What do you think?
Rate this book
Alaric the Goth: An Outsider's History of the Fall of Rome
Stigmatized and relegated to the margins of Roman society, the Goths were violent “barbarians” who destroyed “civilization,” at least in the conventional story of Rome’s collapse. But a slight shift of perspective brings their history, and ours, shockingly alive.
Alaric grew up near the river border that separated Gothic territory from Roman. He survived a border policy that separated migrant children from their parents, and he was denied benefits he likely expected from military service. Romans were deeply conflicted over who should enjoy the privileges of citizenship. They wanted to buttress their global power, but were insecure about Roman identity; they depended on foreign goods, but scoffed at and denied foreigners their own voices and humanity. In stark contrast to the rising bigotry, intolerance, and zealotry among Romans during Alaric’s lifetime, the Goths, as practicing Christians, valued religious pluralism and tolerance. The marginalized Goths, marked by history as frightening harbingers of destruction and of the Dark Ages, preserved virtues of the ancient world that we take for granted.
The three nights of riots Alaric and the Goths brought to the capital struck fear into the hearts of the powerful, but the riots were not without cause. Combining vivid storytelling and historical analysis, Douglas Boin reveals the Goths’ complex and fascinating legacy in shaping our world.
Alaric grew up near the river border that separated Gothic territory from Roman. He survived a border policy that separated migrant children from their parents, and he was denied benefits he likely expected from military service. Romans were deeply conflicted over who should enjoy the privileges of citizenship. They wanted to buttress their global power, but were insecure about Roman identity; they depended on foreign goods, but scoffed at and denied foreigners their own voices and humanity. In stark contrast to the rising bigotry, intolerance, and zealotry among Romans during Alaric’s lifetime, the Goths, as practicing Christians, valued religious pluralism and tolerance. The marginalized Goths, marked by history as frightening harbingers of destruction and of the Dark Ages, preserved virtues of the ancient world that we take for granted.
The three nights of riots Alaric and the Goths brought to the capital struck fear into the hearts of the powerful, but the riots were not without cause. Combining vivid storytelling and historical analysis, Douglas Boin reveals the Goths’ complex and fascinating legacy in shaping our world.
272 pages, Hardcover
First published June 9, 2020
203 people are currently reading
3837 people want to read
About the author
Douglas Boin
5 books61 followersDouglas Boin is a Professor of History at Saint Louis University and the author, most recently, of ALARIC THE GOTH (W.W. Norton), named to The Economist's Best of 2020 list. Doug's essays on classical history have appeared in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post, and he has spoken about the importance of studying the ancient world on NPR Weekend Edition and NPR 1A. He lives with his husband in Austin, Texas.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 192 reviews
July 18, 2020
Feeling like reading a history about a dying empire that
* takes immigrants' kids away, puts them into cages, and 'loses' them in the system?
* uses immigrants as soldiers and then discards them?
* has its culture and politics dominated by a constantly-outraged Christian far-right?
* is enormously xenophobic, using that xenophobia as a political tool?
* cherry-picked its own literature and religious texts to justify their xenophobia?
* is led by a chaotic and disastrous ruler?
* has the 'centralist' part of its political class that just hopes to do business as usual?
You don't have to read the news, you can read this history of the last years of Rome instead. It wasn't directly Alaric who brought about the fall of Rome, but his sacking of the city of Rome certainly didn't help.
* takes immigrants' kids away, puts them into cages, and 'loses' them in the system?
* uses immigrants as soldiers and then discards them?
* has its culture and politics dominated by a constantly-outraged Christian far-right?
* is enormously xenophobic, using that xenophobia as a political tool?
* cherry-picked its own literature and religious texts to justify their xenophobia?
* is led by a chaotic and disastrous ruler?
* has the 'centralist' part of its political class that just hopes to do business as usual?
You don't have to read the news, you can read this history of the last years of Rome instead. It wasn't directly Alaric who brought about the fall of Rome, but his sacking of the city of Rome certainly didn't help.
August 26, 2025
Only Wanting an Open Door
In writing this book, Douglas Boin has attempted revisit Alaric the Goth and change our perceptions of the man who Rome turned its back on and so eventually played a part in its downfall. It is an interesting concept to give one of those seldom heard voices, the barbarians, a voice. However, as becomes clear this is extremely difficult. Boin delves into the complexities of Alaric’s life and the socio-political landscape of the late Roman Empire, presenting a narrative that challenges traditional perceptions.
Boin portrays Alaric not merely as the leader who sacked Rome in 410 AD but as a product of his time; a Christian and a former Roman military leader who sought integration and recognition within the empire. The author emphasises the internal divisions, xenophobia, and leadership failures of Rome, suggesting that these factors significantly contributed to its decline. Boin is a good writer and as such is able to make complex historical events accessible and engaging. This is clearly one of the strengths of the book.
However, it also faces challenges due to the limited primary sources available on Alaric. Alaric himself never comes fully to life, I never got the impression of him as a man, just really a faceless figure cast into this story. This really highlights the difficulties in reconstructing a comprehensive biography and as a result this book often steers away from Alaric himself. Therefore, Boin has to resort to constantly contextualising Alaric within the broader narrative of the empire’s transformation, relying on insights into the era’s cultural and political dynamics. I wonder whether a narrative focused around the Goths as a tribe would have been more effective.
Some readers have noted that Alaric the Goth occasionally draws parallels between ancient events and contemporary issues, which may not resonate with all audiences. Nonetheless, Boin’s work is praised for its readability and thought-provoking perspectives. As I have often said there are lessons to be learnt from history, but to try and compare modern day situations to events of the past can be misleading and often takes creative thinking to make them fit, ignoring circumstances of the time.
I would say that Alaric the Goth is a compelling read, something which I enjoyed due to the writing style. It invites readers to reconsider the narratives surrounding the fall of Rome and the individuals who influenced its course. While constrained by historical ambiguities, Boin’s scholarship sheds light on the complexities of cultural integration, leadership, and the multifaceted nature of historical events.
In writing this book, Douglas Boin has attempted revisit Alaric the Goth and change our perceptions of the man who Rome turned its back on and so eventually played a part in its downfall. It is an interesting concept to give one of those seldom heard voices, the barbarians, a voice. However, as becomes clear this is extremely difficult. Boin delves into the complexities of Alaric’s life and the socio-political landscape of the late Roman Empire, presenting a narrative that challenges traditional perceptions.
Boin portrays Alaric not merely as the leader who sacked Rome in 410 AD but as a product of his time; a Christian and a former Roman military leader who sought integration and recognition within the empire. The author emphasises the internal divisions, xenophobia, and leadership failures of Rome, suggesting that these factors significantly contributed to its decline. Boin is a good writer and as such is able to make complex historical events accessible and engaging. This is clearly one of the strengths of the book.
However, it also faces challenges due to the limited primary sources available on Alaric. Alaric himself never comes fully to life, I never got the impression of him as a man, just really a faceless figure cast into this story. This really highlights the difficulties in reconstructing a comprehensive biography and as a result this book often steers away from Alaric himself. Therefore, Boin has to resort to constantly contextualising Alaric within the broader narrative of the empire’s transformation, relying on insights into the era’s cultural and political dynamics. I wonder whether a narrative focused around the Goths as a tribe would have been more effective.
Some readers have noted that Alaric the Goth occasionally draws parallels between ancient events and contemporary issues, which may not resonate with all audiences. Nonetheless, Boin’s work is praised for its readability and thought-provoking perspectives. As I have often said there are lessons to be learnt from history, but to try and compare modern day situations to events of the past can be misleading and often takes creative thinking to make them fit, ignoring circumstances of the time.
I would say that Alaric the Goth is a compelling read, something which I enjoyed due to the writing style. It invites readers to reconsider the narratives surrounding the fall of Rome and the individuals who influenced its course. While constrained by historical ambiguities, Boin’s scholarship sheds light on the complexities of cultural integration, leadership, and the multifaceted nature of historical events.
July 25, 2020
I bought this book based on a positive review in The Economist. I was disappointed. The book lacks focus. Suppoedly about Alaric, it would have been better titled Rome in the Age of Alaric. Boin lets us know there exists only a paucity information on the subject then proceeds to prove it
December 6, 2020
A good example of what happens when an author's agenda gets in front of his historical acumen.
There is a staggering amount of anachronism, clumsily transplanting identity politics into the ancient Mediterranean world which has been so famously documented time and again to have been one of the most open and accessible societies in history. So, in my opinion much of what Boin achieves is tainted by politically correct secular moralism in order to sell books and I won't even go into the shameless pandering to a modern audience complete with thinly drawn analogies to present day America.
The book is also extensively anti-Christian to the point of being a screed at times. Sobering only in the fact that it got published, full of the author's speculations and at points utterly devoid of historical discipline, it remains like the broken clock accurate in rare moments that give evidence of a better book that might have been if only the author could have put aside his manifest prejudices.
Boin rarely misses a chance to play the "worst possible assessment of a person's character" card in his never ending psychological and moral analysis of his subjects, particularly if they were Christian, Roman, or both. The result is a book that could have been wonderfully insightful, written by a talented author who was unafraid to be unconventional, that at the end of the day caved to every current leftist trope.
It is the height of irony that Boin, in his flawed heavy handed interpretation of history becomes twice the zealot he finds in the much maligned Theodosius. Such is the blindness of the bigot and the fool.
There is a staggering amount of anachronism, clumsily transplanting identity politics into the ancient Mediterranean world which has been so famously documented time and again to have been one of the most open and accessible societies in history. So, in my opinion much of what Boin achieves is tainted by politically correct secular moralism in order to sell books and I won't even go into the shameless pandering to a modern audience complete with thinly drawn analogies to present day America.
The book is also extensively anti-Christian to the point of being a screed at times. Sobering only in the fact that it got published, full of the author's speculations and at points utterly devoid of historical discipline, it remains like the broken clock accurate in rare moments that give evidence of a better book that might have been if only the author could have put aside his manifest prejudices.
Boin rarely misses a chance to play the "worst possible assessment of a person's character" card in his never ending psychological and moral analysis of his subjects, particularly if they were Christian, Roman, or both. The result is a book that could have been wonderfully insightful, written by a talented author who was unafraid to be unconventional, that at the end of the day caved to every current leftist trope.
It is the height of irony that Boin, in his flawed heavy handed interpretation of history becomes twice the zealot he finds in the much maligned Theodosius. Such is the blindness of the bigot and the fool.
December 16, 2021
This is the worst kind of history in my opinion. I understand Boin wants to make the work accessible to a more popular audience but he is dumbing the topic down and painting in the broadest of strokes. What disturbs me most is his lack of references, which makes it unclear where he is using his source material and where he is embellishing. This is especially important because this work has a great deal of fiction in it as the author prioritized telling an interesting story over dry fact based history. He frequently inserts a level of detail that is clearly meant to add a bit of color to a scene, but you would think Boin was an eyewitness based on some passages.
The fact is there isn't enough surviving material for a book on Alaric. Boin thus accepts thin and frankly untrustworthy evidence at face value that other historians have rightfully questioned and in some cases rejected. This is largely a writing around the topic project to make up for the fact that he doesn't have enough evidence for a biography.
The fact is there isn't enough surviving material for a book on Alaric. Boin thus accepts thin and frankly untrustworthy evidence at face value that other historians have rightfully questioned and in some cases rejected. This is largely a writing around the topic project to make up for the fact that he doesn't have enough evidence for a biography.
July 21, 2020
I like historical analysis that takes well trodden subjects and looks at them from a new or different perspective. It is inevitable that most of our sources on the Goths generally and on Alaric's famous sack of Rome in 410 AD come from Roman and therefore largely unsympathetic sources. So there is a lot to recommend Boin's looking at these subjects from something like Alaric's point of view.
Again, given the nature of our sources this can be a tricky proposition, but putting the young Alaric in the political context of the upheavals on the Roman frontier in the late fourth century, the social context of that border region and the environmental context of the Danube region are all useful and interesting. But as the book progresses it becomes evident that there may be some modern political agendas lurking in the background of Boin's approach - ones involving some recent modern anxieties about and reactions to immigrants moving into richer regions seeking a better life.
Again, looking at the past via a perspective of somewhat analogous modern events can give history a vividness and immediacy it may not otherwise have and can also give insights. But at times Boin seems to labour a little too hard to make the modern analogues closer than they may be. Alaric and his people certainly can be usefully seen as immigrants seeking a new life. And the way they are seen as hostile "invaders" by the Romans does indeed have current modern analogues - to an extent. But when it seems Boin is downplaying some elements to keep his modern analogies close, this becomes less useful.
So his account of Alaric's foray into Greece in 396-98 AD is referred to as a "stay" and some readers might not realise that this "stay" involved wide-ranging raiding, plunder and extensive destruction. That our Roman sources talk this up as the actions of these "wolves of the north" is likely to be evidence of the prejudices against outsider groups like the Goths that Boin highlights usefully throughout the book. But his narrative of "immigrants not invaders" can sometimes obscure or downplay the fact that these particular "immigrants" were sometimes less than peaceful refugees.
There are a couple of other oddities in the book. Boin draws heavily on the surviving pieces of the History of Olympiodorus, though - strangely - he refers to this historian as "Oly" throughout the book. This is the abbreviation scholars use for the historian when citing him in footnotes etc., but it's not clear why Boin uses this in his main text while using the full name of all other such sources - Ammianus Marcellinus is referred to in full many times, for example, and not as "AmmMarc". It was also jarring to read an anachronistic and actually nonsensical reference to Anglo-Saxons invading "England" when the writer clearly means Britain or Britannia. Americans really seem to struggle to understand the relevant geographical terms pertaining to the British Isles.
These points aside, this is a vivid and interesting account of a story that has been told many times and one that opens up some intriguing new perspectives.
Again, given the nature of our sources this can be a tricky proposition, but putting the young Alaric in the political context of the upheavals on the Roman frontier in the late fourth century, the social context of that border region and the environmental context of the Danube region are all useful and interesting. But as the book progresses it becomes evident that there may be some modern political agendas lurking in the background of Boin's approach - ones involving some recent modern anxieties about and reactions to immigrants moving into richer regions seeking a better life.
Again, looking at the past via a perspective of somewhat analogous modern events can give history a vividness and immediacy it may not otherwise have and can also give insights. But at times Boin seems to labour a little too hard to make the modern analogues closer than they may be. Alaric and his people certainly can be usefully seen as immigrants seeking a new life. And the way they are seen as hostile "invaders" by the Romans does indeed have current modern analogues - to an extent. But when it seems Boin is downplaying some elements to keep his modern analogies close, this becomes less useful.
So his account of Alaric's foray into Greece in 396-98 AD is referred to as a "stay" and some readers might not realise that this "stay" involved wide-ranging raiding, plunder and extensive destruction. That our Roman sources talk this up as the actions of these "wolves of the north" is likely to be evidence of the prejudices against outsider groups like the Goths that Boin highlights usefully throughout the book. But his narrative of "immigrants not invaders" can sometimes obscure or downplay the fact that these particular "immigrants" were sometimes less than peaceful refugees.
There are a couple of other oddities in the book. Boin draws heavily on the surviving pieces of the History of Olympiodorus, though - strangely - he refers to this historian as "Oly" throughout the book. This is the abbreviation scholars use for the historian when citing him in footnotes etc., but it's not clear why Boin uses this in his main text while using the full name of all other such sources - Ammianus Marcellinus is referred to in full many times, for example, and not as "AmmMarc". It was also jarring to read an anachronistic and actually nonsensical reference to Anglo-Saxons invading "England" when the writer clearly means Britain or Britannia. Americans really seem to struggle to understand the relevant geographical terms pertaining to the British Isles.
These points aside, this is a vivid and interesting account of a story that has been told many times and one that opens up some intriguing new perspectives.
January 4, 2023
This book isn't solely focused on Alaric the Goth. It is a story that encompasses the entirety of the Roman Empire and all the major players (Stilicho, Honorius, Theodosius II) to show an interesting picture of Rome and the causes of Alaric's attack on Rome.
Alaric was a Goth, of the Gothic tribe eventually known as Visigoths (Western Goths), and spent his early life in the service of Rome. Serving in the legions, Alaric and his Gothic troopers were ignored and often passed by for recognition.
Douglas Boin makes the argument that it was Rome's close-minded attitude towards the Goths as "barbarians" and cooperation with the Catholic Church that caused the situation to come to a head and ended with Alaric's sack of Rome in 410 CE.
This is a far ranging story looking at religion, immigration, and what it meant to be "Roman". It also shows the desires and wants of the Goths in relation to the Empire.
A good history and worth reading for people deeply interested in the subject. The casual reader may find this rather dry and be surprised as how little Alaric really is the center point of the book. That's obvious as his early origins are opaque due to the lack of written records of his early life.
An interesting addition to my library.
Alaric was a Goth, of the Gothic tribe eventually known as Visigoths (Western Goths), and spent his early life in the service of Rome. Serving in the legions, Alaric and his Gothic troopers were ignored and often passed by for recognition.
Douglas Boin makes the argument that it was Rome's close-minded attitude towards the Goths as "barbarians" and cooperation with the Catholic Church that caused the situation to come to a head and ended with Alaric's sack of Rome in 410 CE.
This is a far ranging story looking at religion, immigration, and what it meant to be "Roman". It also shows the desires and wants of the Goths in relation to the Empire.
A good history and worth reading for people deeply interested in the subject. The casual reader may find this rather dry and be surprised as how little Alaric really is the center point of the book. That's obvious as his early origins are opaque due to the lack of written records of his early life.
An interesting addition to my library.
October 26, 2021
Is this an unserious book, or a very serious book with very serious problems? I strongly suspect the latter, since Boin is talented. I wanted to like this book and could not, though it isn’t without merit.
Note that this isn’t much of a biography. If you’re under the impression that you’re going to learn about Alaric spent his youth, for example, you’re mistaken. That’s not a flaw, because we know precious little about Alaric and no one could write that book. I wasn’t bothered by this, since Boin makes clear that his goal is to examine the lives of “marginalized people too often invisible in our history books,” and he used Alaric as the lens to sharpen his focus. So – Alaric is the frame around which the book hangs, and not the subject per se.
What didn’t I like, then? Well, if you set out to write a book that takes the least favorable view (to the Romans) of evidence in every possible instance, it’d look something like this.
In the modern world, we have a good deal of trouble dealing with large waves of refugees and migrants (see Syria/Europe, US southern border, etc.). It seems odd to expect more from the Romans who, despite their sophistication, lived in a world of razor-thin, pre-industrial margins of value and calorie extraction, miserable means of communication, and glacial transport systems. What's more, their world saw warfare as a zero-sum game, with victors likely to reap huge windfalls. Conquered cities and towns provided the victors with ready wealth and slaves – fuel that powered the engines of imperialism to be sure, but It’s not as though the peoples on the other side of the frontier obeyed different laws of war. They did not. The decision to let large groups of armed and just-this-side-of-desperate foreigners cross into your lands was fraught with danger, and the possibility of things going sideways (for whatever reason) was high.
The Romans were deeply flawed, but I'm unaware of an ancient society that lived up to Boin’s standards. I suppose the subtext here is a commentary on modern geopolitics, but if so, it feels amateurish and heavy-handed.
I haven’t spent this much time thinking about a book in ages and I’m sure I could find more to say. Instead, I’ll say that if you like thinking about how history is written, this book will give you lots to think about. I don’t generally recommend it.
Note that this isn’t much of a biography. If you’re under the impression that you’re going to learn about Alaric spent his youth, for example, you’re mistaken. That’s not a flaw, because we know precious little about Alaric and no one could write that book. I wasn’t bothered by this, since Boin makes clear that his goal is to examine the lives of “marginalized people too often invisible in our history books,” and he used Alaric as the lens to sharpen his focus. So – Alaric is the frame around which the book hangs, and not the subject per se.
What didn’t I like, then? Well, if you set out to write a book that takes the least favorable view (to the Romans) of evidence in every possible instance, it’d look something like this.
In the modern world, we have a good deal of trouble dealing with large waves of refugees and migrants (see Syria/Europe, US southern border, etc.). It seems odd to expect more from the Romans who, despite their sophistication, lived in a world of razor-thin, pre-industrial margins of value and calorie extraction, miserable means of communication, and glacial transport systems. What's more, their world saw warfare as a zero-sum game, with victors likely to reap huge windfalls. Conquered cities and towns provided the victors with ready wealth and slaves – fuel that powered the engines of imperialism to be sure, but It’s not as though the peoples on the other side of the frontier obeyed different laws of war. They did not. The decision to let large groups of armed and just-this-side-of-desperate foreigners cross into your lands was fraught with danger, and the possibility of things going sideways (for whatever reason) was high.
The Romans were deeply flawed, but I'm unaware of an ancient society that lived up to Boin’s standards. I suppose the subtext here is a commentary on modern geopolitics, but if so, it feels amateurish and heavy-handed.
I haven’t spent this much time thinking about a book in ages and I’m sure I could find more to say. Instead, I’ll say that if you like thinking about how history is written, this book will give you lots to think about. I don’t generally recommend it.
March 19, 2025
Decent summary of the topic and it's a good social history
I would have given it a 4, but the summary of Stilicho's death was quite bad. I get that it's not the topic of the book, but it was explained so briefly and had so much detail of what happened removed, that it's just not a true explanation.
Presenting it as an arrest and execution, and leaving out the fight between his Gothic and Hunnic soldiers, him fleeing camp to hide in a church and telling the garrison there that his army had gone rogue, him being tricked into leaving the church he sought asylum in etc. is just bizarre.
Fleshing it out more only would have taken maybe 2 paragraphs, and it would have contributed significantly to the reader's understanding of the social forces motivating the sieges/sack of Rome in the following 2 years.
I would have given it a 4, but the summary of Stilicho's death was quite bad. I get that it's not the topic of the book, but it was explained so briefly and had so much detail of what happened removed, that it's just not a true explanation.
Presenting it as an arrest and execution, and leaving out the fight between his Gothic and Hunnic soldiers, him fleeing camp to hide in a church and telling the garrison there that his army had gone rogue, him being tricked into leaving the church he sought asylum in etc. is just bizarre.
Fleshing it out more only would have taken maybe 2 paragraphs, and it would have contributed significantly to the reader's understanding of the social forces motivating the sieges/sack of Rome in the following 2 years.
November 17, 2021
This book should have been called "Information about the Roman empire in the 4th-5th century AD, and also thoughts on the immigrant experience in Rome with strongly implied analogies to America." I learned extremely little about the purported subject, Alaric (probably because the historical record on him was sparse, as Boin acknowledges), and instead got a grab-bag of facts about the transition to Christianity, musings about border policies that draw a heavy comparison to the U.S. without saying anything outright, and a smattering of archaeology at the end. The flow of the book really didn't work -- it should have been more chronological if it really was supposed to be about Alaric, but instead it was thematic in a way that made it difficult to follow.
July 26, 2020
A wonderful work of science. If you don't believe me, just ask Boin for his hundreds of hours of filmed interviews with the participants of those misreported events.
July 25, 2025
Man…what a disappointment. For one, and this may not be the author’s fault but the title is totally misleading. This is only marginally concerned with the life, times, and doings of Alaric and instead the text is really a survey of life in the time of the late western Roman Empire, most of which is , frankly, obvious and rushed. I’m not sure I learned anything that I would expect from an actual book on a “particular” person (which this is not). Instead this reads like a well narrated YouTube video with too much "story telling" and simply not enough HISTORY. And since so many works of Roman antiquity take the form of histories via biography, it’s a little underhanded to pretend to do the same (and even to reference Plutarch and Suetonius and others within the very pages of your work while by no means emulating their structure). I also couldn't help but feel cheated by the fact that Boin, like so many contemporary historians, simply CANNOT allow the history of its time to speak. While often subtle, Boin really does position high contemporary attitudes about identity, immigration, and culture into the world of Ancient Rome as if "decolonize the canon" was a conceivable attitude at the time. The modernist/postmodernist academic seems simply incapable of giving the dead the dignity of being who they were. But perhaps what is most egregious is that halfway through, after taking Edward Gibbon *slightly* to task for being an overrated, British imperialist enlightenment buffoon (my words, not his--another historian who literally was unable to let the people of the past be who they were without utterly "disagreeing" with them) he LITERALLY REHASHES THE SAME TOTALLY IDIOTIC SOUNDBITE THAT THE CHURCH DISAGREED OVER AN “iota!” Honestly…just because the words “plea” and “flea” are only “one letter different” doesn’t mean they are basically the same. The term "ὁμοούσιος" is not merely "one iota away" from the term "ὁμοιούσιος." If you are a Christian than Christology is VERY IMPORTANT and if JESUS is GOD (the SAME substance) and not merely an ELEVATED CREATURE (a SIMILAR substance) that’s quite a big difference and has a HUGE impact on EVERYTHING! The fact that a contemporary historian is still so puzzled by this proves the problem. But, if it was mere puzzlement I might be more...charitable. Because I get the feeling that Boin (who apparently wrote a book about the experience of being an early Christian in the Roman Empire) must SURELY know that this is not some "angels on a head of pin" thing. Of course, I'm not sure I'd read that book of his now as this "it's just one letter away" drivel occurs after positing a truly bizarre interpretation of Revelation which claims that last book of the New Testament was used specifically to rile up congregations into frenzied mobs that attacked Pagan temples because, you know, Revelation is all about "demons" (Bion doesn't use any source to back up this claim, no homily, or epistle, or ancient commentary and what's odder is the fact that Revelation was almost never used liturgically and, after the death of Eusebius, was actually thrown out of the lectionary in the east). I’m honestly shocked he didn’t spell it “Revelations” as so many are wont to do who LOVE to use this "mysterious" book of the Bible but never seem to have read it. Lastly, I can understand that there may well have been some exaggeration regarding the accounts of martyrs of the Church but he pretends that Julian the Apostate didn’t rule and he never extends the same criticism to pagan authors that he utilizes. So, he doesn’t really EVER quote many Christian sources (except Jerome, and then to make him an asshole Grammarian which...he may have been somewhat) but when he quotes pagan historians he never adds the same beleaguered “can’t trust ‘em” disclaimer. So, typical western, modernist, secular, tepid history.
March 4, 2021
You don't have to convince me to not be racist or cruel today by bizarrely calling migrating tribes "immigrants," or wistfully imagining an eternal, multiethnic Rome that might have been. Was looking for a genuinely new understanding of Late Antiquity, a sort of anthropology of perspective & the Gothic consciousness. Instead, basically an uninteresting political tract grounded in anachronism and factually untrue nonsense.
October 28, 2023
Ejercicio de arqueología que, más que retratar a Alarico, relata muy bien la sociedad romana de los siglos IV y V, y cómo sumida en conflictos internos no supieron dar encaje a los godos. El trato inhumano a los refugiados que huyen de guerras en Oriente suena demasiado familiar.
December 30, 2022
Only the most subtle readers will pick up on this book's allusions to current events.
June 18, 2020
The story of the fall of Rome, as we're taught, is very simple. A bunch of angry, uncivilized men stormed the great beacon of learning and decency and burnt it all down in a fit of pique. Douglas Boin's book is about explaining why that's a myth, what might have really happened, and why we should question the established narrative.
Boin is not subtle in the reasons he picked up this story: It's one of increasing religious hypocrisy and intolerance (on the part of early Christians), greed, bigotry, and heartless cruelty driven by apathy and smugness. The reign of Theodosius and his sons, from the Gothic perspective, is not great.
It's got a strong narrative drive, although it runs low in the tank at the very end, but Boin admits he's light on sources and facts; he has to draw from negative inference and what little records there are much of the time. Despite this, he makes a fairly compelling case that if anything, Alaric is the hero of the story, and the sacking of Rome was not an act of spite but a form of political protest.
Rome and America are not equivalent, and their marginalized groups even less so. However, considering the current moment we live in, this resonates in ways worth considering.
Boin is not subtle in the reasons he picked up this story: It's one of increasing religious hypocrisy and intolerance (on the part of early Christians), greed, bigotry, and heartless cruelty driven by apathy and smugness. The reign of Theodosius and his sons, from the Gothic perspective, is not great.
It's got a strong narrative drive, although it runs low in the tank at the very end, but Boin admits he's light on sources and facts; he has to draw from negative inference and what little records there are much of the time. Despite this, he makes a fairly compelling case that if anything, Alaric is the hero of the story, and the sacking of Rome was not an act of spite but a form of political protest.
Rome and America are not equivalent, and their marginalized groups even less so. However, considering the current moment we live in, this resonates in ways worth considering.
January 23, 2021
I guess it’s really a look at Rome at about 350 - 450AD. There’s not much good historical info about Alaric himself, so the author tries to fill in without actually making stuff up. I learned many things about Roman life at that time, but I think a good historian, had they worked on a history of Rome from 350-450, could have come up with something a little more solid. By trying to focus on Alaric, about whom so little can be known, something was lost. But still the book was very educational.
September 6, 2020
I am the audience for this book's ideological viewpoint, but I think it pushed it too much (and should have focused more on the nuts-and-bolts history). Full blog post: tylerwolanin.com/blog/2020/9/3/what-i...
January 11, 2025
В городе Козенце в Италии, где, как считается, в 410 году н. э. умер Аларих, установлен памятник этому вождю готов: на голове безногой и бесхвостой лошади стоит голый наездник в короне. Что сказать, книга Дугласа «Дуги» Бойна является таким же бессмысленным посвящением Алариху, как и этот памятник в Козенце.
Профессор истории из Университета Сент-Луиса (США) откровенно раздражает на протяжении всей книги, и делает это на разных уровнях.
1. Книга заявлена как биография Алариха. В её названии, не сохранённом в русском переводе (о нём отдельно), прослеживается перекличка с уже классическим романом Р. Грейвса (ср. Alaric, the Goth и Claudius, the God). Однако если у Грейвса роман действительно посвящён императору Клавдию, то у Бойна сведений о вожде готов, что называется, кот наплакал. Его книжица посвящена какому-то фрагментарному, сбивчивому со множеством отступлений описанию Римской империи периода 370—410 гг. н. э. а не собственно Алариху. В итоге читатель получает не совсем то, чего ожидал.
2. Далее раздражает ненаучный стиль и тон «Дуги», противоречащий его собственным установкам. Уже в предисловии автор заявляет:
При этом «Дуги» — учёный (!), профессор (!!) — на протяжении всей книги раздаёт следующие безапелляционные характеристики:
— «самый предвзятый автор своего времени» — это о римском поэте Клавдиане;
— «самодовольное чувство римского культурного превосходства» — без комментариев;
— «затхлый дух» Колизея — это арена под открытым небом, напо��инаю; откуда там затхлость?
— «любовь к старым классикам показывает, насколько римское общество застряло в своём развитии» (Любите Шекспира или Пушкина? Вы застряли в развитии, nuff said).
— «самодовольные епископы любили собирать на [храмы] деньги» (К чему тут самодовольство?).
— «шовинистический плакат, заявляющий о превосходстве Афин над варварской Персией» — это «Дуги» про Парфенон, если что.
— «жестокий римский фанатизм в те годы стал причиной гибели наставника Алариха, Гайны» — это про ликвидацию поднявшего мятеж против римской власти готского военачальника. Ликвидатора Гайны «Дуги» ничтоже сумняшеся обзывает «бессовестным убийцей».
— «Крайне гордый иноземец и верный государственный служащий» — это Дуги про Алариха в 407 году, после всех его грабежей римских провинций в Греции и Северной Италии.
3. Всю идею книги Дуги можно свести к тому, что Аларих взял и разграбил Рим в 410 году н. э. от отчаяния и горячего желания защитить свой готский народ. Он просто хотел, чтобы его любили. А коварные римляне почему-то не доверяли Алариху и его племени, не разрешали селиться на своей территории не желавшим ассимилироваться готам, не давали им гражданство и вообще никак не защищали их права. Делали это всё римляне, потому что отказались от толерантности, инклюзивности и веротерпимости. Если вам показалось, что я вдруг заговорил об античных временах современными штампами, то вам не показалось: всё именно так у Дуги. При чтении порой кажется, что автор сублимирует мигрантские проблемы современных США и пытается экстраполировать их на Древний Рим. Отсюда, к примеру, его антинаучные претензии к Риму в части отсутствия конституции (!) и законодательного ущемления иностранцев. Это более чем странный подход для историка, должного учитывать контекст эпохи, а стало быть, не лезть с современными оценками и воззрениями в глубь веков (tempus regit actum).
4. Отдельно раздражают фактические ошибки, допускаемые профессором истории Дуги. То он ошибочно называет Дунай самой длинной рекой в Европе, то самовольно присваивает Феликсу Хоффману, впервые синтезировавшему ацетилсалициловую кислоту в устойчивой форме, Нобелевскую премию. Это ошибки, допускаемые Дуги в его отклонениях от темы исследования, отклонениях, по большей части для добавления объёма своей жиденькой книжице (чуть более трёхсот страниц в русском переводе). Но есть у Дуги ошибки и более серьёзные: русское издание полно примечаний научного редактора, из раза в раз поправляющего профессора. Нет, готы не называли свою землю «Готией». Нет, император Максимин не имел отношения к готам. Нет, в средневековой Европе не замалчивали историю готов. И так далее.
5. В конце концов раздражает, как Дуги жонглирует немногочисленными античными источниками для продвижения своей версии об идеалисте Аларихе, который был «непоколебимо убеждён в порядочности римского народа» и умер от «душевных переживаний, оскорблённой гордости и неиссякаемой любви к своему народу». Если утверждение о каком-либо выгодном для Дуги факте встречается лишь в одном источнике, но умалчивается или даже опровергается в других источниках, то горе этим другим источникам; Дуги возьмёт на вооружение именно такой спорный, но нужный ему факт.
Например, о массовом убийстве готских юношей сразу после Андрианопольской битвы (378 год н. э.) пишет лишь один историк Зосим, живший в начале VI века. Но поскольку это сообщение из единственного источника ложится в канву версии Дуги о коварных римлянах и несчастных готах, Бойн с радостью хватается за него и делает «фактом».
В конце отдельно стоит сказать о русском издании книги «Дуги» Бойна. С одной стороны, следует похвалить издательство «Альпина нон-фикшн» за привлечение научного редактора, проверившего текст и отметившего в примечаниях натяжки, передергивания и ошибки «Дуги». С другой стороны, странно, что «Альпина» никак не представила своего научного редактора Максима Коробова. Какое у него образование, какие регалии? Насколько можно доверять его комментариям?
Увы, не справилась «Альпина» и с выбором переводчика. Более того, плохая работа переводчика Алексея Свистунова лишь усилила моё негативное восприятие книги «Дуги». Чего только стоят следующие пассажи в переводе:
а) «первые археологические памятники были найдены… в Черняхове (сегодня Черняхiв на Украине)». Нет, переводчик, Черняхов остался для русскоязычных (в отличие от англоязычных) Черняховым, как и Киев остался Киевом.
б) "чужестранцы находились во власти этих расовых и этнических структурных предубеждений и сильно от них страдали" (переводчику невдомёк, что находиться во власти предубеждений — это испытывать эти самые предубеждения, а не страдать от предубеждений окружающих);
в) "Стареющие любимицы высшего общества <...> закутывались в платья" (можно закутаться в тогу, шубу, шаль или одеяло — но в платье-то как, переводчик???)
И таких примеров косноязычия переводчика можно было бы привести десяток и более.
P.S. В своей рецензии я позволил себе называть Дугласа Бойна «Дуги». Это моя маленькая месть за историка Олимпиодора Фиванского, жившего в V веке, которого автор со свойственной некоторым американцам неуместной фамильярностью на протяжении всей книги называл «Оли».
Профессор истории из Университета Сент-Луиса (США) откровенно раздражает на протяжении всей книги, и делает это на разных уровнях.
1. Книга заявлена как биография Алариха. В её названии, не сохранённом в русском переводе (о нём отдельно), прослеживается перекличка с уже классическим романом Р. Грейвса (ср. Alaric, the Goth и Claudius, the God). Однако если у Грейвса роман действительно посвящён императору Клавдию, то у Бойна сведений о вожде готов, что называется, кот наплакал. Его книжица посвящена какому-то фрагментарному, сбивчивому со множеством отступлений описанию Римской империи периода 370—410 гг. н. э. а не собственно Алариху. В итоге читатель получает не совсем то, чего ожидал.
2. Далее раздражает ненаучный стиль и тон «Дуги», противоречащий его собственным установкам. Уже в предисловии автор заявляет:
«Меня как историка всегда очень интересовали корни стереотипов и грубых обобщений. Использование уничижительных слов и оскорбительных образов лишает многих людей полноценного участия в жизни сообщества, вытесняет их истории на задворки их собственной эпохи и стирает из памяти последующих поколений. Меня крайне тревожит мысль о том, как легко и жестоко можно испортить репутацию целой группы людей, превратить их в карикатуру на самих себя».
При этом «Дуги» — учёный (!), профессор (!!) — на протяжении всей книги раздаёт следующие безапелляционные характеристики:
— «самый предвзятый автор своего времени» — это о римском поэте Клавдиане;
— «самодовольное чувство римского культурного превосходства» — без комментариев;
— «затхлый дух» Колизея — это арена под открытым небом, напо��инаю; откуда там затхлость?
— «любовь к старым классикам показывает, насколько римское общество застряло в своём развитии» (Любите Шекспира или Пушкина? Вы застряли в развитии, nuff said).
— «самодовольные епископы любили собирать на [храмы] деньги» (К чему тут самодовольство?).
— «шовинистический плакат, заявляющий о превосходстве Афин над варварской Персией» — это «Дуги» про Парфенон, если что.
— «жестокий римский фанатизм в те годы стал причиной гибели наставника Алариха, Гайны» — это про ликвидацию поднявшего мятеж против римской власти готского военачальника. Ликвидатора Гайны «Дуги» ничтоже сумняшеся обзывает «бессовестным убийцей».
— «Крайне гордый иноземец и верный государственный служащий» — это Дуги про Алариха в 407 году, после всех его грабежей римских провинций в Греции и Северной Италии.
3. Всю идею книги Дуги можно свести к тому, что Аларих взял и разграбил Рим в 410 году н. э. от отчаяния и горячего желания защитить свой готский народ. Он просто хотел, чтобы его любили. А коварные римляне почему-то не доверяли Алариху и его племени, не разрешали селиться на своей территории не желавшим ассимилироваться готам, не давали им гражданство и вообще никак не защищали их права. Делали это всё римляне, потому что отказались от толерантности, инклюзивности и веротерпимости. Если вам показалось, что я вдруг заговорил об античных временах современными штампами, то вам не показалось: всё именно так у Дуги. При чтении порой кажется, что автор сублимирует мигрантские проблемы современных США и пытается экстраполировать их на Древний Рим. Отсюда, к примеру, его антинаучные претензии к Риму в части отсутствия конституции (!) и законодательного ущемления иностранцев. Это более чем странный подход для историка, должного учитывать контекст эпохи, а стало быть, не лезть с современными оценками и воззрениями в глубь веков (tempus regit actum).
4. Отдельно раздражают фактические ошибки, допускаемые профессором истории Дуги. То он ошибочно называет Дунай самой длинной рекой в Европе, то самовольно присваивает Феликсу Хоффману, впервые синтезировавшему ацетилсалициловую кислоту в устойчивой форме, Нобелевскую премию. Это ошибки, допускаемые Дуги в его отклонениях от темы исследования, отклонениях, по большей части для добавления объёма своей жиденькой книжице (чуть более трёхсот страниц в русском переводе). Но есть у Дуги ошибки и более серьёзные: русское издание полно примечаний научного редактора, из раза в раз поправляющего профессора. Нет, готы не называли свою землю «Готией». Нет, император Максимин не имел отношения к готам. Нет, в средневековой Европе не замалчивали историю готов. И так далее.
5. В конце концов раздражает, как Дуги жонглирует немногочисленными античными источниками для продвижения своей версии об идеалисте Аларихе, который был «непоколебимо убеждён в порядочности римского народа» и умер от «душевных переживаний, оскорблённой гордости и неиссякаемой любви к своему народу». Если утверждение о каком-либо выгодном для Дуги факте встречается лишь в одном источнике, но умалчивается или даже опровергается в других источниках, то горе этим другим источникам; Дуги возьмёт на вооружение именно такой спорный, но нужный ему факт.
Например, о массовом убийстве готских юношей сразу после Андрианопольской битвы (378 год н. э.) пишет лишь один историк Зосим, живший в начале VI века. Но поскольку это сообщение из единственного источника ложится в канву версии Дуги о коварных римлянах и несчастных готах, Бойн с радостью хватается за него и делает «фактом».
В конце отдельно стоит сказать о русском издании книги «Дуги» Бойна. С одной стороны, следует похвалить издательство «Альпина нон-фикшн» за привлечение научного редактора, проверившего текст и отметившего в примечаниях натяжки, передергивания и ошибки «Дуги». С другой стороны, странно, что «Альпина» никак не представила своего научного редактора Максима Коробова. Какое у него образование, какие регалии? Насколько можно доверять его комментариям?
Увы, не справилась «Альпина» и с выбором переводчика. Более того, плохая работа переводчика Алексея Свистунова лишь усилила моё негативное восприятие книги «Дуги». Чего только стоят следующие пассажи в переводе:
а) «первые археологические памятники были найдены… в Черняхове (сегодня Черняхiв на Украине)». Нет, переводчик, Черняхов остался для русскоязычных (в отличие от англоязычных) Черняховым, как и Киев остался Киевом.
б) "чужестранцы находились во власти этих расовых и этнических структурных предубеждений и сильно от них страдали" (переводчику невдомёк, что находиться во власти предубеждений — это испытывать эти самые предубеждения, а не страдать от предубеждений окружающих);
в) "Стареющие любимицы высшего общества <...> закутывались в платья" (можно закутаться в тогу, шубу, шаль или одеяло — но в платье-то как, переводчик???)
И таких примеров косноязычия переводчика можно было бы привести десяток и более.
P.S. В своей рецензии я позволил себе называть Дугласа Бойна «Дуги». Это моя маленькая месть за историка Олимпиодора Фиванского, жившего в V веке, которого автор со свойственной некоторым американцам неуместной фамильярностью на протяжении всей книги называл «Оли».
June 28, 2022
The book felt like one I read earlier this year, “Four Lost Cities”, in that it felt like there was a decidedly modern, political take in the book that the author kept hammering home. Not to say that the Romans were not xenophobic and sexist, that is clear, but all the authors comments about the power of immigrants, the overcoming of stereotypes, the xenophobia of Theodosius, it felt heavy handed.
His constant stating of what Alaric, or other actors “may” have been feeling at the time rubbed me the wrong way. Speculation is all fine and dandy, but when it becomes a significant part of your book, maybe that’s a signal that you’re taking the wrong tack. There is not enough evidence to write a proper biography of Alaric in the modern sense, and that's OK. I read in another review that it should have been called 'Rome in the Age of Alaric" and I think that more accurately communicates the book's style (this is definitely in the realm of nitpicking).
Structurally the book was odd, it would put the major moments (sack of Rome, Alaric's march, murder of Stilicho) as throwaway comments, and then spend a page musing on how Alaric must have felt while at training camp.
Now, not to be overwhelmingly negative, I really enjoyed learning more about the Goths, about Christian Rome, and the book definitely created some wiki dives in the future (the emperor’s sister who joined the Goths, interesting). However the moralizing and anachronistic asides curdled it.
His constant stating of what Alaric, or other actors “may” have been feeling at the time rubbed me the wrong way. Speculation is all fine and dandy, but when it becomes a significant part of your book, maybe that’s a signal that you’re taking the wrong tack. There is not enough evidence to write a proper biography of Alaric in the modern sense, and that's OK. I read in another review that it should have been called 'Rome in the Age of Alaric" and I think that more accurately communicates the book's style (this is definitely in the realm of nitpicking).
Structurally the book was odd, it would put the major moments (sack of Rome, Alaric's march, murder of Stilicho) as throwaway comments, and then spend a page musing on how Alaric must have felt while at training camp.
Now, not to be overwhelmingly negative, I really enjoyed learning more about the Goths, about Christian Rome, and the book definitely created some wiki dives in the future (the emperor’s sister who joined the Goths, interesting). However the moralizing and anachronistic asides curdled it.
July 3, 2021
I thoroughly enjoyed this book. There is not much information around about Alaric. The author has taken each nugget that there is, let's switch metaphors and say picked up a twig and built a nest around that twig. Each twig becomes a discussion/context of what was happening in Rome, who was doing what, and so building a story of Alaric. I liked the details, the various historical figures, the religious machinations. Several descriptions of fanatical Christians resonated with what we're dealing with today. When fanatics rule, chaos is not far off.
Read
September 19, 2024Just kinda middling
August 18, 2025
quick read. good overview of the feelings, actions and writings of the various players involved.
August 1, 2020
Boin gives us a well written account of the Goths living under Roman law. The book does a good job of keeping the narrative told from the Goths’ perspective, depicting them as refugees searching for a place they can truly call home. Boin also does a good job of discussing the bias and shortcomings of the sources that he uses - usually these sources are written by Romans much later.
This book is somewhat anticlimactic though. This book is leading up to a significant event - the 410 sack of Rome - but we actually get very little information about that. Just a couple pages. We also get very little detail about the attacks on the Roman countryside leading up to 410, even though Boin admits that there is plenty of evidence about those attacks. This book is very short, but I think it would benefit from a couple more chapters.
As another reviewer mentioned, this should’ve been called something like “The Goths - an outside perspective of the Roman Empire”. A lot of the information about Alaric, especially his early life, is speculative and based on generalized accounts of the time. Due to the lack of sources, this makes sense, but then the focus of this book isn’t really Alaric. It is all Goths living in the Roman Empire at this time.
This book is somewhat anticlimactic though. This book is leading up to a significant event - the 410 sack of Rome - but we actually get very little information about that. Just a couple pages. We also get very little detail about the attacks on the Roman countryside leading up to 410, even though Boin admits that there is plenty of evidence about those attacks. This book is very short, but I think it would benefit from a couple more chapters.
As another reviewer mentioned, this should’ve been called something like “The Goths - an outside perspective of the Roman Empire”. A lot of the information about Alaric, especially his early life, is speculative and based on generalized accounts of the time. Due to the lack of sources, this makes sense, but then the focus of this book isn’t really Alaric. It is all Goths living in the Roman Empire at this time.
November 15, 2019
This was a very good introduction to the fall of Rome and The outsiders, specifically Alaric, that just wanted acceptance and inclusion into the Roman empire and the consequences when that didn't happen. There were parallels that appeared deliberate between then and now. This was highly readable and entertaining but lacked some depth. I hope to read more about the subject matter in the future.
Thank you to the publisher for providing me with this arc available through edelweiss.
Thank you to the publisher for providing me with this arc available through edelweiss.
October 29, 2021
Very disappointed! 90% about late Roman society and 10% about the extremely misunderstood Goths and related people's...I think Alaric is mentioned less than 10x throughout the book. The author doesn't try to explain the Gothic mentality as much as the sickened part of Roman societal strata. And as if alaric was in someway jealous....all crap, had to struggle to finish!!
April 4, 2021
Perhaps the greatest empire in the history of the world, the Roman Empire, collapsed in the first half-century, C.E. Uncountable books have been written about its rise and fall, most notably Gibbon’s six-volume “The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” published in 1776.
We all know that the Roman Empire was invaded by barbarians from the north. Boin’s popular history asks, what did that look like from the point of view of the invaders? Alaric, “king of the Goths,” was the main leader of the invading group that inflicted the knockout blow around 450. Boin’s history focuses on what historians know about Alaric, his people, and his times.
It's a lot more than I thought. Apparently, there is a thriving subset of historians specializing in Gothic history, even though the original sources are extremely sparse. Unfortunately those sources are not well-documented in the text, perhaps to improve readability. For example, Boin refers extensively to a historian, Jordanes, who does not appear in the bibliography. He was a sixth-century Roman bureaucrat.
Boin tries to present a biography of Alaric despite lack of historical detail. I did not think that approach was successful for two reasons. One is that there isn’t much source material to do it, yet Boin is loathe to venture into fictional embellishment. He suggests only things that Alaric “must have known” or that “people living in this region did at the time.” The second problem is that Boin is a historian, not a writer of fiction, so his quasi-biographical scenes range from stilted to cringeworthy.
Nevertheless, the book has been well-reviewed, so most people find it acceptable. The history of the Goths was largely unknown to me and I found the story fascinating. I certainly could have used a map or two. The Danube is a very long river, for example, and I am not fully aware of its course. From what I can gather, the Goths of Alaric’s time came from a region around present-day Romania and Bulgaria.
Rome was sacked and burned by Alaric and his men, but it wasn’t the first time that had happened. Anyway, Rome’s alternative imperial city, Byzantium, had been the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire for a hundred years, and it carried on unscathed. The Goths didn’t “take over” Rome. They left it burning and moved to Spain. Boin’s account of the “fall” of Rome focuses on political intrigue and especially on Roman xenophobia, but it is surprisingly innocent of economic and demographic considerations.
Did the Roman Empire even “fall?” I think about people who ask what happened to ancient tribes of Native Americans who “disappeared” from thriving cities, for example, the cliff-dwelling Anasazi tribe of the “Four Corners” region where Utah, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico meet. If you ask the local indigenous people about that today, they’ll tell you, “Nothing happened. They’re still here. It’s us.”
I wish Boin had taken the plunge (perhaps with the help of a co-author) into a more imaginative biographical treatment of Alaric. A good writer could have made Alaric into a personality without crossing the line into novelistic fiction. Even so, this book did increase my awareness of and appreciation for present-day “Gothic” representations, in architecture (e.g., English Houses of Parliament), culture, and literature.
Boin, Douglas (2020). Alaric the Goth: An Outsider’s History of the Fall of Rome. New York: W.W. Norton, 253 pp.
We all know that the Roman Empire was invaded by barbarians from the north. Boin’s popular history asks, what did that look like from the point of view of the invaders? Alaric, “king of the Goths,” was the main leader of the invading group that inflicted the knockout blow around 450. Boin’s history focuses on what historians know about Alaric, his people, and his times.
It's a lot more than I thought. Apparently, there is a thriving subset of historians specializing in Gothic history, even though the original sources are extremely sparse. Unfortunately those sources are not well-documented in the text, perhaps to improve readability. For example, Boin refers extensively to a historian, Jordanes, who does not appear in the bibliography. He was a sixth-century Roman bureaucrat.
Boin tries to present a biography of Alaric despite lack of historical detail. I did not think that approach was successful for two reasons. One is that there isn’t much source material to do it, yet Boin is loathe to venture into fictional embellishment. He suggests only things that Alaric “must have known” or that “people living in this region did at the time.” The second problem is that Boin is a historian, not a writer of fiction, so his quasi-biographical scenes range from stilted to cringeworthy.
Nevertheless, the book has been well-reviewed, so most people find it acceptable. The history of the Goths was largely unknown to me and I found the story fascinating. I certainly could have used a map or two. The Danube is a very long river, for example, and I am not fully aware of its course. From what I can gather, the Goths of Alaric’s time came from a region around present-day Romania and Bulgaria.
Rome was sacked and burned by Alaric and his men, but it wasn’t the first time that had happened. Anyway, Rome’s alternative imperial city, Byzantium, had been the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire for a hundred years, and it carried on unscathed. The Goths didn’t “take over” Rome. They left it burning and moved to Spain. Boin’s account of the “fall” of Rome focuses on political intrigue and especially on Roman xenophobia, but it is surprisingly innocent of economic and demographic considerations.
Did the Roman Empire even “fall?” I think about people who ask what happened to ancient tribes of Native Americans who “disappeared” from thriving cities, for example, the cliff-dwelling Anasazi tribe of the “Four Corners” region where Utah, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico meet. If you ask the local indigenous people about that today, they’ll tell you, “Nothing happened. They’re still here. It’s us.”
I wish Boin had taken the plunge (perhaps with the help of a co-author) into a more imaginative biographical treatment of Alaric. A good writer could have made Alaric into a personality without crossing the line into novelistic fiction. Even so, this book did increase my awareness of and appreciation for present-day “Gothic” representations, in architecture (e.g., English Houses of Parliament), culture, and literature.
Boin, Douglas (2020). Alaric the Goth: An Outsider’s History of the Fall of Rome. New York: W.W. Norton, 253 pp.
March 3, 2025
I was incredibly excited going into this book as Alaric the Goth is a near mythical figure in the mind of historians, primarily because there is essentially no primary evidence that can allude to his character or even his own words. That’s the ultimate pitfall of this book, Boin uses Alaric to haplessly draw parallels to the Twenty-First century something that would not be possible for any other historical figure. The book to me felt more like a massive work of historical fiction rather than a work of serious scholarship. Boin harshly condemns the Romans for their barbaracity and maltreatment of the Goths here drawing a parallel to modern day immigrants while consciously downplaying the Sack of Rome led by Alaric at the head of nearly 40,000 soldiers. This sack was devastating and involved the deaths of many people, primarily civilians and yet the entire event is played by Boin to be nothing more than a choice made out of desperation- something that Alaric was simply forced to do after his maltreatment at the hands of the Romans. Ultimately the façade that Boin shabbily puts up in an attempt to humanize an often misunderstood figure falls flat. Alaric the Goth deserves to be humanized, but not like this. Alaric the Goth was in no way shape or form an immigrant in the Twenty-first century, postmodern, post Enlightenment understanding of the word, and he certainly was not as helpless as he is made out to be. To treat Alaric like an immigrant only serves to put a bad name and face to immigrant communities, especially in the minds of many people who do not have the nuance and understanding to see Alaric the Goth in such an extremely positive light.
Alaric the Goth was for all intents and purposes a warlord who sacked the city of Rome, thus becoming one of the most notorious figures in the history of that once great and very violent Empire. There is a very human and perhaps even emotionally moving story behind this warlord, however Douglas Boin does not use the nuance or responsibility that it would take to produce such a story.
Alaric the Goth was for all intents and purposes a warlord who sacked the city of Rome, thus becoming one of the most notorious figures in the history of that once great and very violent Empire. There is a very human and perhaps even emotionally moving story behind this warlord, however Douglas Boin does not use the nuance or responsibility that it would take to produce such a story.
June 24, 2020
What a great book! Alaric the Goth was informative while still being engaging and entertaining! Douglas Boin painted his history book with images of the ancient world that felt almost like time travel.
“Within a decade, the old sights and smells a pagan Rome—of incense wafting from outdoor alters and of pagan priests dressed smartly to visit stately temples, religious activities that men like Cicero and Virgil would have instantly recognized as an essential part of being Roman—gradually disappeared.”
This book touches upon themes of citizenship, immigration, ethnicity, identity, religious intolerance, religious moderates, paganism, the early Christian Church, empires, and the judgement of history—no matter how biased. The overall theme being the concept of Romanitas, what it meant to be Roman, and the consequences of its requirements.
It was interesting to see how an array of emperors changed Roman life one by one. From Septimius Severus, the African emperor, who admired the Gothic Maximinus for his strength and talent and allowed him to rise the ranks instead of the lazy rich Roman boys who spent more time answering to their accusers in court. Then there was the rogue emperor Caracalla who granted citizenship to everyone in the empire, leading way for Maximinus to become the first foreign born emperor and first of Gothic origin. Over a hundred years later was Emperor Theodosius, who campaigned against the Goths, who no longer had citizenship or protections. Theodosius turned the empire into a Nicene Christian state, and outlawed all forms of paganism. Eventually the empire was ruled by his two sons, Honorius to the West, and Arcadia to the East. Their youth being ill timed for such a chaotic time period, and the eventual sacking of Rome in AD 410 by the Visigoths, and led by Alaric.
The greatness, and also the barbarism of Ancient Rome was shown through vignettes such as the story of two Gothic men who attended a banquet of Emperor Theodosius. While at the banquet, the men resolved an argument like this:
“In the middle of the dinner, Fravitta plunged his sword into Eriulf’s side, murdering him in front of Rome’s leading family, a bold act that impressed Theodosius. What a just, virtuous man Fravitta was, the emperor coolly remarked, as the slaves rush in to mop up the mess. From that one thrust Fravitta would draw a promotion, a Roman wife, and the emperor‘s lasting support.”
Another one was the tale of Alaric in Athens, which attempts draw parallels between the past and the future; the sacking of Troy and the sacking of Rome.
“The beauty of the Acropolis affected Alaric too, if Zosimus can be believed. When Alaric arrived outside the city, in 396 or 397, he supposedly spied the goddess Athena striding atop the city walls, joined by the ghost of the great warrior Achilles.”
Overall, it was a well crafted book full of imagery of the sights and smells of an Empire that spanned three continents. It detailed the precariousness of Roman Politics and presented information of a bygone era which reflects our current day and age.
“Within a decade, the old sights and smells a pagan Rome—of incense wafting from outdoor alters and of pagan priests dressed smartly to visit stately temples, religious activities that men like Cicero and Virgil would have instantly recognized as an essential part of being Roman—gradually disappeared.”
This book touches upon themes of citizenship, immigration, ethnicity, identity, religious intolerance, religious moderates, paganism, the early Christian Church, empires, and the judgement of history—no matter how biased. The overall theme being the concept of Romanitas, what it meant to be Roman, and the consequences of its requirements.
It was interesting to see how an array of emperors changed Roman life one by one. From Septimius Severus, the African emperor, who admired the Gothic Maximinus for his strength and talent and allowed him to rise the ranks instead of the lazy rich Roman boys who spent more time answering to their accusers in court. Then there was the rogue emperor Caracalla who granted citizenship to everyone in the empire, leading way for Maximinus to become the first foreign born emperor and first of Gothic origin. Over a hundred years later was Emperor Theodosius, who campaigned against the Goths, who no longer had citizenship or protections. Theodosius turned the empire into a Nicene Christian state, and outlawed all forms of paganism. Eventually the empire was ruled by his two sons, Honorius to the West, and Arcadia to the East. Their youth being ill timed for such a chaotic time period, and the eventual sacking of Rome in AD 410 by the Visigoths, and led by Alaric.
The greatness, and also the barbarism of Ancient Rome was shown through vignettes such as the story of two Gothic men who attended a banquet of Emperor Theodosius. While at the banquet, the men resolved an argument like this:
“In the middle of the dinner, Fravitta plunged his sword into Eriulf’s side, murdering him in front of Rome’s leading family, a bold act that impressed Theodosius. What a just, virtuous man Fravitta was, the emperor coolly remarked, as the slaves rush in to mop up the mess. From that one thrust Fravitta would draw a promotion, a Roman wife, and the emperor‘s lasting support.”
Another one was the tale of Alaric in Athens, which attempts draw parallels between the past and the future; the sacking of Troy and the sacking of Rome.
“The beauty of the Acropolis affected Alaric too, if Zosimus can be believed. When Alaric arrived outside the city, in 396 or 397, he supposedly spied the goddess Athena striding atop the city walls, joined by the ghost of the great warrior Achilles.”
Overall, it was a well crafted book full of imagery of the sights and smells of an Empire that spanned three continents. It detailed the precariousness of Roman Politics and presented information of a bygone era which reflects our current day and age.
July 8, 2020
Excellent look at a controversial figure in Roman history with a lot of parallels to today's increasingly partisan and polarized society.
Boin uses the few scraps of historical accounts that exist to paint a picture of Alaric the Goth, a Gothic foreigner desperate for citizenship after years of service to the empire, against the backdrop of wild xenophobia within the Roman Empire under Emperor Theodosius and his sons.
After multiple attempts at citizenship via negotiations with multiple Roman decision makers, Alaric sacks the city of Rome with a group of his Gothic compatriots, bucking against the nativist, anti-foreigner sentiment pervading the Roman Empire at the time.
A quick read, it would be five stars if Boin was able to paint more of a picture of the fateful 72 hours of the sack of Rome in 410. It felt a little anti-climactic to get towards the end of the book leading up to the actual attack only to walk away without a good picture of what exactly happened.
It's not really Boin's fault - the archaeological record is hazy and has been somewhat politicized, making a precise retelling difficult, if not impossible. Boin does the best he can with the source material, and is transparent about this.
Boin uses the few scraps of historical accounts that exist to paint a picture of Alaric the Goth, a Gothic foreigner desperate for citizenship after years of service to the empire, against the backdrop of wild xenophobia within the Roman Empire under Emperor Theodosius and his sons.
After multiple attempts at citizenship via negotiations with multiple Roman decision makers, Alaric sacks the city of Rome with a group of his Gothic compatriots, bucking against the nativist, anti-foreigner sentiment pervading the Roman Empire at the time.
A quick read, it would be five stars if Boin was able to paint more of a picture of the fateful 72 hours of the sack of Rome in 410. It felt a little anti-climactic to get towards the end of the book leading up to the actual attack only to walk away without a good picture of what exactly happened.
It's not really Boin's fault - the archaeological record is hazy and has been somewhat politicized, making a precise retelling difficult, if not impossible. Boin does the best he can with the source material, and is transparent about this.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 192 reviews