Belisarius: The Last Roman General

by Ian Hughes

Hughes has written a lively and detailed account of Belisarius’s remarkable career.” - Adrian Goldsworthy, author of The Complete Roman Army

Belisarius (c. 505–565 AD) was the greatest general of the Eastern Roman Empire and is among history’s most notable military personalities. At the age of 29, he twice defeated the Persians and reconquered North Africa from the Vandals, before going on to regain the Italian peninsula from the Ostrogoths, including the Eternal City, Rome. Fighting in the name of Justinian I, Belisarius recaptured large portions of the original territory of the ancient Roman Empire. However, Byzantium was both unwilling and incapable of retaining much of Belisarius’s hard-won advances, and soon after his death, the empire once again retracted.

In Belisarius: The Last Roman General, historian Ian Hughes recounts the life of this great soldier. In addition, he explains the evolution of classical Roman armies and systems of warfare into those of the Byzantine Empire, as well as those of their chief enemies, the Persians, Goths, and Vandals. Based on ancient source and drawing on a wealth of modern research, Belisarius’s career is set in the context of the turbulent times in which he lived and his reputation is reassessed to give a balanced portrait of this neglected giant among ancient commanders.

Genres: History, Biography, Military History, Ancient History, Nonfiction, Roman, Military Fiction

304 pages, Hardcover

First published January 15, 2009

Reviews

[Carlos · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a good book if you are interested in Byzantine politics, with a focus on the time of Justinian. I have always been interested in the Byzantines since to me they signify a glamorous part of history, half ancient , the other half modern. But everyone involved in this subject cannot help and wonder what would have happened had the Byzantine empire been strong enough to reunite the Western part of the Roman empire once more, well The Emperor Justinian tried to do just that in the 6th century (he is the one that ordered the construction of the Haga Sophia church) , he almost succeeded, he conquered Italy, Africa, Sardica, Sardinia, the Italian Peninsula and even Spain, but he could not had done any of that without his commander Belisarius, not a lot of information is known about him, Thtas why I read this book, it was an attempt to gain some info about this much important historical figure, and in that sense this book succeeded , there are some grammatical errors and dubious sources in some point (that's why its not a 5 star book) but you do learn about the politics, fighting and diplomacy style of the Byzantine through the character of Belisarius. I recommend this book to any lover of classical history.

[Faustibooks · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have really enjoyed the biographies made by Ian Hughes that I have read so far, and this one is no exception. This book is about Belisarius, a very interesting character in Roman history, who is known for his military campaigns under Justinian I in the sixth century. While perhaps not at the level of Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar, Belisarius was certainly a very able general that won multiple impressive battles and campaigns. Being born in the Eastern Roman Empire, several decades after the fall of the Western Empire, Belisarius would rise in rank to become Magister Militum. He was close friends with the emperor and was known to be honest, loyal, and very honourable, which according to Hughes made him stand out from his contemporaries.

His many campaigns saw him facing many different enemies throughout the world. Fighting the Persians on the Eastern frontier of the empire, the Vandals in Africa, the Goths in Italy, and eventually the Huns in the Balkans. Most of his campaigns were quite successful, managing to beat the Vandals and conquer North Africa for the empire in merely 9 months. For this achievement, he was granted a triumph in Constantinople. He saw some initial successes in Italy too, recapturing Rome and treating the population with respect, earning him more popularity and support. All in all, Belisarius was a good general that knew how to properly react to developments on the battlefield and how to act with minimal resources and manpower.

As with the other books from Hughes that I've read so far, I really appreciate the addition of the many maps and images throughout the book, which makes the events that happen easier to follow, especially when many places are named. Hughes's way of writing is very easy to read and he clearly explains the events that happen. This was a very good book on a person that more people should know about. Another great one by Hughes, four stars!

[José Luís Fernandes · Rating 2 out of 5]

To start, I must say I was a bit hopeful this book might be good by the reviews available here despite being a work of popular History, but I was a bit defrauded while reading it.

The introduction and the first chapters (on the Roman world) are a bit awful, with many real basic mistakes being done there. The contrasting descriptions of the governments of Ravenna and Constantinople and the people from the western and eastern provinces regarding the way how they viewed themselves are completely false as well as the claims that the Romance languages were already around (that's clearly ridiculous and Ian Hughes should learn something about Romance philology), the Equites Sagitarii (called by their Greek equivalent in this book) were the results of Hunnic influence (when they had been around for much longer than that), the equestrians can hardly be called “middle classes” and the medieval Roman world wasn't stagnated. Basically, a person will learn very few actual facts if it won't get confused by them.

The actual description of Belisarius' campaigns are much better, but aren't anything special at all (namely the descriptions of his private life) and the maps lack the movements by the Romans and its enemies through the theatres of operations (which would be certainly a nice addition to it), besides claiming the Suebi were subjects of the Franks (this seems a basic research error). He also sometimes uses Norwich as a source (when he isn't a trustworthy one and even that popular historian wrote his claims didn't have academic pretensions) and his bibliography and notes are non-existent (an horrible flaw especially if someone wants to check his sources), notwithstanding the fact he cites Procopius and Agathias often.

To end this review, this is the kind of popular History I don’t like: a book with lots of oversimplifications and mistakes which mislead the public unaware of the actual historical events. I also wonder how Goldsworthy passed many of these mistakes by what I already read from him. Perhaps he advised the author in the right direction, but was simply ignored, but even then I’m a bit disappointed with his support of Ian Hughes’ work.

[Rindis · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a slightly earlier book than Hughes' works on the end of the Western Empire. Unfortunately, the main way this shows is that the Kindle edition has problems. This seems to be an OCR translation to ebook as there's a number of repeating errors. The normal text seems to be in very good shape, but any time the text goes to italics it falls apart. Since there's a lot of italicized Latin terms, this is a real problem (13 instances of bucellam compared with 7 for the correct bucellarii...). Interestingly, the italics are all present and correct, so it's either fairly advanced OCR, or someone did go through it pretty well (I'm betting the latter), but doesn't know the late Latin military terminology, and didn't know better. On the other hand there's occasional gaffes such as "twenty stades, approximately 2V3 miles," so maybe not (I believe that should be "2 1/3"... but I don't have a hard copy to check).

As for the actual contents of the book, its pretty good. I do think the later Western Empire ones a bit better, and certainly more valuable as going into subjects that are really short on focused attention. He describes the problems with sources well early on. The third chapter goes into the current organization and equipment of the Roman/Byzantine army of the Sixth Century AD, which is certainly handy for readers expecting old-fashioned legions, and lets him discuss how some of these units were being used. However, the equipment part is basically an Osprey book without the illustrations and photographs (there are some in a separate section, at the end for the Kindle version), and feels a bit summarized even from that.

The main part of the book starts with Belisarius' campaigning in Persia, which is a bit muddy. The battles are described well enough, but there's doubts as to whether he was in command at some of them, or just a subordinate, which makes it harder to draw conclusions. And then we get the preparations to go west, and a good description of the actions in Africa, and of course the campaign for Italy. The highlight of that is the primary (first) siege of Rome, which always seems glossed over in the other (limited) accounts I've seen. And then there's a campaign in Persia, back to Italy, and apparent retirement.

Hughes does seem to draw unwarranted conclusions (something I've noted elsewhere), but is mostly on reasonable ground. There's also a postmortem on Belisarius' and his opponents' generalship at the end of each chapter which is a mix of unhelpful and interesting points. I'd say his later books are a definite step up from this one, and this is still a useful introduction to Belisarius' career.

[Wai Zin · Rating 3 out of 5]

I haven't read anything about Belisarius and Byzantium before. This is the first one.
And I'm impress by Belisarius. He was not only brawn but a lot of brain as well.
Most of his battles were won by being brainy and outsmarting his enemy.
And I enjoy reading about sieges and battles in Gothic war.
Of course sources for that era are quite sketchy, so Author had to fill up the books by adding some pages about weapons, armours etc, making the book resembles an Osprey book.
But it's ok. I enjoy this book and most reader who has interest in ancient history will feel the same.

[Mark · Rating 3 out of 5]

Belisarius is the hero of two great bits of genre fiction from my adolescence: Robert Graves's historical novel Count Belisarius and L. Sprague de Camp's alternative timeline Lest Darkness Fall. One big reason for this is that he was accompanied by Procopius, who wrote a history of his campaigns and then took all the unscholarly bits and put them in a gossipy Secret History, a treasure trove for future novelists. And for historians, though the facts behind large chunks are open to dispute.

Belisarius served Justinian, the emperor of the Eastern Empire a generation after the west fell. He led a relatively small force that managed to reconquer Vandal Africa (roughly Tunisia and Algeria), then was given command of an army to take Italy from the Ostrogoths. After initially rapid success the Ostrogoths rallied, and Belisarius was too talented a general to lose but never quite got the resources to win decisively. In between warfare and plague over these years Italy was decimated and, while conquered, never really secured for Constantinople. Belisarius himself was able to add a few other accomplishments, such as defeating an Azar horde with only 300 veterans*.

While a brilliant general Belisarius' record had some blemishes. His record as a young general against the Persians was mixed and Hughes considers his defeat in a field battle at Rome and unnecessary mistake. Hughes rates him highly on defense and, interestingly, considers his loyalty and probity one of his great military assets. Opponents were willing to surrender to him--one problem in Italy was that when he was recalled from command, his successors frittered away the good will he'd built up among the local elites.


* A successful version of 300 Spartans getting themselves killed by a Persian horde after a day or two of fighting. But like the Spartans at Thermopylae, "300" is misleading; Belisarius would have added local peasants.

[Chris Wray · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is an ok biography of one of the ancient world's most interesting characters, the Byzantine general Belisarius.

I'll start with the negatives. In some ways, this book highlights the difficulties and limitations faced when writing the biography of an ancient personality when there is only relatively sparse documentary evidence for the biographer to draw upon. This is especially seen in the sections on the military equipment, tactics and organisation of the Byzantine and contemporary empires. The assumptions and constant hedging were extremely irritating and began to grate on me after a while. While I understand that there are gaps in the evidence, I haven't had the same feelings when reading other books about this and similar periods in history.

Ultimately, the author's writing style is to blame here as it sometimes communicated, unintentionally, I'm sure, a lack of conviction in his analysis and conclusions. At times, I was left asking, "If you're so unsure about this, then why are you expecting me to read it?" The writing style and structure were generally somewhat below par, and it felt to me like the book was under-edited.

That being said, the sections of historical narrative are competently written, and I felt that I got a good overview of the campaigns in North Africa, Persia and Italy. I enjoy this kind of military-historical narrative, though some others would find this material a bit dry. In both North Africa and Italy, Belisarius ultimately prevailed with his grasp of the importance of logistics and his realisation that neither the Vandals nor the Goths had an effective answer to his mounted archers. This period is fascinating, coming as it does in European history between the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the rise of the medieval nation states, and the main players in this tale of international intrigue are more or less weak and faltering. The Byzantine Empire is wealthy but brittle and overstretched; Persia is within a generation of being swept away by Islamic conquerors; the Vandalic and Gothic empires are transitory and divided; the Huns will soon disappear as a separate people group altogether. We are given a hint of things to come when the Franks tentatively invade Northern Italy, as they were soon to become the dominant power in Western Europe.

The politics of the day are equally fascinating, albeit complex and bewildering (even Byzantine!). Justinian strikes me as a somewhat weak ruler, dominated by his wife and cronies, and fearful of one of his generals (particularly Belisarius) becoming too powerful or popular and staging a coup. With a more focused set of military objectives and a less wavering trust in his greatest general, Justinian's military achievements through Belisarius could have been even more extensive, particularly given the inherent weaknesses of the surrounding nations.

The biggest strength of this book comes from the central character in and subject of it, Belisarius himself. He is a fascinating and admirable character, a relatively refined and thoughtful soldier amid brutes, despots, warlords and freebooters. His policy of forbidding his soldiers from pillaging and terrorising civilians would be admirable in a military commander of any era, never mind the time when he lived and fought. In his lifetime, Belisarius had a reputation as incorruptible, and Hughes comments that he "was obviously a man of strong character and outstanding moral bearing, especially when he is compared to his compatriots." He goes on to say that "This was a man who was far above average in his military ability and very far above others in his moral integrity. His grasp of strategic considerations was unmatched and his reactions to events almost faultless. The fact that he lost battles due to either bad planning or by being pressured into fighting by his own men when at a disadvantage means that he cannot be placed on a par with outstanding military leaders such as Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great, but his abilities place him not far below their level." A fitting tribute to an undoubtedly great man.

This biography of Belisarius will be of interest to those who, like me, enjoy military history or who have a particular interest in this period, but it isn't quite good enough for me to recommend it to the general reader.

[Elliot Gates · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good breakdown of one of the world's greatest generals. Belisarius was a man who put up with extreme indignation from his Emperor and still proceeded to serve him loyally to his dying day.

One can't help but ponder what couldve been if he was given a half decent army to command, instead of the mishmash of militia and allied auxiliaries he always ended up with.


The author is extremely critical of Justinian, which though understandable at times is somewhat narrow minded at others. Justinian had an empire to run; there was more to his rule than the campaigns of Belisarius. That being said, I enjoyed reading most of this, the author does a good job speculating on the famous "blinding" incident and whether it occurred or not.

[S.J. Arnott · Rating 2 out of 5]

I found this quite a slog to get through. The book is packed with information and would no-doubt be of interest to anyone undertaking a detailed study of Belisarius' campaigns, but for the most part it came across as a dry re-telling of the contemporary histories with little commentary to bring it to life.

There were also some disconcerting spelling mistakes (obvious ones that should have easily been by picked up by a spull-cchocker) that made it look as if it had been produced in a hurry.

[Monica Kessler · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fairly thorough account of the main events of the life of one of my favourite generals, this book could be dry at times but overall benefitted from detailing some very exciting events in history. Unfortunately the routine the author had of describing every army's structure and armour before talking about the conflicts they were involved in was wearisome. The armour descriptions at least benefitted from some apt drawings or diagrams where possible, but I couldn't help feeling that the long winded descriptions about structure and troop distribution would have been better represented by some annotated diagram. But I guess this sort of detail is natural for a military history book. I was just thrown by the downturn in pace this created before each major campaign.

The accounts of the battles and campaigns themselves were a lot more interesting but perhaps not enough for me to be desperate for a re-read. However, I would desperately love for a dramatization of all of this - there's so much material which would be hugely visually interesting. Belisarius had some well known great tactics, such as hiding spare forces behind a hill, or in trees, to surprise an enemy when they advanced, as well as some intriguing and innovative tactics: - hoisting small boats full of archers up the masts of big boats to shoot over the castle wall at Sicily; sending 400-600 men through a creepy excavated ancient aqueduct to be able to capture Naples; tying two boats together and a wheel between them to create a makeshift mill over the Tiber; filling a small boat with tar and other flammables and hoisting this up another mast in order to pour it on wooden Gothic defence towers; the list goes on and it's all so cinematic!!



Intriguingly, this was the most negative portrayal of Justinian I've ever read - but it didn't feel unjust, simply realistic. Much was made of the power of Theodora and Antonina which may have been overplayed, but the truth lurked in the depiction of Justinian as a military opportunist rather than some great dreamer who believed in the reunification of the old Roman Empire.

And these opportunities he had were mainly presented through the complex machinations of a world that was clearly made of more moving parts than we tend to think of when considering ancient history. It was just lucky that Justinian had a fantastic, loyal, generous, trustworthy general like Belisarius to fall back on when the opportunities arose.

Incidentally, in the allegorical story of Belisarius and Justinian that Isaac Asimov presents in the Foundation series, he doesn't do the situation justice and hugely oversimplifies events (in Belisarius' favour, but still).

What we've learnt from Belisarius:

- don't loot and plunder, you'll be attacked and killed even if you just won a battle
- when Belisarius tells you to stay put and guard something, you do just that!! Or you die
- when Belisarius tells you to be kind to the local peasants, be kind! Or they will revolt, and you will die
- when Belisarius tells you (Justinian) to pay the troops, you pay them! Or they revolt, and you lose a war
- when Belisarius tells you freaking anything, you listen because he is generally correct AND miraculously morally decent for a general!!

Memes aside, 3.5* for a good history where facts and speculation were gathered together in a cohesive manner. Not exactly a page-turner though. But it's OK. Belisarius will protect us.

[Isaac McIntyre · Rating 3 out of 5]

Belisarius and his campaigns are super interesting, but the way this biography presents them just never really matches the fascinating "Last Roman" narrative and many personal and wider Imperial threads are often disappointing left hanging.

[Peat · Rating 2 out of 5]

A DNF unless I desperately need information on the subject and have no other source. Is quick to reach conclusions on several issues of uncertainty without going into enough information as to why, and bogs itself down with the minutiae of equipment.

[Matthew Storm · Rating 3 out of 5]

I applaud Ian Hughes for attempting the first English language biography of the great general, Flavius Belisarius in nearly two hundred years. The paucity of current scholarly (or popular) writing on him is a mystery bordering on tragic. In a world in desperate need of heroes, of people that inspire through deeds not words, of public figures who are decent, honest and incorruptible and selfless - it would seem that Flavius Belisarius' story is as salient and powerful today as it was when Procopius first wrote of him 1,500 years ago...

Onto Ian Hughes oftentimes excellent work. As other reviewers have noted, the author did an superb job reviewing the primary sources on Belisarius (limited as they are), teasing out the facts, and reconstructing the General's martial exploits. That is where the book excels, as a scholarly work focused on Belisarius' extraordinary military achievements (as well as the strategy and tactics of the General's opponents).

What is exceptional about the book also makes it disappointing as a popular biography. Mr. Hughes focuses on the facts but does not delve into the more speculative world of Belisarius' past, his motivations, his personality - in short, the 'softer' aspects of the General that cannot help but captivate the (admittedly small) circle of his admirers.

So, in conclusion, this is a book that does us a great service looking at the military exploits of Justinian's general, the 'Autokrator' with fresh and unbiased eyes. That said, those looking for a more romantic, and sympathetic look at the General's life may be disappointed.

[John Conquest · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is an unedited excerpt from the 537 Siege of Rome chapter.


King Vitiges: "If I assaulted those walls would you die?"
Belisarius: "It would be extremely painful."

King Vitiges: "You're a big legatus."
Belisarius: "For you."

King Vitiges: "Was getting besieged in Rome part of your plan?"
Belisarius: "Of courshe! Pope Silverius refused our offer in favor of yours, we had to find out what he told you."

Pope Silverius: "Nothing, I said nothing!"

King Vitiges: "Well congratulations, you got yourself besieged!"
*Sounds of approaching bucellarii*

King Vitiges: "Now whats the next step in your master plan?"
Belisarius: "Crashing this Ostrogothic Kingdom...with no shurvivors!"

[Nick Jones · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this because I'm interested in that period of late antiquity turning into the Dark Ages. It's interesting about someone I knew little about, so mission accomplished.

The proof reading left quite a bit to be desired, however, especially in the Latin expressions. "Comitatus" gets misspelled in a number of ways across the entire text.

[Andie Rothenhäusler · Rating 3 out of 5]

A well-researched book on the Roman general Belisarius that draws on contemporary sources such as Procopius and also skillfully classifies them.

Only three stars for three reasons:
- The book would have benefited from better editing - there are repetitions and sometimes tedious redundancies.
- Hughes concentrates largely on the military historical aspects - battles with the Sassanids in the east, with Vandals and Goths in the west, occasionally enriched by some of the palace intrigues around Belisarius and Justinian. Other topics are almost non-existent - such as the Justinian Plague or the volcanic winter of 536. Also, the thoughts and feelings of the people of the time - from the soldiers to the overwhelming majority of the population - rarely appear. Effectively, it felt like reading one of the Osprey Men-at-Arms books - only without all the illustrations.
- This is probably why I (as a big fan of Eastern Roman history) was absolutely bored in places. If almost tediously accurate battle and campaign descriptions don't interest you burningly, another book might be more exciting.

[Richard Hresko · Rating 2 out of 5]

The format of the chapters was clumsy. There would be long descriptive passages, with a welter of names, and very little beyond a thumbnail description of these names. At the end of each chapter there was an "analysis" which by and large boiled down to "Belisarius did this well," and "Belisarius did not do this so well," and "Procopius may have had these reasons for saying this." You never get a sense of the broader picture since Mr. Hughes cannot get past the trees and describe the forest. The result is a pile of details and no sense of the overall landscape.

[I · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have always had an interest in history and ancient (European) history in particular. Books about the Roman republic and empire are popular and I have read plenty. The late Roman empire and the Eastern empire or Byzantium as it was later named attracted my attention after Graves’ novel of this general. This book provides a good inside view of Belisarius strategy and battle- and siege tactics and the political and societal developments he had to deal with. What struck me most was his policy of winning the hearts and minds of the population of cities and lands he conquered in Justinian’ name and the care for the lives of the soldiers under his command. A rare quality for military leaders in that era.

[Bob · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of the greatest generals who ever lived. This book is kind of dry and academic, but not impossibly so. It gives a good, balanced view of the sources we have and who the man Belisarius was. It doesn't fawn over him, but his greatness still shines through, even with an honest acknowledgement of his mistakes and faults. Unfortunately we don't know a lot about his personality, and this book doesn't go much into what we can glean from that. It's mostly focused on his military actions.

[Agapito Di Soussa · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent account of the campaigns of this excellent general. Everything you can expect from a book about Belisarius. The presentation of the Roman and Sassanid armies of the period the author does is just brilliant. I personally agree with most of the conclusions reached by the author regarding Belisarius' skill as a general.

[Denis Vasilev · Rating 5 out of 5]

Игра Престолов, только в реальной истории. Ничего более подходящего для жизни Восточной Римской импери мне и не придумать. Велизарий был для меня известным полководцем, про войны которого я ничего не знаю. Книга оказалась адекватной интерпретацией дошедших до нас сведений о периоде его деятельности и

[Pinko Palest · Rating 5 out of 5]

surprisingly good. This is not military history in the traditional sense, but more of a social history of the roman army in Late Antiquity, while also addressing other intriguing topics such as diplomacy in the 6th century, the development of military tactics and the economy of the 6th century. Cannot recommend it enough

[Christopher · Rating 4 out of 5]

Considering most biographies on old Belli' are quite old and often repeat their sources uncritically, this is a welcome and modern update to the saga of one of the greatest Roman generals.

[Alberto · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is one of those books you have to be careful with. If you know nothing about the topic, there are a lot of incorrect claims that you might accept without knowing any better.

[Ahan]

Read it for an essay but turns out it was a good read.

[Robin Bittick · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an excellent biography of one of the excellent generals in history.

[Ismael Gutierrez · Rating 5 out of 5]

A brilliant work, but just for history enthusiasts.

[George Scott · Rating 4 out of 5]

Four stars is a good rating. Parts of it left me cold, but much of it revealed history of the later Roman Empire with which I was not familiar. Thank you, Mr. Hughes.

[George Serebrennikov · Rating 3 out of 5]

From the perspective of military historian, who is interested in weaponry, battle formations and detailed accounts of military campaigns, it is probably very informative and interesting book. I, however, more interested in Belisarius as a man, and I do not think the author did a good job describing that. I also did not like the way the book is written, sometimes I was just bored, and had to put the book away, and it took me a significant amount of time to finish it.

[Dom Moulding · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thoroughly interesting and well written. Very good book about a period of history I knew little about. The author does however rely heavily on Procopius' (sp?) accounts and makes some assumptions based upon the limited sources available, he also presents a very favourabe - although not necessarily innaccurate - portrayal of Belisarius. As a newcomer to the topic I found the book very good but it the conjecture may be frustrating for anyone well versed in the era.