What do you think?
Rate this book
Imperial Brothers: Valentinian, Valens and the Disaster at Adrianople
The latest of Ian Hughes' Late Roman biographies here tackles the careers of the brother emperors, Valentinian and Valens. Valentian was selected and proclaimed as emperor in AD 364, when the Empire was still reeling from the disastrous defeat and death in battle of Julian the Apostate (363) and the short reign of his murdered successor, Jovian (364). With the Empire weakened and vulnerable to a victorious Persia in the East and opportunistic Germanic tribes along the Rhine and Danube frontiers, not to mention usurpers and rebellions within, it was not an enviable position. Valentian decided the responsibility had to be divided (not for the first or last time) and appointed his brother as his co-emperor to rule the eastern half of the Empire.
Valentinian went on to stabilize the Western Empire, quelling revolt in North Africa, defeating the 'Barbarian Conspiracy' that attacked Britain in 367 and conducting successful wars against the Germanic Alemanni, Quadi and Saxons; he is remembered by History as a strong and successful Emperor. Valens on the other hand, fare less well and is most remembered for his (mis)treatment of the Goths who sought refuge within the Empire's borders from the westward-moving Huns. Valens mishandling of this situation led to the Battle of Adrianople in 378, where he was killed and Rome suffered one of the worst defeats in her long history, often seen as the 'beginning of the end' for the Western Roman empire. Ian Hughes, by tracing the careers of both men in tandem, compares their achievements and analyzes the extent to which they deserve the contrasting reputations handed down by history.
Valentinian went on to stabilize the Western Empire, quelling revolt in North Africa, defeating the 'Barbarian Conspiracy' that attacked Britain in 367 and conducting successful wars against the Germanic Alemanni, Quadi and Saxons; he is remembered by History as a strong and successful Emperor. Valens on the other hand, fare less well and is most remembered for his (mis)treatment of the Goths who sought refuge within the Empire's borders from the westward-moving Huns. Valens mishandling of this situation led to the Battle of Adrianople in 378, where he was killed and Rome suffered one of the worst defeats in her long history, often seen as the 'beginning of the end' for the Western Roman empire. Ian Hughes, by tracing the careers of both men in tandem, compares their achievements and analyzes the extent to which they deserve the contrasting reputations handed down by history.
208 pages, Hardcover
First published August 5, 2013
10 people are currently reading
102 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 - 5 of 5 reviews
May 19, 2023
This is a fine book that tells the stories of the two brothers that became emperors, Valentinian I and Valens. Valentinian I ruled in the West, being known for some successful military campaigns and for being one of the last Roman Emperors to achieve a major victory across the Rhine. His younger brother Valens ruled in the East, and is mostly remembered for his defeat at Adrianople. Their reigns were quite hectic, being full of rebellions, revolts, usurpers and foreign invasions. Hughes does a very good job at explaining the events that happened. The book has some nice prior knowledge about the emperors that came before them, with most of the rest of the book being divided into years. Each chapter describes the things that happened in a particular year, first naming all the events that happened in the West and then those that happened in the East. I felt that this was a good way to order the book and made for a nice read. This format is abandoned though when the ‘Goths’ start entering the empire and tensions start to rise with the Romans. The book ends with the dramatic Battle of Adrianople, which saw the major defeat of a Roman army and the death of Valens.
The book is full of very useful maps, that help a lot to understand the situation at hand. Hughes’ way of writing was also easy to read and to understand. As with many other books on the time period, there is a lack of sources that inevitably leads to speculation and a lack of knowledge. I feel that Hughes did a great job at dealing with this and his explanations were very satisfactory. I also really liked that Hughes makes it clear that some of the existing sources are biased, unnecessarily critical or sometimes even wrong. I agree with him that Valens gets too much criticism for things that weren’t fully in his control or for actions that are judged through hindsight. It was also refreshing to hear that the Battle of Adrianople wasn’t as decisive as many historians make it out to be.
All in all a very nice book about a time period of the Roman Empire that I did not know very well. Four stars!
The book is full of very useful maps, that help a lot to understand the situation at hand. Hughes’ way of writing was also easy to read and to understand. As with many other books on the time period, there is a lack of sources that inevitably leads to speculation and a lack of knowledge. I feel that Hughes did a great job at dealing with this and his explanations were very satisfactory. I also really liked that Hughes makes it clear that some of the existing sources are biased, unnecessarily critical or sometimes even wrong. I agree with him that Valens gets too much criticism for things that weren’t fully in his control or for actions that are judged through hindsight. It was also refreshing to hear that the Battle of Adrianople wasn’t as decisive as many historians make it out to be.
All in all a very nice book about a time period of the Roman Empire that I did not know very well. Four stars!
April 1, 2025
Adrianople 😢
May 4, 2015
I've read several of Hughes' books, and they're all very readable and enjoyable. They've definitely been a great introduction to the time period, and the people in particular, and this book was no exception. And like the others, he engages in speculation, which is necessary given the paucity of the sources. In this book, though (and this is possibly because in this case, it's not my first introduction to the subject), he seems to disagree with his sources, at least at one point. Thompson argued that Valens never helped Friitgern, whereas Hughes wholeheartedly accepts the story and the dating. This in itself wouldn't be a problem, except that Hughes cites the Thompson work, but doesn't explain his reasons for disagreeing. However, this is not to disparage either Thompson or Hughes, it's just that in this book, at least, I was aware of more interpretive differences of the evidence.
All in all, a good book, and I especially liked the way he described events in the West and East in parallel, which gave each brother's actions more context.
All in all, a good book, and I especially liked the way he described events in the West and East in parallel, which gave each brother's actions more context.
January 5, 2023
This book is a military biography of two Late Roman imperial brothers: Valentinian I and Valens. A military biography of these two makes sense as Valentinian is famous as the last powerful emperor of the west, who repaired the frontier defenses and campaigned in barbarian lands, while his brother Valens is famous mostly for losing the battle of Adrianople, the battle that allowed the Goths to establish a permanent foothold in the empire. The two lives are not exactly symmetrical or even often connected (events in the east and west rarely intersected militarily), but they are both undoubtedly known for their campaigns.
As with previous Pen & Sword books this one is well illustrated. It has numerous fine diagrams, maps, and illustrations which all help in understanding the events described. It’s even better than Hughes’ previous work. Unlike many of his previous works this one has a good deal on non-military events too, particularly in years where there weren’t many wars. In addition to the Gothic, Persian, Alemannic, Quadi, and Pictish wars, Hughes details the magic trials and building programs of both emperors. Sometimes it feels a bit out of place, but in general I found it aids understanding of these emperors.
This book is divided up in an annalistic format that has each chapter represent a single year. He did something similar in his book on Aetius , although it worked better there. In Aetius he was detailing the career of one man operating in a relatively narrow region. Here he is describing two men on opposite sides of the empire. The annalistic approach feels like a distraction and adds unnecessary confusion. For example, the “barbarian conspiracy” is introduced in 367, then he goes on to discuss the Goths and Persia, and then in the next chapter he returns to Britain and the imperial response. The Armenian and Germanic campaigns are similarly split between multiple chapters. Just as confusingly he is often forced to mention incidents from other years anyway since events don’t happen in isolation. A regional approach like he took with Belisarius would have been far more suitable for this material. Alternatively he could have divided it by the emperor involved.
I wish that Hughes had done what he did previously and focused on a single man whose career has been neglected by modern accounts. Valentinian is famous, but has never had a biography written on him. As a (relatively) well-documented emperor whose career was quite important it is about time he was served with a close study. Valens on the other hand has the excellent Failure of Empire focused on him. Hughes thus feels he has to constantly justify his choice of Valens, and he does this in the usual scholarly way by finding flaws with the previous work. The reason that’s a problem here is that, despite repeated protestations that Lenski’s work is biased, he doesn’t disagree with it that much at all. He claims that Lenski viewed Valens as a bad emperor when that book offered a substantially more nuanced view. A mediocre emperor perhaps. A poor general, but one skilled in many peacetime areas. Hughes’ conclusion says the exact same thing. The result is that a good deal of the sections on Valens feel like a rehash of that book. The sections that are different I usually disagree with. His sections on Armenia are particularly confused with him relying heavily on the largely fantastical work of P’awstos Buzand, whose spelling he alternates between P’awstos and Pavstos (occasionally abbreviated BP) so often that the reader could be forgiven for thinking them two separate people. At any rate, any historian who records dozens of campaigns in half as many years with numbers into the millions cannot be relied on for troop strengths even when the figures he provides seem semi-realistic.
At least Hughes’ work on Valentinian is good. Even though it is fragmented by the Valens material enough gets through that a clear overview of his reign can be understood. Hughes emphasizes correctly that many of Valentinian’s achievements are overstated, but he sees a real core of truth behind later exaggerations. The problem of course, from the biography perspective, is that he is dead by the year 375 leaving us with only Valens for three years. He covers the reign of Gratian (Valentinian’s son) during this time, but from here on Valens absolutely dominates the narrative. The book is of course ruled by the shadow of Adrianople, and Hughes spends an appropriate amount of time setting up the battle. While I wouldn't say he adds much apart from some excellent campaign maps, his account goes beyond being merely satisfactory and serves as quite a good introduction to the battle.
I think that this is my least favorite of all Hughes’ books. The focus on two separate emperors and his annalistic chapters are both questionable decisions, but they prove disastrous when combined. Although still readable, it makes the task of sorting out events needlessly difficult. Unlike his previous books he never offers much insight into the personalities of his protagonists, who remain distant figures throughout. It is in fact slightly inaccurate to call this a military biography of their campaigns since it is more of a history of military activity during their reigns. The material in here is good enough to be worth reading, but it needs some serious reorganizing before I can come to like it.
As with previous Pen & Sword books this one is well illustrated. It has numerous fine diagrams, maps, and illustrations which all help in understanding the events described. It’s even better than Hughes’ previous work. Unlike many of his previous works this one has a good deal on non-military events too, particularly in years where there weren’t many wars. In addition to the Gothic, Persian, Alemannic, Quadi, and Pictish wars, Hughes details the magic trials and building programs of both emperors. Sometimes it feels a bit out of place, but in general I found it aids understanding of these emperors.
This book is divided up in an annalistic format that has each chapter represent a single year. He did something similar in his book on Aetius , although it worked better there. In Aetius he was detailing the career of one man operating in a relatively narrow region. Here he is describing two men on opposite sides of the empire. The annalistic approach feels like a distraction and adds unnecessary confusion. For example, the “barbarian conspiracy” is introduced in 367, then he goes on to discuss the Goths and Persia, and then in the next chapter he returns to Britain and the imperial response. The Armenian and Germanic campaigns are similarly split between multiple chapters. Just as confusingly he is often forced to mention incidents from other years anyway since events don’t happen in isolation. A regional approach like he took with Belisarius would have been far more suitable for this material. Alternatively he could have divided it by the emperor involved.
I wish that Hughes had done what he did previously and focused on a single man whose career has been neglected by modern accounts. Valentinian is famous, but has never had a biography written on him. As a (relatively) well-documented emperor whose career was quite important it is about time he was served with a close study. Valens on the other hand has the excellent Failure of Empire focused on him. Hughes thus feels he has to constantly justify his choice of Valens, and he does this in the usual scholarly way by finding flaws with the previous work. The reason that’s a problem here is that, despite repeated protestations that Lenski’s work is biased, he doesn’t disagree with it that much at all. He claims that Lenski viewed Valens as a bad emperor when that book offered a substantially more nuanced view. A mediocre emperor perhaps. A poor general, but one skilled in many peacetime areas. Hughes’ conclusion says the exact same thing. The result is that a good deal of the sections on Valens feel like a rehash of that book. The sections that are different I usually disagree with. His sections on Armenia are particularly confused with him relying heavily on the largely fantastical work of P’awstos Buzand, whose spelling he alternates between P’awstos and Pavstos (occasionally abbreviated BP) so often that the reader could be forgiven for thinking them two separate people. At any rate, any historian who records dozens of campaigns in half as many years with numbers into the millions cannot be relied on for troop strengths even when the figures he provides seem semi-realistic.
At least Hughes’ work on Valentinian is good. Even though it is fragmented by the Valens material enough gets through that a clear overview of his reign can be understood. Hughes emphasizes correctly that many of Valentinian’s achievements are overstated, but he sees a real core of truth behind later exaggerations. The problem of course, from the biography perspective, is that he is dead by the year 375 leaving us with only Valens for three years. He covers the reign of Gratian (Valentinian’s son) during this time, but from here on Valens absolutely dominates the narrative. The book is of course ruled by the shadow of Adrianople, and Hughes spends an appropriate amount of time setting up the battle. While I wouldn't say he adds much apart from some excellent campaign maps, his account goes beyond being merely satisfactory and serves as quite a good introduction to the battle.
I think that this is my least favorite of all Hughes’ books. The focus on two separate emperors and his annalistic chapters are both questionable decisions, but they prove disastrous when combined. Although still readable, it makes the task of sorting out events needlessly difficult. Unlike his previous books he never offers much insight into the personalities of his protagonists, who remain distant figures throughout. It is in fact slightly inaccurate to call this a military biography of their campaigns since it is more of a history of military activity during their reigns. The material in here is good enough to be worth reading, but it needs some serious reorganizing before I can come to like it.
December 14, 2020
Interesting
I would have to agree with the conclusion proposed by the author on the lives of the two emperors. It is hard to fathom the depths of disagreement about Catholicism and Arianism, but as they say the winners write the story. Interesting and well written book definitely worth a read.
I would have to agree with the conclusion proposed by the author on the lives of the two emperors. It is hard to fathom the depths of disagreement about Catholicism and Arianism, but as they say the winners write the story. Interesting and well written book definitely worth a read.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews