What do you think?
Rate this book
Attila: The Scourge of God
Early fifth century, Europe, and two old friends, now bitter rivals, face each other on the battlefield. Attila, leader of the Huns, has become corrupted by power, while Aetius, last of the great Roman generals, has been ennobled by it. Ross Laidlaw's masterful portrayal of these two figures is based on his extensive knowledge of the period and is written in a narrative style that vividly evokes the brutality, decadence and desperation of the last desperate struggles of the Roman Empire.
438 pages, Paperback
First published October 31, 2004
3 people are currently reading
92 people want to read
About the author
Ross Laidlaw
6 books5 followersRoss Laidlaw is a Scottish writer of historical, thriller and spy fiction.
Laidlaw was born in Aberdeen and now lives in East Lothian. He attended the University of Cambridge and has spent time working and traveling in southern Africa. In 1979, while working as a geography and history teacher at Belhaven Hill School near Dunbar, Laidlaw's first book was released, The Lion is Rampant, receiving significant praise. He has since released five more books with the most recent being Justinian: The Sleepless One which was released in 2010.
Laidlaw was born in Aberdeen and now lives in East Lothian. He attended the University of Cambridge and has spent time working and traveling in southern Africa. In 1979, while working as a geography and history teacher at Belhaven Hill School near Dunbar, Laidlaw's first book was released, The Lion is Rampant, receiving significant praise. He has since released five more books with the most recent being Justinian: The Sleepless One which was released in 2010.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
February 22, 2012
Didn't hit the mark for me.
The premise was sound, I thought - an interesting time in history, chock full of big personalities and momentous events - and Laidlaw seems to have done his research - the author includes a discussion on this topic, and each chapter is opened with a quotation from a primary or secondary source. The characters showed seeds of greatness - Boniface, Aetius, Attila - all three, I got the sense, had the capacity to be compelling, fascinating characters. Even the fictional "everyman" with a good dose of luck on his side, Titus, induced my sympathies, highlighting key dilemmas, and I rooted for him to overcome his obstacles, though I didn't quite find his character compelling. Some of the best moments in the book were when the "ordinary" fictional characters set out on adventures or had challenges to overcome - particularly when there was a strong element of risk involved, such as in Gaius' self-imposed forced march complete with crucial time limit - the tension racheted up significantly and I was tearing through the pages to see what would happen in these chapters.
However, there were issues which I feel held the book back from being as good as it could have been. Whilst I was intrigued by the big names such as Boniface, Aetius and Attila, I didn't feel like they got enough page space, or "screen time" if you will. The novel is told from multiple points of view, not just the above three characters, but also fictional character Titus, and at times various characters in the Eastern Roman Empire, members of Titus' family, peripheral characters in Attila's court or the Western Roman Empire's court, even random characters in Britain and Gaul whose stories filter into what later happens but have no impact or effect on events whatsoever - and thus could have been left out without losing anything for it. I understood that Laidlaw was trying to set the scene so that as a reader I could better comprehend the circumstances of the times and why the wider picture was as it was, but it was unnecessary, and I wish more time had been spent on these three compelling, historical main characters, because as it was I felt like I had only glimpsed these fascinating characters about which I wanted to know much, much more, but never really got inside their heads or behind their motivations. Laidlaw does go to considerable effort to try and get inside Attila's head - but Attila, as a character, naturally presents a problem for any writer. The historical figure's brutal reputation dominates, and whilst I think it should be possible to write a brutal Attila that is still compelling, what if you wanted to write, as Laidlaw seemed to, an Attila whose psychology readers can understand and even feel empathetic towards? Laidlaw's Attila is an aspiring intellectual, risen above his fellow Huns, and regretfully and reluctantly forced into ever more brutal acts by the pressures of his people. This just didn't ring completely true for me; moreover I felt that Attila was too weak and had trouble connecting to such a character.
Another issue was connected to the aforementioned one; not only were there multiple viewpoints throughout the novel, but often the novel changes medium too. The baseline seems to be third person past tense with an omniscient narrator, but at times it switches out. In certain chapters, Titus keeps a first person past tense diary, characters write first person present tense letters to one another or go off into third person past tense flashbacks, a chronicler keeps a travelogue/chronicle of a year in Attila's life (in which he secretly travels across Asia to consult a Chinese sage... fictional, I presume), and a character presents an account of his own tale within Titus' diary - a story within a story within a story. This had the effect of feeling like there was a lack of consistency in the writing style, but it presented another issue. Many of these switch-outs to other formats are used when the novel wishes to jump ahead several months or years, and then the diary or letter or whatever it may be is used as a vehicle to catch the reader up on what has been happening. But it's too obvious and has the feel of ham-handed info-dumping whilst at the same time making the text overall feel choppy and disjointed with only snippets and interludes which we get to experience "firsthand" unfolding before our eyes in the story.
Also, the endings, focusing on first Attila and then Aetius, felt rather anti-climactic and like they just tailed off, not particularly exciting.
4 out of 10.
The premise was sound, I thought - an interesting time in history, chock full of big personalities and momentous events - and Laidlaw seems to have done his research - the author includes a discussion on this topic, and each chapter is opened with a quotation from a primary or secondary source. The characters showed seeds of greatness - Boniface, Aetius, Attila - all three, I got the sense, had the capacity to be compelling, fascinating characters. Even the fictional "everyman" with a good dose of luck on his side, Titus, induced my sympathies, highlighting key dilemmas, and I rooted for him to overcome his obstacles, though I didn't quite find his character compelling. Some of the best moments in the book were when the "ordinary" fictional characters set out on adventures or had challenges to overcome - particularly when there was a strong element of risk involved, such as in Gaius' self-imposed forced march complete with crucial time limit - the tension racheted up significantly and I was tearing through the pages to see what would happen in these chapters.
However, there were issues which I feel held the book back from being as good as it could have been. Whilst I was intrigued by the big names such as Boniface, Aetius and Attila, I didn't feel like they got enough page space, or "screen time" if you will. The novel is told from multiple points of view, not just the above three characters, but also fictional character Titus, and at times various characters in the Eastern Roman Empire, members of Titus' family, peripheral characters in Attila's court or the Western Roman Empire's court, even random characters in Britain and Gaul whose stories filter into what later happens but have no impact or effect on events whatsoever - and thus could have been left out without losing anything for it. I understood that Laidlaw was trying to set the scene so that as a reader I could better comprehend the circumstances of the times and why the wider picture was as it was, but it was unnecessary, and I wish more time had been spent on these three compelling, historical main characters, because as it was I felt like I had only glimpsed these fascinating characters about which I wanted to know much, much more, but never really got inside their heads or behind their motivations. Laidlaw does go to considerable effort to try and get inside Attila's head - but Attila, as a character, naturally presents a problem for any writer. The historical figure's brutal reputation dominates, and whilst I think it should be possible to write a brutal Attila that is still compelling, what if you wanted to write, as Laidlaw seemed to, an Attila whose psychology readers can understand and even feel empathetic towards? Laidlaw's Attila is an aspiring intellectual, risen above his fellow Huns, and regretfully and reluctantly forced into ever more brutal acts by the pressures of his people. This just didn't ring completely true for me; moreover I felt that Attila was too weak and had trouble connecting to such a character.
Another issue was connected to the aforementioned one; not only were there multiple viewpoints throughout the novel, but often the novel changes medium too. The baseline seems to be third person past tense with an omniscient narrator, but at times it switches out. In certain chapters, Titus keeps a first person past tense diary, characters write first person present tense letters to one another or go off into third person past tense flashbacks, a chronicler keeps a travelogue/chronicle of a year in Attila's life (in which he secretly travels across Asia to consult a Chinese sage... fictional, I presume), and a character presents an account of his own tale within Titus' diary - a story within a story within a story. This had the effect of feeling like there was a lack of consistency in the writing style, but it presented another issue. Many of these switch-outs to other formats are used when the novel wishes to jump ahead several months or years, and then the diary or letter or whatever it may be is used as a vehicle to catch the reader up on what has been happening. But it's too obvious and has the feel of ham-handed info-dumping whilst at the same time making the text overall feel choppy and disjointed with only snippets and interludes which we get to experience "firsthand" unfolding before our eyes in the story.
Also, the endings, focusing on first Attila and then Aetius, felt rather anti-climactic and like they just tailed off, not particularly exciting.
4 out of 10.
August 12, 2019
A book that uses source documents, letters, and other historical sources is usually dry and boring. But, Laidlaw used artistic license to fill in the gaps to create a fluid, engaging story. This, of course, means that the story itself is from the Roman point of view of Attila, the fall of the western half of the Roman Empire, and personal relationships among the Romans. There was not much in-depth info about Attila's side of things.
August 7, 2020
When I first started reading this book, I loved it. I liked the tone and I started to get to know the characters - I couldn't wait to see what happened to them.
19 chapters in and I gave up.
As I see it, this author really, really, really wanted to write a historical text, but went down the fictional route instead, but couldn't quite let go of his earlier ambitions! I don't particularity want to be distracted by footnotes - the continual asterisk were just annoying and made me laugh anyway - they usually just gave me the modern name of a roman town - which I'd never heard of anyway ;)
There also wasn't a lot of action - in that when something exciting happened, we skipped quickly on to something else. A perfect example was the showdown between Boniface and Aetius - the two armies come together, they look like they'll fight and then .... we cut to a letter by Titus telling us they won but Boniface died. Huh! How about something to read that will get the heart-racing and eyes racing across the page - I was actually bored.
What the author does love is violence and cruelty - and the point where I gave up was after a heard of bison were stampeded over a cliff and a horse got swept away in a river - ok, things that could have happened, but the casual, indifferent way the author deals with these things just made me angry.
Oh, and Attila, who this book is supposed to be about, has only appeared twice in small cameos.
19 chapters in and I gave up.
As I see it, this author really, really, really wanted to write a historical text, but went down the fictional route instead, but couldn't quite let go of his earlier ambitions! I don't particularity want to be distracted by footnotes - the continual asterisk were just annoying and made me laugh anyway - they usually just gave me the modern name of a roman town - which I'd never heard of anyway ;)
There also wasn't a lot of action - in that when something exciting happened, we skipped quickly on to something else. A perfect example was the showdown between Boniface and Aetius - the two armies come together, they look like they'll fight and then .... we cut to a letter by Titus telling us they won but Boniface died. Huh! How about something to read that will get the heart-racing and eyes racing across the page - I was actually bored.
What the author does love is violence and cruelty - and the point where I gave up was after a heard of bison were stampeded over a cliff and a horse got swept away in a river - ok, things that could have happened, but the casual, indifferent way the author deals with these things just made me angry.
Oh, and Attila, who this book is supposed to be about, has only appeared twice in small cameos.
September 10, 2023
More a general pseudo-history of the first half of the fifth century than a novel, this book was interesting but too disparate and sprawling to be really compelling. Its portrait of Attila as a victim of circumstances is generous but plausible, and I thought Aetius was very well brought to life as the wily, unscrupulous military genius. The writing was a bit jerky and jumpy in places, and full of asides to explain every term and landmark, but still good read overall.
June 8, 2019
At times I felt a bit lost, especially not being so familiar with this part of Roman history. I do however think the author cleverly gives an insight into not only Attila but also the situations for the West and East Roman Empires. It was definatley worth the time it took to read and I feel I learnt quite a lot.
February 15, 2008
AACK! He read ahead and oh man did he have some comments to make about inappropriate materials. YIKES. I have to be more on top of things, and staying ahead of his reading!
Oh man am I having a hard time getting into this book. But, Malachi wants to study about Attila the Hun. We have two we are reading. (He is listening to it on CD and then we talk about it) Then he "earns" time on AGe of Empires to fight as Attila. It worked well when we read Ghengis Khan by Harold Lamb (we really liked that one) But this has been harder. I'll let you know.
Oh man am I having a hard time getting into this book. But, Malachi wants to study about Attila the Hun. We have two we are reading. (He is listening to it on CD and then we talk about it) Then he "earns" time on AGe of Empires to fight as Attila. It worked well when we read Ghengis Khan by Harold Lamb (we really liked that one) But this has been harder. I'll let you know.
August 16, 2011
Note to authors- do not name a book after a character, famous or not- and then have him appear in less than a fourth of the book. The reader is bound to be disappointed- I was. In the first quarter of the book, Attila appears 3 times for maybe a page or two each mention. Even for the balance of the book, I think Attila is maybe in 50 or so pages. Plus the book was on the boring side. 2 stars- and I think I'm being generous.
April 20, 2013
Imperio Romano de Occidente. Siglo V d. C. En las postrimerías del Imperio todos los enemigos rodean a la debilitada presa: Roma. La única carta a jugar es la diplomacia, pero las intrigas internas serán su perdición. Atila es el enemigo de referencia mientras la capital del Imperio es prisionera de su historia.
December 17, 2012
Should have been titled Aetius, as Attila only plays a supporting role. Otherwise, an accessible read on the decline of the Western Roman Empire and it's interactions with the main tribes within Europe.
March 17, 2016
A wonderful tale, well told, of the relationship between the the huns and Rome.
An excellent piece of historic fiction bordering on fact.
A good story well told and a teller of historical fiction that we all should watch.
I have already ordered his next book.
An excellent piece of historic fiction bordering on fact.
A good story well told and a teller of historical fiction that we all should watch.
I have already ordered his next book.
February 16, 2010
Great story! I'd read it again!
January 19, 2011
Highly recommended. This book has made me want to research the fall of the Roman Empire and the early dark ages further. Enjoyable, easy to read, gripping, informative - what more could you ask for?
August 13, 2016
Really more a history of the fall of the Roman Empire..interesting
December 18, 2012
enjoyable historical fiction
July 10, 2016
Книга довольно интересна для визуализации событий и персонажей эпохи. Интересен общий концепт автора: упущенная возможность создания устойчиво��о симбиоза Романии и Гуннии.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews