Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.08 AVERAGE
4.08 AVERAGE
emotional
informative
reflective
medium-paced
informative
reflective
medium-paced
informative
medium-paced
Fiquei um pouco confuso com o livro.
Não consegui prestar atenção - não sei se foi algo do momento ou por algum defeito do livro.
Não consegui prestar atenção - não sei se foi algo do momento ou por algum defeito do livro.
I’ve seen some complaints this book is boring, but I disagree. It’s academic and I have some issues with its structure (i.e., building up to the plague of Justinian and then hardly covering it compared to other epidemics). But it’s a fantastic book. It’s engaging and replete with maps and tables of data, which help detail it’s arguments.
It’s compelling and engaging and well worth the read.
It’s compelling and engaging and well worth the read.
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
informative
slow-paced
Kyle Harper's "The Fate of Rome" is the intellectual heir to Jared Diamond's [b:Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed|475|Collapse How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed|Jared Diamond|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1441419222l/475._SY75_.jpg|1041106]. Where Diamond looked at how environmental change led to the collapse of several smaller civilizations around the world, Harper argues that climate change and disease helped push one of the largest and most successful empires in history over the edge.
Despite the title of this book, Harper doesn't quite argue that climate change and disease alone led to the collapse of Rome in the fifth and sixth centuries. Like Diamond, he acknowledges that humans have agency and the policies of the later emperors also contributed to Rome's decline. However, Harper does show that climate change and disease sapped Rome of its resilience, which was critical to its ability to dominate the Mediterranean for hundred of years.
The peak of Roman influence occurred during a warmer, wetter period in the Mediterranean (the Roman climatic optimum) that peaked during the latter half of the second century. This meant among other things that food production was more stable and inhibited the introduction of certain diseases. This also led to rapid population growth. Unlike its enemies, Rome could replenish its armies relatively quickly after defeat. During this period, Rome had a large margin for error and could afford to suffer military setbacks.
With the shift in climate, food production became less reliable as areas like Egypt, which had once been the breadbasket of the empire, suddenly became too dry to grow the same crop yields. Meanwhile, several pandemics wracked the empire, including smallpox (Antonine Plague of 165), ebola (Cyprian Plague of 250), and bubonic (Justinian Plague of 541). These sapped the empire of manpower and made it much harder for the central government to recruit new soldiers for the army. The famous Hun migration from Central Asia to Europe, which pushed the Goths towards Rome, was also likely driven by climate change.
The Roman state was poorly equipped to handle these environmental challenges. Roman cities were densely populated and had poor sanitation, allowing communicable diseases to spread easily. Moreover, the famous Roman transportation network allowed diseases to go from one corner of Europe to the other in short order. On top of that, Roman medical practice had no understanding of germs, so medical techniques, such as bloodletting, often made the problem worse.
I have read many other books about ancient Rome and so I had heard about the various plagues and signs of climate change, but never realized just how much stress they put on the Roman state until Harper put all the pieces together. He amasses a wealth of climatological and biological evidence to show just how much the Mediterranean had changed from Augustus to Justinian. I appreciated that he took the time to explain how we know what we know about the ancient world, as well as the remaining gaps in our knowledge.
Given our current concerns about climate change and pandemics, "The Fate of Rome" feels like a book just as much about the present as about the past. Harper doesn't spend too much time on the parallels, perhaps because they are so obvious. There are of course differences between our globalized world and the Roman Empire. For one thing, we have a much better scientific understanding of diseases. However, Harper's book is an important reminder that human civilization ultimately depends upon the vagaries of nature.
Even more so than Jared Diamond's "Collapse," this is a dense book. Harper doesn't spend much time providing background on ancient Rome or discussing the alternative theories for Rome's fall. I highly recommend readers readers acquaint themselves with the subject before tackling this book (I'd recommend Peter Heather's [b:Empires and Barbarians: The Fall of Rome and the Birth of Europe|8577980|Empires and Barbarians The Fall of Rome and the Birth of Europe|Peter Heather|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1280328660l/8577980._SY75_.jpg|6903116] or Adrian Goldsworthy's [b:How Rome Fell: Death of a Superpower|5599860|How Rome Fell Death of a Superpower|Adrian Goldsworthy|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1328826454l/5599860._SX50_.jpg|5771216]). Highly recommended for readers interested in ancient Rome or environmental history.
[Note: I received a copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.]
Despite the title of this book, Harper doesn't quite argue that climate change and disease alone led to the collapse of Rome in the fifth and sixth centuries. Like Diamond, he acknowledges that humans have agency and the policies of the later emperors also contributed to Rome's decline. However, Harper does show that climate change and disease sapped Rome of its resilience, which was critical to its ability to dominate the Mediterranean for hundred of years.
The peak of Roman influence occurred during a warmer, wetter period in the Mediterranean (the Roman climatic optimum) that peaked during the latter half of the second century. This meant among other things that food production was more stable and inhibited the introduction of certain diseases. This also led to rapid population growth. Unlike its enemies, Rome could replenish its armies relatively quickly after defeat. During this period, Rome had a large margin for error and could afford to suffer military setbacks.
With the shift in climate, food production became less reliable as areas like Egypt, which had once been the breadbasket of the empire, suddenly became too dry to grow the same crop yields. Meanwhile, several pandemics wracked the empire, including smallpox (Antonine Plague of 165), ebola (Cyprian Plague of 250), and bubonic (Justinian Plague of 541). These sapped the empire of manpower and made it much harder for the central government to recruit new soldiers for the army. The famous Hun migration from Central Asia to Europe, which pushed the Goths towards Rome, was also likely driven by climate change.
The Roman state was poorly equipped to handle these environmental challenges. Roman cities were densely populated and had poor sanitation, allowing communicable diseases to spread easily. Moreover, the famous Roman transportation network allowed diseases to go from one corner of Europe to the other in short order. On top of that, Roman medical practice had no understanding of germs, so medical techniques, such as bloodletting, often made the problem worse.
I have read many other books about ancient Rome and so I had heard about the various plagues and signs of climate change, but never realized just how much stress they put on the Roman state until Harper put all the pieces together. He amasses a wealth of climatological and biological evidence to show just how much the Mediterranean had changed from Augustus to Justinian. I appreciated that he took the time to explain how we know what we know about the ancient world, as well as the remaining gaps in our knowledge.
Given our current concerns about climate change and pandemics, "The Fate of Rome" feels like a book just as much about the present as about the past. Harper doesn't spend too much time on the parallels, perhaps because they are so obvious. There are of course differences between our globalized world and the Roman Empire. For one thing, we have a much better scientific understanding of diseases. However, Harper's book is an important reminder that human civilization ultimately depends upon the vagaries of nature.
Even more so than Jared Diamond's "Collapse," this is a dense book. Harper doesn't spend much time providing background on ancient Rome or discussing the alternative theories for Rome's fall. I highly recommend readers readers acquaint themselves with the subject before tackling this book (I'd recommend Peter Heather's [b:Empires and Barbarians: The Fall of Rome and the Birth of Europe|8577980|Empires and Barbarians The Fall of Rome and the Birth of Europe|Peter Heather|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1280328660l/8577980._SY75_.jpg|6903116] or Adrian Goldsworthy's [b:How Rome Fell: Death of a Superpower|5599860|How Rome Fell Death of a Superpower|Adrian Goldsworthy|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1328826454l/5599860._SX50_.jpg|5771216]). Highly recommended for readers interested in ancient Rome or environmental history.
[Note: I received a copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.]
An interesting argument and lens of questioning that points to outside--and still human-related--conditions wrecked havoc for the Roman empire. While many thing of man's hubris and a few key players or wars as the downfall, Harper forces us to one again look at disease, climate, and natural disasters. As he says, everyone assumes there was a backdrop of a calm neutral setting for the Empire, yet this was not always the case, especially in the last stages of its power.
informative
reflective
medium-paced