You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.09 AVERAGE
4.09 AVERAGE
Harper's book doesn't replace other books on the collapse of the Roman Empire (or Empires), but supplements them usefully. While other historians emphasise certain social or political conditions that underlay the collapses of the Roman polities, or the impact of certain decisions or events, Harper puts all these in a environmental context that shows how variations in climate, waves of pandemics and the economic impacts of both formed the rolling waves on which the micro-level events rode. By marrying recent modern climate science data and medical knowledge of disease vectors, he is able to map archaeology and a new perspective on the sources to give political events and social changes a wider context.
This will probably not sit well with those who have ideological needs to attribute Rome's rise to more abstract forces (e.g. admirable values like fortitude and constancy) or its fall to sinister outside influences (Christianity or an influx of "foreigners"). It definitely won't sit well with those who have a misty eyed and romantic view of the Romans shaped by Hollywood images of pristine, white marble cities with baths and running water - Harper takes some delight in making it clear exactly how dirty, smelly and disease-ridden major Roman cities actually were. But it makes for a fresh new way of reading about the political ups and downs.
] Readers looking for a narrative history with entertaining anecdotes will be disappointed, as a lot of the book is technical and goes into great detail on the underpinning science. But those of us who like to look at familiar events from a new angle will find this book an eye-opener.
This will probably not sit well with those who have ideological needs to attribute Rome's rise to more abstract forces (e.g. admirable values like fortitude and constancy) or its fall to sinister outside influences (Christianity or an influx of "foreigners"). It definitely won't sit well with those who have a misty eyed and romantic view of the Romans shaped by Hollywood images of pristine, white marble cities with baths and running water - Harper takes some delight in making it clear exactly how dirty, smelly and disease-ridden major Roman cities actually were. But it makes for a fresh new way of reading about the political ups and downs.
] Readers looking for a narrative history with entertaining anecdotes will be disappointed, as a lot of the book is technical and goes into great detail on the underpinning science. But those of us who like to look at familiar events from a new angle will find this book an eye-opener.
Harper's book is unlike so many of his contemporary's works surrounding the rise and fall of the Roman Empire. There is so much weight placed on this epoch in the history of civilization, and one need not look far to find an array of 'reasons' ranging from the purely ideological, to military failures, to economic calamities. It goes without saying that Rome's fall is more complicated than previously thought.
What strikes me greatly is how much Harper fuses the hard truths of science, observation, anthropology and archaeology with historical analysis. He steers clear of the ideological, religious or simplistic explanations and concentrates his arguments on what can be explained and analyzed through a far more pragmatic lens of environmental determinism. I would wager that in generations past, the absence of traditional explanations of Roman decay would have resulted in abject denunciation. Harper's argument steps so far away from these contrived explanations that his analysis almost transcends the genre of history entirely.
Science dominates the pages, and for this reason it's difficult to dispute his premise. Environmental shifts over generations have both given way for, and actively harmed human progress. Humans have so far existed to grow in this turbulent environment and fallen prey to its volatility. The Romans were subject to the ever changing winds of nature, for better and for worse and adapted and grew as they could in relation its many boons as well as trembled and in time shattered in the wake of its changes. At the end, one thing is clear: environmental determinism is no longer a fringe idea, but one that has always coursed through human history.
This is where I suspect many readers will lose interest entirely. The tidy explanations of past historians about the events of for instance, the Crisis of the Third Century or the narrative storytelling of Stilicho's defense of Rome are utterly absent, and for good reason. Instead, the book is laced with layers of facts, charts and dichotomies complete with succinct and striking analyses. Harper proves his storytelling mettle even still, as these analyses are what gives this book life in the mass-market as opposed to relative obscurity in academia.
The Fate of Rome at it's core serves as more than an historical-scientific analysis in a vacuum. The course of Rome's relation with the environment is a human story, not a purely Roman story. The experiences of the ancients are experiences we are facing today and will be forced to reckon with in the years to come.
What strikes me greatly is how much Harper fuses the hard truths of science, observation, anthropology and archaeology with historical analysis. He steers clear of the ideological, religious or simplistic explanations and concentrates his arguments on what can be explained and analyzed through a far more pragmatic lens of environmental determinism. I would wager that in generations past, the absence of traditional explanations of Roman decay would have resulted in abject denunciation. Harper's argument steps so far away from these contrived explanations that his analysis almost transcends the genre of history entirely.
Science dominates the pages, and for this reason it's difficult to dispute his premise. Environmental shifts over generations have both given way for, and actively harmed human progress. Humans have so far existed to grow in this turbulent environment and fallen prey to its volatility. The Romans were subject to the ever changing winds of nature, for better and for worse and adapted and grew as they could in relation its many boons as well as trembled and in time shattered in the wake of its changes. At the end, one thing is clear: environmental determinism is no longer a fringe idea, but one that has always coursed through human history.
This is where I suspect many readers will lose interest entirely. The tidy explanations of past historians about the events of for instance, the Crisis of the Third Century or the narrative storytelling of Stilicho's defense of Rome are utterly absent, and for good reason. Instead, the book is laced with layers of facts, charts and dichotomies complete with succinct and striking analyses. Harper proves his storytelling mettle even still, as these analyses are what gives this book life in the mass-market as opposed to relative obscurity in academia.
The Fate of Rome at it's core serves as more than an historical-scientific analysis in a vacuum. The course of Rome's relation with the environment is a human story, not a purely Roman story. The experiences of the ancients are experiences we are facing today and will be forced to reckon with in the years to come.
'Sometime before the Justinianic outbreak, there was a single mutation at amino acid 259 in the pla protein'.
Evolution tinkers and experiments.
'Even in the relatively calm Holocene, the sun acted like a whimsical dimmer switch, modulating the amount of energy received.'
The danger of monoculture in the energy ecosystem.
Evolution tinkers and experiments.
'Even in the relatively calm Holocene, the sun acted like a whimsical dimmer switch, modulating the amount of energy received.'
The danger of monoculture in the energy ecosystem.
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
The Fate of Rome presents a complementary theory on the fall of Rome: Not just due to its strategic decisions or civil wars or failing fiscal system, or simply crumbling under its own weight but also “equally decided by bacteria and viruses, volcanoes and solar cycles.”
The story of Rome is also a global environmental history, a time of global connectivity, of man over nature, as well as an evolutionary history of germs, where climate change and emerging infectious diseases are an integral part of the human story, Kyle Harper argues.
With its rapid expansion, Rome not only conquered the world — it created a network in which diseases could spread rapidly, leading to a number of pandemics that would cripple and eventually topple the great empire: “The empire’s fetid cities were petri dishes for low-level intestinal parasites. The empire’s violence against the landscape called forth scourges like malaria. The empire’s thick webs of connection let chronic diseases diffuse across the empire.” The influence of climate, meanwhile, was another wildcard in the deck of fate.
In great, yet accessible, detail, Harper offers his own version of the Roman empire, cataloging its rise, longevity, and ultimate fall through four phases: pandemic disease; drought, pestilence, and political challenge; the dismemberment and decline of the empire; and the double blow of the bubonic plague and little ice age. It was this “combination of war, plague, and climate change [that] proved overwhelming,” near the end of the empire, contributing to its eventual breaking point.
But notably, and perhaps why this deserves somewhere between a four and five star, Rome’s irresistible story in Harper’s eyes provides one of caution, especially in our global world that is battling its own pandemics and climate disasters.
“The Romans lived at a fateful juncture in the human story, and the civilization they built was, in ways the Romans could not have imagined, the victims of both its own success and the caprice of the environment,” writes Harper. “The long, intertwined story of humanity and nature is full of paradox, surprise, and blind chance… Our story, and the story of the planet, are inseparable.”
The story of Rome is also a global environmental history, a time of global connectivity, of man over nature, as well as an evolutionary history of germs, where climate change and emerging infectious diseases are an integral part of the human story, Kyle Harper argues.
With its rapid expansion, Rome not only conquered the world — it created a network in which diseases could spread rapidly, leading to a number of pandemics that would cripple and eventually topple the great empire: “The empire’s fetid cities were petri dishes for low-level intestinal parasites. The empire’s violence against the landscape called forth scourges like malaria. The empire’s thick webs of connection let chronic diseases diffuse across the empire.” The influence of climate, meanwhile, was another wildcard in the deck of fate.
In great, yet accessible, detail, Harper offers his own version of the Roman empire, cataloging its rise, longevity, and ultimate fall through four phases: pandemic disease; drought, pestilence, and political challenge; the dismemberment and decline of the empire; and the double blow of the bubonic plague and little ice age. It was this “combination of war, plague, and climate change [that] proved overwhelming,” near the end of the empire, contributing to its eventual breaking point.
But notably, and perhaps why this deserves somewhere between a four and five star, Rome’s irresistible story in Harper’s eyes provides one of caution, especially in our global world that is battling its own pandemics and climate disasters.
“The Romans lived at a fateful juncture in the human story, and the civilization they built was, in ways the Romans could not have imagined, the victims of both its own success and the caprice of the environment,” writes Harper. “The long, intertwined story of humanity and nature is full of paradox, surprise, and blind chance… Our story, and the story of the planet, are inseparable.”
This book has an interesting topic -- I'm particularly interested in the Antonine Plague -- and it has some useful things to say, but I had a lot of trouble with the writing style. There are so, so many bland, introductory-type or sweeping statements that it started to drive me crazy. Just get to the meat of the information please and leave the grand pronouncements on the cutting room floor. I bet this book could have been a lot shorter and yet a lot better.
The other thing is that the reader for this audio book seemed to mispronounce virtually every Latin name and term. He didn't stop at Latin either. Inundate is a common enough word, right? It's pronounced /ˈinənˌdāt/. See, that second syllable is a schwa and so it's unaccented. But he would repeatedly somehow find the word "nun" in the middle of that word and accent it for all it was worth. There were other long words where this happened as well. I'm reminded of the question, does everyone have to do everything? If one doesn't know or want to know how to pronounce words properly, why become a reader? I started to think he was upset about something and deliberately trying to sabotage the audiobook.
Anyway, while I did find it very interesting to learn about how the heights of Romans changed, how the plague progressed and similar such topics, I think a rewrite might be in order, and a re-recording. It might also be good to split the nebulous topic into two books, one about disease, the other about climate so that the book could focus more instead of meandering about.
The other thing is that the reader for this audio book seemed to mispronounce virtually every Latin name and term. He didn't stop at Latin either. Inundate is a common enough word, right? It's pronounced /ˈinənˌdāt/. See, that second syllable is a schwa and so it's unaccented. But he would repeatedly somehow find the word "nun" in the middle of that word and accent it for all it was worth. There were other long words where this happened as well. I'm reminded of the question, does everyone have to do everything? If one doesn't know or want to know how to pronounce words properly, why become a reader? I started to think he was upset about something and deliberately trying to sabotage the audiobook.
Anyway, while I did find it very interesting to learn about how the heights of Romans changed, how the plague progressed and similar such topics, I think a rewrite might be in order, and a re-recording. It might also be good to split the nebulous topic into two books, one about disease, the other about climate so that the book could focus more instead of meandering about.
In this book, historian Kyle Harper aims to complement traditional histories of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire – mainly stories of political misfortunes and lost battles – with two factors that have not been so appreciated so far: epidemic disease and climate change. While this book is published by a university press, it is meant for a mass audience and Harper clearly aims to make his points in as gentle and clear a manner as possible.
Thus chapters on disease or climate alternate and cover a period from the second century AD to roughly Justinian’s era. For each pivotal moment in Roman history, Harper first looks at contemporary testimony by Roman authors, and then sees what modern-day science can tell us. Thus certain major epidemics that ravaged the empire are identified as smallpox, some filovirus (e.g. Ebola) and bubonic plague, respectively. For climate change that led to poor harvests and sent invaders sweeping in from the eastern steppes, Harper draws on recent studies of ice cores, stalactites, and tree rings which tell us much about variations in solar activity and destructive volcanic activity.
While Harper presents a number of facts I was previously unaware of, and I did find the book worthwhile, it is hard to rate it so highly simply because of how repetitive it is, especially the first 50–100 pages that keep making the exact same points again, and again, and again in nearly the same wording. Did Harper feel he had to repeat himself so often to keep a layman audience engaged? Or did he realize that without such repetition, the actual text of the book would be too small (as the notes and bibliography are already 50% of the book as it is)?
Thus chapters on disease or climate alternate and cover a period from the second century AD to roughly Justinian’s era. For each pivotal moment in Roman history, Harper first looks at contemporary testimony by Roman authors, and then sees what modern-day science can tell us. Thus certain major epidemics that ravaged the empire are identified as smallpox, some filovirus (e.g. Ebola) and bubonic plague, respectively. For climate change that led to poor harvests and sent invaders sweeping in from the eastern steppes, Harper draws on recent studies of ice cores, stalactites, and tree rings which tell us much about variations in solar activity and destructive volcanic activity.
While Harper presents a number of facts I was previously unaware of, and I did find the book worthwhile, it is hard to rate it so highly simply because of how repetitive it is, especially the first 50–100 pages that keep making the exact same points again, and again, and again in nearly the same wording. Did Harper feel he had to repeat himself so often to keep a layman audience engaged? Or did he realize that without such repetition, the actual text of the book would be too small (as the notes and bibliography are already 50% of the book as it is)?
challenging
dark
informative
mysterious
sad
tense
fast-paced
informative
slow-paced
Recht weitschweifig, hin und wieder werden bestimmte Aussagen wiederholt - meist jene, die inhaltlich auch nichts liefern, also eher rhetorisch, was nun aber das Buch etwas überbläht. Weiteres hatte ich stellenweise das Gefühl, dass das Thema etwas verfehlt wurde: Ein ganzes Kapitel handelte sehr weitschweifig von der Pest, es werden Orte und Routen ihrer Ausbreitung aufgezählt - das ist aber in diesem Fall nicht nur irrelevant (hätte man zusammenkürzen können auf "aufgrund des Handelsnetzes des antiken Roms breitete sich die Pest schneller aus, als es sonst der Fall wäre" o.ä.), sondern überbläht das Buch noch weiter. Zudem wird der Zusammenhang zum Klima recht kurz abgekanzelt - das wäre aber das eigentliche Thema des Buches...
Der Schreibstil (oder zumindest die Übersetzung) war etwas unrund. Ich kann mich grundsätzlich sehr gut auf Bücher konzentrieren, sodass es sehr auffallend ist, dass es mir bei diesem Buch sehr schwer fiel. Irgendetwas hat es dann doch eher "fad" gemacht... Besonders ärgerlich war mir im letzten Kapitel die Wortwiederholung von "Eschatologisch" - das Wort schien dem Autor / den Übersetzern so gut gefallen zu haben, dass es praktisch ständig fiel. Überhaupt wurde immer wieder eher verkompliziert geschrieben, das hat der Konzentration nicht geholfen und wirkte unnatürlich (andere Autoren schaffen es deutlich besser, hochgestochen zu schreiben und dabei natürlich zu bleiben - das erkennt man schon...).
An sich interessanter neuer Blickwinkel auf den Untergang Roms, zahlreiches Quellenmaterial und hin und wieder Hinweise auf anderslautende Meinungen, das war gut. Ansonsten aber eher schwierig, weil nicht ganz so packend und gut geschrieben, wie die Werke anderer Historiker. Dafür eher sehr genau (evtl. zu Detail erlebt).
Der Schreibstil (oder zumindest die Übersetzung) war etwas unrund. Ich kann mich grundsätzlich sehr gut auf Bücher konzentrieren, sodass es sehr auffallend ist, dass es mir bei diesem Buch sehr schwer fiel. Irgendetwas hat es dann doch eher "fad" gemacht... Besonders ärgerlich war mir im letzten Kapitel die Wortwiederholung von "Eschatologisch" - das Wort schien dem Autor / den Übersetzern so gut gefallen zu haben, dass es praktisch ständig fiel. Überhaupt wurde immer wieder eher verkompliziert geschrieben, das hat der Konzentration nicht geholfen und wirkte unnatürlich (andere Autoren schaffen es deutlich besser, hochgestochen zu schreiben und dabei natürlich zu bleiben - das erkennt man schon...).
An sich interessanter neuer Blickwinkel auf den Untergang Roms, zahlreiches Quellenmaterial und hin und wieder Hinweise auf anderslautende Meinungen, das war gut. Ansonsten aber eher schwierig, weil nicht ganz so packend und gut geschrieben, wie die Werke anderer Historiker. Dafür eher sehr genau (evtl. zu Detail erlebt).
This was a quick reread of a book which I will not review in any sort of depth, as I wrote chapter-by-chapter reviews for a seminar years ago and have no desire to repeat the experience.
I picked this book up again after Kristina Sessa’s article, “The New Environmental Fall of Rome: A Methodological Consideration” was brought to my attention (“brought to my attention” is a fancy way of saying that a friend texted me to ask if I’d seen it and what I think of Harper’s book).
Despite how some graduate students apparently want to interpret Sessa’s article, she does not seem to me to be suggesting that historians and classicists should move away from climate narratives, but rather should use caution, along with well-articulated methodologies, and, most importantly, should take care to avoid sensationalist narratives designed to sell books to the general public. While Harper might be guilty of the last point (I will not judge this too harshly, as I am all in favor of broader interest in classics, and Sessa’s condemnation of modern interest in the Roman climate as too focused on current events rather than being born out of a true love for the humanities strikes me as rather gatekeep-y; how does one discover a love for the humanities without first finding relevance to their own lives?), his work does not attempt to argue that Rome only “fell” due to climate and disease, nor does it suggest that historians moving forward should rewrite history using only climate science. Rather, the underlying argument in The Fate of Rome is that humans are not the only actors on the grand stage of history, and the events of human history cannot be divorced from climate and disease. Harper’s work is groundbreaking in its attempt to craft evidence into an overarching narrative that is accessible to non-experts while also being interesting to experts (it remains essential reading for anyone writing on plague in Late Antiquity). Like any scholarship, it should not be treated as flawless or irrefutable, but rather serves as an excellent jumping-off point for further research. Sessa’s points about methodology are well-made, but she does not provide any coherent reason to condemn Harper’s book or to avoid further interdisciplinary research along these lines (I want to note that I do understand and share her concern for the future of humanities, but I do not think works such as Harper’s threaten the discipline; rather, they seem like interesting ways to bring in people who might not otherwise have been particularly interested in Rome or its so-called fall).
Ultimately, seven years after my first read-through, and despite Sessa’s critique, I still very much enjoyed this book (I’m glad this is the case, as I’ve recommended it to several students over the past year and a half).
I picked this book up again after Kristina Sessa’s article, “The New Environmental Fall of Rome: A Methodological Consideration” was brought to my attention (“brought to my attention” is a fancy way of saying that a friend texted me to ask if I’d seen it and what I think of Harper’s book).
Despite how some graduate students apparently want to interpret Sessa’s article, she does not seem to me to be suggesting that historians and classicists should move away from climate narratives, but rather should use caution, along with well-articulated methodologies, and, most importantly, should take care to avoid sensationalist narratives designed to sell books to the general public. While Harper might be guilty of the last point (I will not judge this too harshly, as I am all in favor of broader interest in classics, and Sessa’s condemnation of modern interest in the Roman climate as too focused on current events rather than being born out of a true love for the humanities strikes me as rather gatekeep-y; how does one discover a love for the humanities without first finding relevance to their own lives?), his work does not attempt to argue that Rome only “fell” due to climate and disease, nor does it suggest that historians moving forward should rewrite history using only climate science. Rather, the underlying argument in The Fate of Rome is that humans are not the only actors on the grand stage of history, and the events of human history cannot be divorced from climate and disease. Harper’s work is groundbreaking in its attempt to craft evidence into an overarching narrative that is accessible to non-experts while also being interesting to experts (it remains essential reading for anyone writing on plague in Late Antiquity). Like any scholarship, it should not be treated as flawless or irrefutable, but rather serves as an excellent jumping-off point for further research. Sessa’s points about methodology are well-made, but she does not provide any coherent reason to condemn Harper’s book or to avoid further interdisciplinary research along these lines (I want to note that I do understand and share her concern for the future of humanities, but I do not think works such as Harper’s threaten the discipline; rather, they seem like interesting ways to bring in people who might not otherwise have been particularly interested in Rome or its so-called fall).
Ultimately, seven years after my first read-through, and despite Sessa’s critique, I still very much enjoyed this book (I’m glad this is the case, as I’ve recommended it to several students over the past year and a half).