What do you think?
Rate this book
The Later Roman Empire
He was not a professional man of letters but an army officer of Greek origin born at Antioch and contemporary with the events described in what remains of his work. He set himself the task of continuing the histories of Tacitus from A.D. 96 down to his own day. The first thirteen of his thirty-one books are lost; the remainder describe a period of only twenty-five years (A.D. 354-378) and the reigns of the emperors Constantis, Julian, Jovian, Valentinian and Valens, for which he is a prime authority. He was a pagan and an admirer of the apostate Julian, to whose career about half the surviving books are devoted. Nevertheless, his treatment of Christianity is free from prejudice and his impartiality and good judgement have been generally acknowledged.
506 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 391
97 people are currently reading
3213 people want to read
About the author
Ammianus Marcellinus
265 books29 followersAmmianus Marcellinus (c. 330 - after 391) is the preeminent historian of the Late Roman Empire, whose extant work forms the most important narrative we possess on the Fourth Century A.D. Born of genteel extraction in a Greek-speaking part of the empire, Ammianus served in the army in campaigns ranging form Gaul to Persia before settling in Rome and beginning his literary carreer. Besides shedding light on many events from the reign of Constantius to the calamitous defeat at Adrianople - including striking portraits of emperors Julian and Valentinian - his work offers as well a compelling description of Late Roman society.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 49 reviews
January 18, 2023
Prior to starting this book, I hadn’t known that the earlier part of Ammianus’ history has been lost. All that survives is his account of the quarter century between 353 and 378. Those 25 years do though stretch to 444 pages in the edition I read, (not including the notes). This period was part of Ammianus’ own lifetime, and he was a direct participant in some of the events he describes. The main emperors that feature are Constantius I; Julian “the Apostate”; and the co-emperors Valentinian I and his brother Valens. Julian is the one that Ammianus most admires. In his own words, his narrative “will not fall far short of a panegyric”, of Julian, although he is not entirely uncritical. In general though, the capriciousness and paranoia of the various emperors is vividly portrayed, as is the precariousness of life under their rule.
I like books about the Roman Empire, but even for an enthusiast like me this wasn’t the quickest read. Ammianus lived a time when the Roman world was rapidly adopting Christianity, but he was a pagan and talks a lot about portents, omens, divination etc. He also has a tendency to go off on grumpy old man rants about how the Romans have become too fond of soft living, and how it wasn’t like that in the good old days. Still, there is much of interest here.
Rome itself was sacked by the Goths only 30 years after the end date of this book, and the reader gets a sense of how the Empire was tottering. In the 350s Ammianus describes how “Long neglect had exposed the provinces of Gaul to the miseries of slaughter, pillage, and fire; the barbarians plundered at will and no help came…”. Of particular interest to me was a description of how in Britain in 360AD, “the wild tribes of the Scots and Picts broke their undertaking to keep peace, laid waste the country near the frontier…”. This is the earliest reference I have personally seen to the Scots as a separate ethnic group to the Picts. By 364 Ammianus reports that “practically the whole Roman world heard the trumpet-call of war, as savage peoples stirred themselves and raided the frontiers nearest to them. The Alamanni were ravaging Gaul and Raetia simultaneously; the Sarmatians and Quadi were devastating Pannonia; the Picts, Saxons, Scots, and Attacotti were bringing continual misery upon Britain; the Austoriani and other Moorish peoples were attacking Africa with more than usual violence; and predatory bands of Goths were plundering Thrace and Moesia. The king of Persia was laying unlawful hands on Armenia and sparing no effort to bring that country once more under his rule.”
Ammianus argues that the “seed bed and origin of all this destruction” were the Huns, whom he says dwelt beyond what we now call the Sea of Azov. It’s clear from the text that he viewed these steppe nomads with both fascination and horror. Initially falling on their western neighbours the Alans, they caused a domino effect in which the Alans attacked the Goths, large numbers of whom sought refuge within the Roman Empire but then rebelled against the Romans. The book closes with an account of the catastrophic Roman defeat at Adrianople, at the hands of the Goths. Most modern historians see this as a major event in the decline of the Empire.
As if the emperors didn’t have enough to deal with, Ammianus tells us of a huge earthquake and tsunami in the Eastern Mediterranean in the 360s, with a description of the sea being drawn out and then crashing back in a huge wave that went miles inland. There were also some brilliant details shedding light on Roman customs and diet. In praising the emperor Julian, Ammianus comments that he ate the same food as his soldiers and rejected such “delicacies” as “sow’s womb and udders”. I think I might have just gone straight to the ice cream.
Not the lightest of reads, but a great book for those with an interest in the ancient Romans.
I like books about the Roman Empire, but even for an enthusiast like me this wasn’t the quickest read. Ammianus lived a time when the Roman world was rapidly adopting Christianity, but he was a pagan and talks a lot about portents, omens, divination etc. He also has a tendency to go off on grumpy old man rants about how the Romans have become too fond of soft living, and how it wasn’t like that in the good old days. Still, there is much of interest here.
Rome itself was sacked by the Goths only 30 years after the end date of this book, and the reader gets a sense of how the Empire was tottering. In the 350s Ammianus describes how “Long neglect had exposed the provinces of Gaul to the miseries of slaughter, pillage, and fire; the barbarians plundered at will and no help came…”. Of particular interest to me was a description of how in Britain in 360AD, “the wild tribes of the Scots and Picts broke their undertaking to keep peace, laid waste the country near the frontier…”. This is the earliest reference I have personally seen to the Scots as a separate ethnic group to the Picts. By 364 Ammianus reports that “practically the whole Roman world heard the trumpet-call of war, as savage peoples stirred themselves and raided the frontiers nearest to them. The Alamanni were ravaging Gaul and Raetia simultaneously; the Sarmatians and Quadi were devastating Pannonia; the Picts, Saxons, Scots, and Attacotti were bringing continual misery upon Britain; the Austoriani and other Moorish peoples were attacking Africa with more than usual violence; and predatory bands of Goths were plundering Thrace and Moesia. The king of Persia was laying unlawful hands on Armenia and sparing no effort to bring that country once more under his rule.”
Ammianus argues that the “seed bed and origin of all this destruction” were the Huns, whom he says dwelt beyond what we now call the Sea of Azov. It’s clear from the text that he viewed these steppe nomads with both fascination and horror. Initially falling on their western neighbours the Alans, they caused a domino effect in which the Alans attacked the Goths, large numbers of whom sought refuge within the Roman Empire but then rebelled against the Romans. The book closes with an account of the catastrophic Roman defeat at Adrianople, at the hands of the Goths. Most modern historians see this as a major event in the decline of the Empire.
As if the emperors didn’t have enough to deal with, Ammianus tells us of a huge earthquake and tsunami in the Eastern Mediterranean in the 360s, with a description of the sea being drawn out and then crashing back in a huge wave that went miles inland. There were also some brilliant details shedding light on Roman customs and diet. In praising the emperor Julian, Ammianus comments that he ate the same food as his soldiers and rejected such “delicacies” as “sow’s womb and udders”. I think I might have just gone straight to the ice cream.
Not the lightest of reads, but a great book for those with an interest in the ancient Romans.
May 29, 2020
How charming are ancient/medieval amateur historians? So incredibly charming. The more 'standard' historians (e.g., Thucydides, Livy, Appian, Rufus, Plutarch, Xenophon, Procopius, Sallust, et al.) are also quite good, of course, yet I can't help but infinitely prefer the wacky and digressive ones, Diogenes Laertius' Lives, Arrian's biography of Alexander, Gregory of Tours' History of the Franks, Diaz's Conquest of New Spain, etc.
Who wants dry academic history when you can have astrology, philosophy, life advice, random anecdotes, first-person accounts of battles, how-to guides for black magic...? With Ammianus we have:
Super-important details (p. 230):
An obvious partiality for Julian the Apostate, which he claims is totally not exaggerated at all (p. 89):
Digressions literally within digressions (when describing a battle, on p. 205):
Helpful how-to guides for the black arts (p. 208):
Charmingly straightforward patriotism (p. 131):
Random philosophical reflections (p. 232, p. 342, etc.):
This guy really hates elephants (p. 165):
Getting down to the real causes of human action (p. 63):
Modern Western military campaigns should really bring back sorcerer/philosopher debates (p. 261):
Wherein Ammianus has strong feelings about eunuchs (except for one guy, who was cool), p. 95:
Wherein we learn that Pablo Escobar has nothing on Emperor Valentinian (p. 382):
A Roman soldier's perspective on the complex theological debates of the first Ecumenical Councils (p. 232):
I mean, who wants scholarly accuracy and footnotes and hedging when you can have all glorious nonsense?
Anyway, the main thing I learned in terms of actual history is that the late Roman Empire (and maybe even the earlier Empire?) basically consisted of giant marauding bands of brigands -- called "legions of Roman soldiers," colloquially -- who had all the power, political and otherwise.
See, e.g., p. 189, when the legions wanted to make Julian emperor: "Julian, finding that there was no way out and perceiving that continued resistance would place him in instant danger, promised each man five gold pieces and a pound of silver." Does this sound like an emperor to you? Or a hostage?
To be clear, the Roman soldiers literally put a crown on Julian's head and said they would kill him unless he got them more money. In other words, this is essentially an organized criminal band (using the insignia of a former empire) murdering/raping/pillaging random villages and cities in Asia and Europe and occasionally sending a figurehead aristocrat back to Rome or Byzantium to get them more money.
When you combine this corruption with how many battles the legions were losing by the end of Ammianus' narrative, I can't say that I'm surprised by the collapse of the Western Empire.
Who wants dry academic history when you can have astrology, philosophy, life advice, random anecdotes, first-person accounts of battles, how-to guides for black magic...? With Ammianus we have:
Super-important details (p. 230):
I will not dwell, because it has been related so often, on the fact that Constantius was never seen in public wiping his face or nose or spitting or turning his head on either side and that he never in his life tasted fruit.
An obvious partiality for Julian the Apostate, which he claims is totally not exaggerated at all (p. 89):
My narrative of Julian, which is not a tissue of clever falsehoods but an absolutely truthful account based on clear evidence, will not fall far short of a panegyric, because it seems that the life of this young man was guided by some principle which raised him above the ordinary and and accompanied him from his illustrious cradle to his last breath.
Digressions literally within digressions (when describing a battle, on p. 205):
Besides this there were continual rainbows, a phenomenon of which I will give a brief explanation . . .
Helpful how-to guides for the black arts (p. 208):
And since this learned prince, whose curiosity embraced all forms of knowledge, has been charged by his enemies with practicing black arts to divine the future, we must briefly consider how a wise man may acquire this by no means unimportant branch of learning. The spirit which directs the eternal bodies that constitute the elements . . .
Charmingly straightforward patriotism (p. 131):
Thus those kings, once inordinately swollen with pride, who had been in the habit of enriching themselves by plundering our people, bowed their necks to the Roman yoke, and obeyed the imperial commands without a murmur.
Random philosophical reflections (p. 232, p. 342, etc.):
The truest glory is won when a man in power totally subdues his cruel and savage and angry impulses and erects in the citadel of his soul a splendid memorial of his victory over himself.
There is in fact no way of correcting wrongdoing in those who think that the height of virtue consists in the execution of their will.
This guy really hates elephants (p. 165):
Wrinkled monsters of enormous height, a sight more dreadful than any other form of horror, as I have often declared . . .
Getting down to the real causes of human action (p. 63):
These and countless other events of this kind are brought to pass from time to time by the operation of Adrastia, who punishes evil and rewards good deeds and whom we also call Nemesis. She is the sublime manifestation of a powerful divinity dwelling, men believe, above the orbit of the moon . . .
Modern Western military campaigns should really bring back sorcerer/philosopher debates (p. 261):
A soldier named Jovian and two horses which he was bringing back from watering in the river were struck dead by a thunderbolt. The interpreters of such things were sent for and questioned; they declared with confidence that this of the type known as 'advisory,' the name they give to an omen which neither prohibits or prescribes a particular course . . . the philosophers, on the other hand, maintained that there was no particular significance, it was merely a violent blast of wind pushed down from the upper air by some force. If it portended anything, it was an increase of honor for the emperor at the outset of his glorious enterprise, since it is common knowledge that fire naturally flies upward if there is nothing to check it.
Wherein Ammianus has strong feelings about eunuchs (except for one guy, who was cool), p. 95:
In this context I feel impelled to add a brief account of the eunuch Eutherius. It may sound incredible, because if even Numa Pompilius or Socrates were to speak well of a eunuch and back their statements with an oath they would be accused of departing from the truth. But roses grow in the midst of thorns . . .
Wherein we learn that Pablo Escobar has nothing on Emperor Valentinian (p. 382):
One thing, however, it would be wrong to pass over or suppress. Valentinian had two savage man-eating she-bears called Gold-dust and Innocence, to which he was so devoted that he had their cages placed near his bedroom, and appointed reliable keepers to see that nothing was allowed to impair the destructive fury of the brutes. In the end, after seeing many people buried whom Innocence had torn to pieces, he rewarded her services by returning her safe to the wild, in the hope that she would produce cubs like herself.
A Roman soldier's perspective on the complex theological debates of the first Ecumenical Councils (p. 232):
The plain and simple religion of the Christians was bedeviled by Constantius with old wives' fancies. [i.e., Trinitarian/Christological theology, lol] Instead of trying to settle matters he raised complicated issues which led to much dissension, and as this spread more widely he fed it with verbal argument. Public transport hurried throngs of bishops hither and thither to attend what they call synods, and by his attempts to impose comformity Constantius only succeeded in hamstringing the post service.
I mean, who wants scholarly accuracy and footnotes and hedging when you can have all glorious nonsense?
Anyway, the main thing I learned in terms of actual history is that the late Roman Empire (and maybe even the earlier Empire?) basically consisted of giant marauding bands of brigands -- called "legions of Roman soldiers," colloquially -- who had all the power, political and otherwise.
See, e.g., p. 189, when the legions wanted to make Julian emperor: "Julian, finding that there was no way out and perceiving that continued resistance would place him in instant danger, promised each man five gold pieces and a pound of silver." Does this sound like an emperor to you? Or a hostage?
To be clear, the Roman soldiers literally put a crown on Julian's head and said they would kill him unless he got them more money. In other words, this is essentially an organized criminal band (using the insignia of a former empire) murdering/raping/pillaging random villages and cities in Asia and Europe and occasionally sending a figurehead aristocrat back to Rome or Byzantium to get them more money.
When you combine this corruption with how many battles the legions were losing by the end of Ammianus' narrative, I can't say that I'm surprised by the collapse of the Western Empire.
March 27, 2025
I enjoyed this a great deal but then I am disposed to enjoy almost anything about the Roman Empire. And there are some flaws: one, that I hadn’t realised before I started reading, was just how much is missing. There are large gaps in the narrative, and you can be left with a sense of excitement as you reach the end of one cliff-hanging chapter, only to be brought back down to earth with a disappointing bump as the next chapter starts in a discomposingly different time and place.
Marcellinus was a pagan and Julian the Apostate was one of his heroes. I’m not sure he is one of mine, at least not after reading how he orders his soldiers to slaughter defenceless German women, children and livestock. It’s true that Marcellinus sometimes criticises him – but not for this – mainly for his “tasteless and irresponsible” behaviour in elevating an uncultured barbarian to the consulship. For Marcellinus dislikes barbarians even more than he dislikes Christians.
The best parts are those where Marcellinus himself was present: such as Julian’s death bed (although the effect is diminished by the Emperor’s implausible speech). Or the defence of Amida against the Persians – this is especially vivid. He says, “What inspired us was not the hope of saving our lives but a burning desire to die bravely.” I believe him and admire him, and am grateful for his against-the-odds survival.
Marcellinus is very keen on pointing out both the good and the bad in the character of Rome’s rulers. Valens, for example, disliked corruption and high taxes. I read that and thought “The UK needs a Valens!” But then I turned the page and saw him described as cruel, unjust, lazy, and devoid of political or military skill. And his witchraft trials unleashed a reign of terror that exhibited Stalinist levels of paranoia.
Valens was ultimately slain by the Goths, a people Marcellinus dislikes intensely, although he does condemn the appalling practice on the borders of Thrace when the Romans, faced with displaced Goths dying of hunger, give them dogs to eat in exchange for slaves on a one for one basis. This is the kind of thing that makes me think the fall of the Empire was inevitable and deserved. Marcellinus may have agreed – up to a point – though when Goths in Roman service are treacherously massacred by the Romans – just in case they rebel – he calls this a “wise plan.” Moments like this – and the complete absence of any hint of condemnation of the many massacres of civilians carried out by Roman soldiers, many of whom must have been technically Christians – made me dislike the author. On the one hand, brave and honest: on the other hand, cruel and unjust.
In spirit, I am with Alaric and the Goths who sacked Rome and brought the whole cruel and rotten structure to an end, just thirty years after the end of Marcellinus’s narrative. But I can also appreciate his many good points and I have some sympathy for his awareness of the approaching end of an Empire in terminal decline. After all, we in the West are living through something very similar, and it would not surprise me in the least if thirty years from now the West is also due a cataclysmic collapse similar to Alaric’s Sack of Rome. This narrative, which is fascinating for the light it sheds on the past, is also fascinating for its power to provoke thoughts on the present.
Marcellinus was a pagan and Julian the Apostate was one of his heroes. I’m not sure he is one of mine, at least not after reading how he orders his soldiers to slaughter defenceless German women, children and livestock. It’s true that Marcellinus sometimes criticises him – but not for this – mainly for his “tasteless and irresponsible” behaviour in elevating an uncultured barbarian to the consulship. For Marcellinus dislikes barbarians even more than he dislikes Christians.
The best parts are those where Marcellinus himself was present: such as Julian’s death bed (although the effect is diminished by the Emperor’s implausible speech). Or the defence of Amida against the Persians – this is especially vivid. He says, “What inspired us was not the hope of saving our lives but a burning desire to die bravely.” I believe him and admire him, and am grateful for his against-the-odds survival.
Marcellinus is very keen on pointing out both the good and the bad in the character of Rome’s rulers. Valens, for example, disliked corruption and high taxes. I read that and thought “The UK needs a Valens!” But then I turned the page and saw him described as cruel, unjust, lazy, and devoid of political or military skill. And his witchraft trials unleashed a reign of terror that exhibited Stalinist levels of paranoia.
Valens was ultimately slain by the Goths, a people Marcellinus dislikes intensely, although he does condemn the appalling practice on the borders of Thrace when the Romans, faced with displaced Goths dying of hunger, give them dogs to eat in exchange for slaves on a one for one basis. This is the kind of thing that makes me think the fall of the Empire was inevitable and deserved. Marcellinus may have agreed – up to a point – though when Goths in Roman service are treacherously massacred by the Romans – just in case they rebel – he calls this a “wise plan.” Moments like this – and the complete absence of any hint of condemnation of the many massacres of civilians carried out by Roman soldiers, many of whom must have been technically Christians – made me dislike the author. On the one hand, brave and honest: on the other hand, cruel and unjust.
In spirit, I am with Alaric and the Goths who sacked Rome and brought the whole cruel and rotten structure to an end, just thirty years after the end of Marcellinus’s narrative. But I can also appreciate his many good points and I have some sympathy for his awareness of the approaching end of an Empire in terminal decline. After all, we in the West are living through something very similar, and it would not surprise me in the least if thirty years from now the West is also due a cataclysmic collapse similar to Alaric’s Sack of Rome. This narrative, which is fascinating for the light it sheds on the past, is also fascinating for its power to provoke thoughts on the present.
February 15, 2016
This is a great book that begins about 20 years after the death of Constantine the Great in 337 AD and describes the tribulations of his children. Now Ammianus is not Tacitus or Livy in terms of writing style, but he had an advantage over many of these ancient historians; namely, he lived and participated (i.e., was an eye witness) to most of the events he describes.
The only unfortunate part about this book is that the editor deemed necessary to omit a large number of sections from the original manuscript. Although these sections may appear, at a superficial glance, trivial from a historical perspective (like Ammianus' opinions of what causes earthquakes), to me these kind of passages have greater value than descriptions of battles. One can find description of battles or other main events in any contemporary summary of history. But it is only by reading these ancient texts that we find out how people thought, how they spoke, their habits and culture. And sometimes, it is the off the cuff remark that reveals some surprising facts. For example, in describing Julian's campaign against the Persians he mentions of a town that was deserted "by its Jewish inhabitants because of its low walls." This town was close to today's Basrah in southern Iraq, close to the beginning (or end) of the Persian Gulf. To me this was unexpected as I never thought that Jewish people lived in their own towns so far away from Jerusalem.
The only unfortunate part about this book is that the editor deemed necessary to omit a large number of sections from the original manuscript. Although these sections may appear, at a superficial glance, trivial from a historical perspective (like Ammianus' opinions of what causes earthquakes), to me these kind of passages have greater value than descriptions of battles. One can find description of battles or other main events in any contemporary summary of history. But it is only by reading these ancient texts that we find out how people thought, how they spoke, their habits and culture. And sometimes, it is the off the cuff remark that reveals some surprising facts. For example, in describing Julian's campaign against the Persians he mentions of a town that was deserted "by its Jewish inhabitants because of its low walls." This town was close to today's Basrah in southern Iraq, close to the beginning (or end) of the Persian Gulf. To me this was unexpected as I never thought that Jewish people lived in their own towns so far away from Jerusalem.
November 6, 2009
I decided to read Ammianus because I understood he was a self-conscious successor to Tacitus, whose work is probably my favorite of the contemporaneous Roman histories. Then I realized that his history would probably seem very familiar to me, having already read Gibbon's 'Decline and Fall' and Heather's 'Fall of the Roman Empire', for which Ammianus serves as a primary source. The beginning of Ammianus's work, covering the reign of Constantine, is lost, but the surviving portions focus on the emperor Julian and his failed invasion of Mesopotamia and conclude with Valens's disastrous defeat at Adrianople in 378, so there are important historical turning points in the chronology.
Given this background, Ammianus does not disappoint. Like Tacitus, his style is much closer to modern history than ancient biography (eg, Plutarch, which I found to be frustrating). As such, the chronology is much easier to follow, although there is still little analysis. The focal point of his history is the brief--and seemingly unsuccessful, or at least inconsequential in broader scheme of things--reign of the pagan emperor Julian. This choice is not entirely clear to me as a contemporary reader, but it fits Ammianus's personal experience and available resources, so his account is filled with detail. The book is most engaging in its lengthy, visceral descriptions of the campaigns in Mesopotamia, although the modern reader will blanch at the exaggerations and imagined speeches (although these are apparently indigenous to the genre). The accounts of the various lesser political intrigues at the periphery of the empire are confusing at times--it's hard to keep track of the characters and their relative positions--but they provide interesting documentation of politics in the late empire. Ammianus uses them pedagogically, hitting his main themes of traditional virtue and modern decay that will be familiar to any reader.
Given the limitations of his times, Ammianus does a good job of being objective and descriptive. His history is essential reading for anyone interested in ancient history from the source. The period may not be as familiar or glamorous to the novice reader, but it's an important one, and Ammianus's historical mode is accessible and readable.
Given this background, Ammianus does not disappoint. Like Tacitus, his style is much closer to modern history than ancient biography (eg, Plutarch, which I found to be frustrating). As such, the chronology is much easier to follow, although there is still little analysis. The focal point of his history is the brief--and seemingly unsuccessful, or at least inconsequential in broader scheme of things--reign of the pagan emperor Julian. This choice is not entirely clear to me as a contemporary reader, but it fits Ammianus's personal experience and available resources, so his account is filled with detail. The book is most engaging in its lengthy, visceral descriptions of the campaigns in Mesopotamia, although the modern reader will blanch at the exaggerations and imagined speeches (although these are apparently indigenous to the genre). The accounts of the various lesser political intrigues at the periphery of the empire are confusing at times--it's hard to keep track of the characters and their relative positions--but they provide interesting documentation of politics in the late empire. Ammianus uses them pedagogically, hitting his main themes of traditional virtue and modern decay that will be familiar to any reader.
Given the limitations of his times, Ammianus does a good job of being objective and descriptive. His history is essential reading for anyone interested in ancient history from the source. The period may not be as familiar or glamorous to the novice reader, but it's an important one, and Ammianus's historical mode is accessible and readable.
January 15, 2019
Some absolutely hilarious entries, particularly Book 28, Chapter 4 on the vices of Roman Society. A wonderful chronicle of the later Roman Empire, with scathing reviews of all Emperors and generals throughout.
December 29, 2021
Ammianus Marcellinus wrote his The Later Roman Empire: A.D. 354-378 in that grey period between the reigns of Constantine and Justinian. He was a soldier who fought in the legions with the Emperor Julian in both Gaul and Persia. He was not born to be a writer like Livy and Tacitus, but he managed to somehow do justice to his time and place.
When writing his own history of Rome, Gibbon pays tribute to his Roman source as he moves on to later events:
When writing his own history of Rome, Gibbon pays tribute to his Roman source as he moves on to later events:
It is not without the most sincere regret, that I must now take leave of an accurate and faithful guide, who has composed the history of his own times, without indulging the prejudices and passions, which usually affect the mind of a contemporary. Ammianus Marcellinus, who terminates his useful work with the defeat and death of Valens, recommends the more glorious subject of the ensuing reign to the youthful vigor and eloquence of the rising generation.Reading Ammianus, it is not difficult to see the signs of decline: the cynicism of politicians, false charges, torture and executions for trivial offenses (or no offenses at all). I think it is worth reading this book if only to compare 4th century Rome with 21st century America.
February 23, 2023
Very interesting and especially a high literary level. This is a mix of Herodotus and Thucydides. As a work of history it's more professional than Livy. Striking are the moralizing reflections that testify to a great experience, human knowledge and wisdom.
Read
March 9, 2020as ancient histories go this was actually really good
August 23, 2019
The greatest of the Roman historians. This dude describes some stuff that's absolutely insane and Roman history literally jumps off the pages. Ammianus Marcellinus is awesome.
May 17, 2024
Quick-Witted Soldier Ammianus Marcellinus' History Abounds In Sharp Rhetoric, & Clever Wordplay.
Born in the year 330 A.D., Ammianus Marcellinus was a quick-witted soldier from Antioch who, in his later years, would eventually go on to become a historian when his military career had concluded. He lived during the era in history which follows the reign of the Roman emperor Constantine the Great. Fanatically loyal to his superior officers, Ammianus served in the Roman legion under the emperors Constantinius II, & his successor, Julian, who became known as 'The Apostate', because of his refusal to embrace Christianity & abandon the pagan religion of the Roman people. As menacing as he sounds, 'The Apostate' was actually a pretty benevolent emperor compared with tyrants like Valentinian, or Valens. Julian turned the other cheek a number of times, forgiving people's offenses which his predecessor Constantinius most assuredly did not. Julian's non-Christian ways suited Ammianus just fine, because he was also a pagan, through & through.
While living in Rome during his retirement in the 380's Ammianus would compose his 31-book history, the 'Rerum Gestarum Libri XXXI', more commonly known as the 'Res Gestae', which is different than the 'Res Gestae' chronicling the achievements of the Divine Augustus. It would in modern times became known by the name, 'The Later Roman Empire'. Of the original 31, the first 13 books in Marcellinus' history have since been lost. The timeline of the complete set was supposed to have spanned the period beginning with the reign of Nerva, in 96 A.D., all the way up to 378 A.D., when Valens died at Adrianople. The first of the 18 books which remain is Book XIV, & the action begins in 353 A.D., two years after the promotion of Gallus, brother of Julian 'The Apostate', to the rank of 'Caesar' by the emperor Constantinius II, 'The Augustus'. In Marcellinus' time in history, the actual Roman emperor was known as 'The Augustus' & his lieutenant, who in times of war usually spent the most time on the battlefield, was known as 'The Caesar'. They were effectively co-emperors, but the 'Caesar' was subordinate to the 'Augustus'. You can read Marcellinus' detailed descriptions for a gruesome idea of just how poor of a choice Caesar Gallus was to have been promoted to that position. He should have been known as 'The Tyrant', because he was responsible for the torture & the execution of quite a few people. But as a historian, Ammianus accomplished a great deal more than just vividly describe the atrocities of Caesar Gallus; his writing to me demonstrates a quick wit & piercing, sarcastic sense of humor which pervades throughout his narrative in the 'Rerum Gestarum Libri XXXI'. Wikipedia claims that his skill at crafting sharp rhetoric was so pronounced that it makes the accuracy of his work a bit suspect. Writing can be checked, & double-checked for accuracy from here to the moon, but if it isn't fun to read, what's the point ? Anyway, that's just what I think about it.
This Penguin Classics edition of Marcellinus' 'The Later Roman Empire' was translated by Walter Hamilton, who also translated numerous of Plato's writings, including : 'Synopsium, the 'Gorgias', 'Phaedrus', & 'Letters VII & VIII'. It also features a wonderful & also extremely helpful, introduction which provides historical background on Ammianus' era in history, his very clever composition style, & some suggestions for additional reading on Marcellinus' life or his writing. The book is roughly 440 pages in length for the main text, & just over 500 with the expanded notes, a glossary of important people appearing in the story, detailed maps of the Roman provinces during the Constantinian era. Finally, there's an awesome diagram depicting the family of Constantine The Great.
Ammianus' chronicle is brought to life with a dramatic cast of intriguers, backstabbers, & imperial usurpers, some of whom he provides nicknames for that I found colorful to be quite honest. My two favorites were in Book XV, towards the beginning of the book : 'Paul, as I said earlier, was known by the nickname of 'the Chain', because of his skill in linking slanders together to form an unbreakable whole; he spent his efforts in an astonishing variety of tricks, like some wrestlers who show superlative cleverness in the bouts of the ring. Mercury, on the other hand, was called the 'Count of Dreams'. His specialty was to insinuate himself into dinner-parties & similar gatherings, like a fierce dog which conceals its savage disposition by humbly wagging its tail. Then, if anyone mentioned to a friend that he had seen something in a dream...Mercury used his poisonous skill to paint it in the worst colours, & poured it into the receptive ear of the emperor, with the result that the person in question was treated as guilty of an unforgiveable offense & subjected to a serious criminal charge.' I can't believe people were running around in the year 355 A.D. with nicknames like 'Paul, the Chain', that's just crazy.
For a soldier living during the age of the Roman Empire, Ammianus Marcellinus was quite the sharp-witted wordsmith. In my own estimation, I think his narrative is written much crisper than some of the other classical historians such as Cassius Dio, or Cornelius Tacitus. His writing is filled with insightful proverbs, well-conceived metaphors, & clever sarcasm : 'Brevity is only desirable when it cuts short tedious irrelevance without subtracting from our knowledge of the past.' 'He was like a lion of huge size & grim aspect which does not dare to go to the rescue of its trapped whelps because it has lost its claws & teeth.' 'He was adept at making a mountain of mischief out of a molehill of evidence,'. Ammianus churned out some quality rhetoric in his day, of that there can be no doubt !
One of the more emotional aspects of this book are the passages Ammianus includes to eulogize the passing of each Roman emperor as they die over the course of his story. He includes dramatically grim omens & portents in an effort to foreshadow each of these momentous, somber events. Constantinius II dies from an illness (disease was a very common cause of death in those times), Julian the Apostate dies by a spear wound he takes in battle, & Valentinian has an apoplectic fit which I surmise was probably a heart attack. Marcellinus does his best to mention as many of these men's positive qualities as he possibly can, which I thought was a nice gesture on his part. Of all the emperors during this era, my favorite was Julian; he seemed to me to be the one most loved by the Roman people, & they revered him for the many kind, benevolent actions he took during his two-year reign. As he lay dying in his tent, he refused to name a successor because he didn't want to put the person in danger in case they weren't ready to become emperor. He & his wife tried to conceive a child but Eusebia, empress at the time, sabotaged the pregnancy & Julian was unable to produce an heir. Isn't that sad ?
Ammianus Marcellinus' 'The Later Roman Empire : A.D. 354 - 378' was, in closing, a wonderful reading experience for me. It's a bit of a challenge, but it's also extremely well-composed & reads at a fairly steady burn. It should take you somewhere in the neighborhood of two weeks of steady reading to complete it, if you're familiar with Roman history. I would recommend to you, in the event you enjoy the book & you'd like suggestions for similar titles, the following, all published by the Penguin Classics : 'The Twelve Caesars' by Gaius Suetonius, 'The Age Of Augustus' by Cassius Dio, 'The Annals' & 'The Histories', both by Cornelius Tacitus, & 'Lives Of The Later Caesars', (that last title was written by an unknown author, so I cannot list one, but it's a fantastic read, & also it's hysterically funny at times, which makes it probably my favorite).
Born in the year 330 A.D., Ammianus Marcellinus was a quick-witted soldier from Antioch who, in his later years, would eventually go on to become a historian when his military career had concluded. He lived during the era in history which follows the reign of the Roman emperor Constantine the Great. Fanatically loyal to his superior officers, Ammianus served in the Roman legion under the emperors Constantinius II, & his successor, Julian, who became known as 'The Apostate', because of his refusal to embrace Christianity & abandon the pagan religion of the Roman people. As menacing as he sounds, 'The Apostate' was actually a pretty benevolent emperor compared with tyrants like Valentinian, or Valens. Julian turned the other cheek a number of times, forgiving people's offenses which his predecessor Constantinius most assuredly did not. Julian's non-Christian ways suited Ammianus just fine, because he was also a pagan, through & through.
While living in Rome during his retirement in the 380's Ammianus would compose his 31-book history, the 'Rerum Gestarum Libri XXXI', more commonly known as the 'Res Gestae', which is different than the 'Res Gestae' chronicling the achievements of the Divine Augustus. It would in modern times became known by the name, 'The Later Roman Empire'. Of the original 31, the first 13 books in Marcellinus' history have since been lost. The timeline of the complete set was supposed to have spanned the period beginning with the reign of Nerva, in 96 A.D., all the way up to 378 A.D., when Valens died at Adrianople. The first of the 18 books which remain is Book XIV, & the action begins in 353 A.D., two years after the promotion of Gallus, brother of Julian 'The Apostate', to the rank of 'Caesar' by the emperor Constantinius II, 'The Augustus'. In Marcellinus' time in history, the actual Roman emperor was known as 'The Augustus' & his lieutenant, who in times of war usually spent the most time on the battlefield, was known as 'The Caesar'. They were effectively co-emperors, but the 'Caesar' was subordinate to the 'Augustus'. You can read Marcellinus' detailed descriptions for a gruesome idea of just how poor of a choice Caesar Gallus was to have been promoted to that position. He should have been known as 'The Tyrant', because he was responsible for the torture & the execution of quite a few people. But as a historian, Ammianus accomplished a great deal more than just vividly describe the atrocities of Caesar Gallus; his writing to me demonstrates a quick wit & piercing, sarcastic sense of humor which pervades throughout his narrative in the 'Rerum Gestarum Libri XXXI'. Wikipedia claims that his skill at crafting sharp rhetoric was so pronounced that it makes the accuracy of his work a bit suspect. Writing can be checked, & double-checked for accuracy from here to the moon, but if it isn't fun to read, what's the point ? Anyway, that's just what I think about it.
This Penguin Classics edition of Marcellinus' 'The Later Roman Empire' was translated by Walter Hamilton, who also translated numerous of Plato's writings, including : 'Synopsium, the 'Gorgias', 'Phaedrus', & 'Letters VII & VIII'. It also features a wonderful & also extremely helpful, introduction which provides historical background on Ammianus' era in history, his very clever composition style, & some suggestions for additional reading on Marcellinus' life or his writing. The book is roughly 440 pages in length for the main text, & just over 500 with the expanded notes, a glossary of important people appearing in the story, detailed maps of the Roman provinces during the Constantinian era. Finally, there's an awesome diagram depicting the family of Constantine The Great.
Ammianus' chronicle is brought to life with a dramatic cast of intriguers, backstabbers, & imperial usurpers, some of whom he provides nicknames for that I found colorful to be quite honest. My two favorites were in Book XV, towards the beginning of the book : 'Paul, as I said earlier, was known by the nickname of 'the Chain', because of his skill in linking slanders together to form an unbreakable whole; he spent his efforts in an astonishing variety of tricks, like some wrestlers who show superlative cleverness in the bouts of the ring. Mercury, on the other hand, was called the 'Count of Dreams'. His specialty was to insinuate himself into dinner-parties & similar gatherings, like a fierce dog which conceals its savage disposition by humbly wagging its tail. Then, if anyone mentioned to a friend that he had seen something in a dream...Mercury used his poisonous skill to paint it in the worst colours, & poured it into the receptive ear of the emperor, with the result that the person in question was treated as guilty of an unforgiveable offense & subjected to a serious criminal charge.' I can't believe people were running around in the year 355 A.D. with nicknames like 'Paul, the Chain', that's just crazy.
For a soldier living during the age of the Roman Empire, Ammianus Marcellinus was quite the sharp-witted wordsmith. In my own estimation, I think his narrative is written much crisper than some of the other classical historians such as Cassius Dio, or Cornelius Tacitus. His writing is filled with insightful proverbs, well-conceived metaphors, & clever sarcasm : 'Brevity is only desirable when it cuts short tedious irrelevance without subtracting from our knowledge of the past.' 'He was like a lion of huge size & grim aspect which does not dare to go to the rescue of its trapped whelps because it has lost its claws & teeth.' 'He was adept at making a mountain of mischief out of a molehill of evidence,'. Ammianus churned out some quality rhetoric in his day, of that there can be no doubt !
One of the more emotional aspects of this book are the passages Ammianus includes to eulogize the passing of each Roman emperor as they die over the course of his story. He includes dramatically grim omens & portents in an effort to foreshadow each of these momentous, somber events. Constantinius II dies from an illness (disease was a very common cause of death in those times), Julian the Apostate dies by a spear wound he takes in battle, & Valentinian has an apoplectic fit which I surmise was probably a heart attack. Marcellinus does his best to mention as many of these men's positive qualities as he possibly can, which I thought was a nice gesture on his part. Of all the emperors during this era, my favorite was Julian; he seemed to me to be the one most loved by the Roman people, & they revered him for the many kind, benevolent actions he took during his two-year reign. As he lay dying in his tent, he refused to name a successor because he didn't want to put the person in danger in case they weren't ready to become emperor. He & his wife tried to conceive a child but Eusebia, empress at the time, sabotaged the pregnancy & Julian was unable to produce an heir. Isn't that sad ?
Ammianus Marcellinus' 'The Later Roman Empire : A.D. 354 - 378' was, in closing, a wonderful reading experience for me. It's a bit of a challenge, but it's also extremely well-composed & reads at a fairly steady burn. It should take you somewhere in the neighborhood of two weeks of steady reading to complete it, if you're familiar with Roman history. I would recommend to you, in the event you enjoy the book & you'd like suggestions for similar titles, the following, all published by the Penguin Classics : 'The Twelve Caesars' by Gaius Suetonius, 'The Age Of Augustus' by Cassius Dio, 'The Annals' & 'The Histories', both by Cornelius Tacitus, & 'Lives Of The Later Caesars', (that last title was written by an unknown author, so I cannot list one, but it's a fantastic read, & also it's hysterically funny at times, which makes it probably my favorite).
August 9, 2021
One of the unsung heroes of Roman history, Ammians Marcellinus provides us with invaluable insight and information regarding the last years of the Roman Empire.
August 9, 2014
In general I enjoyed this book. It is a primary source dealing with my favorite time period, Late Antiquity and the early middle ages. However, the choices that Editor/Translator Walter Hamilton made in assembling this volume were extremely aggravating and frustrating. This volume is an abridgment of what remains of Ammanius's full work. Let that sink in for a minute. This is an abridgment of a work which is already incomplete. To made this worse, Hamilton chose to effectively omit virtually ALL of the material dealing with the non-Roman groups. So that by the time you get to the battle of Adrianople, the bulk of the material fleshing out the background of the Goth's and Huns, the construction of the Limes on the Rhine and Danube, the incursions by the Franks and Saxons into Gaul and Britain, have all effectively been skipped and replaced with 1-2 sentence long summaries. Considering what this volume cost, and considering it bears the lofty name of Penguin Classics, I find it inexcusable for such a substantial portion of material to be missing.
Penguin similarly did this with their edition of the Prose Edda, leaving out a full 1/3rd of it.
Ammanius's prose and eye for details are well worth the read, but if you're looking for a comprehensive and "complete" publication of his Works, it's best to get the Public Domain one that is freely available online rather than spend the money on this abridgment.
Penguin similarly did this with their edition of the Prose Edda, leaving out a full 1/3rd of it.
Ammanius's prose and eye for details are well worth the read, but if you're looking for a comprehensive and "complete" publication of his Works, it's best to get the Public Domain one that is freely available online rather than spend the money on this abridgment.
April 4, 2016
The closest thing to a time machine to the late 300s, not just to its events but even its mindset. What stands out most in his account are the Goths (who are strangely like Anglo-Americans in the 1800s, with covered wagons and everything), that horrible battle against them at Adrianople and his picture of Julian, the last man to rule the Roman Empire who believed in the old gods. Much of what seems “Christian” in Augustine’s world view really was not: it was just the received wisdom of the age. As it turns out, Ammianus believed many of the same things yet was not Christian.
More:
https://abagond.wordpress.com/2006/03...
More:
https://abagond.wordpress.com/2006/03...
July 13, 2014
What's left of his writings cover the reigns of Emperors Constantius II, Julian, Jovian, Valentinian (plus Gratian) and Valens. I specially enjoyed his account of Julian's short reign, the war against Shapur II and the Battle of Adrianople.
My only issue is with the translator, some of his choices were off-putting, using sayings/terms in french, using 'scotfree', etc. And he also omitted parts of the work, why?
My only issue is with the translator, some of his choices were off-putting, using sayings/terms in french, using 'scotfree', etc. And he also omitted parts of the work, why?
December 5, 2012
Very readable history surrounding the reign of Julian the Apostate. I believe there's a novel by Gore Vidal that uses this as a source. Ammianus Marcellinus is one of the last voices of the classical era, making this a book of particular interest, closing a chapter that begins with Heraclitus.
April 29, 2015
Surprisingly readable and not as dry as many other ancient sources I've read lately.
May 16, 2020
Read as research for my novel Breeze.
June 20, 2019
This edition of Marcellinus's late 4th Century CE history is a (mostly) readable translation that does a very good job of making the text and the period accessible for modern Anglophone readers. There are aspects of the book that may deter the more casual classical historian, including the obvious tropes and stylistic conventions that Marcellinus copied or adopted from earlier writers such as Tacitus. For example, the pogrom during the reign of Valens against divination and acts of magic reminds one of earlier descriptions of the regimes of the Julio-Claudians, Domitian etc. The use of set-piece speeches that are almost certainly 100% fabrications (or perhaps at best reconstructions) are also a reminder of what Marcellinus has inherited from his predecessors. However there are times when even the least avid reader of classics or the most jaded of scholars finds much to appreciate and even enjoy from reading this history.
The focus on the life and career of the emperor Julian in the first half of the book is a pleasing historical narrative structure, and whilst Marcellinus plots the so-called 'Apostate' rulers' progress with some degree of partisanship, he is also aware of and willing to discuss the flaws he detects in his subject. Perhaps I am reading too much into how Marcellinus has positioned Julian, however I think it's reasonable to suggest that the emperor is cast as the very human hero of (arguably) the last flourishing period in Roman history.
There are also some rather engaging sections of the text where Marcellinus brings his historical narrative alive, such as the death of Valentinian I as a result of his anger at a Quadi embassy, or the siege of Amida. His description of how the urban upper classes in Rome itself had lost the erudition and culture of past generations is entertaining, and he does his best to make the various confusing struggles between members of the imperial elite understandable. However, even with the addition of notes in this edition (placed somewhat inconveniently at the end of the book) in the later parts of Marcellinus' book it does become a bit of a blur.
I cannot comment on the accuracy of the translation nor do I have enough insight into the academic literature and study on both the author and/or the period he covers. However I will observe that the omission of certain passages out of this edition from the preferred original text does leave one feeling a little disappointed. When I read a book, no matter it's age or transmission history, I prefer to read the whole text within reason. I would suggest leaving out some of the digressions and extraneous content that exists in previous editions of Marcellinus doesn't give the reader the option to judge for him or herself the value of these passages.
In summary, this Penguin Classics edition fo Ammianus Marcellinus's text is a fairly readable translation that will satisfy those wanting to develop their understanding of late Roman history. It may not have the compelling scenes of Roman highs and lows found in Tacitus, Suetonius or Livy, however it still aspires to find a place in these great authors' tradition.
The focus on the life and career of the emperor Julian in the first half of the book is a pleasing historical narrative structure, and whilst Marcellinus plots the so-called 'Apostate' rulers' progress with some degree of partisanship, he is also aware of and willing to discuss the flaws he detects in his subject. Perhaps I am reading too much into how Marcellinus has positioned Julian, however I think it's reasonable to suggest that the emperor is cast as the very human hero of (arguably) the last flourishing period in Roman history.
There are also some rather engaging sections of the text where Marcellinus brings his historical narrative alive, such as the death of Valentinian I as a result of his anger at a Quadi embassy, or the siege of Amida. His description of how the urban upper classes in Rome itself had lost the erudition and culture of past generations is entertaining, and he does his best to make the various confusing struggles between members of the imperial elite understandable. However, even with the addition of notes in this edition (placed somewhat inconveniently at the end of the book) in the later parts of Marcellinus' book it does become a bit of a blur.
I cannot comment on the accuracy of the translation nor do I have enough insight into the academic literature and study on both the author and/or the period he covers. However I will observe that the omission of certain passages out of this edition from the preferred original text does leave one feeling a little disappointed. When I read a book, no matter it's age or transmission history, I prefer to read the whole text within reason. I would suggest leaving out some of the digressions and extraneous content that exists in previous editions of Marcellinus doesn't give the reader the option to judge for him or herself the value of these passages.
In summary, this Penguin Classics edition fo Ammianus Marcellinus's text is a fairly readable translation that will satisfy those wanting to develop their understanding of late Roman history. It may not have the compelling scenes of Roman highs and lows found in Tacitus, Suetonius or Livy, however it still aspires to find a place in these great authors' tradition.
June 3, 2020
Probably if you decided to read Ammianus, you already have interest in Classics, so perhaps you already know something about Late Roman Empire and had heard something about the author.
So, here I would like to give some insights about what are you going to get from this book:
1) some interesting things about imperial bureaucracy structure, officials and their responsibilities. Occasionally the amount of names might be overwhelming but not too often
2) extremely colourful description of battles with blood and gore from the ordinary soldier's perspective, though heavily embellished with nearly poetic conventions of Latin prose
3) thought author often appeals to "good old days" of Republic (just like Tacitus did), he is also completely aware about the advantages of the present time and it's good features also
4) perhaps some notions of "late Roman Empire decay" will fade away while reading Ammianus' book - you are going to see numerous flourishing regions, sophisticated and well-tuned state apparatus and sense of honour and spirit of patriotism still living in bold and sturdy Roman commanders and soldiers
5) couple of really complicated descriptions of siege engines
6) balanced and reasonable attitude of Ammianus towards both good and bad features of historical figures
Sometimes it is said that Ammianus had written his "Res Gestae" as a kind of eulogy to Julian the Apostate, the notion I cannot agree with. Author notices emperor's kind and benevolent acts, military leadership but still Ammianus is able to discern Julian's biases against Christians (though Ammianus is not a Christian himself), weird adherence to abundant sacrifices.
Overall, Ammianus' work is well written, well balanced and interesting to read. It is no wonder that it is often referred to as the one of the best sources on the period of 4th century Roman empire.
It is an absolute 'must read' for any classicists and good starting point for people interested in Late Roman empire. If you are beginner in the field of ancient history, my suggestion would be to start with Caesar, Titus Livius and Tacitus and.
So, here I would like to give some insights about what are you going to get from this book:
1) some interesting things about imperial bureaucracy structure, officials and their responsibilities. Occasionally the amount of names might be overwhelming but not too often
2) extremely colourful description of battles with blood and gore from the ordinary soldier's perspective, though heavily embellished with nearly poetic conventions of Latin prose
3) thought author often appeals to "good old days" of Republic (just like Tacitus did), he is also completely aware about the advantages of the present time and it's good features also
4) perhaps some notions of "late Roman Empire decay" will fade away while reading Ammianus' book - you are going to see numerous flourishing regions, sophisticated and well-tuned state apparatus and sense of honour and spirit of patriotism still living in bold and sturdy Roman commanders and soldiers
5) couple of really complicated descriptions of siege engines
6) balanced and reasonable attitude of Ammianus towards both good and bad features of historical figures
Sometimes it is said that Ammianus had written his "Res Gestae" as a kind of eulogy to Julian the Apostate, the notion I cannot agree with. Author notices emperor's kind and benevolent acts, military leadership but still Ammianus is able to discern Julian's biases against Christians (though Ammianus is not a Christian himself), weird adherence to abundant sacrifices.
Overall, Ammianus' work is well written, well balanced and interesting to read. It is no wonder that it is often referred to as the one of the best sources on the period of 4th century Roman empire.
It is an absolute 'must read' for any classicists and good starting point for people interested in Late Roman empire. If you are beginner in the field of ancient history, my suggestion would be to start with Caesar, Titus Livius and Tacitus and.
July 9, 2022
Dit is een ouderwets werk. Het is een 'Res Gestae', een keizerlijke geschiedenis, in de klassieke Romeinse stijl, geschreven door een Romeinse heidense aristocraat en legerofficier. Ter vergelijking: Augustinus schreef zijn Confessiones in ruwweg dezelfde periode.
Vergeleken met andere Romeinse geschiedschrijvingen is Ammianus een stuk minder optimistisch, en terecht. Het is de late 4e eeuw na Christus, en het Romeinse rijk is zijn puf aan het verliezen. De schrijver ziet dit als officier letterlijk aan de frontlinies. Het aantal verloren veldslagen neemt dramatisch toe naarmate het boek verloopt. Een voorzichtig vermoeden aan het begin van het boek dat zaken misschien beter zouden kunnen gaan wordt uiteindelijk een expliciete voorspelling dat het Romeinse rijk verwoest zal worden (wederom, 10 jaar na het schrijven hiervan wordt Rome voor het eerst in 800 jaar veroverd door de Goten). Toch houdt Ammianus hoop; het Rijk heeft toch veel ergere verliezen geleden, en is daar bovenop gekomen? De kennis dat dat het niet doet geeft dan een iets bittere nasmaak.
Hij gelooft volop in magie in voorspellingen en verstopt het niet. Lezen over de Perzische koning die necromantie gebruikt om een oorlog te winnen voegt veel toe aan een anderszijds vrij droge geschiedschrijving. Hij verstopt ook niet hoe geleerd hij is en met liefde vertelt hij over hoe regenbogen ontstaan, of hoe de stad Alexandrie eruit ziet, of hoe angstaanjagend olifanten zijn (meerdere keren) of wat er dan ook zijn interesse trekt. Helaas heeft de bewerker van de Penguin-vertaling de meeste van deze afdwalingen verwijderd.
Zijn stijl is duidelijk gebaseerd op die van Herodotus en Thucydides, maar Ammianus mist de intellectuele vrijheid om er dezelfde diepgang aan te geven. Thucydides schrijft over de ondergang van een democratie door corruptie en radicalisering, Ammianus schrijft over de ene keizer die goed is, dan de volgende keizer die iets slechter was, dan de volgende die heel goed is, en dan hoe de volgende best slecht is. Etc. etc.
Over het algemeen een goed boek als je ervan houdt om in slow-motion auto's te zien crashen, hetzelfde idee zit erachter.
Vergeleken met andere Romeinse geschiedschrijvingen is Ammianus een stuk minder optimistisch, en terecht. Het is de late 4e eeuw na Christus, en het Romeinse rijk is zijn puf aan het verliezen. De schrijver ziet dit als officier letterlijk aan de frontlinies. Het aantal verloren veldslagen neemt dramatisch toe naarmate het boek verloopt. Een voorzichtig vermoeden aan het begin van het boek dat zaken misschien beter zouden kunnen gaan wordt uiteindelijk een expliciete voorspelling dat het Romeinse rijk verwoest zal worden (wederom, 10 jaar na het schrijven hiervan wordt Rome voor het eerst in 800 jaar veroverd door de Goten). Toch houdt Ammianus hoop; het Rijk heeft toch veel ergere verliezen geleden, en is daar bovenop gekomen? De kennis dat dat het niet doet geeft dan een iets bittere nasmaak.
Hij gelooft volop in magie in voorspellingen en verstopt het niet. Lezen over de Perzische koning die necromantie gebruikt om een oorlog te winnen voegt veel toe aan een anderszijds vrij droge geschiedschrijving. Hij verstopt ook niet hoe geleerd hij is en met liefde vertelt hij over hoe regenbogen ontstaan, of hoe de stad Alexandrie eruit ziet, of hoe angstaanjagend olifanten zijn (meerdere keren) of wat er dan ook zijn interesse trekt. Helaas heeft de bewerker van de Penguin-vertaling de meeste van deze afdwalingen verwijderd.
Zijn stijl is duidelijk gebaseerd op die van Herodotus en Thucydides, maar Ammianus mist de intellectuele vrijheid om er dezelfde diepgang aan te geven. Thucydides schrijft over de ondergang van een democratie door corruptie en radicalisering, Ammianus schrijft over de ene keizer die goed is, dan de volgende keizer die iets slechter was, dan de volgende die heel goed is, en dan hoe de volgende best slecht is. Etc. etc.
Over het algemeen een goed boek als je ervan houdt om in slow-motion auto's te zien crashen, hetzelfde idee zit erachter.
November 22, 2025
This history book covers only 24 years of history but it is very captivating. Marcellinus vivid descriptions are from events that occurred during his lifetime, including episodes where he was participating as a soldier. The book contains a lot of details but it is all very engaging thanks to the author's fluent style. It is regrettable that the editor of this edition decided to omit some chapters. I would have liked the book to be longer and perhaps I will look for a more complete version.
Although Ammianus has his favorites among the emperors, with Julian at the forefront, he is fairly objective at laying out their virtues and their faults and does not employ the vitriol that other ancient historians display towards people they dislike. Unlike many ancient historians, he avoids harsh invective even toward those he dislikes. Though his views on Christianity are not warm, he nonetheless advocates for freedom of religion and praises rulers who protected it.
Overall, this is a compelling account from a uniquely qualified observer — part historian, part participant — offering a window into a turbulent period of the Roman Empire.
Although Ammianus has his favorites among the emperors, with Julian at the forefront, he is fairly objective at laying out their virtues and their faults and does not employ the vitriol that other ancient historians display towards people they dislike. Unlike many ancient historians, he avoids harsh invective even toward those he dislikes. Though his views on Christianity are not warm, he nonetheless advocates for freedom of religion and praises rulers who protected it.
Overall, this is a compelling account from a uniquely qualified observer — part historian, part participant — offering a window into a turbulent period of the Roman Empire.
March 29, 2022
While the translation is very readable, I agree with other reviewers that the omission of various passages is unfortunate. Fortunately, the dogged reader can look those up online for a free, old school translation. Also, the endnotes are not noted in the text.
Marcellinus himself is an interesting historian. The surviving portion of his history covers contemporary events. Eyewitness accounts of Julian's persian campaign are striking and frightening, especially compared to most Roman historians, who never set foot on a battlefield. He can also be unintentionally funny, criticizing soothsayers while esteeming augury.
The witchcraft trials are particularly colorful, and demonstrate the bizarre contradictions and cruelty of late antiquity.
Some historians lament that they are writing in the midst of a golden age given way to disaster. But not all them are right about that. Marcellinus was.
Marcellinus himself is an interesting historian. The surviving portion of his history covers contemporary events. Eyewitness accounts of Julian's persian campaign are striking and frightening, especially compared to most Roman historians, who never set foot on a battlefield. He can also be unintentionally funny, criticizing soothsayers while esteeming augury.
The witchcraft trials are particularly colorful, and demonstrate the bizarre contradictions and cruelty of late antiquity.
Some historians lament that they are writing in the midst of a golden age given way to disaster. But not all them are right about that. Marcellinus was.
February 24, 2021
It took me ages to finish this book. It's mostly Marcellinus talking about the various military campaigns of Julian, who is now my favourite Roman Emperor. He was very just and noble. There were a few interesting characters, besides Julian, such as Paul (The Chain) and Silvanus (who deserved better). I didn't know Constantius was so petty and paranoid. Here are a few things I learnt from this book:
1. Cleopatra was clever! She had a causeway built linking Pharos to the mainland in seven days, to avoid paying taxes to Rhodians (because Pharos was an island and presumably, according to Rhodian Maritime Law, islands in the Mediterranean had to pay taxes).
2. Augury bird divination.
3. Apis bull and its ritual sacrifice.
4. Oaks of Dodona
1. Cleopatra was clever! She had a causeway built linking Pharos to the mainland in seven days, to avoid paying taxes to Rhodians (because Pharos was an island and presumably, according to Rhodian Maritime Law, islands in the Mediterranean had to pay taxes).
2. Augury bird divination.
3. Apis bull and its ritual sacrifice.
4. Oaks of Dodona
August 26, 2019
This history has a few more curious anecdotal side stories to help the reader through the usual unending chain of battles and the morass of common Roman names so easily confused with their more famous predecessors. Refreshingly though, Christians are treated as fellow citizens and without the predictable prejudices of earlier Roman works.
June 3, 2020
A good third of the book is no longer extant. Mostly about Julian’s rise and fall and his losing Iraq to Iran (though it ends with Romans involving pre- Islamic Arabs on some vampire shit against the Huns during Valens’ death).
November 17, 2019
The greatest Roman historian.
March 7, 2023
it was for class & it was awful. but it’s going towards my reading goal & i wrote a great essay about it
May 29, 2025
Eccellente
November 25, 2019
Onvan : The Later Roman Empire (A.D. 354-378) - Nevisande : Ammianus Marcellinus - ISBN : 0140444068 - ISBN13 : 9780140444063 - Dar 506 Safhe - Saal e Chap : 391
Displaying 1 - 30 of 49 reviews