Patricians and Emperors: The Last Rulers of the Western Roman Empire

by Ian Hughes

This engaging historical narrative of the fall of the Western Roman Empire focuses on the individuals in power during its final forty years.

The fall of the Western Roman Empire was a chaotic but crucial period of European history. To bring order to our understanding of this time, Patricians and Emperors offers a concise chronology with comparative biographies of the individuals who wielded significant power. It covers the period between the assassination of Aetius in 454 and the death of Odovacer during the Ostrogoth invasion of 493.

The book is divided into four parts. The first establishes context for the period, including brief profiles of generals Stilicho (395-408) and Aetius (425-454), and explains the nature of the empire at the time of its initial decline. The second details the lives of general Ricimer (455-472) and his great rival, Marcellinus (455-468), by focusing on the stories of the numerous emperors that Ricimer raised and deposed. The third deals with the Patricians Gundobad (472-3) and Orestes (475-6), and also explains how the barbarian general Odovacer came to power in 476. The final part outlines and analyses the Fall of the West and the rise of barbarian kingdoms in France, Spain, and Italy.

Genres: History, Ancient History, Nonfiction, Biography, European History, Roman, Roman History

494 pages, Kindle Edition

First published November 6, 2015

Reviews

[Ian · Rating 4 out of 5]

Near the end of this book the author comments on the fascination that the fall of the Western Roman Empire continues to exercise. When the Empire fell the economic and technological development of Western Europe reverted to a condition last seen centuries beforehand. I suppose I’ve always had the thought “Could it happen again?”

This is an enjoyable enough read but it’s limited in its scope. The author himself describes it as a narrative that seeks to shed light on the “shadowy” emperors who, at least in theory, ruled the Western Empire in its last decades. He doesn’t really attempt any analysis of why the Empire collapsed, except that right at the end he briefly rehearses the arguments of the two main schools of thought, the “external invasion” and “internal collapse” arguments.

The book covers the period from the death of Aetius, “The Last of the Romans”, in 454 to the death of the barbarian king, Odovacer, in 493. I had imagined the book would end in 476 when Odovacer deposed the boy-emperor Romulus Augustus, acknowledged as the last true Roman Emperor. It seems though that Odovacer’s constitutional status was somewhat hazy, as for example he issued coins in the name of the Eastern Emperor, Zeno.

The biggest problem for any historian working in this period is of course, the near total lack of source material, and what sources do exist often contradict each other. The author draws conclusions where he can, but these are often very speculative. On the whole he is quite generous to his subjects, suggesting that they mostly did what they could to protect the Empire. I’ve read the biographies of Stilicho and Aetius written by the same author, and he takes a similar approach with those figures.

I would say the author succeeds in his stated aim of bringing the last of the Western Emperors out of the shadows, at least a bit. 3.5 stars rounded up to four.

[Rindis · Rating 3 out of 5]

Hughes provides a good overview of the end of the western Empire in this volume. He does analyze things, and come to conclusions, but the primary focus is providing a chronological outline of events.

That latter is the primary value as it can be hard to find any coherent look at the four decades from the death of Aetius to the death of Odovacer. There's no central figure, which is part of the point, political power and fortunes were so fractured by this period that no one entirely rises above the other players.

However, Ricimer (who should be more prominent in synopses of this era) does provide the central focus for part of this book (enough so that I wonder if Hughes really should have focused in a little bit more and done a book purely on him). He is generally considered to have been the 'power behind the throne' for, oh, maybe fifteen years, and often takes the fall for the instability of the West. Hughes gives good reasons to believe that this is not the case, and that his actions were often in response to other political pressures.

This largely comes down to the Roman Senate, which, like in his book on Stilicho, takes the blame for a fair number of ills without introducing any real evidence. He may reference some pertinent sources in the end notes (which I have not gone through), but there is nothing in the main body. Nobody from the senate is mentioned by name. No description of what the senate was like in the Fifth Century is provided. Now he ascribes the senators as a whole with motives that are likely (protecting their own position, and the safety of their own lands), but there's nothing here to actually support these assertions, so it's nothing more than an axiom of the book.

Other than that hole, there's a lot of interest here. Beyond any problems with the Senate, problems of the division of the Empire between East and West are made manfest. Thanks to a lack of a stable dynasty, and a horde of ongoing problems, in the West, the Eastern Empire has become the senior political partner, which ends up crucially weakening the West. Any time an Emperor dies (too common), there is a wait while the choice of a new Western Emperor is coordinated with the East. If the Eastern court doesn't care for what's going on, political and military support can get withdrawn, which leaves the West's leadership high and dry. Additionally, Marcellinus maintains an almost independent existence as comes rei militaris Dalmatiae for almost this entire period as he's supported by the East, but refuses to work with Ricimer's administration of the West.

And of course, at the same time there is growing 'barbarian' influence in the territories outside Italy and Dalmatia. The book has about one map per chapter showing the slowly shifting patterns of who had control of what. Now, these groups are settled in the Empire by agreement, and acknowledge it's authority. Mostly. Even the better actors, like the Visigoths under Theoderic acted largely independently of the administration in Italy, even when pursing the same goals. Meanwhile, Vandal kingdom in Africa raided Italy regularly, and the book shows two attempts to counterinvade that came apart utterly, and likely recriminations did much to make the situation in Italy worse. Hughes figures Gaiseric to be the most able leader and diplomat of the period to explain his long stable reign, and the Empire's inability to reclaim Africa.

Hughes sticks to a largely chronological format, which means he doesn't give any one subject his full attention as nothing got wrapped up neatly within one year. Mostly, this is well handled, but with some real long-term trends going on here, I think seeing something concentrating on just one of them would be a real plus. I don't recommend this one for a more casual read because of this, but it is definitely a great framework for anyone in an interest in the last years of the Western Empire.

[Waltram · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read Ian Hughes' previous books on Stilicho and Aetius and thought that the few emperors that remained between the death of Aetius in 454 and the end of the Western Roman Empire in 476 would just be a boring succession of ineffective puppet rulers. Far from it, this period is actually quite interesting and saw some real initiative by emperors like Majorian and Anthemius to reconquer lost territories. More importantly this book shows how the Germanic fiefdoms within the empire grew in power and why the empire collapsed against all expectations from contemporary Romans. In fact it could be argued that the Western empire survived until 493 and was then conquered by an Ostrogothic vassal (and general) of the Eastern Roman Empire. A fascinating read!

[Hans Kerrinckx · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hughes has written three books on fifth century Rome (‘Stilicho: The Vandal Who Saved Rome and ‘Aetius: Attila's Nemesis’), both of which offer an decent introduction to ‘Patricians and Emperors: The Last Rulers of the Western Roman Empire’.

‘Patricians and Emperors’ offers a clear and concise narrative of the final decades of the Western Roman Empire: the period from the death of the magister militum (Master of the Troops) Aetius in 454 (and when the West already lost Africa, Spain and major parts of Gaul) to the death of Odoacer, the man ruling Italy until the Ostrogoths under Theoderic the Great took over power in Italy in 493.
The first part of the book sets the background to the period, including brief histories of Stilicho (395-408) and Aetius (391-454), explaining the nature of the empire and the reasons for its decline.

After the dead of Aetius, we enter the 4-decade period that tends to be reduced to a footnote in the history of the Roman Empire with mostly insignificant emperors (the dates refer to their rule) such as:
- Petronius Maximus (March 17th, 455 – May 31st 455); murdered by the Roman mob;
- Avitus, magister militium under Petronius Maximus, proclaimed Emperor by the Visigoth king Theoderic II (July 9th, 455 – October 17th, 456) > deposed and later killed by Ricimer);
- Majorian (April 457 – August 2nd, 461) > deposed by his troops and beheaded by Ricimer;
- Libius Severus (November 461 – August 461) > probably poisoned by Ricimer;
- Anthemius (April 12th, 467 – July 11th, 472) > executed by Ricimer;
- Olybrius, son-in-law of Marcian, appointed by Ricimer, with the support of Pope Leo I (July 11th, 472 – November 2nd, 472) > +natural causes;
- Glycerius (March 473 – June 474) > deposed by Julius Nepos to become Bishop of Salona;
- Julius Nepos, nephew-in-law of the eastern Emperor Leo I (June 474 – spring 480) > deposed in Italy by Flavius Orestes, a Roman general and politician of Pannonian ancestry, who was briefly in control of the remnant Western Roman Empire in 475 and 476. Maintained as figurehead in Italy by Odoacer to his (natural?) death in 480;
- Romulus Augustus, son of Orestes, not recognized by the Eastern Empire. (October 31st, 475 – September 4th, 476) > deposed by Odoacer, who ruled in the name of Julius Nepos (+ 480).

Ricimer and Odoacer

As the list above shows, Ricimer (c. 405 – August 18th, 472) and Odoacer (433–493) dominated the last Roman emperors as ‘emperor makers/murderers’ and ‘puppet’ masters”. It is common for a ‘puppet’ ruler to be kept isolated from events and surrounded by supporters of the ‘puppeteer’, a job well done by Ricimer and Ocoacer.
Hughes also points out the strong influence that Ricimer seems to have had on the Senate in Rome. In fact, Ricimer’s choices echoed the desires of the Senate and the citizens of Italy. It is clear that at this time Ricimer was acting within the context of Senatorial politics, which as always were focused upon the safety of Italy and the protection of their estates in Southern Gaul.
Ricimer also kept an eye on the events in Constantinople. When on January 26th 457 the Emperor Marcian died, on February 7th 457 the Eastern magister militum Aspar installed a man named Leo I (ruled 457–474) as the new emperor in the East. One of Leo’s first actions was to send messengers to Rome, and on February 27th 457 Ricimer was appointed the new Western patricius and Majorian and Ricimer were both made magister equitum. Leo I, did not however recognized Majorian as the Emperor of West, possibly because he intended to reign alone. After the disposal of Romulus Augustus in 476, Odoacer became King of Italy as a viceroy of Zeno (emperor of the East from 474 to 475 and again from 476 to 491.)

Theoderic the Great

Born c. 454, Theoderic (the later Theoderic the Great) went to Constantinople in 486, as a hostage to secure a treaty the Ostrogoths had concluded with the Byzantine Emperor Leo I the Thracian (ruled 457–474). For the next ten years he received a Roman (probably Greek) education and was released in 471. Around 480 Theodedric was in conflict with the Eastern emperor Zeno, and in 482 he plundered Macedonia and Thessaly. This appeared to be the last straw for Zeno and in the following year a deal was struck whereby Theoderic regained the post of magister militum, and was also announced as consul for 484. But in 486 Theoderic again rebelled, and again ravaged Thrace. In 487 Theoderic led his forces against Constantinople and, although he failed to capture the city the pressure paid off and negotiations with Zeno were resumed. Nevertheless, Theoderic, remained the main threat in the Balkans.
The Ostrogoths needed a place to live, and Zeno was having serious problems with Odoacer, the King of Italy who had come to power in 476. Ostensibly a viceroy for Zeno, Odoacer was menacing Byzantine territory and not respecting the rights of Roman citizens in Italy. At Zeno's encouragement, Theoderic invaded Odoacer's kingdom in 489.
Almost certainly on or before April 1st 489 Odoacer became aware of Theoderic’s advance towards Italy. He gathered his troops to face the Ostrogoths. The war dragged on until February 25th 493 when John, bishop of Ravenna, was able to negotiate a treaty between Theoderic and Odoacer to occupy Ravenna together and share joint rule. After a three-year siege, Theoderic entered the city on March 5th 493. Odoacer was dead ten days later, slain by Theoderic while they shared a meal.
Like Odoacer, Theoderic was ostensibly only a viceroy for the emperor in Constantinople. In reality, he was able to avoid imperial supervision, and dealings between the emperor and Theoderic were as equals. Unlike Odoacer, however, Theoderic respected the agreement he had made and allowed Roman citizens within his kingdom to be subject to Roman law and the Roman judicial system. The Goths, meanwhile, lived under their own laws and custom. But that is another story (to be continued…).

Conclusion

The merit of this book is that it offers a very valuable and a quite unique narrative, well-researched and clearly presented overview of this troubled period that is too often neglected, largely because of problems with the sources. Also very valuable and little known, for instance, are the developments on the strategic importance of Dalmatia and Marcellinus in particular, the great rival of Ricimer.
To end this review, I would like to quote Hughes with a lessons that we, historians, must never forget. We have the 'benefit' of hindsight. A dangerous trap! Hughes states that:
"One final aspect of the fifth century is rarely analyzed in detail, largely because historians writing after the event have the benefit of hindsight and realize that the Empire would fall. The Romans did not know this. It is certain that barbarian groups allowed into the Empire were not seen as the threat that they later became. This is due in part to Roman arrogance. In the preceding centuries all of the tribes and political entities that had been conquered by Rome had seen the benefits of inclusion and became members of the Empire: there was no reason why tribes such as the Goths or Franks should be any different. Allowed to settle and have the benefits of Roman rule they would lose their identity amongst the common Roman citizenry. This theory helps to explain why so many German leaders were accepted into service in the army. By serving the Empire they would gradually absorb the benefits and mentality of citizens – as had happened to the Gauls, the Britons and many other belligerent tribes."

[Joy · Rating 4 out of 5]

A scholarly analysis of the fragmentary written source material and archaeological evidence from AD 454 to 494, during which the 500-year-old empire collapsed and gave way to able commanders among the Goths. Hughes combines scanty and sometimes contradictory information to study the outstanding individuals involved, and give a coherent account of events overwhelming the empire. He does this in a balanced fashion, exposing his reasoning for each sequence of events, and conceding that the evidence is susceptible of other interpretations.

I now have the feeling historians of this period must have, of peering closer and closer and itching to adjust the focus more sharply.

[Truls Ljungström · Rating 3 out of 5]

Spännande bok, unik i det att den tydligt tar ställning för Ricimer, som annars brukar ses som en historisk skurk.

[Reza Amiri Praramadhan · Rating 4 out of 5]

In 5th century AD, (Western) Roman Empire was in dire straits. Its territory infested with barbarian incursions, citizens outside Italy were losing faith to the ability of Roman legions to protect them, while in Italy, Senate and members aristocracy continued to cling to values and interests that were detrimental to the survival of the empire. Figures central to its survival, the emperors, were reduced to figureheads and puppets to powerful Magister militums from barbaric, germanic tribes, a trend that started with Stilicho and most powerfully represented by Ricimer, who supported and toppled numerous emperors at his whim. In short, the Empire was a shitshow.

This sad, shadow of its former glorious self was reduced to maintaining mercenary, barbarian army, depending on its Eastern counterpart to send support. Even the western Emperor needed support and confirmation from eastern Emperor. Its predicaments were not helped by the fact that the Empire faced some of the greatest military leaders in history, the likes of Attila the Hun, Alaric the Visigoth and Gaiseric the Vandal.

Faced with the scarcity of historical sources, the author had done his best chronicling the downfall of Western Roman Empire. Because of this condition, anything that was chronicled was discussed even further, with numerous hypotheses. Still, for a book that focused on the rather neglected aspect of Roman Empire, this book is adequately written.

[Karina G Blose · Rating 5 out of 5]

My opinion of this book.

Excellent. Hughes provides an Interesting and thorough history of the Western Empire. It is one of the finest books I have ever read in my entire life. I would recommend this to any person interested in the fall of the Western Empire.






.

[Mick Maye · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book follows a chronological order of the period covered which I found to be a nice way of going through the book. The constant shifting between the East and the West and the failure of the Senate to see reality leads to the final result.
The actions of the Vandals and Goths are fully explained. The book explains the yearly actions and results and is a very good read. I fully enjoyed this book and would recommend it.

[Sekhar N Banerjee · Rating 2 out of 5]

Lot of history, but very poorly presented

The book is well researched, but not written for general readers - may be the author intended it for History students , but the publisher decided otherwise.

For general readers like me, it was torture - It was a very bad experience

[Comes · Rating 4 out of 5]

A history that follows the actors at the end of the Western Roman Empire proceeding Aetius. It is not a book on 'Why did the Empire fall?' but rather more like a narrative history which can be sorely needed for some readers.

[William Whalen · Rating 2 out of 5]

While it contained useful information, I found the organization too choppy to be able to stay immersed in the book.

[Donald Scarinci · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a great book for anyone who wants to understand what happened when Rome fell. The lives of these emperors are obscure by fascinating.