What do you think?
Rate this book
Rome in the Dark Ages
After the removal of the last Western emperor from the Imperial throne in 476, Rome was catapulted into 500 years of war & confusion, a period characterized by repeated barbarian invasions, by political turmoil & doctrinal struggles between East & West, by the emergence of secular power beyond the Alps & by great changes in the role of the papacy. The author's analysis of the influences at work in Rome during this period includes the latest scholarly research on this obscure period. He draws on both contemporary chronicles & letters & modern sources to trace the ebb & flow of Roman history from the comparative peace of the Ostrogoth King Theodoric's rule in the 5th century to the coronation of the Saxon King Otto as emperor in the 10th century, which ushered in a new era in Christian Europe. He presents a graphic picture of the devastation of Rome at the hands of successive waves of marauders.Rome and the Ostrogoths The Gothic Wars The Rome of Gregory the GreatThe Roman church and clergy Rome and the Byzantine EmpireRome of the pilgrims Rome and the LombardsRome and the Franks Rome and the Carolingian EmpireRome and the Dynasts
- GenresHistoryNonfiction
324 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1970
1 person is currently reading
45 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
January 7, 2021
The Dark Ages were traditionally the years from 450 to 1000. The term has fallen out of favor, and historians today feel obliged to point out that it is highly misleading. Nevertheless, these centuries are still largely ignored in the rush to move on to the High Middle Ages. This book, originally published in 1970, still uses “Dark Ages” unapologetically, but treats the times with the detail and interest they deserve.
After the end of Roman rule in 476 Italy fell under the Ostrogoths, who ruled well considering the chaos of the final decades of the Roman emperors. “Occasional crises of harvest or maladministration apart, Ostrogothic Italy was prosperous and peaceful. Furthermore, under Theodoric Italy had again assumed the leadership of the western Mediterranean….His rule was firm over southern France and extended into modern Austria and Yugoslavia. Rome could, vicariously, again regard itself as ruler of the West after the humiliations of the previous century.” (p. 32)
The Eastern Roman empire at this time was still strong and expanding, both eastward through Anatolia and north through the Balkans to the Hungarian plain. It maintained the fiction that it still ruled over Europe to the Atlantic Ocean, but to the extent that it did so it was through diplomacy and military alliances with the barbarian kings. Italy, though, was close enough to influence directly and too valuable to let go, so from its base of operations in Ravenna armies were sent to wrest control back from the Ostrogoths.
The result was the Gothic Wars, from 535-554, in which the Italian peninsula was repeatedly devastated by the Byzantine and Ostrogoth armies. Much of what had remained of Roman civic life was destroyed, and the towns were reduced to squalid settlements barely able to feed themselves. Under Justinian the Byzantines briefly reconquered all of Italy, and much of North Africa, but withdrew their forces and then lost most of their conquests within a few years. In 568 the Lombards, a Germanic tribe, entered Italy and overran most of the country, leaving Constantinople with only parts of the south, including Rome, as well as Sicily and Sardinia.
At this time the pope was still recognized as the leader of the Christian world, and Rome held its special spiritual significance, but papal power was religious and political. The popes nominally ruled over vast stretches of territory, but they did not have armies of their own and were forced to rely on the dukes who controlled nearby lands, who were often incompetent, untrustworthy, and greedy, continually encroaching on the papal fiefs. The walls of Rome could hold off invaders so long as help was coming, but the surrounding lands were then open to plunder and destruction.
The Lombards would remain until 774, when the Franks, at the request of the pope, entered Italy and conquered their territory. The papacy had a more congenial relationship with the Franks, successfully using them as protectors, while trying, with varying degrees of success to prevent themselves from becoming vassals of the king. However, in attempting to retain their independence the papacy ended up being taken over by the local Roman nobility, and became the prize of whichever local mafia faction was strongest at that moment. Thus started some of the darkest days of the Church of Rome, when corruption, nepotism, and venality ruled the Vatican. It even became a tradition that when a pope died, the citizens of Rome thought it their privilege to pillage the Lateran Palace of its wealth right down to stealing all of its furniture.
Through all of this relations with the Eastern Church were becoming more and more strained as liturgical beliefs drifted apart. Popes and Patriarchs began pronouncing anathemas on one another, and it was just a matter of time before the split became permanent.
Yet somehow, through the worst of it, even when the pope was worthless there were always pious, patient, determined church leaders who oversaw teaching, canon law, and diplomacy. “The Roman clergy formed a tight corporation with a common identity, a common interest and common privileges—the word ‘cleros’ retained its Greek connotation of a chosen group apart. Entry into the clerical ranks provided the sole opportunity for the realization of talent and ambition—whether spiritual or secular—and for learning.” (p. 109)
Slowly, order was reestablished, commerce expanded, universities were founded, and the structures were put in place that would lead to the High Middle Ages and then to the Renaissance. Times were hard for everyone, with ever-present threats of war, pandemic, and natural disaster, but somehow, despite everything, civilization refused to die, and the memory of Rome as it once was, the great city which had ruled the world, became the focus of the men who would finally shine light on the dark times.
After the end of Roman rule in 476 Italy fell under the Ostrogoths, who ruled well considering the chaos of the final decades of the Roman emperors. “Occasional crises of harvest or maladministration apart, Ostrogothic Italy was prosperous and peaceful. Furthermore, under Theodoric Italy had again assumed the leadership of the western Mediterranean….His rule was firm over southern France and extended into modern Austria and Yugoslavia. Rome could, vicariously, again regard itself as ruler of the West after the humiliations of the previous century.” (p. 32)
The Eastern Roman empire at this time was still strong and expanding, both eastward through Anatolia and north through the Balkans to the Hungarian plain. It maintained the fiction that it still ruled over Europe to the Atlantic Ocean, but to the extent that it did so it was through diplomacy and military alliances with the barbarian kings. Italy, though, was close enough to influence directly and too valuable to let go, so from its base of operations in Ravenna armies were sent to wrest control back from the Ostrogoths.
The result was the Gothic Wars, from 535-554, in which the Italian peninsula was repeatedly devastated by the Byzantine and Ostrogoth armies. Much of what had remained of Roman civic life was destroyed, and the towns were reduced to squalid settlements barely able to feed themselves. Under Justinian the Byzantines briefly reconquered all of Italy, and much of North Africa, but withdrew their forces and then lost most of their conquests within a few years. In 568 the Lombards, a Germanic tribe, entered Italy and overran most of the country, leaving Constantinople with only parts of the south, including Rome, as well as Sicily and Sardinia.
At this time the pope was still recognized as the leader of the Christian world, and Rome held its special spiritual significance, but papal power was religious and political. The popes nominally ruled over vast stretches of territory, but they did not have armies of their own and were forced to rely on the dukes who controlled nearby lands, who were often incompetent, untrustworthy, and greedy, continually encroaching on the papal fiefs. The walls of Rome could hold off invaders so long as help was coming, but the surrounding lands were then open to plunder and destruction.
The Lombards would remain until 774, when the Franks, at the request of the pope, entered Italy and conquered their territory. The papacy had a more congenial relationship with the Franks, successfully using them as protectors, while trying, with varying degrees of success to prevent themselves from becoming vassals of the king. However, in attempting to retain their independence the papacy ended up being taken over by the local Roman nobility, and became the prize of whichever local mafia faction was strongest at that moment. Thus started some of the darkest days of the Church of Rome, when corruption, nepotism, and venality ruled the Vatican. It even became a tradition that when a pope died, the citizens of Rome thought it their privilege to pillage the Lateran Palace of its wealth right down to stealing all of its furniture.
Through all of this relations with the Eastern Church were becoming more and more strained as liturgical beliefs drifted apart. Popes and Patriarchs began pronouncing anathemas on one another, and it was just a matter of time before the split became permanent.
Yet somehow, through the worst of it, even when the pope was worthless there were always pious, patient, determined church leaders who oversaw teaching, canon law, and diplomacy. “The Roman clergy formed a tight corporation with a common identity, a common interest and common privileges—the word ‘cleros’ retained its Greek connotation of a chosen group apart. Entry into the clerical ranks provided the sole opportunity for the realization of talent and ambition—whether spiritual or secular—and for learning.” (p. 109)
Slowly, order was reestablished, commerce expanded, universities were founded, and the structures were put in place that would lead to the High Middle Ages and then to the Renaissance. Times were hard for everyone, with ever-present threats of war, pandemic, and natural disaster, but somehow, despite everything, civilization refused to die, and the memory of Rome as it once was, the great city which had ruled the world, became the focus of the men who would finally shine light on the dark times.
March 20, 2021
The author of this book included an Afterword. In the Afterword he states that when he started this book he didn't intend it as a work of scholarship. His intent was that it be an entertaining book and "anecdotal and narrative rather than analytical" and "not intended to be a history of the Roman Church or the papacy" though he admits that that is what dominates the book. After reading this my jaw dropped. To begin with the author is a scholar and if this book is an example of what he considers entertainment then this poor man leads a very sheltered life. I have had dental procedures that were more entertaining. As for not desiring the work to be analytical, practically the entire Afterword is analytical containing the author's opinions about various events and people covered in this history and it is a history. My 2 star rating is an indication of my disappointment in this book. I would rate it at one star but it does have value though that value is limited. As for it not being a work of scholarship well I can't imagine anyone but another scholar having the patience and discipline to wade through this book. While it is only 327 pages of text it will require a very slow reading in order to make sense of what is being said and to derive any value from it.
To begin with the title is somewhat deceptive. I was hoping for a history of life in Rome during the period known as the Dark Ages. I find social histories of the unknown people that lived through a historic period to especially interesting. Any such history in this book is only given casual mention and without detail. Further, this book is not simply about Rome but is about Rome, Italy, Constantinople and Southern and Central Europe between the 5th to the 10th centuries. This illustrates another problem for this book. At 327 pages of text the book is too small to cover 500 years of history over such an expanse of territory and in volatile times. In order to accomplish this treatment an author must either treat the history very superficially or narrow the scope to a particular issue. This author does something entirely different. From almost the first page the reader is subject to an avalanche of names, titles, dates, events, and more. The reader will find it necessary to struggle to the surface to catch their breathe under the weight of information jammed into these pages. Keeping the information straight let alone digesting it will be a chore of great difficulty not to mention fatiguing. I will admit that this book would be a great cure for anybody's insomnia.
What will also slow the reader down is the clumsiness of the author's writing. Some reviewers have defended this work saying that it was published in 1971 and should be excused for not meeting contemporary standards. I don't know what that means but if I had turned in a paper during high school written like this book my teacher would have needed more than one red pencil to highlight the errors. I imagine the author writes like he speaks and that's a problem. There are frequent run on sentences peppered with commas, semicolons, and colons to the point that it is almost impossible to follow what is being said. On top of that the author is careless with his use of pronouns. His sentences, usually run ons, may be discussing more than one person and sometimes three or more and then the author's next sentence begins with a pronoun and you have no idea to whom that pronoun refers. Reading this book will wear you out if you don't toss it in the trash before reaching that point. Again, I don't know what was meant by "contemporary standards" but I don't think that defense will be enough to excuse the writing in this book. What this book seemed to be to me is the totality of the author's research collected in a roughly chronological structure and strung together without purpose or goal and that is sad because there was value here.
The time and place of this history makes it almost a requirement that it be a history of the Catholic Church or at the very least the Church should be a large part of the narrative. What I came away with was a better understanding of how the Church and the papacy evolved from being strictly spiritual in nature and became temporal powers. The book illustrates what happened that brought the Papal States into being and made the pope a king as well as the spiritual leader of the Western world. It also gives you an appreciation of how the concept of the "Divine Right of Kings" came into being as well. What it comes down to is that this history was too big and the book is too small and the goal of the book too unfocused. The result is a disappointment but there is a lot of research material that a better scholar might find valuable.
To begin with the title is somewhat deceptive. I was hoping for a history of life in Rome during the period known as the Dark Ages. I find social histories of the unknown people that lived through a historic period to especially interesting. Any such history in this book is only given casual mention and without detail. Further, this book is not simply about Rome but is about Rome, Italy, Constantinople and Southern and Central Europe between the 5th to the 10th centuries. This illustrates another problem for this book. At 327 pages of text the book is too small to cover 500 years of history over such an expanse of territory and in volatile times. In order to accomplish this treatment an author must either treat the history very superficially or narrow the scope to a particular issue. This author does something entirely different. From almost the first page the reader is subject to an avalanche of names, titles, dates, events, and more. The reader will find it necessary to struggle to the surface to catch their breathe under the weight of information jammed into these pages. Keeping the information straight let alone digesting it will be a chore of great difficulty not to mention fatiguing. I will admit that this book would be a great cure for anybody's insomnia.
What will also slow the reader down is the clumsiness of the author's writing. Some reviewers have defended this work saying that it was published in 1971 and should be excused for not meeting contemporary standards. I don't know what that means but if I had turned in a paper during high school written like this book my teacher would have needed more than one red pencil to highlight the errors. I imagine the author writes like he speaks and that's a problem. There are frequent run on sentences peppered with commas, semicolons, and colons to the point that it is almost impossible to follow what is being said. On top of that the author is careless with his use of pronouns. His sentences, usually run ons, may be discussing more than one person and sometimes three or more and then the author's next sentence begins with a pronoun and you have no idea to whom that pronoun refers. Reading this book will wear you out if you don't toss it in the trash before reaching that point. Again, I don't know what was meant by "contemporary standards" but I don't think that defense will be enough to excuse the writing in this book. What this book seemed to be to me is the totality of the author's research collected in a roughly chronological structure and strung together without purpose or goal and that is sad because there was value here.
The time and place of this history makes it almost a requirement that it be a history of the Catholic Church or at the very least the Church should be a large part of the narrative. What I came away with was a better understanding of how the Church and the papacy evolved from being strictly spiritual in nature and became temporal powers. The book illustrates what happened that brought the Papal States into being and made the pope a king as well as the spiritual leader of the Western world. It also gives you an appreciation of how the concept of the "Divine Right of Kings" came into being as well. What it comes down to is that this history was too big and the book is too small and the goal of the book too unfocused. The result is a disappointment but there is a lot of research material that a better scholar might find valuable.
March 12, 2014
That this is a book which can be considered old fashioned is clear from the start - it seems to be customary for historians dealing with Western Europe during the period between 400 and 1000 CE to start with a disclaimer about the accuracy of the term "Dark Ages", and there is nothing like that here. What we have is a series of chapters, each treating a particular period in the history of Rome as the city was transformed from the centre of a temporal empire to the centre of a religious one - though this process is by no means completed by the end of the book. The style is narrative, and concentrates on the political aspects of the development of the medieval papacy.
I would have been interested to see more social history - how did the life of the average citizen change in these six hundred years? There are one or two problems with the book, too, which make it less interesting or less readable. There are few dates in the text, which can make it hard to follow how quickly time is passing; as the most important indicators of this are the names of the reigning popes, or of Byzantine or the early Holy Roman Emperors, tables showing the succession of these rulers would have been very helpful indeed to have alongside the story. There are some inconsistencies about naming, in particular in the maps at the beginning of the book, some of which use modern names while others stick with the classical ones. The final chapter, added for the 1990s edition, is billed as bringing the book up to date with the latest scholarship, but instead reads more like a brief summary of what the reader has just finished.
So while this is a subject of some interest - as the influence of the medieval papacy played an important part in a wide range of historical events - this is not a hugely useful treatment of it.
I would have been interested to see more social history - how did the life of the average citizen change in these six hundred years? There are one or two problems with the book, too, which make it less interesting or less readable. There are few dates in the text, which can make it hard to follow how quickly time is passing; as the most important indicators of this are the names of the reigning popes, or of Byzantine or the early Holy Roman Emperors, tables showing the succession of these rulers would have been very helpful indeed to have alongside the story. There are some inconsistencies about naming, in particular in the maps at the beginning of the book, some of which use modern names while others stick with the classical ones. The final chapter, added for the 1990s edition, is billed as bringing the book up to date with the latest scholarship, but instead reads more like a brief summary of what the reader has just finished.
So while this is a subject of some interest - as the influence of the medieval papacy played an important part in a wide range of historical events - this is not a hugely useful treatment of it.
March 10, 2018
Mostly a history at the Pope and Emperor level, less so about the city.
September 25, 2019
I think it really needed a central plot and Llewellyn could not find one, thus the book is one of those "could have beens."
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews