire (Routledge Key Guides) 1st Edition