The Fall of the Roman Empire by Arther Ferrill (1986) provides well written and interesting reading for the non-historian. While Ferrill breaks down many areas of the Roman Empire and it's decline, there are other areas where the author's description of some important details remains sketchy and leaves the reader wanting more information. Ferrill breezes over some very important explanations concerning why the Eastern Empire survived despite the Eastern army suffering the two major defeats of Adrianople and Julian's failed Persian campaign. Ferrill also does not support the argument that the Fall of Rome was the result of a successful conquest of barbarism and religion. He instead maintains that uncomplicated military failures contributed to Rome's decline. The case he presents supports that these were created by political blunders and that enough of the blunders created the misfortune that resulted in the decline of the Roman public spirit.
             Ferrill's descriptions of the Roman way of life lead the reader to view the people as very cultured, sophisticated and comfortable. Their cleanliness for the time was exceptional and their water system was unique to that historical time. This style of life may have contributed to their idealistic views that all people wanted to work toward a more civilized and productive lifestyle. However, this was simply not true.
             Descriptions in Ferrill's book somewhat discredit the new breed of a classicist who encourages a Marxist version of Roman history which view that barbarians are just oppressed minorities engaging in justifiable wars of "national liberation." He also argues that men and battles do not much matter and that all history is some sort of inevitable process governed by the class struggle. Ferrill correctly points out that men and battles matter very important within this course of history. The barbarians were strictly barbaric and not worthy of much explanation or compassion for their h...