Comments on: A Few Questions for Peter Heather

By: David Thrower

David Thrower — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 02:08:03 +0000

Peter Heather is one of the most astute scholars on the late Western Roman period, and reading his book has taught many of us a lot about a much-neglected area of history. I recommend his material to anyone interested in history, and in Roman imperial history in particular.

By: The Fall of the Roman Empire: A Contemporary Perspective | The Liberal Ironist

Sun, 19 Sep 2010 00:27:33 +0000

[...] Read an interesting interview of Peter Heather on his Roman researches here. [...]

By: Stanton J. Price

Stanton J. Price — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 01:46:27 +0000

There are three things I wish Peter Heather had discussed in The Fall of the Roman Empire: religion and language. More specifically, I’m aware there were competing types of Christianity in the 4th and 5th Centuries about which I know very little. But I have wondered if the religious competition played any role in the fall of Rome. Second, I don’t understand how it was that the large number of Germanic barbarians who invaded the Empire, had no effect on the language of the Western Empire except in Britain. Third I read somewhere that the Roman demand for silk and spices resulted in most of Rome’s gold ending up in India and China. In other words, Rome may have had the same balance of trade problem the U.S. now has. But I don’t know if this is true or where I can find out more about it.

By: Tom Brearley

Tom Brearley — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 21:51:33 +0000

Scott,

You could argue that Britain realised it’s dominant relationship with its colonies, and even more so its ‘white’ dominions, was inappropriate and unsustainable in time to ‘renegotiate’ the deal.

The dominions were granted self-government within the umbrella of the Empire, and stayed loyal enough to provide useful military support in two world wars.

Likewise, India and other colonies were granted independence without major armed struggles, although their participation in the Commonwealth and loyalty (eg. against the Soviet threat during the cold war) was less of a success story from the British perspective than the ‘renegotiation’ with the dominions in the first half of the 20th century.

Getting back on topic somewhat, one ‘limitation’ (or weakness) that clearly comes out of Hadrianople is the division of the Empire into two during the 4th century. One of Valen’s likely motivations for engaging the Tervingi before the western emperor’s forces were available was a desire to keep the glory of victory for himself. In a unified empire, battle would surely have been delayed until the eastern and western forces had met and thus maximised the chance of victory.

As Heather says, it’s a fascinating and tantalising period.

By: Scott Belyea

Scott Belyea — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:24:37 +0000

Most interesting. Of more practical significance is that I’ve now ordered the book.

In particular, I was struck by …

“This doesn’t have to mean total collapse as in the case of Rome if you’re willing to renegotiate relationships when the old order of domination has become anachronistic.”

I’ll be interested to see what more he has to say about this in the book. In particular, I wonder if the very qualities/attitudes/approaches that lead to empire militate against ever recognizing this reality. In other words, has any empire ever recognized this in time and been able to act on that recognition?

I look forward to the FedEx truck with my copy …