Researching the decline of the Roman Empire

There are hundreds of books about the decline of the roman empire; you only need a general book about Roman empire or look the bibliography of that books. The Gibbon theory is absolutelly obsolete, you must be update 

Gibbon is a nice piece of prose, but has a very slanted perspective. John Julius Norwich is very good if you are a beginner to the topic, Dio Cassius is a very good source of the early years of the decline, Cyril Mango is good if you want to progress into the construction and makeup of the Byzantine state.

^^^ Why do you keep posting about the same thing Priscus?  i've seen atleast 2 topics about *attilas capital* locked throughout the forum already.

Originally posted by Scourge of God I'm doing a research paper on the above mentioned topic with emphasis on the western empire.  I know Gibbons has some ideas but are there any good sources out there to check out in any type of publication to further my research?  Or any thoughts from the forum would be fine too.

Look for this one:  Arthur Ferrill.  The Fall of the Roman Empire, the Military Explanation.  (New York, Thames & Hudson, 1986)

Good info and thesis on the army in the late Western Empire.

Sorry I don't have the ISBN.

 The gibberish you posted above just makes it more obvious that your a troll, whether or not you weep I couldnt care less. Your posts have been locked from what I can see so your advertising of your post has merely gained the interest of mods who don't look to kindly on forum trolls.

 Anymore gibberish you'd like to contribute before the *inevitable*?

Originally posted by Priscus generally something that would rewrite or solidify a point  in history is of some interest but due to the frailties and laziness of mankind [seemingly most pronounced in the purveyors and consumers of walmart history] action must be stimulated by creating a tipping point or clearing the forest of trees for the short. ban me if you will. would i weep, no. it may make another interesting footnote. time and broad publication is on my side.

Originally posted by Heraclius The gibberish you posted above just makes it more obvious that your a troll, whether or not you weep I couldnt care less. Your posts have been locked from what I can see so your advertising of your post has merely gained the interest of mods who don't look to kindly on forum trolls.  Anymore gibberish you'd like to contribute before the *inevitable*?

I would call it gibberish and intellectual snobbery.  

Heh, I haven't seen a Byzantine history book in Wal-Mart or in any other department store in my entire life!

Originally posted by Priscus sounds like you'd think it was gibberish. wow are you in control of the forum? you don't really know how a forum works do you? you 12 or 13 now?

Last time I checked, twelve and thirteen year-olds were taught proper grammar and punctuation in middle school and high school!  Try observing these rules while typing. 

"Civilisation and Climate" by E. Hungtington. A climatic explanation

"Manpower shortage and the Fall of the Roman Empire in the West" by A. E. R. Boak; about the demographic decline.

"The Decline of the Roman Empire in the West", by F. W. Walbank; marxist.

"The Decline of the Ancient World" again A. H. M. Jones.

"The Myth of the Rome's Fall" by R. M. Haywood; he is centred in internal political affaires

"Christianity and the Decline of the Roman Empire", by A. Momigliano; about the power of the Church and her negative influence (this is his theory...)


I can post the years and others works, but i havn't time

Caesar's time had not even marked the height of the Roman Empire in terms of military, population, and economy. So I wouldn't put the decline earlier than the height.

I don't think the Western Empire was doomed until 378 C.E. 

Edited by Imperator Invictus

Caesar's time was not a high point because the Roman state had not reached its maximum extent; its military had not reached its most efficient level; its infrastructure had not been clearly established (hence the civil war), and its economy was not close to what it later became.

As for Caesar himself, I think he is one of the most exaggerated figures in history. There were many Romans greater than he, but we all love Caesar because of the abundance of information from his time period.

Generally, it's considered to be the time from Augustus to the death of Marcus Aurelius.