What do you think?
Rate this book
Ancient Warfare and Civilization
Rome Resurgent: War and Empire in the Age of Justinian
Between the fall of the western Roman Empire in the fifth century and the collapse of the east in the face of the Arab invasions in the seventh, the remarkable era of the Emperor Justinian (527-568) dominated the Mediterranean region. Famous for his conquests in Italy and North Africa, and for the creation of stunning monuments such as the Hagia Sophia, his reign was also marked by global religious conflict within the Christian world and an outbreak of plague that some have compared to the Black Death. For many historians, Justinian is far more than an anomaly of Byzantine ambition between the eras of Attila and Muhammad; he is the causal link that binds together the two moments of Roman imperial collapse. Determined to reverse the losses Rome suffered in the fifth century, Justinian unleashed an aggressive campaign in the face of all adversity, not least the plague. His ceaseless, multi-front wars ultimately led the eastern Empire to overreach itself, making it vulnerable to the Islamic takeover of its richest territories in the seventh century, which transformed the great Roman Empire of late antiquity into its pale shadow of the Middle Ages.
In Rome Resurgent, medieval historian Peter Heather draws heavily upon contemporary sources, including the writings of Procopius, the principal historian of the time, while also recasting that author's narrative by bringing together new perspectives based on a wide array of additional source material. A huge body of archaeological evidence has become available for the sixth century, providing entirely new means of understanding the overall effects of Justinian's war policies. Building on his own distinguished work on the Vandals, Goths, and Persians, Heather also gives much fuller coverage to Rome's enemies than Procopius ever did. A briskly paced narrative by a master historian, Rome Resurgent promises to introduce readers to this captivating and unjustly overlooked chapter in ancient warfare.
In Rome Resurgent, medieval historian Peter Heather draws heavily upon contemporary sources, including the writings of Procopius, the principal historian of the time, while also recasting that author's narrative by bringing together new perspectives based on a wide array of additional source material. A huge body of archaeological evidence has become available for the sixth century, providing entirely new means of understanding the overall effects of Justinian's war policies. Building on his own distinguished work on the Vandals, Goths, and Persians, Heather also gives much fuller coverage to Rome's enemies than Procopius ever did. A briskly paced narrative by a master historian, Rome Resurgent promises to introduce readers to this captivating and unjustly overlooked chapter in ancient warfare.
408 pages, Hardcover
First published June 1, 2018
49 people are currently reading
657 people want to read
About the author
Peter Heather
22 books238 followersPeter Heather is currently Professor of Medieval History at King's College London. He has held appointments at University College London and Yale University and was Fellow and Tutor in Medieval History at Worcester College, Oxford until December 2007.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews
January 11, 2024
Peter Heather has an engaging writing style with dashes of humour, and he is able to make complex subjects understandable without going on lengthy or convoluted diatribes.
The focus of this book is an analysis of the reign of Justinian I (527-565) in an effort to determine if Justinian's war conquests in North Africa and Italy fatally undermined the integrity of the Eastern Roman Empire, facilitating the disastrous territorial losses of the 7th century. Heather puts Justinian's reign in historical context, showing how his fiscal, legal, military and political policies evolved (almost) inadvertently after the unexpected and relatively easy conquest of Vandal North Africa, originally initiated to distract from problems at home (i.e. "a desperate gamble to save his imperial skin"), and his subsequent difficulties in conquering Italy due to Persian interference, not to mention difficulties in establishing and maintaining a lasting peace.
Heather includes discussions about Roman fiscal policy, bureaucratic functioning, patronage, the problem of succession, religious disagreements, the creation of a legal code, and military organization, as well as imperial policies and politics (internal and external), and the rise of Islam within the context of the 50 years of almost constant war between Persia and Constantinople. The Justinian plague gets short shrift in this book, which is a pity, since it probably also contributed to some of Justinian's problems.
The focus of this book is an analysis of the reign of Justinian I (527-565) in an effort to determine if Justinian's war conquests in North Africa and Italy fatally undermined the integrity of the Eastern Roman Empire, facilitating the disastrous territorial losses of the 7th century. Heather puts Justinian's reign in historical context, showing how his fiscal, legal, military and political policies evolved (almost) inadvertently after the unexpected and relatively easy conquest of Vandal North Africa, originally initiated to distract from problems at home (i.e. "a desperate gamble to save his imperial skin"), and his subsequent difficulties in conquering Italy due to Persian interference, not to mention difficulties in establishing and maintaining a lasting peace.
Heather includes discussions about Roman fiscal policy, bureaucratic functioning, patronage, the problem of succession, religious disagreements, the creation of a legal code, and military organization, as well as imperial policies and politics (internal and external), and the rise of Islam within the context of the 50 years of almost constant war between Persia and Constantinople. The Justinian plague gets short shrift in this book, which is a pity, since it probably also contributed to some of Justinian's problems.
June 30, 2023
This was another great book by Peter Heather, this time looking at the reign of Justinian I (527-565) and answering an extremely interesting question: "Did the conquests of Justinian fatally undermine the integrity of the Eastern Roman Empire, paving the way for the disastrous territorial losses of the seventh century?"
When Justinian became the (Eastern) Roman Emperor, the Western Roman Empire had already ceased to exist for almost half a century. However, Justinian's long and eventful reign saw large parts of the former Western Empire being reconquered by his generals such as Belisarius and Narses. The North of Africa, parts of Spain, Sicily, and Italy including the city of Rome were all added to Justinian's empire. The nature of these conquests was not a planned restoration of the empire's former glory as its propaganda tried to convey, but merely an opportunistic conquest to keep the emperor in power by achieving victories. These remarkably quick conquests, however, were met by an aggressive campaign by the Persians in the East, with insurgents and barbarians in the conquered territories further complicating the situation.
Some scholars argue that Justianian's conquests overstretched the empire, making it impossible to defend itself against the rise of Islam in the seventh century. Heather makes it clear that this is not really true, as the weakening of the empire was mostly due to the reigns of Justin II and the subsequent total war against the Persians which lasted many decades that weakened the Eastern Roman Empire. This destructive war and the following Arab conquests turned the massive Roman empire into a regional power based around Anatolia, losing almost two-thirds of the territories of the empire, but astonishingly still surviving (even if severely altered) for many centuries afterward. Their rivals the Persians on the other hand, fell entirely to the Arab armies.
This was a very good book, which I, unfortunately, started to read during one of the busiest times of my academic life, but I can still say that I enjoyed it a lot and that it was very readable and informative. Peter Heather is a great writer, however, due to the content of the book I don't think that I can recommend it to everyone. Chapters about Roman fiscal policy, religious disagreements, and the creation of a legal code are all very interesting but also quite heavy for someone who may not know that much about the Romans. But for those who do I can definitely recommend it! Four very well-deserved stars!
When Justinian became the (Eastern) Roman Emperor, the Western Roman Empire had already ceased to exist for almost half a century. However, Justinian's long and eventful reign saw large parts of the former Western Empire being reconquered by his generals such as Belisarius and Narses. The North of Africa, parts of Spain, Sicily, and Italy including the city of Rome were all added to Justinian's empire. The nature of these conquests was not a planned restoration of the empire's former glory as its propaganda tried to convey, but merely an opportunistic conquest to keep the emperor in power by achieving victories. These remarkably quick conquests, however, were met by an aggressive campaign by the Persians in the East, with insurgents and barbarians in the conquered territories further complicating the situation.
Some scholars argue that Justianian's conquests overstretched the empire, making it impossible to defend itself against the rise of Islam in the seventh century. Heather makes it clear that this is not really true, as the weakening of the empire was mostly due to the reigns of Justin II and the subsequent total war against the Persians which lasted many decades that weakened the Eastern Roman Empire. This destructive war and the following Arab conquests turned the massive Roman empire into a regional power based around Anatolia, losing almost two-thirds of the territories of the empire, but astonishingly still surviving (even if severely altered) for many centuries afterward. Their rivals the Persians on the other hand, fell entirely to the Arab armies.
This was a very good book, which I, unfortunately, started to read during one of the busiest times of my academic life, but I can still say that I enjoyed it a lot and that it was very readable and informative. Peter Heather is a great writer, however, due to the content of the book I don't think that I can recommend it to everyone. Chapters about Roman fiscal policy, religious disagreements, and the creation of a legal code are all very interesting but also quite heavy for someone who may not know that much about the Romans. But for those who do I can definitely recommend it! Four very well-deserved stars!
September 7, 2019
Excellent reinterpretation of Justinian's reign, wars and legacy; put in context and showing how his reconquest policy evolved by chance after the comprehensive but unexpected victory against the Vandals and the retaking of North Africa for the Empire and also how the resurgence of the Persian Empire doomed his Italian conquest in the long run though it overall paid for itself even partial and unfinished as it was; the 7th century Islamic rise and the collapse of the Empire to a medium power is shown tom be due to his successors rather than his overextension of imperial resources
Somewhat technical and fairly dense but highly recommended
Somewhat technical and fairly dense but highly recommended
July 24, 2022
24/07/2022 (*****)
Saggio molto ben scritto, a conferma dell'ottima opinione già avuta sui testi dell'autore da precedenti esperienze (vedi La caduta dell'impero romano. Una nuova storia).
La narrazione si concentra sul lungo regno (526-565) di Giustiniano e sulla fondamentale domanda se il suo avventurismo espansionista - che portò alla conquista di nord Africa e Italia, dopo una guerra, e soprattutto una guerriglia, durata decenni - sia stata la principale causa del repentino collasso dell'impero romano d'Oriente nel secolo successivo vista l'eccessiva estensione dello stato verso Occidente.
La risposta, circostanziata, che Heather da è: no, o almeno solo in minima parte. Troppi decenni passano dalle conquiste di Giustiniano al collasso sotto la spinta dell'invasione araba nonché svariati altri regimi (di cui diversi fallimentari) e non ci sono prove che le parti di territorio conquistati e poi mantenute non si siano poi ripresi economicamente dall'uragano della guerra. Casomai il principale difetto di Giustiniano, che rimane nell'opinione dell'autore un bieco e cinico opportunista mosso esclusivamente da un accentuato spirito di autoconservazione, è il monumento che esso stesso si eresse, e che pesò su tutti i regimi immediatamente successivi: essi spesero in guerre continue il proprio capitale politico per non essere schiacciati dall'ombra incombente delle conquiste incredibili del grande predecessore, mandando lo stato in bancarotta e preparandolo al crollo del 600.
Peraltro, che le conquiste del nord Africa e dell'Italia siano state incredibili non è una esagerazione. Con pochissima spesa, soprattutto in Africa, Giustiniano riuscì a annettere i due regni romano-barbarici più ricchi e floridi d'Occidente, grazie soprattutto alla superiorità tattica delle proprie truppe, che ben avevano assimilato gli insegnamenti derivati dal cataclisma unno e dalle nuove tattiche militari che sembrarono renderli invincibili (soprattutto, l'uso accorto e bilanciato della cavalleria, in particolare dei micidiali arcieri montati).
Avere poi un ottimo generale come Belisario fece il resto.
A completare il quadro, ci mise il suo anche una fortuna sfacciata, che favorì in ogni modo il generale: come diceva Napoleone, ai generali bravi è meglio preferire quelli fortunati.
Entrambe le conquiste, rapide e inattese, vennero mosse secondo l'autore come scelta disperata da parte dell'imperatore per riguadagnare consenso, dopo i traumatici inizi funestati dall'esito disastroso della guerra contro i Persiani e dalla grave rivolta di Nika, in cui Giustiniano rischio seriamente il trono. E entrambe le azioni trovarono i nemici - rispettivamente, vandali e ostrogoti - in momenti di particolare vulnerabilità. La parte dificile non fu tanto la conquista, aiutata come detto da eventi fortunosi e da un vantaggio tattico incolmabile, ma il mantenimento dei territori, con particolare riguardo all'Italia, dove i goti - a differenza dei vandali - non erano affatto stati sterminati e/o deportati: a una prima fase (535-540) di conquista, culminata con l'ingresso a Ravenna, seguì una seconda fase (550-562) di guerriglia, che ebbe effetti devastanti sulla penisola italiana. Per gli storici, è ormai convinzione comune quella di considerare l'inizio in Italia dell'alto medioevo (e, conseguentemente, la fine dell'età tardo-antica) con la guerra greco-gotica, che segnò uno spartiacque nettissimo nella vita della Penisola, probabilmente il più colossale shock (economico, culturale, demografico, politico) della pur travagliata storia del nostro Paese, come emerge in maniera evidente dalle rilevanze archeologiche. Non è esagerato dire che l'invasione bizantina (romana, sarebbe meglio dire) cambiò radicalmente la storia d'Italia e di tutta l'Europa: cosa sarebbe successo se i goti, dopo Teodorico, fossero riusciti a creare una monarchia nazionale nella penisola, è difficile anche solo da immaginare (si pensi, in primis, all'evoluzione che ne avrebbe avuto il cattolicesimo romano e all'impatto che uno stato unitario fortissimo avrebbe avuto sui regni coevi nell'Europa settentrionale).
La conclusione di Heather, come detto, fugge dal più consolidato motivo di biasimo presente nella storiografia circa l'epopea di Giustiniano, ossia che il suo regime fu l'origine di tutti i mali futuri dell'oriente bizantino: si dice che l'imperatore non poteva prevedere la crescita esponenziale da un lato della potenza avara (che costrinse di fatto i longobardi, loro vicini sul Danubio, a emigrare verso il vuoto lasciato dalla guerra in Italia) e, soprattutto, della potenza araba, che finirà per travolgere entrambe le superpotenze orientali, Costantinopoli e Persia, in breve tempo al volgere della metà del VII secolo. Della distanza di tempo trascorsa dal suo regno al collasso (quasi un secolo) e dei diversi regimi intermedi non propriamente illuminati intercorsi in mezzo si è già detto.
Lungi da parte dell'autore sostenere l'encomio dell'uomo e dello statista Giustiniano, che come detto fu mosso solo e esclusivamente dal più bieco spirito di conservazione, senza nessuna stella polare di ordine strategico o morale che non fosse la sua permanenza sul trono: da lì gli azzardi, in parte riusciti e in parte no, che contraddistinsero il suo regime e che gli hanno garantito una fama imperitura, e tutto sommato non del tutto motivata, nei posteri (basti pensare a Dante, che lo mise in Paradiso come protettore della giustizia).
Diciamo che in quanto a giocatori d'azzardo, non siamo di fronte a un altro Cesare.
Molto interessante, infine, l'analogia che l'autore fa fra Attila e Maometto, nei loro ruoli di federatori di popoli e tribù ai margini delle grandi potenze del tempo, e di come le loro fulminee invasioni, così simili nella genesi e nei primi sviluppi, si differenziarono enormemente in quanto a durata e impatto: da una parte le effimere conquiste di un truce brigante (per quanto intelligente), che conquistò un impero immenso tenuto insieme dal puro terrore e che si sfasciò non appena morto lui; dall'altra, le durature conquiste di un altro truce brigante (per quanto intelligente), che conquistò un impero immenso tenuto insieme dal migliore oppio dei popoli mai inventato: la religione. E non a caso il mondo arabo è ancora lì al suo posto, dopo millequattrocento anni, e poco è mancato che tracimasse qui da noi; di Attila non sappiamo più nemmeno dove sia la tomba.
Nemmeno di Giustiniano, a dir la verità, dato che le sepolture imperiali ai SS Apostoli vennero saccheggiate durante il sacco veneziano del 1204 e che al posto della cattedrale oggi c'è una moschea.
Il saggio è scritto benissimo, la lettura è agevole, il filo logico dei ragionamenti dell'autore cristallino, anche se rimane un'opera molto specialistica, che probabilmente potrebbe annoiare chi non fosse interessato all'argomento. Ampiamente consigliato.
Saggio molto ben scritto, a conferma dell'ottima opinione già avuta sui testi dell'autore da precedenti esperienze (vedi La caduta dell'impero romano. Una nuova storia).
La narrazione si concentra sul lungo regno (526-565) di Giustiniano e sulla fondamentale domanda se il suo avventurismo espansionista - che portò alla conquista di nord Africa e Italia, dopo una guerra, e soprattutto una guerriglia, durata decenni - sia stata la principale causa del repentino collasso dell'impero romano d'Oriente nel secolo successivo vista l'eccessiva estensione dello stato verso Occidente.
La risposta, circostanziata, che Heather da è: no, o almeno solo in minima parte. Troppi decenni passano dalle conquiste di Giustiniano al collasso sotto la spinta dell'invasione araba nonché svariati altri regimi (di cui diversi fallimentari) e non ci sono prove che le parti di territorio conquistati e poi mantenute non si siano poi ripresi economicamente dall'uragano della guerra. Casomai il principale difetto di Giustiniano, che rimane nell'opinione dell'autore un bieco e cinico opportunista mosso esclusivamente da un accentuato spirito di autoconservazione, è il monumento che esso stesso si eresse, e che pesò su tutti i regimi immediatamente successivi: essi spesero in guerre continue il proprio capitale politico per non essere schiacciati dall'ombra incombente delle conquiste incredibili del grande predecessore, mandando lo stato in bancarotta e preparandolo al crollo del 600.
Peraltro, che le conquiste del nord Africa e dell'Italia siano state incredibili non è una esagerazione. Con pochissima spesa, soprattutto in Africa, Giustiniano riuscì a annettere i due regni romano-barbarici più ricchi e floridi d'Occidente, grazie soprattutto alla superiorità tattica delle proprie truppe, che ben avevano assimilato gli insegnamenti derivati dal cataclisma unno e dalle nuove tattiche militari che sembrarono renderli invincibili (soprattutto, l'uso accorto e bilanciato della cavalleria, in particolare dei micidiali arcieri montati).
Avere poi un ottimo generale come Belisario fece il resto.
A completare il quadro, ci mise il suo anche una fortuna sfacciata, che favorì in ogni modo il generale: come diceva Napoleone, ai generali bravi è meglio preferire quelli fortunati.
Entrambe le conquiste, rapide e inattese, vennero mosse secondo l'autore come scelta disperata da parte dell'imperatore per riguadagnare consenso, dopo i traumatici inizi funestati dall'esito disastroso della guerra contro i Persiani e dalla grave rivolta di Nika, in cui Giustiniano rischio seriamente il trono. E entrambe le azioni trovarono i nemici - rispettivamente, vandali e ostrogoti - in momenti di particolare vulnerabilità. La parte dificile non fu tanto la conquista, aiutata come detto da eventi fortunosi e da un vantaggio tattico incolmabile, ma il mantenimento dei territori, con particolare riguardo all'Italia, dove i goti - a differenza dei vandali - non erano affatto stati sterminati e/o deportati: a una prima fase (535-540) di conquista, culminata con l'ingresso a Ravenna, seguì una seconda fase (550-562) di guerriglia, che ebbe effetti devastanti sulla penisola italiana. Per gli storici, è ormai convinzione comune quella di considerare l'inizio in Italia dell'alto medioevo (e, conseguentemente, la fine dell'età tardo-antica) con la guerra greco-gotica, che segnò uno spartiacque nettissimo nella vita della Penisola, probabilmente il più colossale shock (economico, culturale, demografico, politico) della pur travagliata storia del nostro Paese, come emerge in maniera evidente dalle rilevanze archeologiche. Non è esagerato dire che l'invasione bizantina (romana, sarebbe meglio dire) cambiò radicalmente la storia d'Italia e di tutta l'Europa: cosa sarebbe successo se i goti, dopo Teodorico, fossero riusciti a creare una monarchia nazionale nella penisola, è difficile anche solo da immaginare (si pensi, in primis, all'evoluzione che ne avrebbe avuto il cattolicesimo romano e all'impatto che uno stato unitario fortissimo avrebbe avuto sui regni coevi nell'Europa settentrionale).
La conclusione di Heather, come detto, fugge dal più consolidato motivo di biasimo presente nella storiografia circa l'epopea di Giustiniano, ossia che il suo regime fu l'origine di tutti i mali futuri dell'oriente bizantino: si dice che l'imperatore non poteva prevedere la crescita esponenziale da un lato della potenza avara (che costrinse di fatto i longobardi, loro vicini sul Danubio, a emigrare verso il vuoto lasciato dalla guerra in Italia) e, soprattutto, della potenza araba, che finirà per travolgere entrambe le superpotenze orientali, Costantinopoli e Persia, in breve tempo al volgere della metà del VII secolo. Della distanza di tempo trascorsa dal suo regno al collasso (quasi un secolo) e dei diversi regimi intermedi non propriamente illuminati intercorsi in mezzo si è già detto.
Lungi da parte dell'autore sostenere l'encomio dell'uomo e dello statista Giustiniano, che come detto fu mosso solo e esclusivamente dal più bieco spirito di conservazione, senza nessuna stella polare di ordine strategico o morale che non fosse la sua permanenza sul trono: da lì gli azzardi, in parte riusciti e in parte no, che contraddistinsero il suo regime e che gli hanno garantito una fama imperitura, e tutto sommato non del tutto motivata, nei posteri (basti pensare a Dante, che lo mise in Paradiso come protettore della giustizia).
Diciamo che in quanto a giocatori d'azzardo, non siamo di fronte a un altro Cesare.
Molto interessante, infine, l'analogia che l'autore fa fra Attila e Maometto, nei loro ruoli di federatori di popoli e tribù ai margini delle grandi potenze del tempo, e di come le loro fulminee invasioni, così simili nella genesi e nei primi sviluppi, si differenziarono enormemente in quanto a durata e impatto: da una parte le effimere conquiste di un truce brigante (per quanto intelligente), che conquistò un impero immenso tenuto insieme dal puro terrore e che si sfasciò non appena morto lui; dall'altra, le durature conquiste di un altro truce brigante (per quanto intelligente), che conquistò un impero immenso tenuto insieme dal migliore oppio dei popoli mai inventato: la religione. E non a caso il mondo arabo è ancora lì al suo posto, dopo millequattrocento anni, e poco è mancato che tracimasse qui da noi; di Attila non sappiamo più nemmeno dove sia la tomba.
Nemmeno di Giustiniano, a dir la verità, dato che le sepolture imperiali ai SS Apostoli vennero saccheggiate durante il sacco veneziano del 1204 e che al posto della cattedrale oggi c'è una moschea.
Il saggio è scritto benissimo, la lettura è agevole, il filo logico dei ragionamenti dell'autore cristallino, anche se rimane un'opera molto specialistica, che probabilmente potrebbe annoiare chi non fosse interessato all'argomento. Ampiamente consigliato.
March 14, 2021
Justinian generally has a glowing historical reputation (as far as modern society thinks about Byzantine emperors), but Heather isn’t having it.
Justinian was successful militarily, recapturing both North Africa and Italy for the Empire, reforming the legal system, keeping a lid on church factionalism, and engaging in massive architectural projects - The Hagia Sofia in Constantinople being the star project.
Heather argues that the western conquests were driven not by strategy but by the purest personal opportunism. Justinian just didn’t care about anyone or anything, just so long as he remained emperor. His endless wars caused huge humanitarian disasters - Italy was left largely depopulated - and forced a massive tax burden on the agrarian late-antique empire.
The question is posed: did Justinian’s over-expansion actually weaken the empire, making it easy prey for the Islamic invasions of the 7th century?
Heather argues against. He makes interesting comparisons between the contexts of Attila and Mohammed, suggesting both emerged out of similar empire-border dynamics. Attila left no legacy in Europe, but Islam secured a firm hold on the Middle East . In contrast, the wealth of Western Europe shifted northwards towards Attila’s old stamping grounds and away from the Mediterranean - in the east, Islam emerged from Arabia but Arabia itself quickly returned to marginal status and the wealthy cities of Syria, Palestine, Egypt and Turkey remained the drivers of culture there, but now within an Islamic rather than Christian context. Heather sees the rise of Islam within the context of a 50 year war between the superpowers of Constantinople and Persia (initiated against his policy by Justinian’s heir on assuming the throne), leaving both exhausted and unable to react to developments in Arabia.
Justinian was successful militarily, recapturing both North Africa and Italy for the Empire, reforming the legal system, keeping a lid on church factionalism, and engaging in massive architectural projects - The Hagia Sofia in Constantinople being the star project.
Heather argues that the western conquests were driven not by strategy but by the purest personal opportunism. Justinian just didn’t care about anyone or anything, just so long as he remained emperor. His endless wars caused huge humanitarian disasters - Italy was left largely depopulated - and forced a massive tax burden on the agrarian late-antique empire.
The question is posed: did Justinian’s over-expansion actually weaken the empire, making it easy prey for the Islamic invasions of the 7th century?
Heather argues against. He makes interesting comparisons between the contexts of Attila and Mohammed, suggesting both emerged out of similar empire-border dynamics. Attila left no legacy in Europe, but Islam secured a firm hold on the Middle East . In contrast, the wealth of Western Europe shifted northwards towards Attila’s old stamping grounds and away from the Mediterranean - in the east, Islam emerged from Arabia but Arabia itself quickly returned to marginal status and the wealthy cities of Syria, Palestine, Egypt and Turkey remained the drivers of culture there, but now within an Islamic rather than Christian context. Heather sees the rise of Islam within the context of a 50 year war between the superpowers of Constantinople and Persia (initiated against his policy by Justinian’s heir on assuming the throne), leaving both exhausted and unable to react to developments in Arabia.
September 4, 2024
If so, then Justinian’s poisonously successful legacy of military victory played a major role in kick-starting the fifty-year cycle of world war which led inexorably to Constantinople’s eventual demotion to regional power status.
Rome Resurgent feels to me like an archetype of explanatory history, setting out as much why something happened as the what. Rome Resurgent is a book of opinions. A historian’s opinions.
Not just from A to Z
Justinian’s reign is very well covered from a narrative standpoint, helped by sources:
The biggest problem for any historian of Justinian’s reign is not to fall into the deeply seductive trap of writing out Procopius in one’s own words with the addition of just a little extra comment.
…and Justinian’s general Belisarius being so approachable as a subject of both fact and fiction.
To keep it fresh, Heather instead uses the point of the subtitle (the Age of Justinian) to explain:
- How Rome weathered and the Third Century Crises via militarisation and a patronage style bureaucratisation.
- The nature of emperorship and why Justinian needed to undertake expansionary wars (along with harmonising existing Roman Law – quite an interesting subplot).
- What give the Eastern Roman Empire key military advantages over Vandal/Gothic forces.
- To what extent Justinian’s conquests were either an over-extension in his reign or instead contingent on the acts of later rulers and external forces.
It also turns out even Belisarius was not perfect:
A strong case can be made, therefore, that Belisarius’s miscalculation on the ground rather than Justinian’s policymaking back in Constantinople was the fundamental cause of the element of chaotic imperial overstretch which partly underlay the Lombards’ decision to invade.
While Heather has covered most of the above before, Rome Resurgent provides the most recent and cogent summary as time seems to have matured Heather’s writing style. Heather weaves his analysis through the narrative to create a lattice of examples supporting his argument – hardly a novel technique but one that is often clumsily executed. Particularly satisfying is how Heather sets out what drove Justinian to move so aggressively – he had to in order to stay emperor, and his immediate successors had mixed results doing the same (in the case of Maurice, it appears trying too hard was his downfall).
As an example of an explanation that Heather rejects, the Plague of Justinian gets a short shrift. My minor criticism is that he could have expanded on that as the footnote had interesting points worth explaining further.
Making Peoples
The shared experiences of marching thousands of kilometres, fighting countless engagements, and then being picked out as a privileged elite by a process of special reward—whatever the human diversity of a groups origins—will have generated a functioning political identity of some substance, even if not everyone shared the same folk dances, costumes, and marriage practices as the old model supposed.
I gather there is some controversy about how Heather describes groups of migrants in first millennium as “tribes” versus seeing them as warbands of no particular ethnicity (as I understand it – I have not followed the debate). I get the vibe that Rome Resurgent might slightly modify Heather’s position for greater nuance, albeit I am assuming those criticisms on Heather’s Wikipedia page are accurate. Basically, there were groups of some nature that impacted on Rome’s border, whether they be state led (Persia), religiously inspired (the Muslim conquests) or just a group of dudes that may (or maybe not) included women and children (Vandals, Goths, Lombards)- I tend towards Heather’s view that the last named were “tribes”, even if comprised of different cultures. I wonder whether 21st century concepts are being used to interpret Heather’s writing.
One limit is the perspective, and it is narrower than the closely related The Restoration of Rome. Even in respect of Persia, our understanding of the surrounding world is limited, even where just focusing on interactions with the Eastern Roman Empire. It is not an outright criticism as there always needs to be a limit of some sort on scope – more that it reinforces this is a somewhat specialist history (if for lay readers).
With its interest in cause and effect and allusions to the changing historiography of the era, Rome Resurgent gets very close to transcending its subject.
It is essentially telling users not to be too critical if they find any repetitions, because a) there are not many and b) they were probably left in deliberately. Even funnier are Tanta’s comments on contradiction:
As for any contradiction occurring in this book, none such has any claim to a place in it, nor will any be found, if we consider fully the grounds of diversity; some special differential feature will be discovered, however obscure, which does away with the imputation of inconsistency, puts a different complexion on the matter and keeps it safe from the imputation of discrepancy.
So there are no contradictions in the book, and if readers think they have identified one, all they need do is consider the matter a little harder or from a different direction, and they will find a way of making it disappear. Not only was the reform pushed through by means of a political deal with some of the legal establishment, therefore, but even the commissioners realized that, in their haste, not everything had been fully resolved.
You probably still want to know the difference between a Visigoth and an Ostrogoth to want to read this though.
Rome Resurgent feels to me like an archetype of explanatory history, setting out as much why something happened as the what. Rome Resurgent is a book of opinions. A historian’s opinions.
Not just from A to Z
Justinian’s reign is very well covered from a narrative standpoint, helped by sources:
The biggest problem for any historian of Justinian’s reign is not to fall into the deeply seductive trap of writing out Procopius in one’s own words with the addition of just a little extra comment.
…and Justinian’s general Belisarius being so approachable as a subject of both fact and fiction.
To keep it fresh, Heather instead uses the point of the subtitle (the Age of Justinian) to explain:
- How Rome weathered and the Third Century Crises via militarisation and a patronage style bureaucratisation.
- The nature of emperorship and why Justinian needed to undertake expansionary wars (along with harmonising existing Roman Law – quite an interesting subplot).
- What give the Eastern Roman Empire key military advantages over Vandal/Gothic forces.
- To what extent Justinian’s conquests were either an over-extension in his reign or instead contingent on the acts of later rulers and external forces.
It also turns out even Belisarius was not perfect:
A strong case can be made, therefore, that Belisarius’s miscalculation on the ground rather than Justinian’s policymaking back in Constantinople was the fundamental cause of the element of chaotic imperial overstretch which partly underlay the Lombards’ decision to invade.
While Heather has covered most of the above before, Rome Resurgent provides the most recent and cogent summary as time seems to have matured Heather’s writing style. Heather weaves his analysis through the narrative to create a lattice of examples supporting his argument – hardly a novel technique but one that is often clumsily executed. Particularly satisfying is how Heather sets out what drove Justinian to move so aggressively – he had to in order to stay emperor, and his immediate successors had mixed results doing the same (in the case of Maurice, it appears trying too hard was his downfall).
As an example of an explanation that Heather rejects, the Plague of Justinian gets a short shrift. My minor criticism is that he could have expanded on that as the footnote had interesting points worth explaining further.
Making Peoples
The shared experiences of marching thousands of kilometres, fighting countless engagements, and then being picked out as a privileged elite by a process of special reward—whatever the human diversity of a groups origins—will have generated a functioning political identity of some substance, even if not everyone shared the same folk dances, costumes, and marriage practices as the old model supposed.
I gather there is some controversy about how Heather describes groups of migrants in first millennium as “tribes” versus seeing them as warbands of no particular ethnicity (as I understand it – I have not followed the debate). I get the vibe that Rome Resurgent might slightly modify Heather’s position for greater nuance, albeit I am assuming those criticisms on Heather’s Wikipedia page are accurate. Basically, there were groups of some nature that impacted on Rome’s border, whether they be state led (Persia), religiously inspired (the Muslim conquests) or just a group of dudes that may (or maybe not) included women and children (Vandals, Goths, Lombards)- I tend towards Heather’s view that the last named were “tribes”, even if comprised of different cultures. I wonder whether 21st century concepts are being used to interpret Heather’s writing.
One limit is the perspective, and it is narrower than the closely related The Restoration of Rome. Even in respect of Persia, our understanding of the surrounding world is limited, even where just focusing on interactions with the Eastern Roman Empire. It is not an outright criticism as there always needs to be a limit of some sort on scope – more that it reinforces this is a somewhat specialist history (if for lay readers).
With its interest in cause and effect and allusions to the changing historiography of the era, Rome Resurgent gets very close to transcending its subject.
It is essentially telling users not to be too critical if they find any repetitions, because a) there are not many and b) they were probably left in deliberately. Even funnier are Tanta’s comments on contradiction:
As for any contradiction occurring in this book, none such has any claim to a place in it, nor will any be found, if we consider fully the grounds of diversity; some special differential feature will be discovered, however obscure, which does away with the imputation of inconsistency, puts a different complexion on the matter and keeps it safe from the imputation of discrepancy.
So there are no contradictions in the book, and if readers think they have identified one, all they need do is consider the matter a little harder or from a different direction, and they will find a way of making it disappear. Not only was the reform pushed through by means of a political deal with some of the legal establishment, therefore, but even the commissioners realized that, in their haste, not everything had been fully resolved.
You probably still want to know the difference between a Visigoth and an Ostrogoth to want to read this though.
August 10, 2020
Is it really just or appropriate to view this book as a book about Rome, seeing as it is a generally praiseworthy effort to place the conquests of Justinian in the context of the internal politics of legitimacy in the Byzantine Empire as well as the grand strategic efforts of the Byzantines with Persia as well as the barbarians of its border regions. Admittedly, reading about the Roman or Byzantine Empires is not anything particularly unusual for me, but it was intriguing to see the author take an approach of seeking to view Justinian's military behavior in light of the politics of the Byzantine Empire and the expectations that were placed on leaders. The author certainly does not view Justinian or his era as being perfect, but all the same this is a book that seeks to absolve him of blame for the collapse of Byzantine power from its hegemonic aims and massive achievements during Justinian's time to the regional power it became in the aftermath of the rise of Islam. If you find the mix of high politics, diplomacy, and military history to be appealing, as I did, this is a book that is well worth enjoying even if the work is more about Byzantine and than Roman history as its focus is on Constantinople and not Rome.
This book is a bit more than 300 pages long and is divided into eleven chapters. The book begins with some maps and then an introduction about Justinian and the fall of the Roman empire. After that the author provides a historical context to the period between Constantine and Justinian (1) as well as the military-fiscal complex of the ancient world and Rome in particular (2) and the problem of regime change in Constantinople (3). This leads to a look at the gamble of the invasion of North Africa to distract from major failures at home (4) as well as the small expeditionary invasion of Italy (5) and the longer conflict to conquer Italy (6). The author explores the culture of victory that developed thanks to the successes of Belisarius and Narses (7) as well as the struggles with Persia (8) and the insurgencies that developed in North Africa and Italy that hindered the establishment of peace (9). The author then looks at the aftermath of the conquests and what territories were included within the Western Empire of Justinian (10) as well as the factors that led to the drastic decline of the Eastern Roman empire in the decades after Justinian (11), after which there is a timeline, glossary, notes, primary sources, bibliography, and index.
This book is perhaps best for exploring the ways that Byzantine emperors in the early part of the Byzantine Empire (and sometimes long afterwards) could ensure their legitimacy and the crippling problems that succession could provide for ancient regimes. Both of these are areas worthy of additional study. An absence of succession can be an attempt to hold on to real power (one of the reason why second term US presidents are invariably less effective, because they are term-limited) while it can also be a sign of the presence of competing elements that need to be brought together in a ruling coalition that might divide based on too much focus on the question. Likewise, passing and organizing laws, building noteworthy construction projects, and winning wars have often been solid ways of ensuring one's legitimacy of a ruler and passing on a sound legacy. It is a shame that after Justinian the Byzantine Empire was so poorly served by its leaders in a disastrous time that had catastrophic results. Such is the reality of the world in which we live, though, when our greatest efforts are often ephemeral in their result.
This book is a bit more than 300 pages long and is divided into eleven chapters. The book begins with some maps and then an introduction about Justinian and the fall of the Roman empire. After that the author provides a historical context to the period between Constantine and Justinian (1) as well as the military-fiscal complex of the ancient world and Rome in particular (2) and the problem of regime change in Constantinople (3). This leads to a look at the gamble of the invasion of North Africa to distract from major failures at home (4) as well as the small expeditionary invasion of Italy (5) and the longer conflict to conquer Italy (6). The author explores the culture of victory that developed thanks to the successes of Belisarius and Narses (7) as well as the struggles with Persia (8) and the insurgencies that developed in North Africa and Italy that hindered the establishment of peace (9). The author then looks at the aftermath of the conquests and what territories were included within the Western Empire of Justinian (10) as well as the factors that led to the drastic decline of the Eastern Roman empire in the decades after Justinian (11), after which there is a timeline, glossary, notes, primary sources, bibliography, and index.
This book is perhaps best for exploring the ways that Byzantine emperors in the early part of the Byzantine Empire (and sometimes long afterwards) could ensure their legitimacy and the crippling problems that succession could provide for ancient regimes. Both of these are areas worthy of additional study. An absence of succession can be an attempt to hold on to real power (one of the reason why second term US presidents are invariably less effective, because they are term-limited) while it can also be a sign of the presence of competing elements that need to be brought together in a ruling coalition that might divide based on too much focus on the question. Likewise, passing and organizing laws, building noteworthy construction projects, and winning wars have often been solid ways of ensuring one's legitimacy of a ruler and passing on a sound legacy. It is a shame that after Justinian the Byzantine Empire was so poorly served by its leaders in a disastrous time that had catastrophic results. Such is the reality of the world in which we live, though, when our greatest efforts are often ephemeral in their result.
March 13, 2023
A very detailed and enjoyable book on a neglected area of history. Manages to be both engaging and illuminating fleshing out the politics, domestic and foreign, of Late Antiquity. So many what ifs, so much opportunism and of course so many power struggles, this is still Roman after all. The only mistake I found was that 457 was given as the vandal sack of Rome instead of 455 but other than that it was extremely well researched.
The best thing I can say about this book is Nika! Nika! Nika!
The best thing I can say about this book is Nika! Nika! Nika!
October 3, 2020
I’ve read several books by Peter Heather and I consider him the master of this period of Roman and European history (I believe it’s known as Late Antiquity these days as “the Dark Ages” is now considered a completely misleading term).
Some of the material in this book overlaps with two other books by the author, Empires and Barbarians and The Restoration of Rome, both of which I’ve reviewed on Amazon. The latter lists Justinian as one of the “restorers” of Rome (along with Theoderic and Charlemagne). In this volume, the author shows Justinian more as a destroyer than a restorer, though it’s in the nature of history that there isn’t really a contradiction here. The premise of this volume is that Justinian’s wars against Persia in the East and his campaigns to regain lost chunks of the Roman Empire in the West were ultimately ruinous in terms of loss of life and led to no lasting political or economic stability for those who survived. However, one of the author’s hallmarks is his judicious sense of balance and he stops short of arguing – as other revisionists do – that Justinian’s wars contributed directly to the 7th century East Roman Empire’s inability to withstand the onslaughts of Islam. Those revisionists would argue that a stronger East Roman Empire, perhaps allied with Zoroastrian Persia, could have checked the Islamic armies and changed the course of world history. Maybe they have a point, maybe not. Heather refuses to get into that kind of speculation. Instead he merely argues that East Roman weakness in the 7th century wasn’t directly attributable to Justinian but to the mistakes of his successors later in the sixth century.
However, he has no time for an older generation of historians who saw Justinian as “one of history’s great romantics, desperate to return the Roman Empire to its glorious apogee.” Instead he argues that Justinian’s military campaigns began as a “desperate gamble to save his imperial skin”. That gamble arose from the events of January 532, which Heather describes in gripping detail. It’s amazing to think what a powerful effect chariot racing and the animosity between the rival teams of Blues and Greens could have on imperial affairs. It’s also noteworthy that it was Justinian’s wife, the Empress Theodora, who put the fire in his belly when he was ready to cut and run. Ultimately, though, as Heather argues, it was Justinian’s need to stamp his authority on the empire that led him to provoke a war with Persia and then seek to recover Italy and the former Roman North Africa from the Goths and Vandals respectively. Heather says, “all the many thousands of human beings who died….were killed to satisfy the short-term political agendas of an autocratic ruler who cared not one jot for the fate of anybody outside his immediate circle.” This is revisionist history at its best: not overtly ideological but just humanitarian.
I’ve noted before that Heather has a very engaging style. He presents a mass of complex material in a lively and informal way. He must be good at this because even I can follow what he’s saying.
I would recommend this book with enthusiasm to anyone who has read other books by the author; to anyone who is interested in this period of European history; and to anyone who enjoys reading history that is written in an erudite but entertaining way.
Some of the material in this book overlaps with two other books by the author, Empires and Barbarians and The Restoration of Rome, both of which I’ve reviewed on Amazon. The latter lists Justinian as one of the “restorers” of Rome (along with Theoderic and Charlemagne). In this volume, the author shows Justinian more as a destroyer than a restorer, though it’s in the nature of history that there isn’t really a contradiction here. The premise of this volume is that Justinian’s wars against Persia in the East and his campaigns to regain lost chunks of the Roman Empire in the West were ultimately ruinous in terms of loss of life and led to no lasting political or economic stability for those who survived. However, one of the author’s hallmarks is his judicious sense of balance and he stops short of arguing – as other revisionists do – that Justinian’s wars contributed directly to the 7th century East Roman Empire’s inability to withstand the onslaughts of Islam. Those revisionists would argue that a stronger East Roman Empire, perhaps allied with Zoroastrian Persia, could have checked the Islamic armies and changed the course of world history. Maybe they have a point, maybe not. Heather refuses to get into that kind of speculation. Instead he merely argues that East Roman weakness in the 7th century wasn’t directly attributable to Justinian but to the mistakes of his successors later in the sixth century.
However, he has no time for an older generation of historians who saw Justinian as “one of history’s great romantics, desperate to return the Roman Empire to its glorious apogee.” Instead he argues that Justinian’s military campaigns began as a “desperate gamble to save his imperial skin”. That gamble arose from the events of January 532, which Heather describes in gripping detail. It’s amazing to think what a powerful effect chariot racing and the animosity between the rival teams of Blues and Greens could have on imperial affairs. It’s also noteworthy that it was Justinian’s wife, the Empress Theodora, who put the fire in his belly when he was ready to cut and run. Ultimately, though, as Heather argues, it was Justinian’s need to stamp his authority on the empire that led him to provoke a war with Persia and then seek to recover Italy and the former Roman North Africa from the Goths and Vandals respectively. Heather says, “all the many thousands of human beings who died….were killed to satisfy the short-term political agendas of an autocratic ruler who cared not one jot for the fate of anybody outside his immediate circle.” This is revisionist history at its best: not overtly ideological but just humanitarian.
I’ve noted before that Heather has a very engaging style. He presents a mass of complex material in a lively and informal way. He must be good at this because even I can follow what he’s saying.
I would recommend this book with enthusiasm to anyone who has read other books by the author; to anyone who is interested in this period of European history; and to anyone who enjoys reading history that is written in an erudite but entertaining way.
June 22, 2022
A very good book about the broader reign of Justinian.
I was expecting a simple view of the Wars and Empire building in the time of Justinian, but the book is actually much more.
It touches on a lot of topics somewhat related to the title; i still can't really decide whether it's a good or a bad feature of the book. On one hand we get a universal view of what it meant to be an Emperor in the time of Justinian and the centuries before, on the other there is less room for actual war in it's simplest terms. Battles descriptions are short and often non-existant, but the book flows well so i can't really fault it for that. It might not be what i expected, but it is nevertheless something i liked.
The author also likes to give his opinion on a lot of topics, which i really like. He clearly states where there is room for debate, and what his expert opinion is on the matter. It is an approach i find refreshing and really approve of.
There is also humor in the book that is specific to the author. It might put some people of when he speaks of a band of Vandals as "hombres" looking scary, but the point is clear and can make you chuckle. Had it been written by an amateur it might feel worse, but clearly the author knows what he is talking about, so i don't really mind it.
Overall a really good book. It does have some weak moments where the story goes too far off the main topic, but nonetheless i enjoyed it a lot and already bought a new book from the author as soon as i finished it, which is always proof to myself that the book deserves a 5 star rating.
I was expecting a simple view of the Wars and Empire building in the time of Justinian, but the book is actually much more.
It touches on a lot of topics somewhat related to the title; i still can't really decide whether it's a good or a bad feature of the book. On one hand we get a universal view of what it meant to be an Emperor in the time of Justinian and the centuries before, on the other there is less room for actual war in it's simplest terms. Battles descriptions are short and often non-existant, but the book flows well so i can't really fault it for that. It might not be what i expected, but it is nevertheless something i liked.
The author also likes to give his opinion on a lot of topics, which i really like. He clearly states where there is room for debate, and what his expert opinion is on the matter. It is an approach i find refreshing and really approve of.
There is also humor in the book that is specific to the author. It might put some people of when he speaks of a band of Vandals as "hombres" looking scary, but the point is clear and can make you chuckle. Had it been written by an amateur it might feel worse, but clearly the author knows what he is talking about, so i don't really mind it.
Overall a really good book. It does have some weak moments where the story goes too far off the main topic, but nonetheless i enjoyed it a lot and already bought a new book from the author as soon as i finished it, which is always proof to myself that the book deserves a 5 star rating.
August 6, 2019
If one should name one Byzantine emperor, it will be most likely Justinian I, or sometimes called 'Justinian the Great'. Indeed, during his reign (527AD - 568 AD) Justinian and his brilliant military commander Belisarius have achieved a lot: building of the Hagia Sophia, a new codification of Roman law, managing intense theological debates and of course the 'reconquista' of parts of the Mediterranean.
The start of his regime was definitely no rose garden: war with Persia, a civil war in Constantinople destroying half of the city. Like Charlemagne, the Byzantine emperor needed power brokers and a swift victory was advised to secure his regime. Trouble in the Vandal Kingdom of North Africa opened a window of opportunity. And thereafter, Italy and its capital Ravenna fell into the hands of Constantinople. Even part of the Spanish coast and the Balkan were added to Byzantium. Mr Heather highlights that there was no planned strategy to reunite the Roman Empire though, it was more like an "overseas adventurism as the last desperate gamble of a bankrupt regime". But it worked out well. Most of the new territories remained in Byzantine hands for a century and a half. Obviously, one can speculate to what extent Justinian's exhausting war with Persia, has eased Arab militias to conquer the Middle East and North Africa during the 7th century.
The start of his regime was definitely no rose garden: war with Persia, a civil war in Constantinople destroying half of the city. Like Charlemagne, the Byzantine emperor needed power brokers and a swift victory was advised to secure his regime. Trouble in the Vandal Kingdom of North Africa opened a window of opportunity. And thereafter, Italy and its capital Ravenna fell into the hands of Constantinople. Even part of the Spanish coast and the Balkan were added to Byzantium. Mr Heather highlights that there was no planned strategy to reunite the Roman Empire though, it was more like an "overseas adventurism as the last desperate gamble of a bankrupt regime". But it worked out well. Most of the new territories remained in Byzantine hands for a century and a half. Obviously, one can speculate to what extent Justinian's exhausting war with Persia, has eased Arab militias to conquer the Middle East and North Africa during the 7th century.
October 4, 2021
This is an excellent overview of the reign of Emperor Justinian. Focusing principally on the military aspects of Justinian's leadership, this book takes a close look at each of the various campaigns of Belisarius, as well as providing a great deal of analysis on the question of whether the Roman Empire really was 'resurgent' under Justinian.
Justinian is a mercurial figure in our written sources. The principal historian of the period, Procupius, runs hot and cold on Justinian - with little in between the extremes. Procopius's Wars present the emperor as wise, successful and divinely ordained. The Anekdota of Procopius presents the opposite view, even going so far as to suggest that Justinian might have been the antichrist.
Heather moves to the centre-ground, between the two Procopian extremes. The Justinian of Rome Resurgent is a canny political operator, albeit one with seemingly very short-term goals. The Justinian of this book is a very effective propagandist, but less of an effective strategist and imperial leader.
Justinian is a mercurial figure in our written sources. The principal historian of the period, Procupius, runs hot and cold on Justinian - with little in between the extremes. Procopius's Wars present the emperor as wise, successful and divinely ordained. The Anekdota of Procopius presents the opposite view, even going so far as to suggest that Justinian might have been the antichrist.
Heather moves to the centre-ground, between the two Procopian extremes. The Justinian of Rome Resurgent is a canny political operator, albeit one with seemingly very short-term goals. The Justinian of this book is a very effective propagandist, but less of an effective strategist and imperial leader.
June 16, 2018
Not good as his other books. Concentrated on a geographical narrative as opposed to a chronological narrative. This forced the author to discuss how event in one location were effected by concurrent events elsewhere. The book is full of phrases like (will discuss in chapter #) or as seen in chapter #.
This time is history (late Rome era) is something I know little about other than an old science fiction time travel story (which I will read again next). I choose this author to read for this period as I have enjoyed his other books on Rome.
A good book
This time is history (late Rome era) is something I know little about other than an old science fiction time travel story (which I will read again next). I choose this author to read for this period as I have enjoyed his other books on Rome.
A good book
April 16, 2022
Engaging account of the emperor Justinian’s rule, conquest of the west, religious battles, and legal reforms. Sometimes backstories seem a little bit too long and perhaps redundant but I suppose that it’s virtually impossible to talk about any Byzantine emperor without describing the intricate and sometimes delicate political context. The main argument that Justinian’s conquest of the west in a way destabilized the Eastern Roman Empire long before the fall of Constantinople is thoroughly examined.
August 26, 2018
This is a really good book, but having read some of Heather's other, longer works on Medieval Europe, parts of this read like a rehash (in particular, there is definitely some overlap with The Restoration of Rome). Heather's main contention is that the notion that Justinian always intended to recreate the old Roman Empire is BS propaganda. He fell into it after failing on the eastern front versus Persia.
After that bad start and the after the Nika Riots, he needed to do something to establish his legitimacy, and an attack in the west was the best way to do it. In some ways, his armies got very lucky. The Vandal navy was putting down a rebellion in Sardinia (or was it Sicily? I'm too lazy to doublecheck right now), which let their forces land unimpeded. And landing was the hard part, as that's what ruined earlier efforts in North Africa, dating back to 468. That allowed them to have more success than ever imagined. Then it was onto Italy, which didn't go nearly so smoothly. There were also problems with the Berbers in North Africa after the initial conquest - something that had also bedeviled the Vandals there. He also reclaimed part of Spain, but that was just a minor amount of land along the coast.
One key question Heather takes on is: Were these conquests overextensions doomed to fail? Because while Justinian did re-take much of the western empire, it fell soon after. Ever since then people have pondered if Justinian's efforts were worth it. Heather argues that the rapid loss of land in the west shouldn't be held against Justinian. That was factors outside of the control of Constantinople that caused that. However, Heather does make one criticism of Justinian (and it's one I don't recall from his previous books). By having so much conquests, Justinian raised the bar on what a future emperor would have to do to claim legitimacy for himself. That in turn arguably helped lead to bigger wars with Persia. One success took so much land that it guaranteed a Persian reprisals, and that kicked off decades of massive war between the two that weakened both and helped pave for the way for the Islamic success. It's an indirect blame at Justinian, but an interesting argument.
The book also has a long (maybe too long) background on Rome. Heather has a nice bit on the importance of a classical education. For Rome, grammar taught logic and ordered thought. Rhetoric expressed one's capacity for both. Literature taught morals. A written law code was vital because it curbed self-interest and helped create an organized society - and that helped separate civilized life from barbarians. This is some background to why Justinian wanted to create his own law code.
Despite that, maintaining one's government was never easy. There were always plots against emperors. The surest way to stabilize one's rule was by military victory. However, military loss was the easiest way to destabilize it. This is why Justinian focused on foreign campaigns as he did.
There is a nice overview of Theodoric the Great. (This is also replaying Heather's older books, but it helps that it's just a few brief pages). Theodoric beat Clovis in 507 and united the Ostrogoths and Visigoths in 511. By 517, he asserted hegemony over the Burgundians and Vandals. He was the big man in western Europe for a while.
As for Justinian, after his losses to Persia, he was able to stabilize the border, but at huge costs. His forces basically wiped out the Vandals. Remaining adult males were deported. But Italy's Goths were destroyed. They were deceived into surrender. They regrouped under a leader named Totila, and Rome fell back and forth, ruining that city. But eventually Tortila's forces were routed and he was killed. BUT after Gothic resistance ended, the Lombards arrived by 568 (shortly after Justinian died, 565). The Lombards entered Italy because of the rise of the Avars in the east. Peter Heather doesn't blame Justinian for the rise of this new force that pushed other tribes elsewhere and caused the loss of most of Italy for the empire.
The big war between the Byzantines and Persians in the 7th century caused both sides to pay less attention to their Arab client states/allies. This helped the rise of Muhammad. Heather makes a comparison between Muhammad's rise and Attila's Hun Empire. Both succeeded in uniting a force on the edge of empires and was able to threaten the empires from a new direction. But Muhammad's unity had more glue, as religion helped. There were still breakaway rebellions after Muhammad died, but it was all able to stay united. Also, the Muslim conquest of the Persian areas didn't lead to a population reshuffling, as happened in western Europe when Rome fell.
I think Heather could've mentioned more the plague that hit the empire during Justinian's time. That also lessened the empire's ability to keep what it had gained.
Overall, it's a very good and informative book, but Heather is also largely rehashing some of his previous points.
After that bad start and the after the Nika Riots, he needed to do something to establish his legitimacy, and an attack in the west was the best way to do it. In some ways, his armies got very lucky. The Vandal navy was putting down a rebellion in Sardinia (or was it Sicily? I'm too lazy to doublecheck right now), which let their forces land unimpeded. And landing was the hard part, as that's what ruined earlier efforts in North Africa, dating back to 468. That allowed them to have more success than ever imagined. Then it was onto Italy, which didn't go nearly so smoothly. There were also problems with the Berbers in North Africa after the initial conquest - something that had also bedeviled the Vandals there. He also reclaimed part of Spain, but that was just a minor amount of land along the coast.
One key question Heather takes on is: Were these conquests overextensions doomed to fail? Because while Justinian did re-take much of the western empire, it fell soon after. Ever since then people have pondered if Justinian's efforts were worth it. Heather argues that the rapid loss of land in the west shouldn't be held against Justinian. That was factors outside of the control of Constantinople that caused that. However, Heather does make one criticism of Justinian (and it's one I don't recall from his previous books). By having so much conquests, Justinian raised the bar on what a future emperor would have to do to claim legitimacy for himself. That in turn arguably helped lead to bigger wars with Persia. One success took so much land that it guaranteed a Persian reprisals, and that kicked off decades of massive war between the two that weakened both and helped pave for the way for the Islamic success. It's an indirect blame at Justinian, but an interesting argument.
The book also has a long (maybe too long) background on Rome. Heather has a nice bit on the importance of a classical education. For Rome, grammar taught logic and ordered thought. Rhetoric expressed one's capacity for both. Literature taught morals. A written law code was vital because it curbed self-interest and helped create an organized society - and that helped separate civilized life from barbarians. This is some background to why Justinian wanted to create his own law code.
Despite that, maintaining one's government was never easy. There were always plots against emperors. The surest way to stabilize one's rule was by military victory. However, military loss was the easiest way to destabilize it. This is why Justinian focused on foreign campaigns as he did.
There is a nice overview of Theodoric the Great. (This is also replaying Heather's older books, but it helps that it's just a few brief pages). Theodoric beat Clovis in 507 and united the Ostrogoths and Visigoths in 511. By 517, he asserted hegemony over the Burgundians and Vandals. He was the big man in western Europe for a while.
As for Justinian, after his losses to Persia, he was able to stabilize the border, but at huge costs. His forces basically wiped out the Vandals. Remaining adult males were deported. But Italy's Goths were destroyed. They were deceived into surrender. They regrouped under a leader named Totila, and Rome fell back and forth, ruining that city. But eventually Tortila's forces were routed and he was killed. BUT after Gothic resistance ended, the Lombards arrived by 568 (shortly after Justinian died, 565). The Lombards entered Italy because of the rise of the Avars in the east. Peter Heather doesn't blame Justinian for the rise of this new force that pushed other tribes elsewhere and caused the loss of most of Italy for the empire.
The big war between the Byzantines and Persians in the 7th century caused both sides to pay less attention to their Arab client states/allies. This helped the rise of Muhammad. Heather makes a comparison between Muhammad's rise and Attila's Hun Empire. Both succeeded in uniting a force on the edge of empires and was able to threaten the empires from a new direction. But Muhammad's unity had more glue, as religion helped. There were still breakaway rebellions after Muhammad died, but it was all able to stay united. Also, the Muslim conquest of the Persian areas didn't lead to a population reshuffling, as happened in western Europe when Rome fell.
I think Heather could've mentioned more the plague that hit the empire during Justinian's time. That also lessened the empire's ability to keep what it had gained.
Overall, it's a very good and informative book, but Heather is also largely rehashing some of his previous points.
September 12, 2019
I'd give this 4 and a half if that were possible.
This is a very interesting look at the reign of Justinian, the "last great Roman emperor." Heather makes a convincing case that instead of obsessively following a grand plan, Justinian took advantage of events, the general situation as he found it, and reacted to internal pressure in his campaigns in North Africa and Italy.
I think Heather's explanation is pretty convincing. I also agree with him that the collapse of much of the Eastern Empire in the next century was due more to external events than a legacy of Justinian's actions.
Heather is a good writer who can bring ancient history alive for readers.
This is a very interesting look at the reign of Justinian, the "last great Roman emperor." Heather makes a convincing case that instead of obsessively following a grand plan, Justinian took advantage of events, the general situation as he found it, and reacted to internal pressure in his campaigns in North Africa and Italy.
I think Heather's explanation is pretty convincing. I also agree with him that the collapse of much of the Eastern Empire in the next century was due more to external events than a legacy of Justinian's actions.
Heather is a good writer who can bring ancient history alive for readers.
July 18, 2025
Peter Heather’s study of Justinian takes issue with the widely held view of the emperor as a visionary, setting out from the beginning of his reign to restore the glory of the empire by reclaiming the lost territories of Africa and Italy. Instead, he paints the picture of a man making up policy on the hoof, driven by the need to establish and maintain his legitimacy in the face of the disastrous Nika riots at home, and the equally serious threat from Persia abroad.
Nothing, of course, proved the legitimacy of an emperor quite like military victory but the programme of conquest for which Justinian is renowned evolved in a piecemeal fashion. He found himself presented with a unique opportunity to retake the Vandal kingdom at a moment when most of their army was engaged in Sardinia. Emboldened by the success of his forces, he then decided to embark on a similar venture in Italy.
It's also Heather’s thesis, that Justinian’s ambitious codification of the law was similarly undertaken to strengthen his position. For the ruler of the world’s only Christian empire, no action was more appropriate than clarifying the legal system
However, Heather does absolve Justinian from the charge that he over-stretched and over-taxed the empire, ultimately creating the conditions for the Islamic conquest that put an end to its claims to be a world power. After careful consideration of the evidence, he concludes that this was largely the fault of his successors, Justin and Maurice. It was their foreign-policy adventures that fatally weakened the empire.
A realistic rather than a romantic assessment of an imperial superstar.
Nothing, of course, proved the legitimacy of an emperor quite like military victory but the programme of conquest for which Justinian is renowned evolved in a piecemeal fashion. He found himself presented with a unique opportunity to retake the Vandal kingdom at a moment when most of their army was engaged in Sardinia. Emboldened by the success of his forces, he then decided to embark on a similar venture in Italy.
It's also Heather’s thesis, that Justinian’s ambitious codification of the law was similarly undertaken to strengthen his position. For the ruler of the world’s only Christian empire, no action was more appropriate than clarifying the legal system
However, Heather does absolve Justinian from the charge that he over-stretched and over-taxed the empire, ultimately creating the conditions for the Islamic conquest that put an end to its claims to be a world power. After careful consideration of the evidence, he concludes that this was largely the fault of his successors, Justin and Maurice. It was their foreign-policy adventures that fatally weakened the empire.
A realistic rather than a romantic assessment of an imperial superstar.
July 21, 2025
A concise account of the life and times of the great Eastern Roman emperor. But was he really that great? Peter Heather portrays Justinian as very self-interested, with his much-vaunted reconquest of the vanished Western Roman Empire's former North African and Italian territories (and even a little bit of Spain) not as a long-planned mission, but rather as an opportunistic way to cement his hold on power after the terrible Nika riot in Constantinople shortly after his accession. Heather gives him his dues for the codification of law that took place during his reign but overall, the portrayal is far from positive. But those were the times: with all the plotting that went on in the imperial suite, you didn't get to be an emperor for as long as Justinian was by being a virtuous, noble guy.
The book goes into a lot of detail on the codification, the wars of reconquest, the conflict with the Persian arch-enemy, and doctrinal church issues during Justinian's reign. It's possible to skim-read some of this, and still get the gist of Heather's conclusion in the final few chapters.
His conclusion is: The Eastern Empire was reduced to a rump regional power in the 7th century, but this was due to Islam's rise and conquest of the Eastern Empire's North African and Middle Eastern territories, and Justinian, despite ringing up huge costs with his wars of reconquest the previous century, can't be blamed.
An interesting side-note is that the city of Rome itself opted in the 8th century to become an independent republic, rather than continue to be ruled by a Roman emperor from the East as it had been since the reconquest.
The book goes into a lot of detail on the codification, the wars of reconquest, the conflict with the Persian arch-enemy, and doctrinal church issues during Justinian's reign. It's possible to skim-read some of this, and still get the gist of Heather's conclusion in the final few chapters.
His conclusion is: The Eastern Empire was reduced to a rump regional power in the 7th century, but this was due to Islam's rise and conquest of the Eastern Empire's North African and Middle Eastern territories, and Justinian, despite ringing up huge costs with his wars of reconquest the previous century, can't be blamed.
An interesting side-note is that the city of Rome itself opted in the 8th century to become an independent republic, rather than continue to be ruled by a Roman emperor from the East as it had been since the reconquest.
July 4, 2023
I was not expecting repeated mention of Michael Gove, Boris Johnson, and Brexit in a book on Justinian but there you go.
Heather's goal is to attack the argument that Justinian's westward expansion strained the empire's resources and thus led directly to the catastrophic fall of the near east to the Arabs in the seventh century.
Heather shows that the recovered African provinces were in fact prosperous and successfully integrated into the empire's economic superstructure at the time of Justinian's death in 565. A similar claim is made for Sicily and southern Italy. Nonetheless, Heather does concede that the denuding of the Balkan armies to provide reinforcements for the Gothic war in Italy did open the door to increased raids across the Danube. Heather further concedes the ephemeral nature of the very partial reconquest of Hispania.
Rather than the westward reconquest, Heather cites almost 50 years of economically ruinous war with Persia following Justinian's death as the reason the empire was so ill-prepared for the eventual Arab onslaught. One's thoughts may stray towards the loss of Britain's empire after the similarly economically ruinous imposition of two world wars in less than half a century.
Overall, the argument is convincing to an extent. At the very least, it is hard to see the Arab conquest occurring as swiftly as it did without the Roman (and Sassanid) economic exhaustion that so much continuous warfare had engendered.
Heather's goal is to attack the argument that Justinian's westward expansion strained the empire's resources and thus led directly to the catastrophic fall of the near east to the Arabs in the seventh century.
Heather shows that the recovered African provinces were in fact prosperous and successfully integrated into the empire's economic superstructure at the time of Justinian's death in 565. A similar claim is made for Sicily and southern Italy. Nonetheless, Heather does concede that the denuding of the Balkan armies to provide reinforcements for the Gothic war in Italy did open the door to increased raids across the Danube. Heather further concedes the ephemeral nature of the very partial reconquest of Hispania.
Rather than the westward reconquest, Heather cites almost 50 years of economically ruinous war with Persia following Justinian's death as the reason the empire was so ill-prepared for the eventual Arab onslaught. One's thoughts may stray towards the loss of Britain's empire after the similarly economically ruinous imposition of two world wars in less than half a century.
Overall, the argument is convincing to an extent. At the very least, it is hard to see the Arab conquest occurring as swiftly as it did without the Roman (and Sassanid) economic exhaustion that so much continuous warfare had engendered.
January 9, 2022
The book looks at the reign of Justinian and his moves to reconquer former Roman provinces in Africa and the entire Italian peninsula including conquests of the cities Rome and Ravenna. The author makes a brief reference to a small Roman reconquest of some coastal cities in Spain.
The battles surrounding the reconquest of Roman Africa are well described. The Italian reconquest took much longer than Africa ; therefore, with so many battles, actual battle descriptions are brief. We see the goths crushed , and then they resurge only to be crushed again.
The author does a good job of telling how difficult it was to manage all these campaigns in 530-550 years from many miles away in the Byzantine capital. The costs were very large in terms of money, and allowing new problems to surface. Other Roman enemies noticed the preoccupation with reconquest and used that to launch attacks in the East and the Balkans on existing Roman provinces.
The author finished the story with his impression as to whether the reconquest was worth it or not. It's always easy knowing the final results to write a critique of decisions made more than 1500 years ago. After reading the "post game analysis" I find myself thinking here's another academic with too much time on his hands filling out pages in his book.
March 13, 2024
Interessante storia del regno di Giustiniano, con un'ottima contestualizzazione di quanto era accaduto precedentemente e una chiara analisi dell'impatto che ebbe sui successivi eventi, narrati brevemente ma analizzati in dettaglio.
Sempre mantenendo la precisione storica, in alcuni capitoli la narrazione è coinvolgente quanto un romanzo.
La scrittura mi è sembrata molto più scorrevole e di migliore qualità rispetto a "La caduta dell'impero romano" dello stesso autore, anche se la differenza potrebbe essere dovuta alla traduzione.
Consigliatissimo a chiunque sia interessato al periodo, probabilmente godibile anche per gli altri.
Sempre mantenendo la precisione storica, in alcuni capitoli la narrazione è coinvolgente quanto un romanzo.
La scrittura mi è sembrata molto più scorrevole e di migliore qualità rispetto a "La caduta dell'impero romano" dello stesso autore, anche se la differenza potrebbe essere dovuta alla traduzione.
Consigliatissimo a chiunque sia interessato al periodo, probabilmente godibile anche per gli altri.
October 6, 2024
Kniha splnila svoju úlohu nad očakávania a autor je opäť ten Peter Heather, ktorého poznám. Výborná sonda do vlády byzantského cisára Justiniána (527-565) a jeho vojen s Vandalmi v Severnej Afrike, Ostrogótmi v Itálii aj Sasánovskou Perziou na Východe. Okrem toho sa kniha venuje aj situácii pred jeho nástupom a aj po jeho smrti, čím sa záber rozširuje na celé storočie.
November 4, 2023
A nice refreshing view of Justinian's time, putting it into the larger late antiquity era. Nice to see someone present the case that Justinian's western conquests were not directly responsible for the 7th century collapse.
July 23, 2022
Love Peter Heather
Read
May 18, 2022Quit.
Wrong book for me.
The keywords are "war" and "politics", not "Justinian". There is no story, but "history".
1. The title "emperor" referred to the supreme military leader. Military success legitimized an emperor. After the empire converted to Christianity, military success became even more important because it meant God blessed the emperor. And this was getting titular, as the monarchy was finally formed. No more emperor was so great as they propagated. Perhaps this was partly why the late Roman history reads so disgusting. Every leader looks like a boasting coward.
Wrong book for me.
The keywords are "war" and "politics", not "Justinian". There is no story, but "history".
1. The title "emperor" referred to the supreme military leader. Military success legitimized an emperor. After the empire converted to Christianity, military success became even more important because it meant God blessed the emperor. And this was getting titular, as the monarchy was finally formed. No more emperor was so great as they propagated. Perhaps this was partly why the late Roman history reads so disgusting. Every leader looks like a boasting coward.
January 2, 2022
Un libro interessante con qualche imprecisione/refuso storici, ma tutto sommato interessante.
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews