What do you think?
Rate this book
The Eternal Decline and Fall of Rome: The History of a Dangerous Idea
As this book intriguingly explores, for those who would make Rome great again and their victims, ideas of Roman decline and renewal have had a long and violent history.
The decline of Rome has been a constant source of discussion for more than 2200 years. Everyone from American journalists in the twenty-first century AD to Roman politicians at the turn of the third century BC have used it as a tool to illustrate the negative consequences of changes in their world. Because Roman history is so long, it provides a buffet of ready-made stories of decline that can help develop the context around any snapshot. And Rome did, in fact, decline and, eventually, fall. An empire that once controlled all or part of more than 40 modern European, Asian, and African countries no longer exists. Roman prophets of decline were, ultimately, proven correct-a fact that makes their modern invocations all the more powerful. If it happened then, it could happen now.
The Eternal Decline and Fall of Rome tells the stories of the people who built their political and literary careers around promises of Roman renewal as well as those of the victims they blamed for causing Rome's decline. Each chapter offers the historical context necessary to understand a moment or a series of moments in which Romans, aspiring Romans, and non--Romans used ideas of Roman decline and restoration to seize power and remake the world around them. The story begins during the Roman Republic just after 200 BC. It proceeds through the empire of Augustus and his successors, traces the Roman loss of much of western Europe in the fifth century AD, and then follows Roman history as it runs through the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium) until its fall in 1453. The final two chapters look at ideas of Roman decline and renewal from the fifteenth century until today. If Rome illustrates the profound danger of the rhetoric of decline, it also demonstrates the rehabilitative potential of a
rhetoric that focuses on collaborative restoration, a lesson of great relevance to our world today.
The decline of Rome has been a constant source of discussion for more than 2200 years. Everyone from American journalists in the twenty-first century AD to Roman politicians at the turn of the third century BC have used it as a tool to illustrate the negative consequences of changes in their world. Because Roman history is so long, it provides a buffet of ready-made stories of decline that can help develop the context around any snapshot. And Rome did, in fact, decline and, eventually, fall. An empire that once controlled all or part of more than 40 modern European, Asian, and African countries no longer exists. Roman prophets of decline were, ultimately, proven correct-a fact that makes their modern invocations all the more powerful. If it happened then, it could happen now.
The Eternal Decline and Fall of Rome tells the stories of the people who built their political and literary careers around promises of Roman renewal as well as those of the victims they blamed for causing Rome's decline. Each chapter offers the historical context necessary to understand a moment or a series of moments in which Romans, aspiring Romans, and non--Romans used ideas of Roman decline and restoration to seize power and remake the world around them. The story begins during the Roman Republic just after 200 BC. It proceeds through the empire of Augustus and his successors, traces the Roman loss of much of western Europe in the fifth century AD, and then follows Roman history as it runs through the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium) until its fall in 1453. The final two chapters look at ideas of Roman decline and renewal from the fifteenth century until today. If Rome illustrates the profound danger of the rhetoric of decline, it also demonstrates the rehabilitative potential of a
rhetoric that focuses on collaborative restoration, a lesson of great relevance to our world today.
320 pages, Hardcover
First published August 3, 2021
48 people are currently reading
533 people want to read
About the author
Edward J. Watts
11 books60 followersEdward Watts teaches history at the University of California, San Diego, He received his PhD in History from Yale University in 2002. His research interests center on the intellectual and religious history of the Roman Empire and the early Byzantine Empire.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews
May 17, 2022
Watts' excellent earlier books have focused on his area of speciality - the Roman Empire of Late Antiquity. But here he has taken on a large theme and so his book's timeframe spans from the early Roman Republic to the modern day. This is ambitious, but on the whole he manages to maintain the quality of his analysis and generally keeps his theme in focus. The idea that people have been drawing on an idealised version of "Rome" and using it to push agendas based on "decline", "fall" (potential, actual or imagined) and "renewal" ever since the rise of the Roman Republic is a useful lens with which to examine much of western history. It's an insight that has been observed by others many times, but perhaps not examined in this kind of depth.
Watts' examination certainly does provide interesting and perhaps novel perspectives on how these pervasive and seemingly perpetual ideas have arisen in new forms while repeating the same themes. Voltaire may have quipped that the Holy Roman Empire "was in no way holy, nor Roman, nor an empire", but Watts shows that it was, despite being in many ways distant from all those things, seen very much as all of them as well. How this could be or why a prince in Russia could take a form of the title "Caesar" centuries after the last of the Caesars in Rome are among many paradoxes which the book explores and illuminates well. Watts also steers carefully away from the romanicisation and glorification of ancient Rome - the very thing that drives the idea he's examining - particularly by emphasising that all of the "renewals" that followed each alarm about Rome's "decline" and/or "fall" had victims as well as beneficiaries.
One problem with the book is that it often resolves into long stretches of potted history. This is because it is aimed at a general audience, so the author can't assume his reader knows what the Donation of Constantine was or why the Year of the Four Emperors is significant. This means that to explore his theme, he has to give an often fairly brisk lesson in what happened, what happened next and what happened as a result of that. Overall he manages to pull this off by linking his narrative back to his themes regularly, but at times it feels that what could have been a thoughtful essay for historically literate readers has been stretched into book form for a much wider audience.
This seems to be because this book, like several others that have come out in recent years, has been inspired by the way certain ideas about the past - Sparta, Rome, Vikings, the Black Death, the Crusades - have been weaponised and distorted by political partisans over the last two decades. It is understandable that historians of these periods and subjects are alarmed by both the politicisation and the distortion and want to blunt the former by correcting the latter. This seems to be why some historians have been aiming accessible books at general readers presenting counter-narratives. This is understandable and probably admirable, though I wonder if the "politically and topically motivated historical counter-narrative" genre really makes for good historical writing and analysis that will stand the test of time or simply prove modish and ephemeral. I suppose we'll need to wait and see.
Watts' examination certainly does provide interesting and perhaps novel perspectives on how these pervasive and seemingly perpetual ideas have arisen in new forms while repeating the same themes. Voltaire may have quipped that the Holy Roman Empire "was in no way holy, nor Roman, nor an empire", but Watts shows that it was, despite being in many ways distant from all those things, seen very much as all of them as well. How this could be or why a prince in Russia could take a form of the title "Caesar" centuries after the last of the Caesars in Rome are among many paradoxes which the book explores and illuminates well. Watts also steers carefully away from the romanicisation and glorification of ancient Rome - the very thing that drives the idea he's examining - particularly by emphasising that all of the "renewals" that followed each alarm about Rome's "decline" and/or "fall" had victims as well as beneficiaries.
One problem with the book is that it often resolves into long stretches of potted history. This is because it is aimed at a general audience, so the author can't assume his reader knows what the Donation of Constantine was or why the Year of the Four Emperors is significant. This means that to explore his theme, he has to give an often fairly brisk lesson in what happened, what happened next and what happened as a result of that. Overall he manages to pull this off by linking his narrative back to his themes regularly, but at times it feels that what could have been a thoughtful essay for historically literate readers has been stretched into book form for a much wider audience.
This seems to be because this book, like several others that have come out in recent years, has been inspired by the way certain ideas about the past - Sparta, Rome, Vikings, the Black Death, the Crusades - have been weaponised and distorted by political partisans over the last two decades. It is understandable that historians of these periods and subjects are alarmed by both the politicisation and the distortion and want to blunt the former by correcting the latter. This seems to be why some historians have been aiming accessible books at general readers presenting counter-narratives. This is understandable and probably admirable, though I wonder if the "politically and topically motivated historical counter-narrative" genre really makes for good historical writing and analysis that will stand the test of time or simply prove modish and ephemeral. I suppose we'll need to wait and see.
February 13, 2023
Una "historia de la historia" que recopila el uso (y el abuso) de la idea de decadencia y renovación de Roma como justificación de múltiples políticas (mayormente agresivas) a lo largo de la historia. Como suele pasar en libros tan ambiciosos como este (Especialmente, cuando la extensión es limitada) la propuesta resulta demasiado forzada en ocasiones y algunas fechas y acontecimientos patinan un tanto pero la tesis es interesante y está bien argumentada y (sobre todo) bien escrita, lo que hace que sea una lectura interesante.
January 7, 2022
3.5 stars.
It's a good book, but at times early on it felt like Watts pushed his points a bit too hard. Rome had a traditional narrative of its own decline that dated back to the rise of Rome after the 2nd Punic War. Cato the Elder spoke against decadence and encroaching Greek influence. The 2nd part faded but the first part became a staple of talk of Roman decline. Pretty much everyone used the talk to explain why their reforms were right: Sulla, Caesar, Augustus, et al. He notes that historians noting this decline always had their agenda. (OK, but so do you). In his talk on the late republic, Watts sounds skeptical that there was a decline - but imagine living through all that crap - talk of decline sounds natural.
He also think the Pax Romana's golden era of adoptive emperors was overrated. This was an era he refers to as renewel without decline. Emperors would always be lauded for their improvements without any talk of decline. Watts finds this curious - and I find his analysis weak here. Even if everything is going well, it still takes plenty of work to maintain things. You can't just sit there and do nothing or it all falls into decay.
The back half of the book feels like a traditional recounting of the Byzantines and their problems. The last chapter is good noting how the post-Gibbon narrative of Rome's decline can be coopted by any nation, like the US.
Nitpick: he credits the recapture of North Africa in the 500s to the brilliant work of "Justinian and his generals." I mean, Justinian sent the generals - but he stayed back in Constantinople the entire time.
It's a good book, but at times early on it felt like Watts pushed his points a bit too hard. Rome had a traditional narrative of its own decline that dated back to the rise of Rome after the 2nd Punic War. Cato the Elder spoke against decadence and encroaching Greek influence. The 2nd part faded but the first part became a staple of talk of Roman decline. Pretty much everyone used the talk to explain why their reforms were right: Sulla, Caesar, Augustus, et al. He notes that historians noting this decline always had their agenda. (OK, but so do you). In his talk on the late republic, Watts sounds skeptical that there was a decline - but imagine living through all that crap - talk of decline sounds natural.
He also think the Pax Romana's golden era of adoptive emperors was overrated. This was an era he refers to as renewel without decline. Emperors would always be lauded for their improvements without any talk of decline. Watts finds this curious - and I find his analysis weak here. Even if everything is going well, it still takes plenty of work to maintain things. You can't just sit there and do nothing or it all falls into decay.
The back half of the book feels like a traditional recounting of the Byzantines and their problems. The last chapter is good noting how the post-Gibbon narrative of Rome's decline can be coopted by any nation, like the US.
Nitpick: he credits the recapture of North Africa in the 500s to the brilliant work of "Justinian and his generals." I mean, Justinian sent the generals - but he stayed back in Constantinople the entire time.
December 18, 2021
This book is a fairly easy but poignant read for now and our times. Also, if you want an overview of history focused on political rhetoric vs. realities of the periods from the Middle Republic to the Early Modern period. It is one narrative of Roman history that makes connection with the present in America and around the world. It is largely about the present uses of the declines and falls of Rome.
April 22, 2024
In “The Eternal Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” Watts compellingly traces how politicians used the idea of Roman decline and renewal throughout Roman history—from the Republic all the way to the fall of Constantinople and even beyond—to call for political change to return to glory. Watts takes readers on a journey through Roman history to the present, as people used the idea of Roman decline to cast blame and victimize those it blamed, as well as the people like Antoninus Pius and Leo the Wise “who took credit for restoring and revivifying their empire, but who refused to blame others for the problems they were correcting.”
While the central point is compelling and the long arc of history Watts relates is interesting, it at times felt weighed down by the thousands of years of history it was trying to cover at the expense of its argument.
While the central point is compelling and the long arc of history Watts relates is interesting, it at times felt weighed down by the thousands of years of history it was trying to cover at the expense of its argument.
January 23, 2024
This book is about 90% Roman history told from the perspective of the empires' rise and fall.
The book doesn't fully live up to the promise of the description as it's just in the final two chapters where it covers some of the post-empire use of the idea of Rome's rise and fall and details Gibbons and Montaigne famous writings about it. He mentions breifly that American's founders and educated people in general became very familiar with Rome's history and falls and that influenced their creation of America and society in general so that the idea of preventing the fall of civilization became a touchstone people could use. This sort of discussion and analysis was much shorter than I hoped for. I'd also point out that while he references several conservative American leaders that used this idea (poorly), he could also have pointed to a variety of liberal leaders that have done the same. The idea of avoiding the fall off of society is probably more of a populist/protectionist touchstone that is used by both sides of the American political divide and that could have been clearer.
Ultimately a solid read but left me wanting a bit more.
The book doesn't fully live up to the promise of the description as it's just in the final two chapters where it covers some of the post-empire use of the idea of Rome's rise and fall and details Gibbons and Montaigne famous writings about it. He mentions breifly that American's founders and educated people in general became very familiar with Rome's history and falls and that influenced their creation of America and society in general so that the idea of preventing the fall of civilization became a touchstone people could use. This sort of discussion and analysis was much shorter than I hoped for. I'd also point out that while he references several conservative American leaders that used this idea (poorly), he could also have pointed to a variety of liberal leaders that have done the same. The idea of avoiding the fall off of society is probably more of a populist/protectionist touchstone that is used by both sides of the American political divide and that could have been clearer.
Ultimately a solid read but left me wanting a bit more.
February 20, 2023
La idea de Watts es potente: que desde hace 2200 años (y aún hoy) todo tipo de oportunistas se escudan en la supuesta decadencia de Roma para justificar persecuciones, revoluciones y guerras. Sin embargo, al tener que condensar los hechos de tantos siglos en pocas páginas el ritmo del libro se resiente. Ligera decepción porque su volumen sobre el paso de República romana a Imperio gustó mucho.
June 8, 2023
Buen relato de roma desde la caída de la republica hasta la toma de Constantinopla. Aunque hay algunos pasajes que pasa por alto, un libro centrado en la política romana. No esperes descripciones de las campañas militares. Recomendable si te gusta el tema.
October 22, 2021
a masterpiece
Just wonderful. Handles its material both at the level of detail and zooming out to make a much larger argument.
Just wonderful. Handles its material both at the level of detail and zooming out to make a much larger argument.
July 2, 2024
Un libro fantástico. Muy recomendable. El autor expone muy buenos argumentos sobre la idea de Roma, el atractivo del concepto en sí y los peligros de su idealización, lo cual ha sido una constante en la historia de Occidente y sigue marcando ciertos discursos políticos actuales. La parte puramente histórica también está relatada de forma muy amena. Sin duda lo releeré.
August 12, 2025
At a time when certain right wing proto-Fascist politicians talk about making their country great again, about rejecting ideas and social values that challenge long held conservative beliefs, when historical narratives are warped to serve ideologues who actually despise academic rigour and intellectual honesty, the idea of the Roman Empire declining and falling is so powerful. Not only does it tap into popular constructs of masculine power and political aggrandisement, it also has a seriously long history. The Eternal Decline and Fall of Rome: The History of a Dangerous Idea is a very worthy exploration of how the history of Roman power, society and ideas has played out, from the rise of the Roman Republic as an imperial power, to recent years. Whilst the author, Edward Watts, can be accused of spending too much time detailing the history and insufficient space on critiquing the political import of Roman decline for today, this is still a very impressive read.
One the most valuable aspects of this book is that Watts takes a very long view of his subject, working his way from the Third Century BCE and the Punic Wars, all the way to the current day. This is important in that, firstly, it challenges the dominant historical construct of 'Rome' declining and then falling in the period of the Third to Fifth Centuries CE, with the focus on the western Empire. Secondly, it detaches ideas of decline and fall from geopolitical entities and puts them into more intellectual paradigms. This is established with some key obervsations, such as the relationship between the Hellenising of the later Republic or the requirement for sumptary laws, the retrofitting of corruption and decline on previous regimes by their successors (such as that discussed by Watts about the retconning of Domitian's reign by his successors), and when Watts states about the so-called 'crisis of the Third Century' that “...the political instability of the third century gives the impression of a half century of unremitting catastrophe and systemic failure. The reality was far more complicated.” In this final point it must be noted that Watts understands and attempts to explain the validity of the emergence of local responses to external pressures. That the Roman Empire suvived at this time and then transitioned into a more decentralised system under Diocletian and then latter emperors, leading to the establishment of the so-called Byzantiene empire built on Constantinople, is shown to be understood by many a decline, whereas it's understandable to see this historical process as one of transformation.
In The Eternal Decline and Fall of Rome: The History of a Dangerous Idea Watts is also emphatic in how he sees the nominal continuation of the Roman Empire in its Eastern provinces, after the deposing of Romulus Augustulus in 476 CE. The author states emphatically and correctly in my opinion that "...the fall of Rome in 476 was manufactured to serve the propaganda purposes of later Romans." and that later "The emperors of Constantinople and their subjects were no longer Romans, however. (Pope) Stephen maintained that they had become “the Greeks."."This is important because, as mentioned earlier, Watts attempts to remind the reader of the continuity of Roman history beyond the supposed 'fall' of the western Empire, and that 'Rome' was just as much a construct of race, religion, laws and rhetoric as it was of boundaries and politics. Funnily enough this echoes the monumental work of Gibbons, who Watts mentions later in his book, and the English historian's narrative that didn't end in 476 CE.
Having said this, it could be argued that the considerable examination and discussion of the "decline and fall of Rome" suffers somewhat becaue the historical narrative becomes rather disparate as it leaves the ancient past and moves into what might be called the Middle Ages and then early modern European history. One can understand why Watts looks at the Charlemagne, Charles V and the Fall of Constantinople among other issues, however perhaps it would've been better to have ended his work with the regimes of Justinian or Heraclius. Much of what follows after Watt's discussion of those Eastern Roman emperors' regimes is useful, yet is in my opinion more germane to the then contemporary history and doesn't really add that much that is new to the discourse around Rome's decline and fall.
To have taken some of the core ideas or issues that had already come to be seen as important to the ideas of Rome's decline and fall and that pervade today's representation of Rome and/or current tendancies to draw a link between today's politics with the ancient empire's fate could have been more effectively explored. I'm not sure that Watts could've or should've attempted to debunk some of the myths that surround the end of the Roman emprie, but he does make a solid belated effort in the last few chapters to address concerns that derive from these falsehoods. He is rather (and rightfully) dismissive of populist micsconceptions such as this one held by actress Joan Collins:
Watts also highlights the link between Fascist ideology and constructs of ancient Rome when he references Mussolini's desire to revive Roman greatness in a reborn empire:
It's patently obvious that parallels should be made with how Mussolini saw Rome and the neo-Fascist beliefs of Trump, Putin, Orban, Erdogan etc, and Watts squibs it somewhat by not analysing these models of leadership and how they exploit the idea of Rome's decline and fall. One can understand it to some extent; this book is four years old and Watts is a historian first and formeost,. Having said that, when the title of the book speaks specifically to how dangerous the diea of Rome's decline and fall is, it behoves the author to be more explicit in his criticism of what is going on today.
The Eternal Decline and Fall of Rome: The History of a Dangerous Idea is a rewarding, challenging, complex and seriously learned book. Whilst I may have pointed out some problems I have with the text, one can't deny the overarching importance and validity of what Watts achieves in his study. This is a book that will undoubtedly appeal to serious students of ancient Roman history, but perhaps just as importantly, it should prompt questions about how the past can be manipulated and misrepresented to influence contemporary political, philosophical, social and cultural discourses. At a time when "Make America Great Again" is a mantra for right wing extremists who endanger so much of the liberal cosmopolitan underpinnings of our current world, understanding how attractive ideas such as the decline and fall of a great power such as ancient Rome are to demagogues and neo-Fascists is very important.
One the most valuable aspects of this book is that Watts takes a very long view of his subject, working his way from the Third Century BCE and the Punic Wars, all the way to the current day. This is important in that, firstly, it challenges the dominant historical construct of 'Rome' declining and then falling in the period of the Third to Fifth Centuries CE, with the focus on the western Empire. Secondly, it detaches ideas of decline and fall from geopolitical entities and puts them into more intellectual paradigms. This is established with some key obervsations, such as the relationship between the Hellenising of the later Republic or the requirement for sumptary laws, the retrofitting of corruption and decline on previous regimes by their successors (such as that discussed by Watts about the retconning of Domitian's reign by his successors), and when Watts states about the so-called 'crisis of the Third Century' that “...the political instability of the third century gives the impression of a half century of unremitting catastrophe and systemic failure. The reality was far more complicated.” In this final point it must be noted that Watts understands and attempts to explain the validity of the emergence of local responses to external pressures. That the Roman Empire suvived at this time and then transitioned into a more decentralised system under Diocletian and then latter emperors, leading to the establishment of the so-called Byzantiene empire built on Constantinople, is shown to be understood by many a decline, whereas it's understandable to see this historical process as one of transformation.
In The Eternal Decline and Fall of Rome: The History of a Dangerous Idea Watts is also emphatic in how he sees the nominal continuation of the Roman Empire in its Eastern provinces, after the deposing of Romulus Augustulus in 476 CE. The author states emphatically and correctly in my opinion that "...the fall of Rome in 476 was manufactured to serve the propaganda purposes of later Romans." and that later "The emperors of Constantinople and their subjects were no longer Romans, however. (Pope) Stephen maintained that they had become “the Greeks."."This is important because, as mentioned earlier, Watts attempts to remind the reader of the continuity of Roman history beyond the supposed 'fall' of the western Empire, and that 'Rome' was just as much a construct of race, religion, laws and rhetoric as it was of boundaries and politics. Funnily enough this echoes the monumental work of Gibbons, who Watts mentions later in his book, and the English historian's narrative that didn't end in 476 CE.
Having said this, it could be argued that the considerable examination and discussion of the "decline and fall of Rome" suffers somewhat becaue the historical narrative becomes rather disparate as it leaves the ancient past and moves into what might be called the Middle Ages and then early modern European history. One can understand why Watts looks at the Charlemagne, Charles V and the Fall of Constantinople among other issues, however perhaps it would've been better to have ended his work with the regimes of Justinian or Heraclius. Much of what follows after Watt's discussion of those Eastern Roman emperors' regimes is useful, yet is in my opinion more germane to the then contemporary history and doesn't really add that much that is new to the discourse around Rome's decline and fall.
To have taken some of the core ideas or issues that had already come to be seen as important to the ideas of Rome's decline and fall and that pervade today's representation of Rome and/or current tendancies to draw a link between today's politics with the ancient empire's fate could have been more effectively explored. I'm not sure that Watts could've or should've attempted to debunk some of the myths that surround the end of the Roman emprie, but he does make a solid belated effort in the last few chapters to address concerns that derive from these falsehoods. He is rather (and rightfully) dismissive of populist micsconceptions such as this one held by actress Joan Collins:
"“Perhaps the most absurd example of this came from Joan Collins who, in an interview with Playboy magazine in 1984, attacked what she saw as the libertine culture of the early 1980s by claiming that AIDS appeared “to teach us all a lesson.” “It’s just like the Roman Empire,” she said. “Wasn’t everyone just covered in syphilis? And then it was destroyed by the volcano."."
Watts also highlights the link between Fascist ideology and constructs of ancient Rome when he references Mussolini's desire to revive Roman greatness in a reborn empire:
"“Rome must appear marvelous to all the people of the world: vast, organized, and powerful just as it was in the times of the first empire of Augustus.”Mussolini’s Rome was to be made great again, both as a city and as the center of a renewed empire.”"
It's patently obvious that parallels should be made with how Mussolini saw Rome and the neo-Fascist beliefs of Trump, Putin, Orban, Erdogan etc, and Watts squibs it somewhat by not analysing these models of leadership and how they exploit the idea of Rome's decline and fall. One can understand it to some extent; this book is four years old and Watts is a historian first and formeost,. Having said that, when the title of the book speaks specifically to how dangerous the diea of Rome's decline and fall is, it behoves the author to be more explicit in his criticism of what is going on today.
The Eternal Decline and Fall of Rome: The History of a Dangerous Idea is a rewarding, challenging, complex and seriously learned book. Whilst I may have pointed out some problems I have with the text, one can't deny the overarching importance and validity of what Watts achieves in his study. This is a book that will undoubtedly appeal to serious students of ancient Roman history, but perhaps just as importantly, it should prompt questions about how the past can be manipulated and misrepresented to influence contemporary political, philosophical, social and cultural discourses. At a time when "Make America Great Again" is a mantra for right wing extremists who endanger so much of the liberal cosmopolitan underpinnings of our current world, understanding how attractive ideas such as the decline and fall of a great power such as ancient Rome are to demagogues and neo-Fascists is very important.
May 20, 2023
I don't read much ancient history, but I recently read a modern biograph of Hannibal of Carthage so that probably helped make me more receptive to seeing this book on the new nonfiction shelf at my local public library. Also, while I've never read Edward Gibbon's famous mammoth 18th century history of Rome's decline and fall, I've seen it referenced countless times.
The author, an ancient history professor at UC San Diego, looks at how Rome and Constantinople spent 2000 years in a perpetual cycle of real and perceived decline and renewal. Even in the days of the Roman Republic critics lamented Rome's decline and excessive Greek influence. (Half the empire would eventually become Greek-centric and today the Romans and Greeks are often thought of as practically the same.) Blame for decline was frequently assigned for dubious self-serving political reasons, often accompanied by slandering predecessors and persecution of minorities. Actual renewal had benefactors, but usually also victims. And once Christianity entered the picture the empire couldn't decide from reign to reign whether this was the cause or solution to all of the empire's problems. And if so, which version? (Arianism was something I'd never heard of before, nor the origin of the term Iconoclasm.) This book also gives more credit to the Holy Roman Empire than I think is typical, noting its genuine efforts at trying to carrying the legacy and ideal of Rome.
The book wraps up by connecting the turbulent history and contemporary criticism of Rome to modern times, including Mussolini's explicit goal of Making Rome Great Again and Reagan's illusions. Many of America's Founding Fathers were enamored with Rome's ancient history and USA is just one of many countries where leaders and critics have attempted to draw parallels between current events and the downfall of supposedly grand and glorious Rome.
Fascinating in concept, the execution here feels a bit meandering at times, probably in no small part due to the long period of history covered.
Moderate recommendation.
The author, an ancient history professor at UC San Diego, looks at how Rome and Constantinople spent 2000 years in a perpetual cycle of real and perceived decline and renewal. Even in the days of the Roman Republic critics lamented Rome's decline and excessive Greek influence. (Half the empire would eventually become Greek-centric and today the Romans and Greeks are often thought of as practically the same.) Blame for decline was frequently assigned for dubious self-serving political reasons, often accompanied by slandering predecessors and persecution of minorities. Actual renewal had benefactors, but usually also victims. And once Christianity entered the picture the empire couldn't decide from reign to reign whether this was the cause or solution to all of the empire's problems. And if so, which version? (Arianism was something I'd never heard of before, nor the origin of the term Iconoclasm.) This book also gives more credit to the Holy Roman Empire than I think is typical, noting its genuine efforts at trying to carrying the legacy and ideal of Rome.
The book wraps up by connecting the turbulent history and contemporary criticism of Rome to modern times, including Mussolini's explicit goal of Making Rome Great Again and Reagan's illusions. Many of America's Founding Fathers were enamored with Rome's ancient history and USA is just one of many countries where leaders and critics have attempted to draw parallels between current events and the downfall of supposedly grand and glorious Rome.
Fascinating in concept, the execution here feels a bit meandering at times, probably in no small part due to the long period of history covered.
Moderate recommendation.
March 14, 2022
"The History of a Dangerous Idea' reads the subtitle - and the introduction begins with modern fascists and white nationalists declaring that the West is facing a decline, but we can, so to speak, "Make the West Great Again," with examples from Trump in the United States to the Phillipines to Spain and beyond. But this book traces the idea connected with Rome - already in the mid-to-latee Republic, Roman conservatives were declaring a decline from which Rome needed to be rescued. The same was true in the turmoil of civil wars that ended the Republic, that shepherded the rising Empire, with new emperors or new dynasties of emperors, and even after the fall of the Western Empire throughout the rise of the Eastern Empire. It was echoed in the "re-establishment" of a "Holy Roman Empire" in the West, and through the fall of Constantinople itself in 1453. Even after, some thought Rome could be restored! And in the epilogue, the author notes how such language has been appropriated in America, brought to bear with great effect by Ronald Reagan starting in the 1960s, how it was deployed in the AIDS crisis and the culture wars, and is STILL invoked by insane "conservatives" today. Heavy reading, but great stuff!
May 15, 2022
Disappointing and ultimately a waste of time. Watts presents an interesting idea in the preface, and starts to explore it in the first couple of chapters, but then he loses track of his thesis, and his book becomes little more than a data dump of ancient and medieval history. The content of the book seems to have been compiled by finding any instance in the sources that he knows for an extended Roman history which use the words 'renew', 'decline', or variations thereon and chucks them into his narrative. Along the way, we get some really weird interpretations of 'Roman', just so he can use some of the sources that he found. I kept hoping that the conclusion would do something amazing with all this data, but no, it just kind of petered out with a weak repeat of his preface. Yes, yes, professor, lots of people have used the decline and fall of Rome to make bad arguments about the decline and fall of America. Thanks for the reminder.
I might give this paper a C if one of my students wrote it (just because the research would have been a fair amount of work for them), but I expect a bit more from an endowed professor. This should have been an op-ed piece, but his publisher allowed him to bloat it into a book.
I might give this paper a C if one of my students wrote it (just because the research would have been a fair amount of work for them), but I expect a bit more from an endowed professor. This should have been an op-ed piece, but his publisher allowed him to bloat it into a book.
May 7, 2023
Watts has an ambitious project which spans both early modern and ancient historiography: the study of the way historians and politicians have used the decline, fall, and restoration of Rome as an ideological justification for a myriad of shifting things. It's an interesting premise and the closer Watts stays near his specialty--the Roman Empire in late antiquity to the early middle ages--the stronger Watts' narrative remains. That said, Watts also does a decent job of covering the late Byzantine and Holy Roman uses of the concept as well, but by the time we get to Renaissance and modern Europe to contemporary America, Watts isn't really applying any depth. The obvious problem of the book is that stretches over far, far too long a period to be exhaustive but also covers time periods that are not generally well-historically understood. Since this is a general audience book, Watts has to cover a lot of basic history and in doing so, eats up a lot of space for the meat of the discussion. The early 20th-century use of Roman decline alone could be its own book. Still, I learned a good deal from the book. So with those caveats, a general interest reader could really benefit from a book like this.
October 7, 2021
Rome never fails to fascinate and this book does deliver a good dose of Roman history. However, to lament that Rome fell in 560 rather than 476 is nitpicky at best. At worst its a pandering warning against xenophobia. The author claims, that we've believed the fall of Rome was due to, "barbarous outsiders toppling a society from within." Xenophobia is doubtlessly bad, but you don't need to be a historian to know that barbarian immigrants didn't cause the fall of Rome. Fratricide was the true cause, centuries of civil wars left Rome vulnerable to attacks and sacks. That's why it's said the founders of Rome, Remus and Romulus, foretold the fall when Romulus killed Remus. I mean it's not the most common knowledge but, it is known. Anyway historians never really exactly agree on a date for the fall of Rome, and like I said it's a good dose of Rome to the Dome, aaand I don't wanna fuck up a fellow romanophile's rating so... 5 STARS.
November 6, 2022
Very captivating and compelling book, tracing 1600 years of people promising to “Make Rome Great Again.” From the Late Republic to the fall of Constantinople in 1453, with a conclusion reaching to our own day.
It is obvious that the author’s forte is the Rome of the Late Republic and early Empire. Those first chapters are spellbinding in their narrative flow and thematic resonance.
Once the empire shifts to Constantinople, however, the book seems to lose its thread. It becomes closer to a historical summary, with the focus on when Roman renewal was championed as opposed to the forces behind that championing, as in earlier chapters.
The concluding chapters, however, were very strong. Watts lays before us the stark choice of advocating renewal in society: either at the expense of others or holistically.
It is obvious that the author’s forte is the Rome of the Late Republic and early Empire. Those first chapters are spellbinding in their narrative flow and thematic resonance.
Once the empire shifts to Constantinople, however, the book seems to lose its thread. It becomes closer to a historical summary, with the focus on when Roman renewal was championed as opposed to the forces behind that championing, as in earlier chapters.
The concluding chapters, however, were very strong. Watts lays before us the stark choice of advocating renewal in society: either at the expense of others or holistically.
January 4, 2022
Okay, here’s the deal with this book. There’s a “dangerous idea” premise: unscrupulous politicians hark back to an idealized past, contrast it with a unpalatable present, and go about their dirty work. Well, okay, you got us. It worked for centuries, but Mr. Watts saw thru our villainous charade and the jig is up. Damn. It was so reliable. Oh, well.
Anyway, there’s good history of the post Marcus Aurelius Empire here and so I bought a copy to reread. My grasp of the Western Empire, head quartered in Constantinople, that lasted to the mid 1400s is a little shaky. Was the Roman Empire really so villainous? Could anything evil last (first as a Republic then under the Emperors) 2,000 years?
Anyway, there’s good history of the post Marcus Aurelius Empire here and so I bought a copy to reread. My grasp of the Western Empire, head quartered in Constantinople, that lasted to the mid 1400s is a little shaky. Was the Roman Empire really so villainous? Could anything evil last (first as a Republic then under the Emperors) 2,000 years?
December 31, 2023
There is this thing that happens with sometimes with arguments where the act of choosing what to argue about means that you have ceded the field to your opponent, because you have agreed to their terms - the "We have established what it is, we are just haggling about the price" problem. This was the case here to the point that it was distracting. It is coverage of the "dangerous idea" in a manner as to snark out its proponents over the centuries by showing how unnovel and unserious it has been at times. It does not do the work around context for the idea to provide more substantive or meaningful opposition. Maybe it is not fair to complain about it for lacking that scope, but when the work is as smug as it is its in the scope of its conclusions, it feels at best like a missed chance.
May 2, 2022
Covering over 2000 years of history in a span of over 200 pages is a dizzying history of hundreds of characters and emperors. For the lay reader without maps to identify the areas mentioned now lost to history or charts of emperors rise and fall or other aids in placing the history in a framework made it difficult for me to follow. As this is reportedly the first attempt to write a “brief” history of the “Roman.empires”. For the average reader reading this requires reading books on each empire to even understand the times and characters.
I read it out of duty…I started it and had to finish it. Not a pleasure and not much gained to my regret.
I read it out of duty…I started it and had to finish it. Not a pleasure and not much gained to my regret.
June 30, 2024
Romans obsessed over their empire's decline long before it started declining. Any time things went south temporarily, someone was likely to start fretting Rome was past its peak. Then a new emperor would come along and make himself look good by discussing how he was fixing what the last emperor did wrong. These themes continued long after the Roman empire was gone: everyone knew Rome had a decline so it was easy to blame whatever contemporary bogeyman was the problem (feminism! Pandemics! Hippies! The decline of the middle class!).
This is good but I'd have liked more coverage of post-Roman views of the decline and fall.
This is good but I'd have liked more coverage of post-Roman views of the decline and fall.
March 6, 2022
This was an easy book. I listened to the audio version and it flowed smooth. In a timely message Watts illustrates how the power of Rome rose and fell, reshaped and rose again, morphed, and how the idea of Rome was used in multiple places. The idea of Rome, then and now, became more important than contemporary or historical Rome. Leaders called for the restoration of a romantic idea as they do today and speak of eras of decline in a similar manner, and in both cases, possessing a very loose connection to actual history.
March 17, 2025
This is more a history of the deployment of the idea of the fall of Rome across the Republic and Empire's history, with a few instances of it thereafter. I enjoyed it, but I went in expecting more of a historical development of the idea and how it shifted from Roman into the broader Western history.
The updated ending read as tragically misguided in this time when the American Republic seems in the process of collapsing into lawless tyranny.
The updated ending read as tragically misguided in this time when the American Republic seems in the process of collapsing into lawless tyranny.
November 28, 2023
I enjoyed this book. it’s a little ham fisted at the beginning of the author addresses things like the 2016 election and Donald Trump…. A little short on the premise of the book…. Pretty long on the twilight of the Roman Empire from late antiquity onwards. If you excised the first 20 pages it would be a better book.
December 5, 2021
Brushing up my ancient history knowledge with relevance continuing today.
June 18, 2022
A juicy exploration of "rise and fall narratives are created by politicians to sway the masses." 4 Stars
June 5, 2024
I did not read enough to give a proper review; enjoy!
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews