Here is the impressive and well paced narrative of the long chain of events that led to the dreadful upshot of August 410 AD.
Don Hollway is a fount of knowledge. He really knows how to tell a story. He spans the length of time from the battle of Adrianople on, putting things into context, factoring in all that mattered in the vast expanse of the Roman world, and scaling down to the agendas of the leading characters. Add to the hallmarks of the brililant scholar a subtle sense of humour with a tinge of irony, and a gift for thrilling the reader from cover to cover, and you can understand how tempting it is to label the book a must-read.
I am well aware that one should always guard against invidious comparisons, but the book stands out in sharp contrast to what has already been written on the matter, not to mention the cinema industry, glutted appallingly with awful stuff, as for instance "La Vendetta dei Barbari" by Giusseppe Vari...
So this is the time when a protracted deep crisis is striking, and "as always in a crisis, politicians must be seen to do something, anything in response. In the absence of any effective alternative, that response is usually to lay blame on a scapegoat", as Don Hollway puts it.
This was the time when "Christians were actually more tolerant of pagans, whose souls could be redeemed, than of Christians with differing beliefs, who were simply heretics."
This is the time when "the reign of most emperors in the later imperial period can be seen as a series of fires needing to be put out".
This is the time when all lines are tangled and blurred: "the empire is a conglomeration of factions, often at odds, detesting each other more than they did the Goths, who therefore could be played against each other."
And when it comes to the root cause of the sack of Rome by Alaric's thugs, and more broadly why it went out of hand in the Western Roman Empire as a whole, Don Hollway touches on it conclusively in his compelling epilogue: "[...] the Empire [was] left [...] with a hostile nation within its own borders. Immigration wasn't the issue then, and though much noise is made about it, immigration is not the issue today, another era of great migrations. The crux of the matter is assimilation. Assimilation of outsiders, even homegrown outsiders, benefits a host culture, just as it did Rome in the golden age of the Pax Romana. Without assimilation though, as with the Goths after Adrianople, newcomers are simply invaders."
That's what I call history at its best. Open any history book and very likely you'll have to make do with a sorry map of a Roman Empire criss-crossed with a jumble of arrows by way of explanation, leaving you none the wiser. Pick this book instead and everything is crystal clear, everything falls into place!
And this is now the time when in the course of such a review I come up with some nitpicking!
P. 159: Scipio Africanus died in 183 BC. Censorinus laid siege to Carthage in 146 BC and another Scipio, Scipio Aemilianus, was in the limelight then;
P. 165: passing a law under the Republic of old was a process much more complicated than the one summed up in one sentence;
P. 183: paludamentum could not be put on by a woman, be it a woman of imperial stock, as it was the special garb of a victorious general (then later of the Emperor), so a man's piece of clothing, definitely. The paludamentum was associated with the idea of military glory and leadership in a men's world!
P. 215: the triumphal parade went like this, floats, spoils of war, prisoners, the triumphator in full regalia on his chariot, his friends and family, soldiers (in a bawdy sing- along at the top of their lungs!). Senators were onlookers, so that no one amongst the happy few could have overshadowed, even unwittingly, the star of the show;
P. 254: yes, Agrippina the Younger married her uncle Claudius, but with senatorial blessing, I'll have you know! But the suggestion that she hit on her brother Caius for some hanky-panky and later her son Nero, this is just pure slander, not historical fact.
And it is true that one should never judge a book by its cover because I am still puzzled by the face of Constantine (in fact we know now it was most likely the face of his rival Maxentius): what's that got to do with it, I wonder?