What do you think?
Rate this book
History of the Wars of Justinian
Formatted for the Kindle. Linked Contents and footnotes.
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
BOOK I. — THE PERSIAN WAR
BOOK II. — THE PERSIAN WAR (continued)
BOOK III. — THE VANDALIC WAR
BOOK IV. — THE VANDALIC WAR (continued)
BOOK V. — THE GOTHIC WAR
BOOK VI. — THE GOTHIC WAR (continued)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Excerpt:
INTRODUCTION
Procopius is known to posterity as the historian of the eventful reign of Justinian (527-565 A.D.), and the chronicler of the great deeds of the general Belisarius. He was born late in the fifth century in the city of Caesarea in Palestine. As to his education and early years we are not informed, but we know that he studied to fit himself for the legal profession. He came as a young man to Constantinople, and seems to have made his mark immediately. For as early as the year 527 he was appointed legal adviser and private secretary[1] to Belisarius, then a very young man who had been serving on the staff of the general Justinian, and had only recently been advanced to the office of general. Shortly after this Justinian was called by his uncle Justinus to share the throne of the Roman Empire, and four months later Justinus died, leaving Justinian sole emperor of the Romans. Thus the stage was set for the scenes which are presented in the pages of Procopius. His own activity continued till well nigh the end of Justinian's life, and he seems to have outlived his hero, Belisarius.
During the eventful years of Belisarius' campaigning in Africa, in Italy, and in the East, Procopius was moving about with him and was an eye-witness of the events he describes in his writings. In 527 we find him in Mesopotamia; in 533 he accompanied Belisarius to Africa; and in 536 he journeyed with him to Italy. He was therefore quite correct in the assertion which he makes rather modestly in the introduction of his history, that he was better qualified than anyone else to write the history of that period. Besides his intimacy with Belisarius it should be added that his position gave him the further advantage of a certain standing at the imperial court in Constantinople, and brought him the acquaintance of many of the leading men of his day. Thus we have the testimony of one intimately associated with the administration, and this, together with the importance of the events through which he lived, makes his record exceedingly interesting as well as historically important. One must admit that his position was not one to encourage impartiality in his presentation of facts, and that the imperial favour was not won by plain speaking; nevertheless we have before us a man who could not obliterate himself enough to play the abject flatterer always, and he gives us the reverse, too, of his brilliant picture, as we shall see presently. ...
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
BOOK I. — THE PERSIAN WAR
BOOK II. — THE PERSIAN WAR (continued)
BOOK III. — THE VANDALIC WAR
BOOK IV. — THE VANDALIC WAR (continued)
BOOK V. — THE GOTHIC WAR
BOOK VI. — THE GOTHIC WAR (continued)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Excerpt:
INTRODUCTION
Procopius is known to posterity as the historian of the eventful reign of Justinian (527-565 A.D.), and the chronicler of the great deeds of the general Belisarius. He was born late in the fifth century in the city of Caesarea in Palestine. As to his education and early years we are not informed, but we know that he studied to fit himself for the legal profession. He came as a young man to Constantinople, and seems to have made his mark immediately. For as early as the year 527 he was appointed legal adviser and private secretary[1] to Belisarius, then a very young man who had been serving on the staff of the general Justinian, and had only recently been advanced to the office of general. Shortly after this Justinian was called by his uncle Justinus to share the throne of the Roman Empire, and four months later Justinus died, leaving Justinian sole emperor of the Romans. Thus the stage was set for the scenes which are presented in the pages of Procopius. His own activity continued till well nigh the end of Justinian's life, and he seems to have outlived his hero, Belisarius.
During the eventful years of Belisarius' campaigning in Africa, in Italy, and in the East, Procopius was moving about with him and was an eye-witness of the events he describes in his writings. In 527 we find him in Mesopotamia; in 533 he accompanied Belisarius to Africa; and in 536 he journeyed with him to Italy. He was therefore quite correct in the assertion which he makes rather modestly in the introduction of his history, that he was better qualified than anyone else to write the history of that period. Besides his intimacy with Belisarius it should be added that his position gave him the further advantage of a certain standing at the imperial court in Constantinople, and brought him the acquaintance of many of the leading men of his day. Thus we have the testimony of one intimately associated with the administration, and this, together with the importance of the events through which he lived, makes his record exceedingly interesting as well as historically important. One must admit that his position was not one to encourage impartiality in his presentation of facts, and that the imperial favour was not won by plain speaking; nevertheless we have before us a man who could not obliterate himself enough to play the abject flatterer always, and he gives us the reverse, too, of his brilliant picture, as we shall see presently. ...
609 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 550
18 people are currently reading
420 people want to read
About the author
Procopius
200 books82 followersProcopius of Caesarea was born in the latter years of the fifth century at Caesarea in Palestine. He originated from the land-owning provincial upper class and, like Zosimus, became a civil servant. As early as A.D. 527, before the emperor Justin's death, Procopius became counsellor, assessor, and secretary to Belisarius, whose fortunes and campaigns he followed for the next twelve or fifteen years. Small wonder he became very knowledgeable of military affairs through this service. He has long been respected as a historian of the emperor Justinian’s wars, and is reckoned the greatest of the later Greek historians. Procopius was finally raised to the dignity of an illustrius, and died not earlier than A.D. 562.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
June 5, 2019
This work is the prime chronicle of the sixth century for the Roman empire and thus is too important to the understanding of the history of European civilization to receive anything less than five stars. It is by no means a work of the same philosophical or literary quality as those of Thucydides, Tacitus or Polybius. Unlike the historians of the first rank of antiquity, Polybius makes no comments on human nature, culture or governmental institutions. Tacitus lamented the decline of public virtue under the Roman empire. Thucydides was concerned about the tendency of democratic leaders to start and persist in war because their overly bellicose rhetoric excluded all other options. Polybius argued that mixed constitutions with regal, oligarchic and democratic components were best suited to supporting imperial expansion.
Procopius simply takes the status quo for granted. In his view Justinian was right to attempt to reconquer Italy for the Roman empire simply because he was the titular head of the Roman empire. No further justification was needed. Similarly, he felt that wars were won by the nations with the best generals. Economics, political institutions and cultural values were not significant factors.
Procopius identifies himself as the legal adviser of Belisarius, the leading general of the Emperor Justinian stating states upfront that the military successes of Justinian were primarily to the skill and moral character of Belisarius. Procopius could very well be right but the result is that his history of Justinian's Wars then becomes a simple narrative of the exploits of one great man.
Although the work is rather humdrum in general terms it does have the occasional nugget. For example it contains the first description of an outbreak of the Black Plague in the Mediterranean region. Procopius was present on Belisarius' campaigns and his descriptions of the battles are rather good. His constant references to distances suggest Belisarius as a commander was very concerned about lines of communication. As well, Procopius always provides details on the various components of the two warring armies on the battle field in terms of their experience, type of weapons and overall fighting quality. While Procopius' book is frequently tedious for the general reader, it provides a wealth of information for the academic reader.
Procopius simply takes the status quo for granted. In his view Justinian was right to attempt to reconquer Italy for the Roman empire simply because he was the titular head of the Roman empire. No further justification was needed. Similarly, he felt that wars were won by the nations with the best generals. Economics, political institutions and cultural values were not significant factors.
Procopius identifies himself as the legal adviser of Belisarius, the leading general of the Emperor Justinian stating states upfront that the military successes of Justinian were primarily to the skill and moral character of Belisarius. Procopius could very well be right but the result is that his history of Justinian's Wars then becomes a simple narrative of the exploits of one great man.
Although the work is rather humdrum in general terms it does have the occasional nugget. For example it contains the first description of an outbreak of the Black Plague in the Mediterranean region. Procopius was present on Belisarius' campaigns and his descriptions of the battles are rather good. His constant references to distances suggest Belisarius as a commander was very concerned about lines of communication. As well, Procopius always provides details on the various components of the two warring armies on the battle field in terms of their experience, type of weapons and overall fighting quality. While Procopius' book is frequently tedious for the general reader, it provides a wealth of information for the academic reader.
October 10, 2015
This is another academic library find, found while scanning the Byzantine history shelves. When I first started reading Byzantine history, close to twenty-five years ago, in my undergrad, there wasn't a comprehensive translation of Procopius' Wars. Yes, Penguin had its Secret History which is much more popular for the obvious reasons. It is much more salacious and angry than the Wars, so more appealing with its gory details of the sordid underbelly of Justinian's reign as Emperor. It was conventional back then to contrast the much more sober and establishment-oriented Wars with the Secret History's polemic, much to the Wars disadvantage. The Secret History, it was argued, was Procopius' real opinion, while the Wars was just propaganda.
Yet, I think the relationship is more subtle than that. In the Wars, what restricts Procopius most isn't the need to please Justinian, but rather the conventions of ancient historiography. It is the fact that Procopius, genuinely, tries to avoid overly harsh criticism and or overly fawning praise of Justinian and his officers which limits him. The result is not the salacious romp of the Secret History, but a much more nuanced and subtle narrative which is well worth reading. An example of this subtlty appears in the narrative on the Nika riots of 532, when riots in the hippodrome took a life of their own and Justinian was on the edge of losing his throne. While he was hesitating about whether to flee, his wife, Theodora, announced that she thought they should stay and fight because the kingship makes an excellent burial shroud. She is quoting her a Syracusian tyrant, only substituting king for tyrant. That is one interesting quotation because it gives insight into Theodora, but also because there is an implied criticism of Justinian in using exactly that quote. Perhaps he is a tyrant, after all.
As one might expect, the focus of the Wars is war; namely the wars fought by Justinian against Persia, the Vandals of Africa and the Goths of Italy. That means there is plenty of military history as one watches the grinding campaigns that these wars entailed. The narrative goes from the surprising early triumphs to the grim and nasty wars of attrition of Justinian's last years. Procopius, an eye-witness for much of the wars, depicts the high hopes of the campaign, but, most importantly, he is the historian of their folly and the high cost that both the Byzantines and their subjects paid for the grandiosity of Justinian's project. Procopius isn't in it for the glory, but rather he shows the horrifying consequences of war, particularly in his narrative on Italy which was devastated by the twenty years of war started by Justinian.
However, like most Classical histories, Procopius doesn't just limit himself to wars. He includes extensive digressions on geography and ethnography as well as biographical sketches. I personally find these digressions more fascinating because they are major sources for Byzantine (and Graeco-Roman) attitudes about other peoples. They are worth reading, if only to get a snap shot of the world at the time outside of the Byzantine Empire.
This volume is well worth reading, especially because it makes accessible what is the last major masterpiece of ancient historiography. Procopius' combines great learning, first-hand experience and psychological acuity makes his narrative a compelling reflection on the nature of imperialism and war which should illuminate anyone familiar with imperial temptations.
Yet, I think the relationship is more subtle than that. In the Wars, what restricts Procopius most isn't the need to please Justinian, but rather the conventions of ancient historiography. It is the fact that Procopius, genuinely, tries to avoid overly harsh criticism and or overly fawning praise of Justinian and his officers which limits him. The result is not the salacious romp of the Secret History, but a much more nuanced and subtle narrative which is well worth reading. An example of this subtlty appears in the narrative on the Nika riots of 532, when riots in the hippodrome took a life of their own and Justinian was on the edge of losing his throne. While he was hesitating about whether to flee, his wife, Theodora, announced that she thought they should stay and fight because the kingship makes an excellent burial shroud. She is quoting her a Syracusian tyrant, only substituting king for tyrant. That is one interesting quotation because it gives insight into Theodora, but also because there is an implied criticism of Justinian in using exactly that quote. Perhaps he is a tyrant, after all.
As one might expect, the focus of the Wars is war; namely the wars fought by Justinian against Persia, the Vandals of Africa and the Goths of Italy. That means there is plenty of military history as one watches the grinding campaigns that these wars entailed. The narrative goes from the surprising early triumphs to the grim and nasty wars of attrition of Justinian's last years. Procopius, an eye-witness for much of the wars, depicts the high hopes of the campaign, but, most importantly, he is the historian of their folly and the high cost that both the Byzantines and their subjects paid for the grandiosity of Justinian's project. Procopius isn't in it for the glory, but rather he shows the horrifying consequences of war, particularly in his narrative on Italy which was devastated by the twenty years of war started by Justinian.
However, like most Classical histories, Procopius doesn't just limit himself to wars. He includes extensive digressions on geography and ethnography as well as biographical sketches. I personally find these digressions more fascinating because they are major sources for Byzantine (and Graeco-Roman) attitudes about other peoples. They are worth reading, if only to get a snap shot of the world at the time outside of the Byzantine Empire.
This volume is well worth reading, especially because it makes accessible what is the last major masterpiece of ancient historiography. Procopius' combines great learning, first-hand experience and psychological acuity makes his narrative a compelling reflection on the nature of imperialism and war which should illuminate anyone familiar with imperial temptations.
October 2, 2021
What a time it must have been to be alive when Procopius wrote The Wars of Justinian. To have lived during Chosroes I sack and razing of Antioch in 540 — not to mention the population's deportation to Persian Mesopotamia —, the brutal Gothic sack of Milan in 539, the three sieges — and near razing — of Rome, and to have witnessed the "revival" of a "complete" Roman Empire are just some of things Procopius was "fortunate" to have lived through. Add to that the Plague of Justinian, the denudement of North Africa, the Balkans, and Italy of its population and prosperity, and you see why Procopius lived during one of the most transformative eras of pre-modern history. Fortunate, of course, is the wrong word, because life during those years must have been absolutely terrible and I am grateful that I get to witness it as a very, very distant observer.
If there is an ancient source that tells us the true story of the collapse of Roman society it's Procopius, despite his critics. True, The Wars of Justinian is very nearly purely a military history and lacks the biting political insight and meta-analysis of Thucydides and Polybius. It makes up for the lack of explicit political insight by having plenty to read "between the lines" thanks largely to Procopius' attention to detail, relative accuracy, and what reads as a commitment to the truth.
On the topic of Procopius and the truth, we know that he was not entirely honest on the background politics. We know this because he says so himself in the Anecdota (i.e. The Secret History). Even so, The Wars of Justinian is a much better book than the Anecdota from the perspective of accuracy and detail, even if he couldn't be completely honest as to the imperial politics of the time — for the most part, he abstracts from what he can't be completely honest about, rather than be dishonest about it.
Coming back to the idea of Procopius being a better source than any on the collapse of the Roman Empire, it seems strange at first to make this claim because The Wars of Justinian talks very little about events during the 5th century. There is some detail when he gives backgrounds on the Vandals and the Goths, but these details are sparse and not even within the magnitude of being a detailed history of events during those years. So, how could Procopius be a source on the collapse of the Roman world? Because there's a case to be made that the collapse happened during the 6th century, not the 5th.
I'm reminded of Michael Kulikowski's Late Roman Spain and Its Cities, a very deep archeological and historical study of the Iberian peninsula between the 4th and 7th centuries. What you see archaeologically is a great deal of continuity in classical culture in Spain, although it had withered to some extent and was going through a similar transformation as much of the rest of the Mediterranean — the decline of the classical city. And like most things in history, the transformation happened over centuries of time. But, if there is one breaking point that we can see in the archeological evidence, it doesn't happen in the 5th century. It happens in the 6th, with the arrival of the Romans and the creation of the province of Spania. Procopius reinforces this narrative.
The reconquest of the West may often be seen through the filters of former Roman glory, but it was not the old Roman world that Justinian sought to rebuild. The government he imposed on re-conquered Italy and North Africa was not a benevolent Roman government on Roman citizens, but rather the imposition of a tributary system that sucked the life out of the entire empire. Take notice, for example, of their decision to impose a tax on Italian cities not just for the present, but also to repay their "betrayal" in having accepted Gothic rule at all. Of course, this tributary system was not efficient. The Roman government under Justinian was not an efficient tyranny. Rather, it was a disintegrating government with rampant corruption, where much or most of the tribute exacted never even made it to the imperial coffers.
Perhaps one of the most telling events in The Wars of Justinian is the story of Bessas, the Roman commander of the garrison defending Rome during the second siege, in 546. Bessas monopolized the distribution of grain and sold it to the rich at monopoly prices, causing widespread famine. Procopius muses that Bessas longed for the siege to be as long as possible, so that he could make more profit. Does this sound like a government that cares about the people it conquered?
Likewise, consider the fate of North Africa. Conquered almost by accident, it the sense that Belisarius' tiny 15,000-man army could have been defeated at any point had the Vandals not been suffering from their own political fracturing, the North African cities at first welcomed the Romans as liberators. If only they knew that within a decade or two, North Africa would be squeezed dry of revenue, depopulated through war, plague, and starvation, and largely governed by individuals seeking to maximize the revenue flowing into their own pockets. Procopius, who saw it with his own eyes, describes North Africa's fate as very nearly being a wasteland as a result of Roman rule (this is from The Secret History). Italy's future was very much similar, as a decade and a half of war, misrule, and starvation led to massive depopulation and the literal destruction of entire cities. Procopius estimates that 300,000 people were killed in Milan — a definite exaggeration, but a cue as to the scale of the disaster.
While the Romans reconquered North Africa and Italy, the eastern provinces were ravaged by Persian and Saracen armies. The Balkans were invaded and raided by Huns, Gepids, Lombards, and others. Cities were sacked and razed, populations were massacred or enslaved. Oftentimes, namely in the Balkans, entire tribes were settled within Roman lands. Why? Because Justinian had stripped the frontier of its armies so that he could fight his wars of conquests, and the armies that remained were poorly paid and poorly led. To understand the why, you have to read The Wars of Justinian and The Secret History together; for example, you only learn about the defunding of the limitanei (Rome's frontier forces) in the latter.
It's easy to blame the barbarians, though. What about the commanders who refused to put up effective resistance? Well, then again, their soldiers weren't being paid. In fact, other than top commanders, even the leadership was oftentimes unpaid. No wonder they defected to the enemy so often. Likewise, when your imperial leadership has a history of fabricating crimes to convict the rich and steal their wealth, what incentive do you have to be a functional arm of the administration? None. Even if you are especially noble, how can you defend Italy against Totila when Justinian can't provide you with an effective field army? And how can you defend against the Persians when more and more soldiers are fighting in the west?
Procopius' Wars of Justinian is not a history of the apogee of Roman revival. It's a history of a dying, rabid animal in its final death throes. And it is primarily a military history, and as a military history it is quite excellent, but the amount of detail gives you something more. It gives you the sense not of imperial renewal, but of a resource-rich ship that's slowly sinking and where the crew is now more focused on getting their share of the spoils than on pulling ahead as a team — because playing as a team isn't rewarded, just look at the life of Belisarius, a man who gave it all for his empire and was mistreated by his political masters in return.
This particular translation is fantastic. Kaldellis does a very good job of modernizing the English. He also does a great job of minimizing the footnotes, but also using the footnotes more strategically. As mentioned, The Secret History is like the B-side to this A-side; or, more accurately, it's the seasoning that brings out the flavor of the protein, the protein being The Wars of Justinian. Kaldellis connects the two books in his footnotes, such as when Procopius gives an alternative, more accurate explanation for an event in the other book (because The Secret History was published after the deaths of Theodora and Justinian, so those political secrets no longer had to be kept at the risk of execution). I do recommend reading both, and furthermore I recommend reading The Wars first and The Secret History second.
If there is an ancient source that tells us the true story of the collapse of Roman society it's Procopius, despite his critics. True, The Wars of Justinian is very nearly purely a military history and lacks the biting political insight and meta-analysis of Thucydides and Polybius. It makes up for the lack of explicit political insight by having plenty to read "between the lines" thanks largely to Procopius' attention to detail, relative accuracy, and what reads as a commitment to the truth.
On the topic of Procopius and the truth, we know that he was not entirely honest on the background politics. We know this because he says so himself in the Anecdota (i.e. The Secret History). Even so, The Wars of Justinian is a much better book than the Anecdota from the perspective of accuracy and detail, even if he couldn't be completely honest as to the imperial politics of the time — for the most part, he abstracts from what he can't be completely honest about, rather than be dishonest about it.
Coming back to the idea of Procopius being a better source than any on the collapse of the Roman Empire, it seems strange at first to make this claim because The Wars of Justinian talks very little about events during the 5th century. There is some detail when he gives backgrounds on the Vandals and the Goths, but these details are sparse and not even within the magnitude of being a detailed history of events during those years. So, how could Procopius be a source on the collapse of the Roman world? Because there's a case to be made that the collapse happened during the 6th century, not the 5th.
I'm reminded of Michael Kulikowski's Late Roman Spain and Its Cities, a very deep archeological and historical study of the Iberian peninsula between the 4th and 7th centuries. What you see archaeologically is a great deal of continuity in classical culture in Spain, although it had withered to some extent and was going through a similar transformation as much of the rest of the Mediterranean — the decline of the classical city. And like most things in history, the transformation happened over centuries of time. But, if there is one breaking point that we can see in the archeological evidence, it doesn't happen in the 5th century. It happens in the 6th, with the arrival of the Romans and the creation of the province of Spania. Procopius reinforces this narrative.
The reconquest of the West may often be seen through the filters of former Roman glory, but it was not the old Roman world that Justinian sought to rebuild. The government he imposed on re-conquered Italy and North Africa was not a benevolent Roman government on Roman citizens, but rather the imposition of a tributary system that sucked the life out of the entire empire. Take notice, for example, of their decision to impose a tax on Italian cities not just for the present, but also to repay their "betrayal" in having accepted Gothic rule at all. Of course, this tributary system was not efficient. The Roman government under Justinian was not an efficient tyranny. Rather, it was a disintegrating government with rampant corruption, where much or most of the tribute exacted never even made it to the imperial coffers.
Perhaps one of the most telling events in The Wars of Justinian is the story of Bessas, the Roman commander of the garrison defending Rome during the second siege, in 546. Bessas monopolized the distribution of grain and sold it to the rich at monopoly prices, causing widespread famine. Procopius muses that Bessas longed for the siege to be as long as possible, so that he could make more profit. Does this sound like a government that cares about the people it conquered?
Likewise, consider the fate of North Africa. Conquered almost by accident, it the sense that Belisarius' tiny 15,000-man army could have been defeated at any point had the Vandals not been suffering from their own political fracturing, the North African cities at first welcomed the Romans as liberators. If only they knew that within a decade or two, North Africa would be squeezed dry of revenue, depopulated through war, plague, and starvation, and largely governed by individuals seeking to maximize the revenue flowing into their own pockets. Procopius, who saw it with his own eyes, describes North Africa's fate as very nearly being a wasteland as a result of Roman rule (this is from The Secret History). Italy's future was very much similar, as a decade and a half of war, misrule, and starvation led to massive depopulation and the literal destruction of entire cities. Procopius estimates that 300,000 people were killed in Milan — a definite exaggeration, but a cue as to the scale of the disaster.
While the Romans reconquered North Africa and Italy, the eastern provinces were ravaged by Persian and Saracen armies. The Balkans were invaded and raided by Huns, Gepids, Lombards, and others. Cities were sacked and razed, populations were massacred or enslaved. Oftentimes, namely in the Balkans, entire tribes were settled within Roman lands. Why? Because Justinian had stripped the frontier of its armies so that he could fight his wars of conquests, and the armies that remained were poorly paid and poorly led. To understand the why, you have to read The Wars of Justinian and The Secret History together; for example, you only learn about the defunding of the limitanei (Rome's frontier forces) in the latter.
It's easy to blame the barbarians, though. What about the commanders who refused to put up effective resistance? Well, then again, their soldiers weren't being paid. In fact, other than top commanders, even the leadership was oftentimes unpaid. No wonder they defected to the enemy so often. Likewise, when your imperial leadership has a history of fabricating crimes to convict the rich and steal their wealth, what incentive do you have to be a functional arm of the administration? None. Even if you are especially noble, how can you defend Italy against Totila when Justinian can't provide you with an effective field army? And how can you defend against the Persians when more and more soldiers are fighting in the west?
Procopius' Wars of Justinian is not a history of the apogee of Roman revival. It's a history of a dying, rabid animal in its final death throes. And it is primarily a military history, and as a military history it is quite excellent, but the amount of detail gives you something more. It gives you the sense not of imperial renewal, but of a resource-rich ship that's slowly sinking and where the crew is now more focused on getting their share of the spoils than on pulling ahead as a team — because playing as a team isn't rewarded, just look at the life of Belisarius, a man who gave it all for his empire and was mistreated by his political masters in return.
This particular translation is fantastic. Kaldellis does a very good job of modernizing the English. He also does a great job of minimizing the footnotes, but also using the footnotes more strategically. As mentioned, The Secret History is like the B-side to this A-side; or, more accurately, it's the seasoning that brings out the flavor of the protein, the protein being The Wars of Justinian. Kaldellis connects the two books in his footnotes, such as when Procopius gives an alternative, more accurate explanation for an event in the other book (because The Secret History was published after the deaths of Theodora and Justinian, so those political secrets no longer had to be kept at the risk of execution). I do recommend reading both, and furthermore I recommend reading The Wars first and The Secret History second.
November 3, 2023
Kaldellis' revamp of H.B. Dewing's text makes it far more readable, and clarifies some bits with thorough footnoting. Definitely the edition to use for citation. slayed.
October 5, 2022
I found my way to Procopius's sixth century account of "The Wars of Justinian" through Susan Bower's "The History of the Medieval World", Judith Herrin's "Byzantium" and Lars Brownworth's "Lost to the West" all of those very readable and spanning the full history of Eastern Roman Empire which really helped to put things into context. Each of those quoted passages from him or included Procopius in the foot notes and the snippets told seemed quite interesting, so I needed more and thus ordered what looked like the best translation along with his "Secret History", also translated by Anthony Kaldellis, which I saved for reading last since I knew it was going to have spoilers that would actually be game changers. Anyway, I was not disappointed at all. However before getting this narrow personal account of history I also skipped ahead and read Anna Komnene's "The Alexiad" the early eleventh century account of her father Alexios's reign as emperor that is told in much the same style as Procopius's "The Wars..." and every bit as interesting.
"The Wars.." generally follow the accounts of of one of Emperor Justinian's most able commanders General Belisarios, through three separate theaters of battle against the Persians and Medes in the East, then in North Africa against the Vandals and native tribes, and in Italy against the Goths all through the eyes of Prokopios whom is part of the generals staff and in a position to know not just Belisarios's actions but those of their adversaries and allied troops as well. Now I did start off by saying "generally". Prokopios does not always attend the general and sometimes continues to stay in the theater of war while Belisarios returns back to either Constantinople or goes back to the eastern theater on his own, where as Prokopios continues to follow the action where he's at. Additionally there are many actions closer about Constantinople and the Danube, dealing with Huns, Slavs and others where Belisarios is largely absent in the telling so that Prokopios's history is a complete telling of Justinian's wars.
The book provides a good account of warfare in the 6th Century with the many antagonists and allies involved, as Prokopis gives group and individual sketches of events in all that he thought important enough to share be it of order of battle, make up of forces, tactics, set battle, siege, maneuver, negotiations along with whimsical or horrible stories and the like. Over all you get a good feel for the of the ups and down in a devolving geo political situation for the Eastern Roman Empire and though his account is being written for annals of the Emperor, Prokopis's account does not seem to hesitate for calling out actions and persons for which he seems dissatisfied with. This includes what amounts to praise for his enemies when deserving and exposing frivolous and wrong conduct by his own forces and allies all of which add to the freshness his histories making the whole book a page turner and a seemingly honest critique of the times. It won't be till you get to his shocking "Secret Histories" that you find out how much he held back.
Overall great book, great maps, good time line, family trees, and well indexed. Much enjoyed.
"The Wars.." generally follow the accounts of of one of Emperor Justinian's most able commanders General Belisarios, through three separate theaters of battle against the Persians and Medes in the East, then in North Africa against the Vandals and native tribes, and in Italy against the Goths all through the eyes of Prokopios whom is part of the generals staff and in a position to know not just Belisarios's actions but those of their adversaries and allied troops as well. Now I did start off by saying "generally". Prokopios does not always attend the general and sometimes continues to stay in the theater of war while Belisarios returns back to either Constantinople or goes back to the eastern theater on his own, where as Prokopios continues to follow the action where he's at. Additionally there are many actions closer about Constantinople and the Danube, dealing with Huns, Slavs and others where Belisarios is largely absent in the telling so that Prokopios's history is a complete telling of Justinian's wars.
The book provides a good account of warfare in the 6th Century with the many antagonists and allies involved, as Prokopis gives group and individual sketches of events in all that he thought important enough to share be it of order of battle, make up of forces, tactics, set battle, siege, maneuver, negotiations along with whimsical or horrible stories and the like. Over all you get a good feel for the of the ups and down in a devolving geo political situation for the Eastern Roman Empire and though his account is being written for annals of the Emperor, Prokopis's account does not seem to hesitate for calling out actions and persons for which he seems dissatisfied with. This includes what amounts to praise for his enemies when deserving and exposing frivolous and wrong conduct by his own forces and allies all of which add to the freshness his histories making the whole book a page turner and a seemingly honest critique of the times. It won't be till you get to his shocking "Secret Histories" that you find out how much he held back.
Overall great book, great maps, good time line, family trees, and well indexed. Much enjoyed.
August 25, 2025
El estilo es bueno y realmente se nota la influencia de Tucidides y de Herodoto, con anécdotas y discursos buenos. Aunque también tiene de Tucidides la prolijidad con la que narra en algunos libros que para un no especialista se me hace más pesado.
Algunas partes dramáticas realmente sublimes como cuando un rudo general se ablanda por la crudeza de la pobreza donde dos hermanos se pelean por una miga de pan. Y discursos muy bien traídos y caracteres bien trazados en ellos, como por ejemplo cuando relata un escrito hacia un rey donde le intenta convencer para que no destruya Roma.
Algunas partes dramáticas realmente sublimes como cuando un rudo general se ablanda por la crudeza de la pobreza donde dos hermanos se pelean por una miga de pan. Y discursos muy bien traídos y caracteres bien trazados en ellos, como por ejemplo cuando relata un escrito hacia un rey donde le intenta convencer para que no destruya Roma.
September 7, 2024
By all rights a definitive translation of a major history, though Prokopios' rather rote style of retelling remains a double-edged sword. Like its great predecessor Thucydides History of the Peloponnesian War, its second half lives up to its own potential more fully than the first. Regardless, rarely does one encounter maps and notes of the precision achieved here.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews