French historian Fernand. Braudel argues that "in speaking of empires and their rise and fall, perhaps attention should be paid to the fate that brought about the birth of these nations, that is, not to confuse the periods, not to perceive prematurely the great might of those things which have grown stronger with each passing day, nor to foretell prematurely the decline of those things which have ceased to be powerful as the years have passed." "The elements corresponding to the long period of human historical development constitute the deep structure of history. Founded in 753 B.C., Rome expanded from a small city-state to a huge empire, to the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 A.D., and in 1573 A.D., Eastern Rome moved into the Middle Ages as the Byzantine Empire. The rise and fall of Rome, the interaction of the barbarians with the Romans played a decisive role.
The Enemy of Rome - The Barbarians Who Shook the Empire is written by the British scholar Stephen. p.Kershaw's masterpiece, he has devoted himself to the study of ancient Greek and Roman history for more than 40 years. Although there is a lot of research on the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, the author starts from the perspective of the barbarians in the eyes of Rome, and the perspective is novel and unique. He starts with the dynamic evolution between Rome and the barbarians politically and militarily, and outlines the historical context of Rome's rise, strength, and decline. There are 24 chapters in the book, each of which introduces a barbarian leader who leads the tribe to rebel against Rome, including Hannibal, Spartacus, and Cleopatra. The author cites rich and detailed historical materials and documents to show us a historical picture of the ups and downs of ancient Rome in a popular and vivid way.
This book emphasizes that the barbarians were the enemies that shook the Roman Empire. In the eyes of the Romans, all those who lived outside the limits of Roman power, or who rebelled and resisted Rome, were barbarians. Rome began to gradually conquer most of the barbarian regions of Europe, Asia, and Africa, and established a powerful empire that led to Rome on all roads. Rome continued to grant Roman citizenship to barbarians in exchange for the allegiance of new subjects. But the persistence of the subjects' revolt was a yardstick of their gratitude for the interests of the empire, which became an object of profit. The identities of allies, enemies, subjects, and rebels can be changed at any time. In the middle and late stages of the Roman Empire, the Roman emperor appeared like a marquee, and the barbarians in the eyes of the Romans also became Roman rulers, and there were countless usurpers, rebels, and outlaws, and it became increasingly difficult for the emperor to maintain the integrity of Rome. Rome was mired in internal and external troubles, its internal economy collapsed, and its borders were constantly plagued by barbarians. Some cities were sacked by the barbarians, and the Roman emperor was always forced to sign "treaties of shame", giving up large swaths of conquered territory and giving the barbarians large sums of money. Rome grew smaller and smaller, inverting its identity with the barbarians, from marauders to wretches who paid tribute to the barbarians. These "stability" of endless retreat was only a short-lived illusion, and could not prevent the collapse of the Roman edifice.
Is the fall of the Western Roman Empire all to blame on the barbarian invasion?Why was the Eastern Roman Empire able to thrive for a thousand years after the fall of Western Rome?The decay of Rome was also related to their arrogance. They were only interested in conquering and expanding their territory and usurping the wealth of the barbarians, but they despised their culture. "Glory belongs to Greece, greatness belongs to Rome. This is the best example of this. Rome's admiration for conquest by force was itself a barbaric act, and it could not convince the barbarians at all. In the process of historical integration between Rome and the barbarians, there was a lack of interaction between culture and religion, only ** and suppression, and there was no establishment of a core culture that was recognized by both sides. The ** sent by Rome to conquer the provinces was mediocre, corrupt and hedonistic, causing the barbarians to rebel many times. After Rome annexed the barbarians by force, it suffered from severe indigestion. As the empire's territory expanded, they made more and more enemies, and finally they were unable to parry.
It is not difficult to see from the book "The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire" that after the decline of "hard power", it is more powerful to effectively use one's own diversified "soft power". Soft power is achieved through lobbying, bribery, appeasement, detours, alliances, division, bribery, etc., and the establishment of core cultural identity is a long-term strategy. With the endless emergence of enemies and limited financial, material and manpower resources, it is not only unrealistic to defeat each other, but also the destruction of the enemy may not be an absolute benefit. At this time, diplomacy first, force second, and protecting one's own vitality is the best policy. Although in the later period of the Roman Empire, they made many truces with the barbarians, but most of the unequal treaties signed were high-cost and low-return, which stabbed Rome at its weak self and could hardly satisfy the arrogant appetite of the barbarians. If you deceive yourself, heaven will deceive you. The defeat of Western Rome was thus accomplished.
The story of each chapter of the book is quite exciting. But the sheer number of unfamiliar locations and names is dizzying. The question of location can be decided with reference to the local government. The names of key characters have down-to-earth nicknames and titles, which surprise the reader and he will also appear repeatedly. A few.
The long name of three or four bars, after the second occurrence of only one bar, is used in one section, so that it is much smoother to read.