What do you think?
Rate this book
The Last Roman Trilogy #1
Vengeance
Fifth century of the Byzantium Empire. Flavius Belisaurius is son of the Governor of Dorostorum City, and his father has two goals: to keep out the barbarians and to expose the deep roots of secular and ecclesiastical corruption. Seeking to prevent a raid, the Governor enlists the help of the powerful magnate, Gaius Donatus. Donatus's corruption is widespread but his support is crucial to win the battle. But Donatus betrays this trust and Belisaurius Junior witnesses the death of his father and the irretrievable tarnishing of his reputation.With Belisaurius's life changed for good he swears vengeance on the man that betrayed his father and begins a journey from which there is no virtuous way back.
352 pages, Paperback
First published June 15, 2014
15 people are currently reading
156 people want to read
About the author
Jack Ludlow
19 books61 followersJACK LUDLOW is the pen name of writer David Donachie, who was born in Edinburgh in 1944. He has had a variety of jobs, including selling everything from business machines to soap. He has always had an abiding interest in the naval history of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, which he drew upon for the many novels he has set in that period. The author of a number of bestselling books, he now lives in Deal with his wife, fellow A&B author Sarah Grazebrook.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
January 25, 2016
Before Belisarius became the famous general that recaptured much of the western Roman Empire for the emperor Justinian, he was a youth on the cusp of manhood in Durostorum (now called Silistra in Bulgaria), an outpost of the Eastern Roman Empire on the southern shore of the Danube River. There, according to the novel, he was trained in the arts of war and honor under the watchful eye of his father, Decimus, a senior centurion commanding the local imperial cohort, and his three older brothers.
Historical note - Although Belisarius was born and raised in this area, little is known of his parentage or family. Some scholars claim Belisarius was born of peasant stock. But in his 1829 biography, "The Life of Belisarius", Earl Philip Henry Stanhope disagrees:
"Some modern historians deny Belisarius the advantage of liberal studies, and place his birth amongst the peasants of his province. Yet from two passages in Procopius, which have not hitherto been observed, it may be concluded that he was of noble blood, and inherited a patrimonial fortune. He is mentioned as possessing an estate near Constantinople in the year before the African expedition, when, having but very lately been appointed to any high or lucrative station, he could hardly have derived from it the means of purchase. Nor could he have acquired this property by marriage, since his wife's first husband had died poor. Besides the Greek word used by Procopius is almost always applied exclusively to that property which descends by hereditary right." - Earl Philip Henry Stanhope, The Life of Belisarius
Stanhope further points out that Procopius quotes a letter between Pharas, a Herulian prince to King Gelimer of the Vandals and Alans saying "should you consider it disgraceful to be a subject of Justinian with Belisarius and myself? Though we also, like you, are of noble birth, we glory in obeying so magnanimous a sovereign." - Procopius, Vandal. lib.ii.c.6
Although Belisarius was taught the importance of honor in his noble household, it was no longer an attribute deemed essential by a corrupt senator, Senuthius Vicinus, who controls most of the land around Durostorum and commands the local militia. When Decimus discovers the extent of the senator's crimes and requests a formal imperial investigation, the senator connives with the Huns to put an end to Belisarius' meddlings. The resulting treachery wipes out all of the Belisarius men except for 15-year-old Flavius who must flee to escape a horrific death on the cross planned by the senator and his henchman, the local Monophysite bishop.
Followers of Monophysitism held that Jesus Christ had only a single nature which was either purely divine or a synthesis of divine and human. Chalcedonian followers, including the Belisarius family and many others in Thrace and Illyricum, believed that Christ had two distinct natures, one divine and one human. Unfortunately for the Chalcedonians, the reigning emperor Anastasius I (who reigned from 491 - 518 CE), decreed formal support for the Monophysite position after riots of the populace in Constantinople in 512 CE. Although this may seem like a minor issue of interpretation to us, it caused a major schism in the developing Christianity of the early 6th century and resulted in a rebellion led by Flavius Vitalianus, a native of Moesia of possibly mixed Roman and barbarian descent, who had become a senior commander in Thrace, probably comes foederatorum.
Flavius' father had kept his family's religious position to himself, under the circumstances, like many other senior officials of the empire, including his old comrade-in-arms, Justinus, who now served as the commander of the emperor's bodyguard at the palace in the capital city. It is Justinus who had been communicating with Decimus about the criminal activities of Senuthius, so Flavius decides he must somehow make his way to Constantinople and convince Justinus to help him avenge his family.
After a hair-raising escape across the Danube and capture by the barbarian Sklaveni tribe, Flavius finally meets up with Vitalian's army marching on Constantinople. Despite his age, Flavius' military skills bring him to the attention of his superior officers and he soon finds himself a decanus - the leader of a contubernium, a squad of eight legionaries living in the same tent.
Vitalian's army, numbering some 50,000-60,000 men, was composed of both untrained peasants and disaffected imperial troops from the provinces of Thrace, Moesia II and Scythia Minor who were outraged that Anastatius and his very unpopular magister militum per Thracias, Hypatius (Anastasius' nephew) had refused to supply the foederati with "annonae" - rations and provisions.
How 5th-6th century CE emperors got away with not provisioning their troops is a mystery to me but it happened frequently in the collapsing Western Empire and must have not been considered disastrous in the Eastern Empire at this time either. I recently took an online course through FutureLearn entitled "Hadrian's Wall: Life on the Roman Frontier" and learned that often troops in Britain towards the end of the occupation there were not paid for months at a time. (Augustus must have been churning in his grave!) Although troops were fed, I wondered what happened to their "unofficial" families that lived outside the fort if no money for support was forthcoming. Anway, back to our story.
When the army arrives at Constantinople, the soldiers are dismayed by the city's formidable walls as Vitalian has no siege equipment. But, Anastasius, fearful of a restive populace within the city, offers to negotiate. Vitalian demands the restoration of the Chalcedonian orthodoxy and settlement of the Thracian army's grievances. Anastasius offers to restore Chalcedonian bishops to their parishes and to settle the army's grievances. As proof of his sincerity the emperor provides lavish gifts to Vitalian's officers.
But all is not as it seems and young Belisarius soon becomes entangled in an imperial web of intrigue orchestrated by Justinus' shrewd and calculating nephew, Flavius Petrus Sabbatius, who would become known to history as Justinianus Augustus - Justinian I.
Ludlow has once more done a masterful job of bringing this tumultuous period of Roman history to life. He crafts an honorable but conflicted hero in Belisarius, a respectable though illiterate commander in Justinus and a suitably conniving and ambitious future emperor in Petrus. Although Vitalian is mostly in the background, Ludlow carefully structures his story around the real events of Vitalian's rebellion and provides enough background on the religious controversy to make the causes of the rebellion understandable without allowing theology to dominate the storyline, no mean accomplishment during this period of Byzantine politics.
I'm very much looking forward to continuing this trilogy with "The Last Roman: Honour".
Historical note - Although Belisarius was born and raised in this area, little is known of his parentage or family. Some scholars claim Belisarius was born of peasant stock. But in his 1829 biography, "The Life of Belisarius", Earl Philip Henry Stanhope disagrees:
"Some modern historians deny Belisarius the advantage of liberal studies, and place his birth amongst the peasants of his province. Yet from two passages in Procopius, which have not hitherto been observed, it may be concluded that he was of noble blood, and inherited a patrimonial fortune. He is mentioned as possessing an estate near Constantinople in the year before the African expedition, when, having but very lately been appointed to any high or lucrative station, he could hardly have derived from it the means of purchase. Nor could he have acquired this property by marriage, since his wife's first husband had died poor. Besides the Greek word used by Procopius is almost always applied exclusively to that property which descends by hereditary right." - Earl Philip Henry Stanhope, The Life of Belisarius
Stanhope further points out that Procopius quotes a letter between Pharas, a Herulian prince to King Gelimer of the Vandals and Alans saying "should you consider it disgraceful to be a subject of Justinian with Belisarius and myself? Though we also, like you, are of noble birth, we glory in obeying so magnanimous a sovereign." - Procopius, Vandal. lib.ii.c.6
Although Belisarius was taught the importance of honor in his noble household, it was no longer an attribute deemed essential by a corrupt senator, Senuthius Vicinus, who controls most of the land around Durostorum and commands the local militia. When Decimus discovers the extent of the senator's crimes and requests a formal imperial investigation, the senator connives with the Huns to put an end to Belisarius' meddlings. The resulting treachery wipes out all of the Belisarius men except for 15-year-old Flavius who must flee to escape a horrific death on the cross planned by the senator and his henchman, the local Monophysite bishop.
Followers of Monophysitism held that Jesus Christ had only a single nature which was either purely divine or a synthesis of divine and human. Chalcedonian followers, including the Belisarius family and many others in Thrace and Illyricum, believed that Christ had two distinct natures, one divine and one human. Unfortunately for the Chalcedonians, the reigning emperor Anastasius I (who reigned from 491 - 518 CE), decreed formal support for the Monophysite position after riots of the populace in Constantinople in 512 CE. Although this may seem like a minor issue of interpretation to us, it caused a major schism in the developing Christianity of the early 6th century and resulted in a rebellion led by Flavius Vitalianus, a native of Moesia of possibly mixed Roman and barbarian descent, who had become a senior commander in Thrace, probably comes foederatorum.
Flavius' father had kept his family's religious position to himself, under the circumstances, like many other senior officials of the empire, including his old comrade-in-arms, Justinus, who now served as the commander of the emperor's bodyguard at the palace in the capital city. It is Justinus who had been communicating with Decimus about the criminal activities of Senuthius, so Flavius decides he must somehow make his way to Constantinople and convince Justinus to help him avenge his family.
After a hair-raising escape across the Danube and capture by the barbarian Sklaveni tribe, Flavius finally meets up with Vitalian's army marching on Constantinople. Despite his age, Flavius' military skills bring him to the attention of his superior officers and he soon finds himself a decanus - the leader of a contubernium, a squad of eight legionaries living in the same tent.
Vitalian's army, numbering some 50,000-60,000 men, was composed of both untrained peasants and disaffected imperial troops from the provinces of Thrace, Moesia II and Scythia Minor who were outraged that Anastatius and his very unpopular magister militum per Thracias, Hypatius (Anastasius' nephew) had refused to supply the foederati with "annonae" - rations and provisions.
How 5th-6th century CE emperors got away with not provisioning their troops is a mystery to me but it happened frequently in the collapsing Western Empire and must have not been considered disastrous in the Eastern Empire at this time either. I recently took an online course through FutureLearn entitled "Hadrian's Wall: Life on the Roman Frontier" and learned that often troops in Britain towards the end of the occupation there were not paid for months at a time. (Augustus must have been churning in his grave!) Although troops were fed, I wondered what happened to their "unofficial" families that lived outside the fort if no money for support was forthcoming. Anway, back to our story.
When the army arrives at Constantinople, the soldiers are dismayed by the city's formidable walls as Vitalian has no siege equipment. But, Anastasius, fearful of a restive populace within the city, offers to negotiate. Vitalian demands the restoration of the Chalcedonian orthodoxy and settlement of the Thracian army's grievances. Anastasius offers to restore Chalcedonian bishops to their parishes and to settle the army's grievances. As proof of his sincerity the emperor provides lavish gifts to Vitalian's officers.
But all is not as it seems and young Belisarius soon becomes entangled in an imperial web of intrigue orchestrated by Justinus' shrewd and calculating nephew, Flavius Petrus Sabbatius, who would become known to history as Justinianus Augustus - Justinian I.
Ludlow has once more done a masterful job of bringing this tumultuous period of Roman history to life. He crafts an honorable but conflicted hero in Belisarius, a respectable though illiterate commander in Justinus and a suitably conniving and ambitious future emperor in Petrus. Although Vitalian is mostly in the background, Ludlow carefully structures his story around the real events of Vitalian's rebellion and provides enough background on the religious controversy to make the causes of the rebellion understandable without allowing theology to dominate the storyline, no mean accomplishment during this period of Byzantine politics.
I'm very much looking forward to continuing this trilogy with "The Last Roman: Honour".
February 5, 2018
I'm finding it difficult to put a rating on this book. I liked that it is set in the fifth century, at a time when the Western Roman Empire has fallen and the Eastern half is struggling to deal with conflicts over religious doctrine as well as the usual "barbarian" raids from outside its borders. This period seems to often be ignored by authors, so it's refreshing to find one set in this era.
The plot seems a little predictable - corrupt character doesn't want corruption being uncovered, murder ensues and revenge is sworn. Add to that, our hero is only a teenager and suddenly forced to assume responsibilities he's not really ready for. Fairly standard stuff, but readable enough. The main characters are well-drawn and we can sympathise with them.
What really lets the book down though, is the author's style of writing - well, more the punctuating. Or randomness of punctuating, and some of the word ordering is so clunky it had me checking to see if this was a translation. It doesn't read very easily. Sentences either run on and on with no breaks where you would expect a comma to break up a sentence, or they place commas in seemingly random, places where it doesn't seem there should be, any. I found it annoying and it left me wondering whether the novel had been proof-read at all.
The ending feels a little rushed and the side plot with Apollonia seems to serve little purpose. Ends are wrapped up hastily as if the author was rushing to meet a deadline - you feel there was more to be explained or explored.
The book started out well enough, but ended up being a frustration. If I could give it 1.5 stars, that would be more accurate, but I'll be generous and award it 2.
The plot seems a little predictable - corrupt character doesn't want corruption being uncovered, murder ensues and revenge is sworn. Add to that, our hero is only a teenager and suddenly forced to assume responsibilities he's not really ready for. Fairly standard stuff, but readable enough. The main characters are well-drawn and we can sympathise with them.
What really lets the book down though, is the author's style of writing - well, more the punctuating. Or randomness of punctuating, and some of the word ordering is so clunky it had me checking to see if this was a translation. It doesn't read very easily. Sentences either run on and on with no breaks where you would expect a comma to break up a sentence, or they place commas in seemingly random, places where it doesn't seem there should be, any. I found it annoying and it left me wondering whether the novel had been proof-read at all.
The ending feels a little rushed and the side plot with Apollonia seems to serve little purpose. Ends are wrapped up hastily as if the author was rushing to meet a deadline - you feel there was more to be explained or explored.
The book started out well enough, but ended up being a frustration. If I could give it 1.5 stars, that would be more accurate, but I'll be generous and award it 2.
September 1, 2023
DNF about 100 pages in. I just can’t stand the writing style. The author plays a bit fast and loose with the commas and I think he must have had to reach a certain target for commas and colons to have his book published. The way sentences are constructed just boggles the mind and sometimes just don’t seem to make sense. Everything seems to have a really unnecessarily long drawn out way of being written and phrases are lumped together strangely with commas all over the place and it’s puzzling to figure out wtf is going on like in the last bit of this quote from the book:
‘Even if his voice could have carried, it would have been useless for Flavius to try to shout out and state that panic was unnecessary, to say the Sklaveni were not on their heels and the garrison, soon to be joined by the men retained by the local landowners to protect their own property, had set out to impede any advance on Dorostorum.’
Or this lengthy mouthful of words and commas:
‘Ohannes insisted on one last act before departing, which was to drag the bodies of the now dead thieves, as well as that of the murdered soldier left on guard, to be left at each entrance to the house; one outside the kitchen entrance, another by the gate to the stables, both relocked from the inside, the third outside the main atrium doorway, it being hoped this would give pause to anyone else thinking of robbing the place.’
As far as the actual story is concerned I was tempted to push on through as the setting is really interesting and I haven’t read a Roman book set this late on in the empire before. The issues proposed in the book with Christianity being more common place is fascinating as well. I love a revenge tale and it might be a good one, I can’t say but as far as I got I didn’t feel super connected to the main character but I liked Ohannes the grizzled veteran.
The main character Flavius was thrust into this situation dealing with the corrupt bishop and I found him to be acting way too intelligently and mature for his years in comparison to the same kid in the opening pages of the book in the classroom. He just didn’t seem all that believable to me as a character.
I could probably power on past the difficult writing style but I don’t want to read a whole trilogy and not have a good time.
‘Even if his voice could have carried, it would have been useless for Flavius to try to shout out and state that panic was unnecessary, to say the Sklaveni were not on their heels and the garrison, soon to be joined by the men retained by the local landowners to protect their own property, had set out to impede any advance on Dorostorum.’
Or this lengthy mouthful of words and commas:
‘Ohannes insisted on one last act before departing, which was to drag the bodies of the now dead thieves, as well as that of the murdered soldier left on guard, to be left at each entrance to the house; one outside the kitchen entrance, another by the gate to the stables, both relocked from the inside, the third outside the main atrium doorway, it being hoped this would give pause to anyone else thinking of robbing the place.’
As far as the actual story is concerned I was tempted to push on through as the setting is really interesting and I haven’t read a Roman book set this late on in the empire before. The issues proposed in the book with Christianity being more common place is fascinating as well. I love a revenge tale and it might be a good one, I can’t say but as far as I got I didn’t feel super connected to the main character but I liked Ohannes the grizzled veteran.
The main character Flavius was thrust into this situation dealing with the corrupt bishop and I found him to be acting way too intelligently and mature for his years in comparison to the same kid in the opening pages of the book in the classroom. He just didn’t seem all that believable to me as a character.
I could probably power on past the difficult writing style but I don’t want to read a whole trilogy and not have a good time.
February 8, 2020
I personally found the premise of this book very much the same as many books I read about revenge - it's a typical tale of wrongs done and vengeance desired. The reality of things would be that revenge is just never gonna happen every time we're wronged, it just happens to much in my experience. Still, the dream is there in all our minds every time someone does something bad to us. With age that simply fades into an expectation of being hurt again.
A child's view may be different, but the reality isn't any different!
I'm not sure I enjoyed this as much as I could have. Firstly as I found the subject matter a little overdone and stale, and secondly as the characterization was dry - I don't know how longterm slaves taught their young charges, but I would have thought it would have been much like a parent, they being more involved in the child's upbringing than their upper class parents!
A child's view may be different, but the reality isn't any different!
I'm not sure I enjoyed this as much as I could have. Firstly as I found the subject matter a little overdone and stale, and secondly as the characterization was dry - I don't know how longterm slaves taught their young charges, but I would have thought it would have been much like a parent, they being more involved in the child's upbringing than their upper class parents!
September 11, 2024
This is between 3 - 4 stars for me. There are some slow bits and in other places it went too quickly, but got better as I went through the book.
I liked the main character and wanted to know what had happened and so finished it. Overall I enjoyed it and found reading about the Roman Empire interesting.
I liked the main character and wanted to know what had happened and so finished it. Overall I enjoyed it and found reading about the Roman Empire interesting.
December 12, 2016
During the times of the ancient Roman Empire, a young boy fights for justice when his father and brothers are killed.
I thought the story was good but I found the writing a bit long winded and in some places the plot was a little confusing / rushed.
I thought the story was good but I found the writing a bit long winded and in some places the plot was a little confusing / rushed.
August 29, 2019
Stirring story.
December 3, 2020
ok read , nothing special
August 22, 2023
Well written saga of Belisarius' beginnings and conspiracies in 6th century Byzantine empire.
December 28, 2015
I love books set in Roman times. This book did not disappoint. It had the great political intrigues that were prevalent in that time period. It had characters that I loved and characters that I hated. It was very well written. The downsides were that there were no strong women characters; just a girl that Flavius misused, and the never seen Mother. The women were either bad girls or good girls. No women with any depth. I hope that changes in the next novels in the trilogy, when Flavius is all grown up. All in all, it was a good book.
March 29, 2015
Good read. Enjoyed the late-Empire setting.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews