the western Roman empire did not have far to fall.

[Ksguo]

In a book on the history of Roman empire I read:By 476 the western Roman empire did not have far to fall.
What is meant by the phrase 'not have far to fall‘ ，please？
There is a sing titled 'You don't have far to go', are they two expressions of the same or similar meaning?

[Cerberus™]

Literally "you don't have far to go" means: there is not a great distance that you can or must go. "You don't have far to fall" means there is not a great distance for you to fall down by. In the case of the Western Roman Empire, it is a metaphor. Being low stands for being in a bad situation. The Empire was already so low, in such a bad condition, that it could not get much lower by falling, could not get much worse. The Empire was economically, politically, and militarily in such a bad situation that its actual fall didn't matter much anymore, it had been in chaos already. It is a pun on the word "fall", which can be either a sudden movement downwards, or the end of a realm; the latter is derived from the former.

[Alan]

Please activate Javascript and Adobe Flash for view MP3 player

5 views

Download mp3	Click to listen

Hi Ksquo.

If you think of the two expressions as metaphors and not as literal ones, there is a difference between 'go' and 'fall'. 'Don't have far to fall' suggests very near to failure as 'fall' indicates a downward movement. ''Don't have far to go' suggests very near to success or completion.

The government doesn't have far to fall because its support is very low already and in the coming months it will lose the election.

The club supporters have already collected a huge amount of money and don't have far to go in reaching their target.

Alan
_________________
English as a Second Language
You can read my ESL story A day in the life of a stately home owner

[Ksguo]

Thank you,Cerberus and Alan,for your so detailed explanation.Without your help I couldn't have understood this phrase at all!