Last Years of the Western Roman Empire

I have read Heather, Goldsworthy and Wickham (Inheritance of Rome) but not Ward-Perkins or Jones.
Having had some kind fellow or fellows steal most of my books while while in lockdown, the neessity to replace them has also provided the opportunity to requaint during the spell at home.

Heather and Goldsworthy provide a fairly full narrative of events. Knowing what happened and when is one thing. The underlying 'why' is quite another.
Why did the Roman Empire prevail in the third century crisis but the West fold in the fifth?

Heather is the most readable, being quite humorous and his basic take is that the advent of Sassanid Persia as a 'superpower' caused a crisis in organisation, economics and manpower that effectively screwed up the Empire's organisation, sending it into a downward spiral.

Goldsworthy rejects Heather's take on Sassanid Persia (I have to say i agree with him in this) and he opts for the explanation that the WRE simply decayed as an organisation, becoming very inefficient in its aim to preserve rulers from civil war yet failing to do so . (I don't agree with him on this.).

Both explain how. They don't really put their finger on 'why' and neiither does Wickham.

The fundamental problem is the sheer lack of information about the population, economics and demographics. Goldsworthy suggests it's like trying to make sense of the twentieth century without knowledge of the two world wars.

It seems to me that in the third century the empire reorganised to overcome its enemies (who were not however necessarily migrants). It seemed not to lack manpower or money. In the last quarter of the fourth century and after the empire seemed to fail to find manpower or money or both to deal with the not-that-numerous migrants and the geographically-disadvantaged west succumbed. Goldsworthy comments upon the fact that the Roman army may have increased substantially over the size of forces in th early empire but the army proved almost 'invisible' in the furth and fifth century crises.

In my view, the key is in the economic and military reorganisations of Diocletian and Constantine. These certainly proved advantageous at the time but the consequences worked through to cripple the West, at a vital time, with the additon of some bad luck.

I do not believe in 'decay' of organiasations. No mechanism for such exists.
I believe the process is more analagous to a form of 'evolution'. (It is not actual evolution though of course - spontaneous change in organisms' DNA which can work to advantage or disadvantage through natural selection.).
Organisations adapt to prevailing circumstances and coontinue to change and even thrive. A sudden change of environment (such as the eruption of the Huns) can have sudden and unforeseen effects and the organisation is unable to change or adapt sufficiently to survive.

Talbot Vilna said:

Are you ready for this? I read the books when they first came out. Since then I've donated them to the library sale. I mark up my books heavily so all my notes are now in somebody else's hands or the books made it to the incinerator. LOL!!!! What I do know is that Heather, (I'm sure it was him) emphasized pretty much barbarians. I don't buy that as the prime cause amongst many causes that caused the downfall.

Click to expand...

I once bought a book in latin called 'Cicero on himself' solely because of the (extremely funny) comments written upon it by some poor schoolkid in the 60s or 70s whom it had been inflicted upon!

Talbot Vilna said:

Are you ready for this? I read the books when they first came out. Since then I've donated them to the library sale. I mark up my books heavily so all my notes are now in somebody else's hands or the books made it to the incinerator. LOL!!!! What I do know is that Heather, (I'm sure it was him) emphasized pretty much barbarians. I don't buy that as the prime cause amongst many causes that caused the downfall.

Click to expand...

Haha yeah okay. Yeah, I think Ward-Perkins is also meant to emphasize the barbarian angle. I agree with your later post that civil war must also be among the major factors. Civil wars and plans for civil wars weakened the Rhine frontier in the lead-up to 406, it must have weakened the west in the 420s and 430s (especially if Bonifacius really is the one responsible for inviting the Vandals to Africa), and consider especially the years following the assassination of Valentinian III: How can a state, already badly compromised in terms of territorial integrity, hegemony, wars with Germans and Huns, and an economic inferiority to its eastern counterpart, restore stability and security when Ricimer keeps overthrowing emperors, and the east, as well as the generals in Gaul and Dalmatia, won't acknowledge Ricimer's imperial candidates. That is a state that cannot survive for long, and fittingly it doesn't! As you say, there would be a serious impact on experienced manpower and infrastructure, but it would have also badly undermined cooperation and a sense of common interest, especially in relation to the east, whose interest in helping the west was not consistently enthusiastic (this east-west diversion can in part be traced back to Constantius II's attempts to create a distinctly eastern senate, made up of eastern aristocrats, in Constantinople - from then onwards, the aristocracies of both halves would be more separate in their experiences and evolution than they had been beforehand).

Talbot Vilna said:

All the histories keep mentioning the vital importance of east-west relations. Where they really that important? Important in what way? Just for show? For legitimacy?

Click to expand...

Yeah, it's important. Take for example the fact that Leo didn't send an armada against the Vandals until the west had an emperor that he approved of, or that Stilicho and Honorius seemed more concerned with taking Illyricum from the east than combating Constantine III and the Germans who had crossed the Rhine, or the fact that east-west divisions could lead to civil wars (387/88, 394, 425), or the fact that emperor in one half couldn't promptly and readily access military and financial resources in the other half (thus e.g. Constantius II's cautious method of warfare with the Persians, which could not result in a decisive victory, because he couldn't readily use the armies under Constans, or the fact that Valens had to commit his personal field army to the Adrianople campaign, and then, out of east-west rivalry [both on his part and on the part of his general Sebastianus], committed to battle without waiting for Gratian).

Talbot Vilna said:

All the histories keep mentioning the vital importance of east-west relations. Where they really that important? Important in what way? Just for show? For legitimacy?

Click to expand...

And for mutual support. The West was brought to it's knees by the Vandals, especially after the destruction of Majorian's fleet in 460 ('Elche', probably the Mar Menor) and his subsequent demise (and Aetius) but at least the East still had some sway and power. Which they contrived to throw away with Basiliscus's catastrophic disaster at Cape Bon in 468. Not only lost the fleet but bankrupted the East for years.

Talbot Vilna said:

Good explanation. I was about to ask "How did the Arabs get into this conversation?" It was a couple centuries later. Now I see the connection. At the moment I don't know if I agree or disagree but at least I see how the connection is made.

Click to expand...

Yes I have been doing a little reading too and think the key period was around 376AD and allowing in Visigoths with their arms. This was in relation to Westward movement of other tribes like the Huns.

Due to a mixture of mistrust, incompetence or just local Roman malice this led to fighting and local Visigoth Roman auxiliaries joined them.

The threat became so great that both the Western and Eastern empires agreed to act together yet the Western forces under Gratian were delayed due to German incursions and Valens the Eastern emperor after finding the Goths underestimated them and attacked alone at the Battle of Adrianople 378AD. Valens was killed and worse Goths in the Eastern empire rioted as well.

The Eastern emperor appointed Theodosius and he brought in military conscription from Roman landowners despite this being politically unpopular. Later when he fought the Western leader he also employed the Goths under their leader Alaric. Alaric later sacked Rome.

Not all auxiliaries caused problems, the Franks were seen to be loyal yet they had given up their arms unless called to serve. The Goths were powerful enough to negotiate they could keep their own arms. This was naive or just showed the weakness on the ground.

I suspect there were a number of causes yet one of the most important must have been using so many auxiliaries in numbers where if they became alienated they could cause a real security problem.

One of the difficulties in explaining what happened is that we don't actually know with certainty the terms of the agreement of 382, the agreement that was made between Theodosius and the Goths following upon the Gothic revolt of 377, Valens' defeat and death at Adrianople in 378 and Theodosius' own defeat in 380. Note for example the following discussion:

Halsall (2007: Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West) 180-185: ‘Unfortunately, as even those who argue for the dramatic significance of the ‘foedus of 382’ admit, we know nothing of this ‘treaty’.
Its supposed provisions have been reconstructed from a particular interpretation of the nature and subsequent history of Alaric’s Goths and an assumption that later treaties were attempts by the Goths to improve upon the terms of the 382 foedus. Alas these later treaties, at least before that made between King Theoderic I of the Visigoths and the representatives of Valentinian III in 439, are usually as hypothetical as that of 382 and sometimes even more so. This must, therefore, be a flawed approach. In fact, not a single source, at least before Jordanes in the mid-sixth century, even refers to this foedus with the Goths. Jordanes’ narrative of Gothic history, furthermore, casts it in terms of a series of treaties with the Romans, finally resolved by Justinian’s conquest of the Gothic kingdom of Italy in the 550s and the final ‘treaty’: the marriage of the imperial prince Germanus to the Gothic princess Matasuentha. Contemporary sources, by contrast, are unambiguous in talking of the Goths’ surrender. The only treaty they refer to is with the Gothic king Athanaric, who finally gave up his struggle in Gothia at the end of 380 and was received into the Empire, only to die in Constantinople in January 381. This foedus has no bearing on the victors of Adrianople. Athanaric had no authority over them – indeed they were his opponents – and died too soon for this treaty to have any role in ending the Gothic war nearly two years later.
The one absolutely contemporary commentary on the end of the Gothic crisis is Themistius’ sixteenth oration, ‘A Thanksgiving for the Peace’, delivered to Theodosius’ court early in 383. Themistius
makes it clear that the war had been hard and that the Gothic surrender was something of a relief. This, as Heather and Moncur state, was quite an admission by the standards of late Roman imperial rhetoric. Nevertheless Themistius says explicitly that the Goths had surrendered. All contemporary and near contemporary sources talk in similar terms. The counter to this point is usually that official
Roman sources might want to make a negotiated treaty sound like an abject surrender. Nevertheless, to start from an assumption that an event took place, although not explicitly mentioned by any source written within 170 years of its putative occurrence, and then to explain away the sources’ silence, and read vague references as allusions to the event, is not the soundest historical method. Some narratives were, furthermore, written half a century afterwards, when the Gothic problem had become much more serious. In such circumstances one might expect a certain interest in pointing out where things had gone wrong, in settling the Goths, in the same way as the fifth-century historians enhance the significance of the defeat at Adrianople… However, no source adopts this tone with regard to the events of 382. … In Themistius’ oration, it seems difficult to square the idea that the orator had to dress up an embarrassing negotiated peace as an abject surrender with his evident desire to remove the Emperor Gratian from any share of the glory. ...
In the later phases of the war, the Roman strategy of blockade combined with the difficulties of the terrain to force the Goths to break up into smaller groups in order to find food... Fritigern disappears from the record, either killed in a skirmish or precisely because he was now no more than one of many leaders. Thus the peace was made with a series of small groups rather than with a unified group. The war was ended by a series of deditiones rather than a single foedus. … (Theodosius) remained in Constantinople and sent Saturninus, a survivor of Adrianople, to clear up the situation. This is quite different from Roman practice in dealing with sovereign groups, such as in Valens’ treaty with Athanaric or Valentinian’s with Macrianus. …
Even sophisticated interpreters of these events admit that no Gothic leader is acknowledged either in the treaty or in the events of the next decade and more. … A treaty with a sovereign group with no acknowledged leaders seems most unlikely. …
Gothic military service after Adrianople is problematic. The sources talk of Goths in the Roman army, Gothic farmers and the granting of land to the Goths (Gothic soldiers: Latin Panegyrics 2.22.3, 2.32.4; Not. Dig. orr. 5–6. Gothic farming/land-owning: Latin Panegyrics 2.22.3; Themistius, Orations 34.22. Synesius, Kingship 25.). These snippets have led historians to suppose that, when needed, the Goths supplied semi-regular allied contingents ‘en masse’ to the Roman army. There is no clear evidence to support this (The only evidence is Jordanes, Getica 28.145, whose statement that the Goths served in the Roman army velut unum corpus (as though in a single body) is demonstrably untrue. Jordanes’ whole work aimed at portraying the Goths as a unified people.). The context of Synesius’ work and the fact that it post-dates the end of the Gothic war by over a decade, belonging to the period after Alaric’s acquisition of military authority in the Balkans, make it an unreliable source for the events of 382. So too does its generally vague language. Synesius is saying that these people should never have been allowed into the Empire as they will (the threat lies in the future) cause trouble. … It may be best to adopt Liebeschuetz’s suggestion that units described as foederati in the sources after Adrianople refer… to regular units recruited entirely from barbarian recruits.
…the recruitment problems after Adrianople meant the enlistment of large numbers of Goths. Whole units and even armies could be thought of as Gothic. Gothic commanders rose to preeminence.’

Diocletian, what is your take on moving the Roman capital to Ravenna?

Honestly, my knowledge of the fifth century isn't really detailed enough to have a strong opinion on the matter. Rome itself had not really been an administrative capital since the Tetrarchic period, when the emperors spent most of their time in other cities: Trier, Milan, Sirmium, Serdica, Thessalonica, Nicomedia and Antioch.

I subscribe to the transformation theory myself, which is less popular. It's also both more modern and also more traditional than the "fall of the Empire" theory.

It's not to say I think there's a lack of legitimacy to other theories, only the way I prefer to look at civilization is not the de facto state as the absolute identity of a civilization. When looking at civilization this way, it's fair to say the Ostrogothic and Visigothic administrations were still over the Roman Empire. I wouldn't even say the Franks and Arabs were the end of the West either, as both maintained - and even strengthened - elements consistent with the Roman civilization. It didn't burn out with Romulus Augustulus; it faded away hundreds of years later.

Looking at it as a purely de facto state might run into some issues - as the head of state in the Western half of the Empire could still be said to be intact given the Senate still functioned, the Germanic leaders functioned as magistrates, and the Eastern Roman Emperor still functioned as the state head. During the reign of the Ostrogoths, Roman culture and government improved to some of its highest levels since the era of Constantine the Great. The war that followed against Justinian was catastrophic for the West; that's where I usually like to mark the end of the Western Empire because it's such a large exclamation mark in history...

Even then, it's not completely accurate, because the West Roman elements recovered in Iberia, and it didn't really fall so much as transfer over to the Arabs after their conquest of the region; and I am unsure if Umayyad Arabic culture can be considered quite the same as the later Abbasid culture as things evolved differently in the West -- it adapted as a more cosmopolitan culture (at least in the city centers). But now we're getting out of this historical timeframe.

I am also inclined to the "transformation" and not the "collapse".

If I remember right in 6th century Iberia and even Britain, garum was still produced, luxury goods from Eastern Empire were still arriving in the West.

I read somewhere that the "loss" of Africa province was a good thing for its inhabitants. They enjoyed a period of prosperity as they no longer had to pay taxes and cereals to Rome.

There were years of civil wars ( often seen as "Barbarian Invasions") in Iberia. Some important cities lost population but soon recovered and even expanded.

The campaigns of Belisarius were probably very destructive. What happened to the Vandals?

The culture and civilization of the Western Empire remained strong judging by the success of Catholicism in this part of the world, and we don't speak the language of the Goths and Suabi, although many in Iberia spoke Arabic for more than 500 years. We still like wine and olive oil and still see ourselves as Latins. We are still debating if it is OK to fight large animals in arenas...

But some elements seem to have been lost. The "republican" way of city self government was afaik gone in the Visigothic kingdom but reappeared in Muslim and Christian Iberia in the 12th century.

I don't subscribe to the 'transformation' theory really.

All societies are evolving constantly- sometimes slowly, sometimes conditions may accelerate this.

On the bases described for transformation, 99 per cent of all military conquests may be defined as transformation: that is, unless the incoming conquerors virtually annihilate the conquered and occupy in their place.

In the case of the Western Roman Empire, the Visigoths, Ostrogoths and Vandals took place, as an incoming group only a fraction of the size of the occupied population, at the head of the system, maintaining their separate identity and primarily utilising an existing society to provide land and incomes. The Roman elites were downgraded to a subordinate middle layer, little changed for the serf farmers and the legal systems of conqerors and conquered fused to a degree to maintain the new status quo.

Peter Heather describes the willingness of Roman landowners to deal with the invaders as an artefact of the nature of land as a non-moveable asset- ie, strike a deal or lose your elite status. On the other hand Sidonius Appolinaris makes clear that the Roman elite resisted to the bitter end where they were able to. Once the central authority was effectively bankrupted, the end was swift.

It is clear however that the change of society was not an organic transformation initiated by the Roman elite in the provinces.
It was a process set in motion purely as a consequence of the failure of the Roman power to defend its landowners from invasion from without. Once occupied, they acquiesced in the new situation.

benzev said:

I don't subscribe to the 'transformation' theory really.

All societies are evolving constantly- sometimes slowly, sometimes conditions may accelerate this.

On the bases described for transformation, 99 per cent of all military conquests may be defined as transformation: that is, unless the incoming conquerors virtually annihilate the conquered and occupy in their place.

In the case of the Western Roman Empire, the Visigoths, Ostrogoths and Vandals took place, as an incoming group only a fraction of the size of the occupied population, at the head of the system, maintaining their separate identity and primarily utilising an existing society to provide land and incomes. The Roman elites were downgraded to a subordinate middle layer, little changed for the serf farmers and the legal systems of conqerors and conquered fused to a degree to maintain the new status quo.

Peter Heather describes the willingness of Roman landowners to deal with the invaders as an artefact of the nature of land as a non-moveable asset- ie, strike a deal or lose your elite status. On the other hand Sidonius Appolinaris makes clear that the Roman elite resisted to the bitter end where they were able to. Once the central authority was effectively bankrupted, the end was swift.

It is clear however that the change of society was not an organic transformation initiated by the Roman elite in the provinces.
It was a process set in motion purely as a consequence of the failure of the Roman power to defend its landowners from invasion from without. Once occupied, they acquiesced in the new situation.

Click to expand...

There are many examples of societies that were transformed in a relatively short period of time. The conquests of Alexander of Macedon and the Roman conquests in Western Europe, for example.

Even without a genocide pre roman Spain was replaced by roman Spain in a few centuries.

The same cannot be said of Western Europe after the fall of Central imperial government in the 5th century.
What did Goths and Suabi really change in Roman Spain? Of course they left us something but they didn't replace "roman civilization".

I think the greatest factor of change was Christianity that was already influencing Roman culture before the 5th century. It even changed the cities physically, more than any "barbarian invasion" in the peninsula.

Barbarians, rebels, roman usurpers, etc made it impossible for a central power to rule Roman Spain. It was the collapse of the civilian rule opening the way to military rule. But you can find both germanic and roman names in high places after the end of imperial rule.

Britain seems to be an exception. It seems roman civilization collapsed relatively fast, Christianity disappeared only to be reintroduced from Ireland. No Latin language, also. Very different from post Roman Spain.

Pict said:

There are many examples of societies that were transformed in a relatively short period of time. The conquests of Alexander of Macedon and the Roman conquests in Western Europe, for example.

Even without a genocide pre roman Spain was replaced by roman Spain in a few centuries.

The same cannot be said of Western Europe after the fall of Central imperial government in the 5th century.
What did Goths and Suabi really change in Roman Spain? Of course they left us something but they didn't replace "roman civilization".

I think the greatest factor of change was Christianity that was already influencing Roman culture before the 5th century. It even changed the cities physically, more than any "barbarian invasion" in the peninsula.

Barbarians, rebels, roman usurpers, etc made it impossible for a central power to rule Roman Spain. It was the collapse of the civilian rule opening the way to military rule. But you can find both germanic and roman names in high places after the end of imperial rule.

Britain seems to be an exception. It seems roman civilization collapsed relatively fast, Christianity disappeared only to be reintroduced from Ireland. No Latin language, also. Very different from post Roman Spain.

Click to expand...

I think the Romans sacrificed Britain as it wasn't under attack and the mainland needed defending. Of course once having done that due to ongoing problems on the mainland Britain was never seen as a priority again.

I think after the Vandals sacked Rome the empire split into smaller areas of control with certain groups being allowed to roam and settle in other areas like Spain. The Roman area was less likely to have armies marching to other parts of the Empire as they were not sure they would come back and then who would defend their region. After Rome was sacked and all metal and coin stripped there must have been a lot of distrust about who could really pay for goods or services.

Pict said:

There are many examples of societies that were transformed in a relatively short period of time. The conquests of Alexander of Macedon and the Roman conquests in Western Europe, for example.

Even without a genocide pre roman Spain was replaced by roman Spain in a few centuries.

The same cannot be said of Western Europe after the fall of Central imperial government in the 5th century.
What did Goths and Suabi really change in Roman Spain? Of course they left us something but they didn't replace "roman civilization".

I think the greatest factor of change was Christianity that was already influencing Roman culture before the 5th century. It even changed the cities physically, more than any "barbarian invasion" in the peninsula.

Barbarians, rebels, roman usurpers, etc made it impossible for a central power to rule Roman Spain. It was the collapse of the civilian rule opening the way to military rule. But you can find both germanic and roman names in high places after the end of imperial rule.

Britain seems to be an exception. It seems roman civilization collapsed relatively fast, Christianity disappeared only to be reintroduced from Ireland. No Latin language, also. Very different from post Roman Spain.

Click to expand...

I agree with this.

Because only bad news makes good reading, tales of the lurid excesses of Vandals/Alans, Suevos and Visigoths, not to mention the Bagaudas, give an impression of an unrelenting tale of slaughter and impossible living for 100 years. Yet when you piece together the sources there are, it's more a question of people carrying on loosely in the Roman way as best they could and continued interaction on various levels with the Hispano-Roman population, roughly dividing up the fincas/properties available, rather than any massive land grab.

Hispano-Roman aristocracy, despite the relatively huge numbers of Visigoths (I'm going with total c.400,000) , still had a role in the running of things civil, military and religious, which was essential for the state to function.

Faramir said:

I think the Romans sacrificed Britain as it wasn't under attack and the mainland needed defending. Of course once having done that due to ongoing problems on the mainland Britain was never seen as a priority again.

I think after the Vandals sacked Rome the empire split into smaller areas of control with certain groups being allowed to roam and settle in other areas like Spain. The Roman area was less likely to have armies marching to other parts of the Empire as they were not sure they would come back and then who would defend their region. After Rome was sacked and all metal and coin stripped there must have been a lot of distrust about who could really pay for goods or services.

Click to expand...

Britain - I'm a bit hazy but didn't the governor declare himself an Emperor (Constantine III) and beetle off to Gaul with the troops? The troops left in Britain had dispensed with central authority.

Vandals - the key point in the history of the Vandals and Alans was the death of Genseric (477) - probably one of the greatest leaders of all history. That was over 20 years after the 455 sack of Rome. I'm not aware of them splitting at all. The Vandals brought the WRE to it's knees by strangling the central Med with it's raiding and seapower. With Genseric's masterful diplomacy and military skill they had no answer, with the Vandals having occupied their main food supply. Not helped by debacles such as 'Elche', where his fleet was destroyed and which ultimately saw the end of Majorian. This was probably in the Mar Menor and it really isn't clear who did it. 'Treachery' is mentioned - maybe the Vandals had paid some of Majorian's many Federati (Huns etc) or maybe it was just a Vandal raiding force? Then of course there was Basiliscus's debacle at Cape Bon in 468 - which bankrupted the ERE

last day of 406 , large groups of Vandals Suevis and Alans crossed the Rhine and ran wild in northern Gaul
they must have been desperate to go to war in winter ,
this was followed by the usual Roman civil wars ,while more barbarians followed , the Franks, Burgundians and Visigoths
quite ready to make their peace with the Empire as long as they could levy taxes locally as dux
with the Vandals storming north Africa , this resulted in a taxation collapse for the Roma authorities in Ravenne
no money , no army ..no army , no state

johnincornwall said:

Britain - I'm a bit hazy but didn't the governor declare himself an Emperor (Constantine III) and beetle off to Gaul with the troops? The troops left in Britain had dispensed with central authority.

Vandals - the key point in the history of the Vandals and Alans was the death of Genseric (477) - probably one of the greatest leaders of all history. That was over 20 years after the 455 sack of Rome. I'm not aware of them splitting at all. The Vandals brought the WRE to it's knees by strangling the central Med with it's raiding and seapower. With Genseric's masterful diplomacy and military skill they had no answer, with the Vandals having occupied their main food supply. Not helped by debacles such as 'Elche', where his fleet was destroyed and which ultimately saw the end of Majorian. This was probably in the Mar Menor and it really isn't clear who did it. 'Treachery' is mentioned - maybe the Vandals had paid some of Majorian's many Federati (Huns etc) or maybe it was just a Vandal raiding force? Then of course there was Basiliscus's debacle at Cape Bon in 468 - which bankrupted the ERE

Click to expand...

The success of the Vandals as a sea power is very strange. They were already raiding the Balearic islands before moving to Tangier.
How could a central European nomadic people become a sea power in one generation and challenge Rome?

I think this is one of many examples where we read "Vandals" but in reality it was probably alliance of Romans and Barbarians. I am speculating of course but I think the maritime power of the Vandals was built with roman ships, roman crews and roman officers, all of them from roman Spain and later from Roman North Africa.

If that's correct many of these barbarian incursions are more civil wars within the Empire than foreign invasions.

benzev said:

The most prominent ‘popular’ historians writing on that recently were Peter Heather ‘Fall of the Roman Empire’ c2005 and Adrian Goldsworthy ‘Fall of the West’ c2009. Both give a good narrative of events and their theories as to the cause.

Click to expand...

A lot of history is full of theories.