What do you think?
Rate this book
The Nisibis War: The Defence of the Roman East, AD 337–363
The war of 337-363 (which the author dubs the Nisibis War), was an exception to the traditional Roman reliance on a strategic offensive to bring about a decisive battle. Instead, the Emperor Constantius II adopted a defensive strategy and conducted a mobile defense based upon small frontier (limitanei) forces defending fortified cities, supported by limited counteroffensives by the Field Army of the East. These methods successfully checked Persian assaults for 24 years. However, when Julian became emperor his access to greater resources tempted him to abandon mobile defense in favor of a major invasion aimed at regime change in Persia. Although he reached the Persian capital, Ctesiphon, he failed to take it, was decisively defeated in battle and killed. The Romans subsequently resumed and refined the mobile defense, allowing the Eastern provinces to survive the fall of the Western Empire. John Harrel applies his personal experience of military command to a strategic, operational, tactical and logistical analysis of these campaigns and battles, highlighting their long-term significance.
288 pages, Paperback
First published March 30, 2016
44 people are currently reading
55 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
April 29, 2019
You've probably never heard of this war. There's a good reason: John Harrel is the only one calling it that. This book covers what is usually considered two wars, neither of which seems to have any sort 'official' name. "Nisibis" was the name of a city that Rome had gotten in the previous peace deal with Persia (known as the Peace of Nisibis), and was the focus of much of the campaigning in this period, though not where the most decisive actions happened.
Considering that there is basically nine quiet years on the frontier between the two wars, I'm not sure considering them one war is justified. However, they are of a piece, with Shapur II campaigning to drive the Roman Empire out of Mesopotamia, so no matter how you look at it, studying them together is well justified.
This is a fairly in-depth study of the campaigning and the armies of the period, and definitely recommended for anyone interested in 4th Century military history. Given the state of knowledge of the period, I think he's a bit too certain on some of his statements, but he does a good job of laying out his thinking for the state of the Roman army, it's composition, and sources of replenishment. There's a good number of maps, I found the symbology a little crude, but effective.
My main problem is the use of terminology, which kind of goes all over the place. For most Roman offices, he sticks with the Roman names, in italics as foreign words, which is fine. However, he then insists on translating comes and dux as 'count' and 'duke'. That is where the English words come from, but those forms come with a lot feudal baggage that has nothing to do with the Roman offices, and they shouldn't be translated like that. Also, oddly, he insists on giving place and unit names italics as foreign words, even though as proper nouns, that not the general practice. It makes for some highly distracted reading in places.
There is also some good discussion of Shapur II's activities (including during the 'lull'), and discussion of his strategic skill. Sadly, while he gives a good look at Emperor Julian (and a very good account of the entire retreat from Ctesiphon), he touches on Julian's experience (and gives an account of his campaigns in Gaul), but doesn't consider anything analogous to Goldworthy's assertion from In the Name of Rome that Julian's being unused to the scale of operations (in men and distance) was the major Roman failing in 363, though he does touch on a similar idea.
Considering that there is basically nine quiet years on the frontier between the two wars, I'm not sure considering them one war is justified. However, they are of a piece, with Shapur II campaigning to drive the Roman Empire out of Mesopotamia, so no matter how you look at it, studying them together is well justified.
This is a fairly in-depth study of the campaigning and the armies of the period, and definitely recommended for anyone interested in 4th Century military history. Given the state of knowledge of the period, I think he's a bit too certain on some of his statements, but he does a good job of laying out his thinking for the state of the Roman army, it's composition, and sources of replenishment. There's a good number of maps, I found the symbology a little crude, but effective.
My main problem is the use of terminology, which kind of goes all over the place. For most Roman offices, he sticks with the Roman names, in italics as foreign words, which is fine. However, he then insists on translating comes and dux as 'count' and 'duke'. That is where the English words come from, but those forms come with a lot feudal baggage that has nothing to do with the Roman offices, and they shouldn't be translated like that. Also, oddly, he insists on giving place and unit names italics as foreign words, even though as proper nouns, that not the general practice. It makes for some highly distracted reading in places.
There is also some good discussion of Shapur II's activities (including during the 'lull'), and discussion of his strategic skill. Sadly, while he gives a good look at Emperor Julian (and a very good account of the entire retreat from Ctesiphon), he touches on Julian's experience (and gives an account of his campaigns in Gaul), but doesn't consider anything analogous to Goldworthy's assertion from In the Name of Rome that Julian's being unused to the scale of operations (in men and distance) was the major Roman failing in 363, though he does touch on a similar idea.
October 11, 2024
Probably the best military history book I have read. Very clearly laid out and logical with plenty of details on troop types, unit composition and tactics.
I was especially impressed with the chapter on how the geography and weather impacted strategy on the Eastern frontier - very informative.
The authors critical analysis of Julian's campaign in the East and Shapurs approach was excellent.
Highly recommended.
I was especially impressed with the chapter on how the geography and weather impacted strategy on the Eastern frontier - very informative.
The authors critical analysis of Julian's campaign in the East and Shapurs approach was excellent.
Highly recommended.
September 14, 2017
Well researched - offers a clear visual of both Roman and Sassanian orders of battle down to the individual soldier. Easy to absorb and engage with.
August 21, 2018
Extensamente investigado
My bien investigado, puede prefer en algunos capitulos algo repetitivo. No es una novela. Interesara sombre todo a quienes les guste la historia militar.
My bien investigado, puede prefer en algunos capitulos algo repetitivo. No es una novela. Interesara sombre todo a quienes les guste la historia militar.
February 3, 2019
Good read
Is a good read for those who have an interest or are passionate about the Roman Empire or just Roman history.
Is a good read for those who have an interest or are passionate about the Roman Empire or just Roman history.
April 12, 2019
Reasonable history
This book was a reasonable if brief story of the war. It covers most of the main points. A little more detail on the main campaigns would have been better.
This book was a reasonable if brief story of the war. It covers most of the main points. A little more detail on the main campaigns would have been better.
September 19, 2019
This book contains excellent research but is disjoined. It had too many forays into micro-details without taking into account the big picture. Stellar photos and illustrations.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews