What do you think?
Rate this book
Justinian and the Later Roman Empire
The eastern half of the Roman Empire, economically the stronger, did not "fall" but continued almost intact, safe in the new capital of Constantinople. This empire is the subject of John Barker Jr.'s book and the central focus of his examination of questions of continuity and change.
- GenresHistory
336 pages, Paperback
First published December 15, 1975
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
March 12, 2024
Scholarly, yet quite accessible, biography of Justinian 'the Great', early sixth century Roman autocrat. The author sets his reign within the broader context of the late Roman Empire and early Byzantine.
July 28, 2022
Close to as good as you can ask for in a book like this. 8.5/10
1. This book is for people who already know a moderate amount of Roman (and maybe Byzantine) history and want to know more about Justinian and his era.
1.a This book is not for the very beginner in Roman/Byzantine history: Yes, it says on the back that it's an "introduction" for "the general reader," but that's like saying Lang's Algebra is for "the general undergraduate" because it defines groups on page 7. Yes, Barker mentions everything you need to know to follow the narrative, but this shouldn't be the first time you hear about Constantine, or the Roman-Persian wars, or the establishment of barbarian kingdoms in former Roman provinces, or even more specialized topics like the Hagia Sophia or Monophysitism. It's just too much too fast unless you already know it (or are really determined & take notes, but if you want to go through all that, why not use something more aimed at beginners?)
1.b This book is not for the advanced student or serious scholar of Roman/Byzantine history: This is for several reasons. (I) This history is not very close to the sources: There is relatively (very by modern standards) little citing of ancient texts, and certainly no explicit harmonization of sources which often differ. I get the sense Barker is working mostly off of secondary sources [see more at (2)], though he is sparing with these citations also. He also takes the Secret History mostly at its word, which is kind of a dated attitude towards such a controversial document. (II) Almost no archeological data is referenced or used (except the most obvious e.g. surviving churches). This is (maybe) forgivable since this is a text from the 70s but in recent years archeology has become very important for the study of Late Antiquity. (III) The style here is summary and narrative. Barker is concerned with historical trend and impact far more than minutiae and detail. This is great for the reader looking to place the period in context, understand what came before and after, and the general tide of the era, but not for the specialist who already has a good idea of these things. If you can name the sixth century popes and the patriarchs in constantinople; if you've read Procopius' History of the Wars (and related sources, primary or otherwise); if you know more than the basic outline of Justinian's rule, you probably need something more technical and specialized.
1.c BUT IF THAT'S YOU, if you are a mid-level Roman history person, if you've listened to the History of Rome/History of Byzantium podcasts, if you've been hanging out in the dingy and dusty slums of Rome reddit and Rome youtube, this is a great introduction to the period and the man. Probably as good as exists out there.
2. This book is a very traditional account of Justinian's era and beyond. If you're not familiar with this dynamic in Roman history it's kind of hard to explain, but ever since Gibbon most secondary texts have echoed similar sentiments about certain rulers: Phocas Bad! Maurice Good! (Mostly following the basis of the ancient and medieval writers, granted). Barker, as far as I can tell, only challenges traditional interpretations on one occasion: Justinian himself. Everything else, from diplomatic analysis to throwaway lines on the competence of generals conforms to the orthodox opinion. Again, for someone looking to feel the period out, who is basically familiar with the modern historiography of Rome, this is fine: the traditional narrative is a good one and there's good evidence to back it up. It's just that Barker doesn't acknowledge that he's part of a historiographical tradition or dialogue at all, or that compelling challenges to the traditional account exist. For the beginner, this is false confidence; for the expert, it's unhelpful.
3. This book is well-written and well-organized. I want to stress this fact before I list the few complaints I have. It is well-written and well-organized, well beyond most Roman history books that pretend to this level of specialization. However:
3.a. The several dimensions and projects of Justinian's reign are treated in distinct sections: this is a reasonable choice and done about as well as it could be, with recapitulations, smart sequencing, and introductions that make reading the book cover to cover pretty easy. Nevertheless, this approach has this kind of typewriter effect where, for the middle part of the book, we cover all of the Religious problems from 527 (or earlier) to 565 year by year, then all the Persian wars, then the western Reconquest, then the Laws, then the Buildings, etc. Barker does an extremely impressive job salvaging a coherent picture of the reign and its progression despite this separation of topics, but that doesn't change the fact that, as you read this book (unless you're making chronological notes or already know) you can't have a good understanding of (e.g.) where we are in the monophysite problem during this phase of the reconquest, or know if the Hagia Sophia's dome had collapsed by this point in the Avar raids. The narrative doesn't quite click together.
3.b. The end of the book (Chapter VI: The Aftermath) is weak. The opening chapter does a very good job establishing the outline of Roman history from the 4th leading up to the 6th century. A very good job. All of the information presented is essential and feels, in retrospect, relevant. The end of the book establishes the outline of Roman history leading up to the reign of Leo III (the Isaurian), the first definitively Byzantine emperor (as identified by the book). It's a nice outline of the events from 566-~730, but this is supposed book about Justinian. Why am I reading about the tyranny of Constans II? Why am I reading about the Second Arab siege of Constantinople? This is the only part of the book that's really beginner-friendly, and unfortunately that's because it's written in a frankly meh summary style. But what really damns is that it's only sometimes brought back to Justinian. It just feels bloated, like the book is trying its hardest not to end.
4. Spectacular reference material. Really above and beyond. I've never been so impressed with a "Reference Matter" section.
(a) thorough, multi-page chronology of JUST Justinian's reign. It's perfect. Nothing extra, right to the point. A pressure to read in its own right.
(b) Historical Lists. This should be STANDARD. Lists of emperors, patriarchs, popes, Vandal/Ostrogoth kings, exarchs, shahs, caliphs. Beautiful. So nice.
(c) Notes on the Illustrations. Good. Fine. Interesting.
(d) Selected Bibliography. Now this is really where it gets good. Every work in the bibliography is SUMMARIZED, given in several editions (where possible), and gently criticized. I have never seen this before and that upsets me. E.g.: [ Consmas Indicopleustes. The Christian Topography: critical Greek text e. E. O.Windstead, [...] 1897 - In spite of religious bias and geographical misconceptions, a work of much importance for the Commercial and economic life of the Empire in the early sixth century, and for the general early Byzantine conceptions of the world. ] how nice is that!
Yes. Good book. Hit the sweet spot.
1. This book is for people who already know a moderate amount of Roman (and maybe Byzantine) history and want to know more about Justinian and his era.
1.a This book is not for the very beginner in Roman/Byzantine history: Yes, it says on the back that it's an "introduction" for "the general reader," but that's like saying Lang's Algebra is for "the general undergraduate" because it defines groups on page 7. Yes, Barker mentions everything you need to know to follow the narrative, but this shouldn't be the first time you hear about Constantine, or the Roman-Persian wars, or the establishment of barbarian kingdoms in former Roman provinces, or even more specialized topics like the Hagia Sophia or Monophysitism. It's just too much too fast unless you already know it (or are really determined & take notes, but if you want to go through all that, why not use something more aimed at beginners?)
1.b This book is not for the advanced student or serious scholar of Roman/Byzantine history: This is for several reasons. (I) This history is not very close to the sources: There is relatively (very by modern standards) little citing of ancient texts, and certainly no explicit harmonization of sources which often differ. I get the sense Barker is working mostly off of secondary sources [see more at (2)], though he is sparing with these citations also. He also takes the Secret History mostly at its word, which is kind of a dated attitude towards such a controversial document. (II) Almost no archeological data is referenced or used (except the most obvious e.g. surviving churches). This is (maybe) forgivable since this is a text from the 70s but in recent years archeology has become very important for the study of Late Antiquity. (III) The style here is summary and narrative. Barker is concerned with historical trend and impact far more than minutiae and detail. This is great for the reader looking to place the period in context, understand what came before and after, and the general tide of the era, but not for the specialist who already has a good idea of these things. If you can name the sixth century popes and the patriarchs in constantinople; if you've read Procopius' History of the Wars (and related sources, primary or otherwise); if you know more than the basic outline of Justinian's rule, you probably need something more technical and specialized.
1.c BUT IF THAT'S YOU, if you are a mid-level Roman history person, if you've listened to the History of Rome/History of Byzantium podcasts, if you've been hanging out in the dingy and dusty slums of Rome reddit and Rome youtube, this is a great introduction to the period and the man. Probably as good as exists out there.
2. This book is a very traditional account of Justinian's era and beyond. If you're not familiar with this dynamic in Roman history it's kind of hard to explain, but ever since Gibbon most secondary texts have echoed similar sentiments about certain rulers: Phocas Bad! Maurice Good! (Mostly following the basis of the ancient and medieval writers, granted). Barker, as far as I can tell, only challenges traditional interpretations on one occasion: Justinian himself. Everything else, from diplomatic analysis to throwaway lines on the competence of generals conforms to the orthodox opinion. Again, for someone looking to feel the period out, who is basically familiar with the modern historiography of Rome, this is fine: the traditional narrative is a good one and there's good evidence to back it up. It's just that Barker doesn't acknowledge that he's part of a historiographical tradition or dialogue at all, or that compelling challenges to the traditional account exist. For the beginner, this is false confidence; for the expert, it's unhelpful.
3. This book is well-written and well-organized. I want to stress this fact before I list the few complaints I have. It is well-written and well-organized, well beyond most Roman history books that pretend to this level of specialization. However:
3.a. The several dimensions and projects of Justinian's reign are treated in distinct sections: this is a reasonable choice and done about as well as it could be, with recapitulations, smart sequencing, and introductions that make reading the book cover to cover pretty easy. Nevertheless, this approach has this kind of typewriter effect where, for the middle part of the book, we cover all of the Religious problems from 527 (or earlier) to 565 year by year, then all the Persian wars, then the western Reconquest, then the Laws, then the Buildings, etc. Barker does an extremely impressive job salvaging a coherent picture of the reign and its progression despite this separation of topics, but that doesn't change the fact that, as you read this book (unless you're making chronological notes or already know) you can't have a good understanding of (e.g.) where we are in the monophysite problem during this phase of the reconquest, or know if the Hagia Sophia's dome had collapsed by this point in the Avar raids. The narrative doesn't quite click together.
3.b. The end of the book (Chapter VI: The Aftermath) is weak. The opening chapter does a very good job establishing the outline of Roman history from the 4th leading up to the 6th century. A very good job. All of the information presented is essential and feels, in retrospect, relevant. The end of the book establishes the outline of Roman history leading up to the reign of Leo III (the Isaurian), the first definitively Byzantine emperor (as identified by the book). It's a nice outline of the events from 566-~730, but this is supposed book about Justinian. Why am I reading about the tyranny of Constans II? Why am I reading about the Second Arab siege of Constantinople? This is the only part of the book that's really beginner-friendly, and unfortunately that's because it's written in a frankly meh summary style. But what really damns is that it's only sometimes brought back to Justinian. It just feels bloated, like the book is trying its hardest not to end.
4. Spectacular reference material. Really above and beyond. I've never been so impressed with a "Reference Matter" section.
(a) thorough, multi-page chronology of JUST Justinian's reign. It's perfect. Nothing extra, right to the point. A pressure to read in its own right.
(b) Historical Lists. This should be STANDARD. Lists of emperors, patriarchs, popes, Vandal/Ostrogoth kings, exarchs, shahs, caliphs. Beautiful. So nice.
(c) Notes on the Illustrations. Good. Fine. Interesting.
(d) Selected Bibliography. Now this is really where it gets good. Every work in the bibliography is SUMMARIZED, given in several editions (where possible), and gently criticized. I have never seen this before and that upsets me. E.g.: [ Consmas Indicopleustes. The Christian Topography: critical Greek text e. E. O.Windstead, [...] 1897 - In spite of religious bias and geographical misconceptions, a work of much importance for the Commercial and economic life of the Empire in the early sixth century, and for the general early Byzantine conceptions of the world. ] how nice is that!
Yes. Good book. Hit the sweet spot.
August 29, 2023
Barker is not shy to highlight Justinian's failings as emperor.
Justinian likely lacked an understanding of grand strategy and, specifically, was unable to conduct an ends-means analysis when carrying out his campaigns of reconquest. Denuding the Balkan defences of troops in order to provide manpower for his campaigns in Italy and anti-Moorish operations in Africa underline this perspective. He should have stopped after recapturing Africa and not have moved into Italy if he could not do so without weakening his defences elsewhere.
He left his successors with a classic case of imperial overstretch for which there was no easy solution. The damage of his policies can be seen partly in the fact that the Byzantines had to wait over four centuries for until the reign of Basil II to restore their Balkan domains to their imperial heyday.
The story of Justinian ultimately is a tragedy more so because of what he was not than because of what he was. He possessed the martial spirit of Alexander but lacked the strategic nous of a Churchill or John Quincy Adams. A man possessing of those two aspects would have been more frightful to the empire's opponents.
Justinian likely lacked an understanding of grand strategy and, specifically, was unable to conduct an ends-means analysis when carrying out his campaigns of reconquest. Denuding the Balkan defences of troops in order to provide manpower for his campaigns in Italy and anti-Moorish operations in Africa underline this perspective. He should have stopped after recapturing Africa and not have moved into Italy if he could not do so without weakening his defences elsewhere.
He left his successors with a classic case of imperial overstretch for which there was no easy solution. The damage of his policies can be seen partly in the fact that the Byzantines had to wait over four centuries for until the reign of Basil II to restore their Balkan domains to their imperial heyday.
The story of Justinian ultimately is a tragedy more so because of what he was not than because of what he was. He possessed the martial spirit of Alexander but lacked the strategic nous of a Churchill or John Quincy Adams. A man possessing of those two aspects would have been more frightful to the empire's opponents.
April 14, 2019
If you thought the Roman empire collapsed in 476 AD, think again. Justinian almost succeeded in reclaiming most of the empire during his long reign. If not for incessant palace intrigue, he might have succeeded. There’s more back-stabbing, wanton sex, murder, double-crossings, intrigue, conspiracy, and manipulation in this book than Game of Thrones!
An excellent look at how the Eastern Roman empire survived the Moors, the Slavs, the Persians, the Vandals, the Ostrogoths, and the Huns to eventually transform into the Byzantine empire- which didn’t really end until Turks broke the walls of Constantinople in 1453.
An excellent look at how the Eastern Roman empire survived the Moors, the Slavs, the Persians, the Vandals, the Ostrogoths, and the Huns to eventually transform into the Byzantine empire- which didn’t really end until Turks broke the walls of Constantinople in 1453.
May 15, 2021
Strong in the beginning and middle, but a bit bogged down in sentimentalism near the end.
April 16, 2024
Very informative, the style of writing was trackable and straightforward.
December 2, 2017
Quite a cast of characters in the book and was difficult to follow at times. I appreciated that this book is intended for the armchair historian rather than the scholar as the author concedes at the beginning of the book. I did have a hard time understanding the minutiae of the early church and the conflicts that were part of an establishing faith. Nevertheless, the book is an intriguing read for anyone who would like to know more about this period of history.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews