What do you think?
Rate this book
Aetius: Attila's Nemesis
In AD 453 Attila, with a huge force composed of Huns, allies and vassals drawn from his already-vast empire, was rampaging westward across Gaul (essentially modern France), then still nominally part of the Western Roman Empire. Laying siege to Orleans, he was only a few days march from extending his empire from the Eurasian steppe to the Atlantic. He was brought to battle on the Cataluanian Plain and defeated by a coalition hastily assembled and led by Aetius.
Who was this man that saved Western Europe from the Hunnic yoke? While Attila is a household name, his nemesis remains relatively obscure. Aetius is one of the major figures in the history of the Late Roman Empire and his actions helped maintain the integrity of the West in the declining years of the Empire. During the course of his life he was a hostage, first with Alaric and the Goths, and then with Rugila, King of the Huns. His stay with these two peoples helped to give him an unparalleled insight into the minds and military techniques of these barbarians which he was to use in later years to halt the depredations of the Huns. That this savior of Rome was himself half Scythian is indicative of the complexity of the late Roman world.
Ian Hughes assesses his fascinating career and campaigns with the same accessible narrative and analysis he brought to bear on Belisarius and Stilicho. This is a long-overdue biography of a major, yet neglected, player in the Late Classical world.
Who was this man that saved Western Europe from the Hunnic yoke? While Attila is a household name, his nemesis remains relatively obscure. Aetius is one of the major figures in the history of the Late Roman Empire and his actions helped maintain the integrity of the West in the declining years of the Empire. During the course of his life he was a hostage, first with Alaric and the Goths, and then with Rugila, King of the Huns. His stay with these two peoples helped to give him an unparalleled insight into the minds and military techniques of these barbarians which he was to use in later years to halt the depredations of the Huns. That this savior of Rome was himself half Scythian is indicative of the complexity of the late Roman world.
Ian Hughes assesses his fascinating career and campaigns with the same accessible narrative and analysis he brought to bear on Belisarius and Stilicho. This is a long-overdue biography of a major, yet neglected, player in the Late Classical world.
276 pages, Hardcover
First published February 1, 2012
43 people are currently reading
296 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
May 29, 2023
Flavius Aetius was a remarkable figure in the Western Roman Empire and had a very interesting life. Being born at the end of the fourth century AD, his times were those of chaos, instability and decline for the Western Roman Empire. Living among the Goths and later among the Huns as a hostage in his youth, he learned the ways of life and the ways of war from the barbarians. These experiences gave him insight into different tactics and perspectives that he would utilise later in his life.
After being released, Aetius quickly rose in rank and power in the military, eventually becoming one of the most influential men in the empire, with the rank of magister militum praesentalis. This was not an easy time however, as the empire faced many problems, including bankruptcy, rebellions, invasions and famines. Aetius’ career was extremely hectic, having to face many invasions from both outside and within the empire, as by this time, the Western Empire was riddled with barbarian settlements. Aetius succesfully campaigned against the Goths, Franks, Alamanni, Nori, Burgundians and rebels. However, Aetius is best known for his campaign against the Huns led by Attila. Aetius, with a mixed army of Romans, Visigoths and Alans met Attila’s army composed of Huns, Gepids, Franks and Ostrogoths at the epic Battle of the Catalaunian Plains in 451.
Unfortunately after all of Aetius’ successes, Valentinian III, probably my least favourite emperor of all time, decided that Aetius wasn’t necessary anymore and killed him in 454. This quickly led to chaos, with many barbarians invading again knowing that Aetius couldn’t save the empire anymore. Rome was sacked once more in 455 and the Western Roman Empire would eventually collapse and dissolve in 476.
“Aetius’ rearguard action was valiant and full of valorous deeds, but in the end it was doomed to failure simply because there was no one of his quality to replace him. Without a dynamic military leader at least his equal in ability the West could not survive.”
As Matyszak clearly states in the Foreword, the sources of this chaotic time period are very vague and sometimes unreliable or missing completely, but I feel that Hughes did an amazing job yet again. Hughes makes logical interpretations and states when the chronology of the sources is confused. The book is full of great maps and Hughes’ way of writing is easy to follow. A great biography of someone that people should know more about! Four very well deserved stars!
After being released, Aetius quickly rose in rank and power in the military, eventually becoming one of the most influential men in the empire, with the rank of magister militum praesentalis. This was not an easy time however, as the empire faced many problems, including bankruptcy, rebellions, invasions and famines. Aetius’ career was extremely hectic, having to face many invasions from both outside and within the empire, as by this time, the Western Empire was riddled with barbarian settlements. Aetius succesfully campaigned against the Goths, Franks, Alamanni, Nori, Burgundians and rebels. However, Aetius is best known for his campaign against the Huns led by Attila. Aetius, with a mixed army of Romans, Visigoths and Alans met Attila’s army composed of Huns, Gepids, Franks and Ostrogoths at the epic Battle of the Catalaunian Plains in 451.
Unfortunately after all of Aetius’ successes, Valentinian III, probably my least favourite emperor of all time, decided that Aetius wasn’t necessary anymore and killed him in 454. This quickly led to chaos, with many barbarians invading again knowing that Aetius couldn’t save the empire anymore. Rome was sacked once more in 455 and the Western Roman Empire would eventually collapse and dissolve in 476.
“Aetius’ rearguard action was valiant and full of valorous deeds, but in the end it was doomed to failure simply because there was no one of his quality to replace him. Without a dynamic military leader at least his equal in ability the West could not survive.”
As Matyszak clearly states in the Foreword, the sources of this chaotic time period are very vague and sometimes unreliable or missing completely, but I feel that Hughes did an amazing job yet again. Hughes makes logical interpretations and states when the chronology of the sources is confused. The book is full of great maps and Hughes’ way of writing is easy to follow. A great biography of someone that people should know more about! Four very well deserved stars!
May 2, 2016
Aetius is the figure upon whom historians have bestowed the incurably romantic title of "The Last of the Romans", although author Ian Hughes eschews that cliché for the subtitle "Attila's Nemesis". I had read and been impressed by the author's previous book about Stilicho, but I actually liked this one more. Possibly that was because, despite Mr. Hughes' efforts to rehabilitate Stilicho's reputation, Aetius comes over as a more admirable character. Also from the perspective of nearly 1700 years later, there really is something romantic about Aetius, fighting battle after battle in a desperate attempt to hold together the disintegrating Western Empire.
As with the previous book, the author sets out the underlying issues faced by the Western Empire. By the 440s it was effectively bankrupt, with its reserves exhausted and income insufficient to meet expenditure. There was wholesale tax avoidance by the rich and growing inequality between rich and poor, leading to discontent. Lastly the Empire was under massive pressure from external migration. I couldn't help thinking this was all uncomfortably similar to Western Europe today. Oh, and there was also a Brexit - Britain left the Empire sometime between 408 and 411. I am writing this in May 2016 and we have about 6 weeks to see whether we get another historical parallel there.
But enough of that (and just to be clear to any readers, the last three sentences above were largely tongue in cheek). What about the book? As with the book on Stilicho, the biggest issue is the lack of reliable sources, meaning that almost all of the author's conclusions involve at best reasoned deduction, and at times outright speculation. This is something the author himself readily acknowledges. Despite the limitations, this is very readable and persuasive account. I particularly enjoyed the analysis of the Battle of the Catalaunian Fields, which repulsed Attila's invasion of Gaul and seriously dented the Huns' reputation for invincibility.
Salutations to the memory of "The Last of the Romans"!
As with the previous book, the author sets out the underlying issues faced by the Western Empire. By the 440s it was effectively bankrupt, with its reserves exhausted and income insufficient to meet expenditure. There was wholesale tax avoidance by the rich and growing inequality between rich and poor, leading to discontent. Lastly the Empire was under massive pressure from external migration. I couldn't help thinking this was all uncomfortably similar to Western Europe today. Oh, and there was also a Brexit - Britain left the Empire sometime between 408 and 411. I am writing this in May 2016 and we have about 6 weeks to see whether we get another historical parallel there.
But enough of that (and just to be clear to any readers, the last three sentences above were largely tongue in cheek). What about the book? As with the book on Stilicho, the biggest issue is the lack of reliable sources, meaning that almost all of the author's conclusions involve at best reasoned deduction, and at times outright speculation. This is something the author himself readily acknowledges. Despite the limitations, this is very readable and persuasive account. I particularly enjoyed the analysis of the Battle of the Catalaunian Fields, which repulsed Attila's invasion of Gaul and seriously dented the Huns' reputation for invincibility.
Salutations to the memory of "The Last of the Romans"!
January 3, 2025
This is the first time I’ve heard of Aetius.
And what a man.
I was in awe of his ability to hold off the enemies from all directions and help postpone the inevitable collapse of Western Roman Empire.
This is his life story as well as history of a dying empire.
Author did a brilliant job scary together the minimal source materials and giving us this book.
And what a man.
I was in awe of his ability to hold off the enemies from all directions and help postpone the inevitable collapse of Western Roman Empire.
This is his life story as well as history of a dying empire.
Author did a brilliant job scary together the minimal source materials and giving us this book.
May 11, 2021
Ian Hughes' books on the period where the Western Empire dissolved into nothingness have been very good at providing a clearer picture of the process. I think this volume might be the best one of the lot.
Like his earlier book on Stilicho, this traces the career of one man, who many with the barest of knowledge of the period will know of because of his commanding the Roman side at the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains against Attila the Hun.
The early section looks at Aetius' early life, and positions him as part of the Roman upper class. He was traded to the Huns as a 'hostage' during his teenage years; Hughes is at pains to talk about the actual nature of hostages as political insurance in the pre-modern world, something that needs looking at more often. At any rate, this part informs a large part of his thesis. The Roman military had become very conservative with manpower and emphasized sieges and the like to set-piece battles. The Huns and other tribal confederations still emphasized combat and set-piece battles of various sizes, and Aetius' career shows the same pattern, so Hughes assumes that much of his military training and style comes from his period with the Huns.
Aetius also relies on support from Hunnic factions, particularly early in his career. Hughes also figures this comes from friendships formed in his time with them. This is important during some early maneuverings, which could easily have ended up with Aetius dead as a rebel, but after stong-arming the other faction, ended with him working quite effectively inside and with the system for the next two decades.
It can reasonably be said that his use of Hunnic troops during his internal fight against Boniface was part of the downfall of the Western Empire. Hughes doesn't go too much into that, but does spend a good amount of time and thought on various settlements of barbarians inside the empire. This too he sees as not necessarily destructive of the Empire as it had successfully been done before. In his concluding part though, he talks about the various methods by which this was done, and points out that the Goths in southern Gaul had been allowed to settle with their leadership intact, instead of it being sent elsewhere, generally as leadership in a different section of the army. This put people used to politics and power with a built-in power base inside the Empire, and that is what Hughes points to as the dramatic step towards the dissolution of the western Empire.
Often what is known of Aetius comes straight out of Gregory of Tours, and Hughes does a good job here pulling together the sources, and giving the outline of his character. I think Hughes may have trended towards being too sympathetic to him, but his conclusions are reasonable.
Like his earlier book on Stilicho, this traces the career of one man, who many with the barest of knowledge of the period will know of because of his commanding the Roman side at the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains against Attila the Hun.
The early section looks at Aetius' early life, and positions him as part of the Roman upper class. He was traded to the Huns as a 'hostage' during his teenage years; Hughes is at pains to talk about the actual nature of hostages as political insurance in the pre-modern world, something that needs looking at more often. At any rate, this part informs a large part of his thesis. The Roman military had become very conservative with manpower and emphasized sieges and the like to set-piece battles. The Huns and other tribal confederations still emphasized combat and set-piece battles of various sizes, and Aetius' career shows the same pattern, so Hughes assumes that much of his military training and style comes from his period with the Huns.
Aetius also relies on support from Hunnic factions, particularly early in his career. Hughes also figures this comes from friendships formed in his time with them. This is important during some early maneuverings, which could easily have ended up with Aetius dead as a rebel, but after stong-arming the other faction, ended with him working quite effectively inside and with the system for the next two decades.
It can reasonably be said that his use of Hunnic troops during his internal fight against Boniface was part of the downfall of the Western Empire. Hughes doesn't go too much into that, but does spend a good amount of time and thought on various settlements of barbarians inside the empire. This too he sees as not necessarily destructive of the Empire as it had successfully been done before. In his concluding part though, he talks about the various methods by which this was done, and points out that the Goths in southern Gaul had been allowed to settle with their leadership intact, instead of it being sent elsewhere, generally as leadership in a different section of the army. This put people used to politics and power with a built-in power base inside the Empire, and that is what Hughes points to as the dramatic step towards the dissolution of the western Empire.
Often what is known of Aetius comes straight out of Gregory of Tours, and Hughes does a good job here pulling together the sources, and giving the outline of his character. I think Hughes may have trended towards being too sympathetic to him, but his conclusions are reasonable.
August 13, 2013
The thing I like best about Hughes' books is that they hone in on one historical figure. Most historians would shy away from that, at least at that time in history. I had read other books about the era, which would mention Aetius, but they always focussed on the broader subject and didn't really give a chronology of some of the major players. For this reason, I also recommend his book "Stilicho," who is another person that comes up frequently but not enough to get a sense of who he was.
The only fault to the book is that it involves a lot of speculation - which is not the author's fault, but the fault of the sources. He also takes care to point out when it is only speculation. This is only troublesome when, later in the book, he makes further speculation based on the first ones - it makes logical sense, but the whole thing ultimately goes back to a guess. But again, I'm sure that's the nature of the fragmentary source material.
The best thing Hughes does is to list all of the primary sources, as well as how far removed they are from the time and what biases they may have had. And, reading the footnotes, he bases quite a lot of his book on these sources. There are some secondary/modern works he cites as well, but it appears whenever possible he cites from a contemporary source.
One final note - he is a good writer. Aetius had an eventful life, and lived in momentous times, and Hughes does it justice.
The only fault to the book is that it involves a lot of speculation - which is not the author's fault, but the fault of the sources. He also takes care to point out when it is only speculation. This is only troublesome when, later in the book, he makes further speculation based on the first ones - it makes logical sense, but the whole thing ultimately goes back to a guess. But again, I'm sure that's the nature of the fragmentary source material.
The best thing Hughes does is to list all of the primary sources, as well as how far removed they are from the time and what biases they may have had. And, reading the footnotes, he bases quite a lot of his book on these sources. There are some secondary/modern works he cites as well, but it appears whenever possible he cites from a contemporary source.
One final note - he is a good writer. Aetius had an eventful life, and lived in momentous times, and Hughes does it justice.
October 8, 2016
this book covers the life of Aetius and the trials he and the Western Empire faced. As explained in the Prologue of the book the sources are extremely limited. The author explains what the sources say and then the probabilities of various theories on what happened at the time. I found this extremely useful as it didn't purport these as facts.
I would recommend this book to anyone who like me has little knowledge of the late empire.
I would recommend this book to anyone who like me has little knowledge of the late empire.
February 5, 2024
10/10 would name my first born Flavius Aetius
March 2, 2017
A well written and delightful addition to my book shelf. Huges does an excellent job in narrating the life of one of the oft forgotten Roman hero's of the 5th Century. This is no small feat considering the scarcity of sources which requires Hughes to formulate some very convincing and well thought hypotheses. Though I would not necessarily agree with all these hypotheses I can never the less see where the author is coming from and will make a fine foundation for future works in this area.
I would also point out that the work adds nothing new with regard to the study of the Huns but this is forgivable given the scarcity of new sources and information regarding them as a result of little archaeological remains, and their mention only in classical sources. Also this work focus' on the world from the Roman perspective and as such is not an in depth study of the Huns, and this Roman view makes it a refreshing read.
The author also makes excellent use of all the sources available to him with regard to the period, and lists them of beforehand for the reader to investigate themselves should they desire, an excellent addition.
Overall I would recommend this book to anyone, whether beginner or veteran to Roman history in the 5th Century.
I would also point out that the work adds nothing new with regard to the study of the Huns but this is forgivable given the scarcity of new sources and information regarding them as a result of little archaeological remains, and their mention only in classical sources. Also this work focus' on the world from the Roman perspective and as such is not an in depth study of the Huns, and this Roman view makes it a refreshing read.
The author also makes excellent use of all the sources available to him with regard to the period, and lists them of beforehand for the reader to investigate themselves should they desire, an excellent addition.
Overall I would recommend this book to anyone, whether beginner or veteran to Roman history in the 5th Century.
May 25, 2020
A good biography about an extremely interesting and under-appreciated Roman general. A few parts of the book seem to be more of a summary of overall political events than a deep-dive into Aetius himself, but I understand that the historical sources are sometimes limited, and Hughes is clearly trying his best to give as much inside into the man as possible.
September 21, 2024
I liked it for the subject matter and because it is difficult to find good books on this person.
December 28, 2023
Jess, Aetius, viimne (võidukas) roomlane! Hughesi Stilicho elulugu mulle meeldis, aga Aetiuse oma jättis pisut kahvatuma mulje. Autor on püüdnud suure segaduse ajastust nii põhjalikku ülevaadet anda, et üldpilt jääb suht kaootiliseks. Kõige paremini on välja kukkunud Rooma ja barbarite armeede võrdlus (osa sellest kattub küll Stilicho eluloo vastava peatükiga). Väide, et Rooma armee oli paremas seisukorras, kui üldiselt arvatakse, on kenasti põhjendatud. Mulle meeldis ka autori teooria nende kehasse töödeldud turviste kohta, mida Hollywood väga armastab.
Katalaunia lahingu osa oli jälle väga hea. Hughes analüüsib veel teooriat, et Attila võidi tappa Aetiuse poolt äraostetud ihukaitsja poolt ja tema järeldused kõlavad igati loogiliselt.
Kokkuvõttes kindlasti parem kui Barry Strauss, aga mitte nii hea kui Philip Matyszak.
Katalaunia lahingu osa oli jälle väga hea. Hughes analüüsib veel teooriat, et Attila võidi tappa Aetiuse poolt äraostetud ihukaitsja poolt ja tema järeldused kõlavad igati loogiliselt.
Kokkuvõttes kindlasti parem kui Barry Strauss, aga mitte nii hea kui Philip Matyszak.
December 21, 2024
So you have an original figure, whose parent is killed by soldiers, his entire early life was tossed to different courts of tribal leaders and than he uses this to learn everything from them. Than he comes back and uses his earlier relations with the so-called enemy to save the empire which treates him as a legend. Its just mindblowing to rehearsal the attacks, his enemies, his tactics. This man should be put on the highest piëdestal of military leaders, who was capable of selfless campaigning until his last breath.
How can you lose so much information about this man who made the empire alive for another 20 years?
How can you lose so much information about this man who made the empire alive for another 20 years?
February 10, 2022
Wished for more elaboration for some sections. Especially regarding the Roman Senate and aristocracy.
July 22, 2016
Ian Hughes starts his foreword with the quote: “Historians of the fourth and fifth centuries have a particularly difficult life. Those used to the relative certainties of the late republic and early empire can only look on with admiration at those brave souls who plunge into the mess that is late antiquity.” He refers partly to the fact that “everyone writing in this period had an agenda in which the accurate reporting of events was either irrelevant at best, or at worst something to be avoided at all costs.”
Personally I think that a good trained historian should be able to cope with this problem, using historical criticism, something that is thoroughly instilled in every good college history education (level MA or even BA).
The content generally seems to be pretty solid. Sometimes it seems that he's grasping at straws, and in this book I often had the feeling that he speculated more than was appropriate in a nonfiction book. But I have to admit that the speculation is always marked as such and isn't hidden away in the text.
Some of his chapters are set up poorly and are written like a chronicle of facts and events ranged in chronological order, as in a time line. He actually recommends that chapters to "be read in conjunction with the Chronology to aid understanding." I missed a narrative or history, which sets selected events in a meaningful interpretive context.
Chapter 4 about the Late Roman Army is an exact copy of the same chapter in his previous book about Stilicho.
As I am reading a lot of books to write an essay about “The Women of the Theodosian dynasty”, I was a little bit disappointed about the fact that women are hardly mentioned in this book. And this despite the fact that Galla Placidia, her daughter Justa Gratia Honoria (a rebellious lady who even sent a proposal of marriage to Attila), Licinia Eudoxia, Pulcheria (sister of Theodosius II and future wife of eastern Emperor Marcian) and Eudoxia - who eventually married Huneric, son of Geiseric who sacked Rome in 455 - played a big role in the intrigues and politics of the early 5th century.
Despite these negative aspects, it eventually is a meritorious book because it all comes nice together in a superb last chapter ‘Conclusion’. This chapter contains all the essential information and could be an exceptional essay on itself.
Conclusion: This is not one of Ian Hughes’ best books. He could have skipped a lot of superfluous passages or chapters. But the fact is that it is definitely the only recent history book written specifically on Flavius Aetius, the Last of the Romans (Ultimus Romanorum).
Personally I think that a good trained historian should be able to cope with this problem, using historical criticism, something that is thoroughly instilled in every good college history education (level MA or even BA).
The content generally seems to be pretty solid. Sometimes it seems that he's grasping at straws, and in this book I often had the feeling that he speculated more than was appropriate in a nonfiction book. But I have to admit that the speculation is always marked as such and isn't hidden away in the text.
Some of his chapters are set up poorly and are written like a chronicle of facts and events ranged in chronological order, as in a time line. He actually recommends that chapters to "be read in conjunction with the Chronology to aid understanding." I missed a narrative or history, which sets selected events in a meaningful interpretive context.
Chapter 4 about the Late Roman Army is an exact copy of the same chapter in his previous book about Stilicho.
As I am reading a lot of books to write an essay about “The Women of the Theodosian dynasty”, I was a little bit disappointed about the fact that women are hardly mentioned in this book. And this despite the fact that Galla Placidia, her daughter Justa Gratia Honoria (a rebellious lady who even sent a proposal of marriage to Attila), Licinia Eudoxia, Pulcheria (sister of Theodosius II and future wife of eastern Emperor Marcian) and Eudoxia - who eventually married Huneric, son of Geiseric who sacked Rome in 455 - played a big role in the intrigues and politics of the early 5th century.
Despite these negative aspects, it eventually is a meritorious book because it all comes nice together in a superb last chapter ‘Conclusion’. This chapter contains all the essential information and could be an exceptional essay on itself.
Conclusion: This is not one of Ian Hughes’ best books. He could have skipped a lot of superfluous passages or chapters. But the fact is that it is definitely the only recent history book written specifically on Flavius Aetius, the Last of the Romans (Ultimus Romanorum).
October 14, 2013
Hughes did a great job making a coherent narrative out of the limited and confusing primary sources. Unfortunately, too often his obvious hero worship of Aetius bleeds though and when two competing interpretations of an event are offered, the most pro-Aetius version is what he considers to be correct.
It began to bother me somewhat when he would say, "it could be interpreted that Aetius was responsible for so and so's assassination, but this isn't likely" without explaining why, exactly, it isn't likely. How many military dictators in history were above having their enemies removed in whatever means necessary? What part of Aetius' character would lead anyone to believe that such deviousness was out of character? The sources are minimal enough that we can't know anything about him as a person, and it is somewhat ridiculous to conclude anything about his character or morality.
I suppose this sounds a bit negative, but overall I enjoyed the book and it definitely created a cogent narrative for a period of history I was not perfectly acquainted with. In some respects, the author's obvious biases made it easier for me to be more analytic as I was skeptical of his claims and it forced me to consider the evidence more independently.
It began to bother me somewhat when he would say, "it could be interpreted that Aetius was responsible for so and so's assassination, but this isn't likely" without explaining why, exactly, it isn't likely. How many military dictators in history were above having their enemies removed in whatever means necessary? What part of Aetius' character would lead anyone to believe that such deviousness was out of character? The sources are minimal enough that we can't know anything about him as a person, and it is somewhat ridiculous to conclude anything about his character or morality.
I suppose this sounds a bit negative, but overall I enjoyed the book and it definitely created a cogent narrative for a period of history I was not perfectly acquainted with. In some respects, the author's obvious biases made it easier for me to be more analytic as I was skeptical of his claims and it forced me to consider the evidence more independently.
September 28, 2012
Academic, but still quite readable biography of Aetius, the last great (Western) Roman general, who defeated Attila the Hun. The sources for this time period are sparse and suspect. Hughes leads us through the fog, pointing out the shadows that may look like something they are not. He is careful to state when he is speculating and why he comes to the conclusions he does. In the end, we know little about Aetius the man, but can extrapolate from his actions. This is useful work for anyone interested in "The Fall" of the western Roman Empire particularly when paired with Hughes' Stilicho: The Vandal Who Saved Rome.
My only complaint: a sprinkling of copy edit (factcheck?) problems where a name was wrong. For example, the author would be speaking of Placidia and suddenly it was changed to Pulcheria or Pelagia. Anyone knowing the time period, knew this was an error, but others might be confused. This book was supposed to come out in April and arrived in July. Possibly some delays in production led to shortcuts, but that's just speculation!
My only complaint: a sprinkling of copy edit (factcheck?) problems where a name was wrong. For example, the author would be speaking of Placidia and suddenly it was changed to Pulcheria or Pelagia. Anyone knowing the time period, knew this was an error, but others might be confused. This book was supposed to come out in April and arrived in July. Possibly some delays in production led to shortcuts, but that's just speculation!
September 8, 2016
Ian Hughes wrote a fascinating book on one of the most intriguing (and little know) people from the Roman Empire. His research was incredible and the results were laid out in a clear and interesting manner. I thought I was knowledgeable about Aetius from the research I conducted for my alternative history novel "The Red Fist of Rome". This author left me in awe.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews