Book Description
The death of the Roman Empire is one of the perennial mysteries of world history. Now, in this groundbreaking book, Peter Heather proposes a stunning new solution: Rome generated its own nemesis. Centuries of imperialism turned the neighbors it called barbarians into an enemy capable of dismantling the Empire that had dominated their lives for so long. Heather is a leading authority on the late Roman Empire and on the barbarians. In The Fall of the Roman Empire, he explores the extraordinary success story that was the Roman Empire and uses a new understanding of its continued strength and enduring limitations to show how Europe's barbarians, transformed by centuries of contact with Rome on every possible level, eventually pulled it apart. He shows first how the Huns overturned the existing strategic balance of power on Rome's European frontiers, to force the Goths and others to seek refuge inside the Empire. This prompted two generations of struggle, during which new barbarian coalitions, formed in response to Roman hostility, brought the Roman west to its knees. The Goths first destroyed a Roman army at the battle of Hadrianople in 378, and went on to sack Rome in 410. The Vandals spread devastation in Gaul and Spain, before conquering North Africa, the breadbasket of the Western Empire, in 439. We then meet Attila the Hun, whose reign of terror swept from Constantinople to Paris, but whose death in 453 ironically precipitated a final desperate phase of Roman collapse culminating in the Vandals' defeat of the massive Byzantine Armada: the west's last chance for survival. Peter Heather convincingly argues that the Roman Empire was not on the brink of social or moral collapse. What brought it to an end were the barbarians.
Customer Reviews:
Why the Western Roman Empire collapsed.......2007-09-30
Many causes have been given for the fall of the Roman Empire. Some speculate that the increasing wealth of Roman citizens caused economic and military senescence. Other claim the introduction of Christianity softened the military edge of Roman leaders. Even the presence of lead in the water supply (from the pipes) has been blamed. Often these conclusions were based on historical bias (naturally, a Marxist-leaning historian would look to economic causes) or lack of proper information (only recently has it been archaeologically proven that Roman farm output did not decline over the course of the 5th century). Exacerbating the problem is the fact that most of the records of the Roman Empire have been destroyed over the years, and records from outside the Western Empire are non-existent due to the illiteracy of the Germanic and other "barbarian" peoples.
Author Peter Heather is an historian and expert on the late Western Empire and its Germanic and Hunnic neighbours. Using the latest archaeological discoveries, and sifting through original papers and classic histories (e.g. Gibbons), he brings us this new and eminently readable treatise on the fall of the Western Empire over the course of one hundred years from 376 (when two Gothic tribes arrive on the Imperial frontier demanding asylum) to the deposition of the last Western emporer (476). In that time, he builds a convincing argument that the Barbarian invasions over those 100 years were directly responsible for the fall of Rome. That this is the most obvious explanation based on the historical record does not diminish his thesis, as he successfully demolishes the more esoteric "deeper" arguments of his predescessor historians (such as Gibbon, who pointed to Christianity as the cause).
Thus: At a time when the Persian Empire was rejuvenated as a united political entity (and thus pressuring the Eastern Empire as a rival superpower), the Huns invaded the lands of eastern Europe, displacing the Goths and others westward into the lands of the Romans. Over the course of the previous 300 years, diplomatic interference in the Germani's internal affairs, periodic punitive expeditions, and especially trade had transformed their cultures to a point where they were able to coalesce into supergroups (Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Vandals) capable of directly challenging Roman military forces. As they carved out niches for themselves (Vandals in Africa, Visigoths in Gaul/Spain, etc.), the losses in tax revenues sapped the strength of the military (unable to pay for soldiers). Thus, when Attila himself appeared, the Roman military was already in a downward spiral. Basically, the loss of tax income caused by wave after wave of Barbarian invasion (ultimately fueled by Hunnic expansion) crippled Rome's ability to field enough military strength to preserve the Empire.
Such an analysis could be dry and academic, but Heather brings the book to life with vivid portraits of everyone from the smallest Imperial usurpers to Attila the Hun. He even instills sly humour (he describes an experiment with his 11-year-old son on how long it would take to shout the obligatory acclamations to the Emporer in the Senate) and deliberate anachronisms (comparing one archaeologist to Indiana Jones) to bring variety to the narrative. There is also an ample supply of maps and some pictures. Thus, it's an entertaining book to read. Unfortunately, it lasts a bit too long for my tastes, and becomes a little repetitive, thus robbing it of a 5th star. Still, recommended for anyone interested in the latest thoughts on the demise of the Western Roman Empire.
Excellent Account of a Monumental Event.......2007-07-28
The "Fall of the Roman Empire" casts a huge shadow. A vast Empire, one of the great civilisations of history, went in barely a century from being the "sole superpower" to a mere plaything of barbarian tribes.
Why did it happen? All sorts of reasons can be offered, and Heather offers several, but what it comes down to is that this is simply what empires do - they rise, they exist for a time - years, decades or (as in Romes's case) centuries - and then they fall. Rome had already had a better "innings" than most, and in the fifth century its luck ran out.
It is usual to blame the Fall on the Empire's internal problems, and say that it became "decadent" or whatever. Heather, probably rightly, focuses more on what was happening outside Rome's borders. The Barbarian tribes, living for centuries with that 800 pound Roman "gorilla" next door, combined into larger units like the Frankish or Gothic kingdoms, which were a tougher proposition for Rome to cope with. Everlasting warfare with these states gradually wore the Empire down, and finally another barbarian, Attila, drove many tribes from their old homes and forced them to try their luck migrating into Roman territory. This proved more than Rome (or at least its western half) could cope with. So down the tubes it went.
No doubt, had Rome not fallen from this cause, it would eventually have fallen another way. Empires are usually longer lived than individuals, but are no more immortal. But Heather does a magnificent job of showing how and why it fell as and when it did.
One minor regret. Perhaps a little more "afterword" about post-Roman Europe might have been in order. For the significant thing about the Roman Empire is not that it fell (which was bound to happen sometime) but that it was never rebuilt. By contrast, China fell to Mongol "barbarians" in the 13C, an invasion probably as devastating as anything Western Rome underwent, yet within a century had gotten its breath back, expelled the invaders, and installed a native Ming Dynasty. Similarly, Egypt was able to spit out the Hyksos and other intruders. Yet Rome's former subjects not only didn't do this, but (unless the Arthurian legends count) seem never to have even tried. Rather, they appear to have largely shrugged their shoulders and made the best of things under their barbarian rulers. While purely external factors can explain the fall itself, they can't explain this apparent acceptance of it. Even when Roman lands were "liberated" by Justinian, the inhabitants seldom rallied round, and when Byzantium's grip loosened they just flopped back into barbarian hands. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that, however traumatic the Empire's fall had been, a lot of its subjects soon found they didn't really miss it all that much. This calls for explanation.
Still, that's quibbling. Heather has written a great book (even if his 21C idioms are irritating at times) and it needs to be read by anyone interested in this subject.
Dont invite a barbarian to lunch.......2007-07-27
Two Oxford classicists, working independently, have simultaneously published books on the fall of the Roman Empire. Peter Heather is an historian of the later Empire and of Barbarian Northern Europe. Bryan Ward-Perkins is an archaeologist specialising in rural society during the fall. Both historians decisively contradict recent rather dotty arguments that the Barbarians were not all that bad; that their conquest of the Western Empire would hardly have been noticed by the mass of the people; and that only the rich would have experienced a drop in living standards. Ward-Perkins' conclusion from extensive digging on former Roman villages is stark: the invasions were violent disasters. The drop in living standards was so catastrophic that they would not regain Empire levels for fifteen hundred years. His full title is uncompromising: The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilisation. Despite some empathy with the Barbarians, Heather agrees with Ward-Perkins that the destruction of the Western Empire was an apocalyptic event. His 500 page book employs well-honed analysis combined with splendid narrative, to address the age-old question: why did the Western half of the empire, so apparently all powerful, almost unassailable, worried only by the threat of Persia in the east, fall to the Barbarian invaders from the north in less than a century? In the early fourth century the Western Empire (pace Gibbon) had not been weakened by Christianity, was not in decline, was very prosperous, and the army was far from enfeebled. Heather's analysis, sinewy, cogent and informed, is too complex for adequate summary here but he believes that after the Huns caused a seismic shift in the balance of power in the North Roman failure came less from Roman weakness than from Barbarian desperation. After the destruction the long-term winner, oddly enough, was the Church. With the old Roman bureaucracy destroyed in the West priests came to monopolise literacy for more than a thousand years. Secular culture would reside with the Arabs!
excellent, clear analysis.......2007-07-07
This book explains with amazing clarity how and why the western Roman empire fell apart between 376 and 476 AD. It covers roughly the same ground as the third volume of Gibbon (minus the obsession with Christianity), but with much better analysis of the political and military calculations of the various parties. It also gives a very coherent account of who the various "barbarian" groups were, and how they formed and interacted: a topic which I have found incredibly confusing in other books. (Apparently this is the author's specialty.)
Note that the word "decline" is not in the title. The author's thesis is that the western empire did not collapse from within; it always had its problems, but in the fourth century it was as strong as ever. Rather, what caused it to fall was that unfriendly interaction with the Romans encouraged Germanic peoples on the frontier to become stronger and more unified; these groups were then impelled into the empire by the onslaught of the Huns, where they began taking over parts of the empire. This triggered a downward spiral in which decreased tax revenues resulting from the lost or ravaged territories made it more difficult for the Romans to fund the military, whereby they lost more territory, and so on. This process is explained in fascinating detail in the book. A last-ditch rescue attempt by the eastern empire in 468 failed in a disastrous naval battle, and it was game over for the west. The eastern empire, meanwhile, continued to prosper through the sixth century; while it had internal problems similar to those of the west, accidents of geography protected it for the time being.
In conclusion, if you are looking for clarity regarding what the heck was going on in fifth century Europe, this is the book for you. It is written in a colloquial style which makes it easy and amusing to read. It includes a number of maps, a dramatis personae, a glossary, and extensive notes, all of which are very useful.
A departure from tradition.......2007-06-26
This book is excellent. The author puts for a break from the traditional Gibbon approach to why the Romans fell apart. The author's work is extremely well documented. He lays out his arguments in a logical manner. Each point sort of builds on the next one in the book. The book seems to be told from the Barbarian's point of view. The book does seem to take the long way though to get to the meat of the argument. The work is very well documented. An average reader might get lost some in the names. You almost have to have a good background on the subject to truly appreciate the book. The main point of the book is that successive Barbarian invasions just wore out the Romans. That created conditions that launched independence movements in the outlying provinces like Great Britain. The author argues convincingly that the further success of the eastern half of the empire showed that internal rot didn't do the Romans in. As a reader reads this it is hard not to draw comparisons to events today for the US. The book showed how multiple problems stretched the Romans to the point of breaking. Then a reader sees the newspapers and wonder if the stretched US Army might lead to conditions similar to what the Romans went through.
Book Description
The barbarians of antiquity, so long a fixture of the public imagination as the savages who sacked and destroyed Rome, emerge in this colorful, richly textured history as a much more complex -- and far more interesting -- factor in the expansion, and eventual unmaking, of the Roman Empire. Thomas S. Burns marshals an abundance of archeological and literary evidence, as well as three decades of study and experience, to bring forth an unusually far-sighted and wide-ranging account of the relations between Romans and non-Romans along the frontiers of western Europe from the last years of the Republic into late antiquity.
Looking at a 500-year time span beginning with early encounters between barbarians and Romans around 100 B.C. and ending with the spread of barbarian settlement in the western Empire around A.D. 400, Burns removes the barbarians from their narrow niche as invaders and conquerors and places them in the broader context of neighbors, (sometimes bitter) friends, and settlers. His nuanced history subtly shows how Rome's relations with the barbarians -- and vice versa -- slowly but inexorably evolved from general ignorance, hostility, and suspicion toward tolerance, synergy, and integration. What he describes is, in fact, a drawn-out period of acculturation, characterized more by continuity than by change and conflict and leading to the creation of a new Romano-barbarian hybrid society and culture that anticipated the values and traditions of medieval civilization.
Customer Reviews:
A treasure trove of valuable themes that you have to dig for.......2006-12-13
This is a collection of very long essays on the relationships between Rome and the barbarian societies present beyond or within its European frontier boundaries north of the Alps. Each essay focuses on one part of the Roman frontier in Europe and/or some period of time during the span of time in the title. I found that the level of care and detail displayed in the essays tended to fall as the essays moved from the west (Gaul and Batavia) to the east (Dacia) and from the earliest period (the late Republic) to the latest period (late Empire) covered in the book. I could never figure out how Prof. Burns organized any of these essays. They have no roadmaps, summaries, concluding sections, or subtitle markings to light the way. Mainly, I experienced a well-read, subtle scholar working his way through issues he thought were important for each essay, reaching out as he drove on to the treasure trove of references that he has accumulated in his study or office over the course of his long career. The experience is a bit like eating tapas. You get lots of interesting things to eat through the course of a meal that someone else has planned, but can't predict what will arrive next or why one has appeared with another.
The focus throughout is clearly on Rome--on mainly Roman sources and on events within Roman boundaries or that result from Roman actions. I came to the book mainly to learn more about the barbarian communities of Europe. In fairness, the title, the dust cover, and everything about the book makes it clear that Rome will be the focus--just a heads up for anyone who might have come to this book with priorities like mine.
The references are a goldmine for any amateur like me who wants to know what is available and where to look next. The text itself makes an amateur like me work to fit the pieces together and construct a complete picture that holds together. What follows is the picture that I built by looking for themes that run through the essays and circle back on themselves as Prof. Burns moves from one period or location to another. A warning to other readers: This is my take on Prof. Burns; my apologies in advance for misinterpretations!
The book relies most heavily on written sources in Latin and on Roman artifacts to describe barbarian society. In doing so, it repeatedly raises a strong caveat that Roman writers and artists usually did not seek to describe barbarians accurately. The structure of their works and the tropes used in them reveal a rhetoric broadly shared at the time in which writer and reader (artist and viewer) thought of barbarians as an essential "other" (1) that embodied characteristics that could be used to highlight growing softness and decadence in Rome, and (2) that Rome had to defend itself against and, more specifically, that Roman emperors-to-be had to show they could defend Rome against, whether real a threat existed or not. Result: We should read Latin accounts of barbarian life with great skepticism and an appreciation that their authors did not have the same goals that anthropologists have today.
Patron-client relationships dominated social connections within the Republic and Empire and between the Republic and Empire and barbarian groups throughout this period. Even relationships which appeared to have the imprimatur of an institutional entity tended to rely heavily on the personal commitments of the individuals involved.
The Roman frontier was not clearly defined in geographical terms until well into the Empire. Until then, Romans thought of Rome as a culture that could reach out in all directions and spread its values. The empire itself was defined geographically in terms of where Roman patrons lived in direct face-to-face relationships with their clients. Rome grew geographically as the interests of Roman patrons grew enough to spread a day-to-day presence of Roman culture. Always at the margin of this world were client states that Romans managed with great care without offering citizenship to relevant leaders. Leaders in these client states had specific Roman patrons, who may or may not have represented the interests of the Roman Senate or Empire when they established these leaders as their personal clients.
The Roman Republic expanded geographically to increase the status and wealth of Senatorial aristocratic families. The Empire expanded as generals seeking to be Emperor used successes on the frontier as a way to build support at home in Rome and, increasingly, among their own troops. Repeatedly, the principals seeking Roman expansion pointed rhetorically to the need to secure Rome against an ever-present barbarian threat. Although the threat was sometimes real, the dominant, real motivation for expansion lay in the political, social, and economic interests of the Roman principals.
Barbarians lived more densely in proximity to the Roman frontier than elsewhere. With a few isolated but important exceptions, there is only limited evidence that barbarians appeared there as wannabe invaders. Rather, the frontier offered opportunities for trade and employment. Rome drew the barbarians to its frontier; the vast majority of barbarians did not come primarily to attack Rome. Until very late, those who did attack Rome were basically bandits who posed more of a criminal than a military threat; such bandits existed inside and outside the formal boundaries once they were drawn.
Before contact with Rome, barbarian groups had little political coherence beyond familial clan and tribal levels. They shared language, religion, and material culture, but had no permanent hierarchical political connections. Informal alliances arose periodically to fight wars, but quickly dissolved. Rome sought to create more permanent barbarian client states that would be easier to sustain long-term agreements with and would be more effective in contributing to mutual defense. Over time, these efforts created the kingdoms whose names have come down to us in history. The families that developed claims to the crown in such kingdoms typically built those claims around their relationships with Rome and their ability to draw benefits for their own client tribes from Rome if they controlled the crown. Rome manipulated these families, favoring those who towed the Roman line and setting families against one another when Rome perceived a threat to its interests.
As a proving ground for future emperors, the frontier drew Roman armies to the frontier, drew Roman wealth to the frontier to create and sustain an infrastructure to support these armies, and induced the creation of Roman assets in the frontiers that required the continual protection of the frontier armies. That is, myths about the need to control barbarian forces created the need for a standing army. Fear of civil war between competing generals with their armies encouraged permanent placement of these armies far from the political heartland. Over time, these factors turned the Roman Empire inside out, pushing much of its wealth to its margins and repeatedly drawing its imperial leadership from emperors operating at these margins.
Rome accepted barbarians into its military forces in many different roles as far back as the Republic. Barbarians initially entered as individuals, who were diffused through the empire to serve under Roman leaders. Barbarians also entered as auxiliary light forces, ultimately under their own leaders. Some barbarians came to Roman service for a time and returned home, taking with them an understanding of how the Roman army worked. Others remained to retirement and were granted Roman citizenship for themselves and their children. Rome settled such retirees in colonies along the frontiers, building "Roman" communities from ex-barbarians with diverse heritages. Through the long passage of time, communities of military brats with barbarian heritages grew up; the sons replaced the fathers in their army units, building a tradition of local military service in these frontier families. Germano-Roman soldiers increasingly rose through the ranks to become legionnaires and generals and so potential Emperors.
Ultimately, Rome could not sustain army units on its frontiers in Europe and confront the Persian Empire at the same time. The Roman army was overextended; Rome decided to reduce its army presence on the European frontiers. As the army thinned down and disappeared in places, the infrastructure needed to support it went away as well, leaving significant parts of the frontier underpopulated. Barbarian groups moved in, with and without formal permission, to occupy empty lands. It became easier to protect towns from bandits and marauders than to defend whole areas formerly occupied by commercial farms (villas) or long expanses of road. Frontier towns built walls and increasingly looked to their own defense without significant input from the centrally managed Roman army. Arrangements that presaged medieval Europe began to arise well before large German kingdoms displaced central Roman authority in the West.
In the passage of time, Roman culture suffused itself into geographical areas well beyond Rome's formal boundaries. Roman society on the frontier increasingly absorbed influences from the barbarians drawn within the boundaries over time. Roman military personnel came to revere their German heritage as much as their Roman citizenship, especially following an imperial decision in the early third century to expand access to citizenship dramatically, thereby reducing its exclusivity. Roman generals of German descent led armies dominantly of German descent in the name of the Empire in the West. In a series of civil wars, some seized responsibility for the civil oversight of large regions from the central government. When Rome ultimately ended its efforts to sustain central authority in the West, new political entities arose to preserve the benefits of Roman culture for their own people, but this new culture could not preserve the cosmopolitan free-trade zone that had characterized the Roman world at its height. New leaders applied traditional patron-client relationships to sustain order in a more fragmented Germano-Roman world that evolved fairly steadily into a medieval world in the West as broader historical forces, beyond the control or understanding of any of the players, played themselves out in the Empire as a whole.
Troubling parallels between experience 2000 years ago and current events arise repeatedly. Does Prof. Burns perhaps bring too much of a modern perspective to bear? Or should we be busy learning from this rich account of the management of relationships between a dominant world power and the many, "less-advanced" societies that ring its frontiers and send emigrants across them during an era of rising uncertainty, anxiety, and instability?
Roman containment or Roman envelopment?.......2005-01-29
Thomas Burns has painstakingly compiled a career's worth of educational study to show the relationships created, nurtured and harnessed between the Roman people and the ancient tribes of Western and Eastern Europe. You may find it suprising the actual dependencies held between both groups. The establishment of border "Barbarians" to shield long held Roman interests from the more savage of the norther tribes is a very old view of modern allied states. The Roman Republic and subsequent Empire was, in a very few words, a complex diplomatic, economic and military machine. The numerous working parts required much more than the strong arm presumed by most passing readers. The ability to successfully manage this type of entity placed incredible demands on Rome and its leaders while, at the same time, provided the proving (battle) grounds for all aspiring Roman up and comers. Burns does a fantastic job in showing that not only did Rome use the Barbarian tribes to prove the mettle of Roman officers, but integrated these same tribes into what would eventually become the ancient worlds greatest "modern" economy. The fall of the Roman Empire is shown not to be the cause of irresistible hordes of barbarian invaders, but the inherent impossibility of managing the vastness of Roman interests. Thomas Burns has earned his merits as a Roman scholar and in doing so brings to light a broad expanse of history and speculation that is integral to the study of Rome. Recommend this book to anyone who seeks a wide understanding of Rome and the group who both sustained and eventually became its citizenry - the Barbarians.
Whoz Ya Callin' a Barbarian? Identity & Change in the West.......2004-06-16
ROME AND THE BARBARIANS, 100 B.C. - 400 A.D. by Thomas S. Burns is a book designed for general readers about the peoples of the Western Empire in what is largely Europe from Great Britain to the Balkans. Burns is interested in the military, political, and commercial interactions between the Romans and the indigenous peoples of this area, which were termed by the Romans as barbarians. He does this through analyzing literary sources and looking at the archaeological record, as it is currently understood. Burns also discusses the mechanisms by which barbarians became Roman and the role of the military in this process.
The book is divided into seven chapters and a short epilogue.
Chapter 1 - Sometimes Bitter Friends. This is the layout of the book. Investigation of Roman and barbarian relations through literary sources and archaeology. Roman rhetoric and mental landscape. How they thought of barbarians. Terminology is discussed. What were barbarians, Germans, Celts, citizens, peregrini (foreigners)? The rest of the book is three phases laid out in six chapters, with two chapters a piece for each phase. The phases: first expansion, second consolidation with some expansion, third confusion that impacted on the eras that followed.
Chapter 2 - Recognition, Confrontation, and Coexistence. First half the of the chapter is Roman relationship with the Celts in what is now southern France beginning in the second century B.C. Discussion of the long presence of the Celts in this area before the Roman incursion. Archaeological record of oppida (proto-towns/market places) also in place before the coming of the Romans. Greek contact with the Celts and the Roman idea of the Celts deriving from the Greek idea of the Celts. The Roman patron-client relationship is discussed. The second half deals with the Cimbri and Teutones and the barbarians in Bavaria area. Marius and other generals contact with these peoples.
Chapter 3 - Through Caesar's Eyes. THE GALLIC WARS by Julius Caesar is analyzed. This is fascinating.
Chapter 4 - The Early Empire and the Barbarians: An Overview. A time of rapid change. The end of oppida for civitates. The financing and reorganization of the military by Augustus. The barbarians join the military and win Roman citizenship. The impact of the military on the growth of towns through trade and building program. The continuing idea of the barbarians as threat whereas most war was caused by rebellions or civil war. The change from personal patron-client relationships to provinces.
Chapter 5 -- Perspectives from Pannonia. Pannonia used as specific example to demonstrate the generalities of chapter 4. Pannonia is the area that would be western Hungary, parts of Serbia and Croatia, and bits of Slovenia and Austria. The wars in this region from Augustus to Caracalla. Caracalla's edict on citizenship for all who lived within the Roman Empire.
Chapter 6 - The Barbarians and the "Crisis" of the Empire. Change again. The shrinking of towns. Lack of dynastic emperors. Breakdown of central administration. Lack of literary sources contemporary to this time. A look at Cassius Dio and others. Violent society rewards violent behavior that changes society.
Chapter 7 - Barbarians and the Late Roman Empire. Changes to Roman administration, military fortifications along the frontier, and the civilian population from Constantine onwards. The fluid identity of barbarian to Roman. The impact of Christianity on barbarians inside the Roman empire and outside it. Arianism as practiced by some barbarians like the Goths.
Epilogue. Discussion of the breakdown of the Roman Empire into small kingdoms and the need for barbarian kings to identify with the Roman military past. The Huns and later barbarians and their effect on late antiquity. This leads to the medieval time period.
The book also includes an appendix (Most Important Roman Emperors and Usurpers), maps and illustrations, notes, bibliography, and an index. The maps are very helpful. The bibliography is divided between primary sources, classical authors from Agathias to Zosimus, and secondary sources, that is modern authors.
Perhaps it's because I come from an art and archaeological background, but this doesn't seem like revisionism. The Thomas S. Burns writes in flowing but clear prose and explains intricate ideas even to the non-scholar. This is probably due to the fact that he is a professor and must explain these concepts to his students.
This book will interest those readers interested in Rome and its impact on other peoples. For another look at Roman perspectives on non-Romans see ROMANS AND ALIENS by J. P. Balsdon (1980). This is out of print, but look at used books or the library. For a look at the barbarians see BEYOND CELTS, GERMANS, AND SCYTHIANS: ARCHAEOLOGY AND IDENTITY IN IRON-AGE EUROPE by Peter S. Wells. For the Roman impact on another part of the world see ROMAN SYRIA AND THE NEAR EAST by Kevin Butcher. For the Roman military see IN THE NAME OF ROME: THE MEN WHO WON THE ROMAN EMPIRE and THE COMPLETE ROMAN ARMY both by Adrian Goldsworthy. For a specific Roman-barbarian confrontation see THE BATTLE THAT STOPPED ROME by Peter S. Wells.
P.S. If we look at the medieval era as perfume, it would definitely be a blend. Certainly Christianization and Romanization are the dominant top notes. The ones that you notice the most. But the quiet notes, the ones that add mystery, allure, an intriguing element to the blend, these are the peoples of Europe, the ones that the Romans called barbarians. Whether they were in place before the Romans, during the Romans, or after the Romans, they are the supporting scent of the medieval Europe, and that time period couldn't exist without them.
The Romans were intelligent and practical, but conservative. They didn't view technology as we do. Technology only advanced when a practical adjustment was needed to accomplish what was needed for the Republic or Empire. Even though the ancients may be our ancestors, they lived differently and it isn't a good idea put our modern Western values upon them.
a revisionist history.......2004-04-06
This is the revisionist account that grafts modern concepts of `diversity' `tolerance' and `cultural awareness' onto people who lived in 100 B.C. In this book it is assumed that since Rome dared to make value judgments and condemn the barbarians, who in fact were savage and ruthless, that Rome must somehow be some sort of evil hegemon like America and the Barbarians must have been `noble savages' like innocent peace loving native Americans. Unfortunately this is revisionist tripe. The reality is the barbarians actually were savage and it took Roman civilization to pacify and civilize them. Only by serving in the legion and learning roman ways of life and settling in the provinces did the barbarian tribes like the Gauls adopt civilization and become what we know today as the medieval europeans. If it hadn't been for Rome and Rome's extraordinary pursuit of science and technology and administration Europe would be a cultural backwater of feuding tribes to this day, much the way Creaser found it in 30 AD. In fact Rome's influence is so broad that not a major town exists in Europe today that doesn't include the trappings of a Roman wall, aqueduct and amphitheater. The Barbarians on the other hand built few lasting structures.
Seth J. Frantzman
Book Description
This chronological presentation of Western Europe in the Middle Ages provides the political, religious, intellectual, and economic history of the time. The revision of this classic, definitive text includes the latest historiography and more coverage of medieval society and women. Famous for its compelling narrative, the blend of chronology and historical interpretation, anecdotal info which brings the medieval world to life, and the accompanying readers (SOURCES and READINGS).
Customer Reviews:
A Great Overview.......2002-11-17
the book is a wonderful primer for those just delving into the world of medieval history for the first time such as myself...
Tierney has given many humorous accounts of the characters and events which i did not feel took anything away from the credibility of the facts.
I couldn't help but laugh when envisioning King Edward climbing up a windmill to watch the fighting at the Battle of Crecy. During one raid of a castle, the Frech mined a hole under the defensive wall. The English found out, started a hole on the other side, and the two eventually met...The hole was too small for heavy fighting so "two men poked swords at one another. As it was impossible for knights to in armor to hurt each other in this way, it was a thoroughly enjoyable affair."
His irony and humor well emphasize the degragation of some of leaders during the middle ages....I had a feeling that this time period was filled with much intrigue, murder, rape, plunder, and complete ludicrousy....the book did not fail in conveying that...Most topics were lightly breezed over: the crusades, pilgrimages, chivaly, the plague, the art and architecture, heresy, troubadours, and peasant society.......but not too much was needed to whet my interest...from there, i'm off buying books that are more detailed on these topics.....
the book is layed out in general sections: end of the roman empire, the beginning, middle, and late middle ages. within each section it's further broken down into to the main topics of each period: politics, economy, society, religion...these topics are repeated in each section; however there is often a gap of 100 pages or so between the same topic in different periods. (ex. religion in the 10th century and religion in 13th century)...
for me, at least, it was hard to remember all that went on in religion 100 pages ago.....there's just such an onslaught of information in between ...it's impossible to keep it all straight....so maybe it would have been better for him to keep all the topics together--seperate sections on religion, culture, politics, etc...or maybe i just have short term memory.....Tierney's point undoubtedly was for the reader to get a "feel" for each period and all that it incompased.....it was just hard to remember
everything from one period to the next....but ok.....it was a fine book overall......and it would be wise to jot down notes on the subjects that interest you so can pursue them once you exit this jam-packed cornicopia of information....
Tierney Puts the Medieval Back in the Middle Ages.......2000-07-03
Hello. I have used this book as a textbook for two courses at the University of California. It proved to be the most 'edutaining' of texts I've so far read. Tierney and his co-author do a brilliant job of retelling Medieval history as it happened in Western Europe. The first chapter of the book delivers a romantic summary of Europe under the hegemony of Greece and Rome up until Late Antiquity. The authors then take the reader through early Medieval France, Germany, northern Italy, and England. The chapters can be read by themselves and are not organized chronologically, but by themes and places. The only issue I have with the book is that it focuses sharply on Franco-English history. Germany is center but not part of the core in the book, so the reader is not submerged in the same depth as France and England run. Tierney devotes some subchapters to the periphery of Western Europe, but what is lacking is the same in-depth coverage as France and England. If the reader wants to find only introductory knowledge to Byzantium, Spain, Central, and Eastern Europe he/she will be satisfied with the light coverage Tierney gives: the important details of people and places. The periphary of Europe has not heavily influenced Western civilization, but should never be overlooked; Spain is only mentioned during the Inquisition and Moorish conquest. It is more worthy of note than what Tierney says of it. The book is still a pleasure to read and understand even with its emphasis on France and Britain.
Tierney Puts the Medieval Back in the Middle Ages.......2000-06-30
Salutations all. I have used this book as a text for two courses covering the Early and Late Middle Ages while as a student at UC Riverside. Tierney and his co-author do a laudable job of presenting Western Medieval Europe to readers. The book is organized thematically and in each theme the material is presented chonologically. The reader may choose any chapter and read with little prior knowledege. That said, it starts by summarizing Classical Antiquity and moves onto Frankish history. Indeed, Franco-British history is the core of the book and that makes reading somewhat frustrating: gobs of legal and parliamentary history are scattered throughout the pages. However, dry as it is, Tierney makes the history and conception of the Western nation-state interesting and provocative with his theories of English parliament and monarchial constitution. And the papal monarchy illustrates the shrewdness and Machiavellian politics of the period: Medieval Europeans were highly civilized and intelligent as the Papacy shows. Those bonuses come at the expense of he periphery of Europe: Byzantium, Spain, and the Frontier East. To be sure, Tierney does not neglect them, but the pages he devotes serve as springboards for the reader to investigate by him/herself. And for its even-handedness, the book is worth reading for pleasure or academic learning.
Complete and Fun.......1999-12-24
This was a great, if at times slightly overwhelming read. It served as a central textbook for a medieval history class at my school and I found it acessible, enjoyable and orderly. At times approached chronologically, other times thematically, I found it to be a useful and insightful tool.
Book Description
The Migration Age is still envisioned as an onrush of expansionary "Germans" pouring unwanted into the Roman Empire and subjecting it to pressures so great that its western parts collapsed under the weight. Further developing the themes set forth in his classic Barbarians and Romans, Walter Goffart dismantles this grand narrative, shaking the barbarians of late antiquity out of this "Germanic" setting and reimagining the role of foreigners in the Later Roman Empire. The Empire was not swamped by a migratory Germanic flood for the simple reason that there was no single ancient Germanic civilization to be transplanted onto ex-Roman soil. Since the sixteenth century, the belief that purposeful Germans existed in parallel with the Romans has been a fixed point in European history. Goffart uncovers the origins of this historical untruth and argues that any projection of a modern Germany out of an ancient one is illusory. Rather, the multiplicity of northern peoples once living on the edges of the Empire participated with the Romans in the larger stirrings of late antiquity. Most relevant among these was the long militarization that gripped late Roman society concurrently with its Christianization. If the fragmented foreign peoples with which the Empire dealt gave Rome an advantage in maintaining its ascendancy, the readiness to admit military talents of any social origin to positions of leadership opened the door of imperial service to immigrants from beyond its frontiers. Many barbarians were settled in the provinces without dislodging the Roman residents or destabilizing landownership; some were even incorporated into the ruling families of the Empire. The outcome of this process, Goffart argues, was a society headed by elites of soldiers and Christian clergy--one we have come to call medieval.
Walter Goffart is Professor of History Emeritus at the University of Toronto and Senior Research Scholar and Lecturer at Yale University.
Book Description
Terry Jones’ Barbarians takes a completely fresh approach to Roman history. This is the story of the Roman Empire as seen by the Britons, Gauls, Germans, Hellenes, Persians, and Africans. In place of the propaganda pushed on us by the Romans, we’ll see these people as they really were. The Vandals didn’t vandalize—the Romans did. The Goths didn’t sack Rome—the Romans did. Traversing the landscape of the Roman Empire, Terry Jones brings wit, irreverence, and the very latest scholarship to transform a history that seemed well past its sell-date.
Customer Reviews:
Idiotic tripe.......2007-06-15
This horrid tripe is apparently what passes for and is accepted as history nowadays.
Terry Jones dislikes or rather he hates Rome. And he's conned a sub-strata of non-historians and--that god-awful worst hack historian of them all--the "high school history teacher" into thinking he's set the record straight.
What Jones has done instead, to anyone who's studied the era in depth, is simply gone on a propaganda expedition of his own. What's awful isn't that he's done it so much as he's used his celebrity to somehow suggest that he's setting the record straight. He isn't.
In Jones eyes the Gauls, Brits, Germans, Picts, etc, were peaceful, loving enlightened peoples with their own technologies (save for that one important one, writing).
The truth is of course is that the Gauls were in constant conflict with each other and the Romans, the Brits would raid and kill the Gauls and vice-versa and the early Germans made due with encroaching on Gaulish territory (stopped by the Romans by the way). "Barbarian" methods of torture and killing were in every way as brutal as anything the Romans ever developed.
In Jones' eyes the Romans are guilty of several things, amongst them beating the 'Barbarians' at wars and the organization, methodology and training to win them for the longest time. Modern archeology does show a certain amount of sophistication amongst the northern tribes but nothing of any standard higher than what occurred in Spain and far behind what took place in southern Italy, Greece and North Africa at the time.
In the end Jones, instead of a balanced account of how much more sophisticated the Celts were in road building then we previously thought makes this some sort of anti-Roman diatribe.
And in the end the proof is in the pudding, the former barbarians of Britain begged Honorius for the legions to stay, the invading Goths took up Roman titles and--for the most part--patterned their own rule after Rome. Even that most barbaric of all, Attila, understood Rome's importance, something that Terry Jones is incapable of.
There are dozens of good histories out there by real historians who describe, analyze and put into perspective the northern tribal groups of this era; their strengths and weaknesses and relate them to the Roman Republic/Empire. This on the other hand is 'garbage' history of the worst kind.
Barbarians rule!.......2007-01-27
About time people begin looking at the Roman Empire with clearer vision. Although a magnificent group, Roman citizens stole wisely from every culture they came in contact with taking full credit. This book examines group by group with appreciation for each contribution to civilization, including language. I personally enjoy Jones' style and it's a relief to examine these issues with a non-scholar (he thinks), but an avid, intelligent inquirer. I have found no real historical errors in his books on Chaucer's murder or the Crusades, and this is a welcome addition.
Refreshingly candid view of the history of Persians, Romans and Greeks..........2007-01-16
I can't say enough about how refreshingly interesting and delightfully truthful this book is on the so called 'history' of civilizations that originated from Persians, Greeks, Romans and others in that era, from an unbiased and rather deeply insightful point of view. This is a huge contrast to what we in the western world are used to reading and hearing about. Terry Jones has done a superb job in his observations and narrations of events that took place thousands of years ago and I highly recommend this book to everyone who is interested in learning more about history. You will enjoy it!!!
Revisionist history.......2006-11-05
This book is well writen and easy to read. However, Terry Jones selected the informaton he wanted and told it in a manner to suport his already held views. He hates anything that he feels is western civilazation. The book is also filled with cracks about the United States and the war on terror.
"What if, instead of suckling Romulus and Remus, the wolf had eaten them?".......2006-08-03
Terry Jones' Barbarians takes a completely fresh approach to Roman history. Not only does it offer us the chance to see the Romans from a non-Roman perspective, it also reveals that most of the people written off by the Romans as uncivilized, savage and barbaric were in fact organized, motivated and intelligent groups of people, with no intentions of overthrowing Rome and plundering its Empire.
So you think you know everything about the Romans? They gave us sophisticated road systems, chariots and the modern-day calendar. And of course they had to contend with barbarian hordes that continually threatened the peace, safety and prosperity of their Empire. Didn't they? In his new book and the accompanying four-part BBC Two television series Terry Jones argues that we have been sold a false history of Rome that has twisted our entire understanding of our own history. Terry asks what did the Romans ever do for us?
This is the story of Roman history as seen by the Britons, Gauls, Germans, Greeks, Persians and Africans. The Vandals didn't vandalize - the Romans did. The Goths didn't sack Rome - the Romans did. Attila the Hun didn't go to Constantinople to destroy it, but because the Emperor's daughter wanted to marry him. And far from civilizing the societies they conquered the Romans often destroyed much of what they found. Terry Jones travels round the geography of the Roman Empire and through 700 years of history - bringing wit, irreverence, passion and the very latest scholarship to transform our view of the legacy of the Roman Empire and the creation of the modern world. Welcome to history from a different point of view.
This is a much thicker and more scholarly work than Medieval Lives, but no less humorous (sidesplitting, in fact). I sincerely hope both the BBC2 productions of Barbarians and of Medieval Lives come available on DVD, and soon!
Book Description
On August 9, 378 AD, at Adrianople in the Roman province of Thrace (now western Turkey), the Roman Empire began to fall. Two years earlier, an unforeseen flood of refugees from the East Germanic tribe known as the Goths had arrived at the Empire’s eastern border, seeking admittance. Though usually successful in dealing with barbarian groups, in this instance the Roman authorities failed. Gradually coalesced into an army led by Fritigern, the barbarian horde inflicted on Emperor Valens the most disastrous defeat suffered by the Roman army since Hannibal’s victory at Cannae almost 600 years earlier. The Empire did not actually fall for another century, but some believe this battle signaled nothing less than the end of the ancient world and the start of the Middle Ages.
With impeccable scholarship and narrative flair, renowned historian Alessandro Barbero places the battle in its historical context, chronicling the changes in the Roman Empire, west and east, the cultural dynamics at its borders, and the extraordinary administrative challenge in holding it together. Vividly recreating the events leading to the clash, he brings alive leaders and common soldiers alike, comparing the military tactics and weaponry of the barbarians with those of the disciplined Roman army as the battle unfolded on that epic afternoon. Narrating one of the turning points in world history, The Day of the Barbarians is military history at its very best.
Customer Reviews:
Readable and Enjoyable.......2007-09-25
Highly readable and engaging. Despite being a translation, the work is very well done in English and this is a book that is hard to put down. My only criticisms are that the book skimps a little on the actual description of the battle and there are not enough maps, as other reviewers have noted. However, this book provide an excellent overview of the era and an analysis of the importance of the battle and surrounding events.
A Good Read .......2007-09-12
The Day of the Barbarians is a very readable history of the battle of Adrianople, where a Roman army was annihilated and the emperor Valens was killed. The Fourth century has not been one of my favorite periods of Roman history but Alessandro Barbero makes the period interesting indeed. He tells an interesting story of how the Goths became indispensable to the empire as soldiers, slaves and farmers and informs us that many of the Goths became Romanized and a good number became Christians. He makes a good case for seeing the century up to the battle as a time of relative prosperity and had the Romans treated the Goths and other barbarians better the fall of the western empire a century later might have been prevented...for a while.
Mr. Barbero tells the story in short, to-the-point chapters laying the groundwork describing who the Goths were, what their culture was like and how under Constantine and his successors they were well-treated. When the Goths fled from the advancing Huns, however, and sought help from the Romans they were welcomed across the Danube but badly treated but the profit-minded Romans leading to their revolt.
I found one factual error that I thought rather glaring. Mr. Barbero relates that Constantine I built the only stone bridge across the Danube leaving out any mention of the famous bridge built by the emperor Trajan, which had been destroyed by Aurelian when Dacia was abandoned. It was interesting to me that the author mentions Procopius, who was declared emperor in 366 in opposition to Valens, but does not describe him as a relative of Julian, just as related to the family of Constantine. One wonders if Mr. Barbero has no liking for Julian.
This is an excellent volume and will appeal to the specialist and general readers. The book does not have a very extensive bibliography and although the author discusses the writings of some ancient authors (particualrly Ammianus Marcellinus) he does not cite the text location except in the modest number of footnotes. There is a single map of the Roman empire at the front of the book; it would have been helpful to include additional maps, such as one devoted to Thrace so one could get a better itde of the loaction of places and disposition of the Goths and Romans.
I am not sure if the battle of Adrianople signals the beginning of the end but the battle and the aftermath, with the new emperor Theodosius, marks a turning point in the fortunes of the empire that was increasingly dominated by weak ineffective rulers.
Amazing little book.......2007-09-02
If you are at all curious about how the Roman Empire fell and how the Medieval period began, this book is a great place to start.
Although nominally about the battle of Adrianople, this book does an excellent job of establishing the context. We learn that the dividing line between Roman and barbarian was actually quite blurry. The Romans had absorbed many barbarian peoples into "civilized peoples." In fact, they relied on barbarians to do the hard work (shades of the US and Mexico or Europe and the Middle East).
This created a few problems. With the barbarians doing all the real work, Rome/Byzantium ran the risk that one day the barbarians would realize they were the ones running things and take charge themselves. And if the Romans abused the barbarians, as they had abused so many, the barbarians who had associated with Rome could turn on them, violently.
We alse realize that the Romans achieved much, but were somewhat barbaric themselves. They were neither technological nor economic innovators. They had little anthropological curiosity.
Then it all comes together: Rome did not fall so much as melt into the Middle Ages. A book that can crystallize that in fewer than 150 pages is nothing less than a treasure.
The day that may have begun the fall of the Roman Empire.......2007-07-17
Pity that most people have no interest in or knowledge of history. We are, after all, the products of history. But for most, history simply has little allure unless they can see it in the form of a pyramid or some Disneyfied exhibit.
But somewhere on the planet - no one knows for sure the exact location - a battle took place on August 9, 378 AD near Adrianople in present-day Turkey. According to author Alessandro Barbero, professor of medieval studies at the University of Piemonte Orientale in Vercelli, Italy, this was the battle that began the collapse of the Roman Empire.
This English translation is done by John Cullen and is noteworthy for the clarity of his work. If there were any clumsy expressions that didn't translate well from the Italian, Cullen has smoothed them over. The result shows Barbero to be a very competent writer.
This is not an academic history. It is, in fact, intended to be a popular history, designed to help the curious non-expert reader to gain understanding of how the world around him or her came to be. For truly few people have an idea of who the Goths were - and they are not be confused with the very confused teenagers who wear heavy makeup and black clothes and ring their necks with nail studded collars.
The simplicity of some aspects of life in the 4th Century are beautifully explained by Barbero: the tribes around you decided they wanted your land, your animals, your spouses and children, your few personal possessions or just wanted to kill you for fun. On they came, slaughtering everyone except those they took for slaves. The news traveled and the next victims tried to get out, in this case into the Eastern Roman Empire. At first the Eastern Emporer let them in - and then changed his mind.
That decision and the pressure of the Huns turned the Goths into marauding bands who quickly formed a temporary alliance to resist the over-confident Romans who came to teach them a lesson by force.
The Romans lost and the Roman world changed forever, beginning its final plunge into oblivion.
The story is more complex, of course, but Barbero recounts the meaningful points eloquently in this short (146 pages) book. He tells much of the Roman Empire at that time, earlier and later - and he tells the story remarkably well.
This is a wonderful introduction to the history of the later Roman Empire, a century or so prior to its final collapse. In an era where the United States is frequently compared (wildly inaccurately) to the Roman Empire and where the few who think of Rome at all envisage orgies and decadence leading to its collapse, this little book is a welcome breath of fresh air.
It not only makes an interesting read for anyone with the slightest interest in history, but an excellent gift to pass on to those who would benefit from knowing just a little about a history.
Jerry
Rome is burning.......2007-06-27
excellent book. so well written that it is over before your ready for it to be. Highly detailed and well researched events chronicle the fall of Rome and if your smart, you may just see that the mistakes Rome made may be the same mistakes the US is making as Novus Roma.
Book Description
The author of
City of Quartz and
Planet of Slums attacks the current fashion for empires and white men's burdens in this blistering collection of radical essays. He skewers contemporary idols such as Mel Gibson, Niall Ferguson, and Howard Dean; unlocks some secret doors in the Pentagon and the California prison system; visits
Star Wars in the Arctic and vigilantes on the border; predicts ethnic cleansing in New Orleans more than a year before Katrina; recalls the anarchist avengers of the 1890s and "teeny-bopper" riots on the Sunset Strip in the 1960s; discusses the moral bankruptcy of the Democrats in Kansas and West Virginia; remembers "Private Ivan," who defeated fascism; and looks at the future of capitalism from the top of Hubbert's Peak.
No writer in the United States today brings together analysis and history as comprehensively and elegantly as Mike Davis. In these contemporary, interventionist essays, Davis goes beyond critique to offer real solutions and concrete possibilities for change.
Mike Davis is the author many books, including
City of Quartz, The Ecology of Fear, The Monster at Our Door, and
Planet of Slums. Davis teaches in the Department of History at the University of California, Irvine, and lives in San Diego.
Customer Reviews:
Often good, but often dated.......2007-10-01
I am a big fan of Mike Davis. He is smart, well-informed and politically astute, and he 'pays attention to that man behind the curtain.' He is also edgy, and sometimes his incisive, biting humor is brilliant.
This collection of essays confirms those judgments (at least by my lights). But there are a disappointingly large number of essays that are simply too old to be of any obvious relevance. Some of the essays published prior to 2004 still have bite and purchase: the essay about SUVs, the revival of nativism and the political utility of the most recent wave of anti-immigration sentiment to right-wing Republicans, and Davis's prognostications about the implications of the Democrats' failure to confront the tactics of the repellent Grover Norquist, for example. And I greatly enjoyed the reprise of the tales of the Sunset Strip riots in 1966-68 (Davis on LA social history is always a treat).
But the commentary about Bush, Inc. produced early in the Bush administration, observations about the self-defeating antics of the Democratic presidental nominee wanna-bes prior to the 2004 campaign, and assessments about the likely fate of Gray Davis in the recall election....well, those are more exercises in publication vanity than reader enlightenment. Sadly, the proportion of older essays of less-than-obvious relevance is quite high.
I'm not sorry I bought (or read) the book. But I was disappointed.
Amazon.com
Until the 1830s, China was scarcely known to the outside world. When Europeans began to arrive in number in that decade, demanding of the Ching dynasty's rulers access to raw materials and to China's huge domestic markets alike, the Chinese resisted, but, in the end, unsuccessfully. England in particular sought a market for the opium, a crown monopoly produced in India, and it waged a brief war to press its claim--a war that won it that market, the ownership of Hong Kong, and entry into cities like Shanghai and Guangdong. The war also contributed to the eventual collapse of Ching rule. Really a footnote in history, the Opium War, then, had major consequences that color Sino-Western relations even today. Peter Ward Fay tells the story in this well-written, vigorous narrative. --Gregory McNamee
Book Description
This book tells the fascinating story of the war between England and China that delivered Hong Kong to the English, forced the imperial Chinese government to add four ports to Canton as places in which foreigners could live and trade, and rendered irreversible the process that for almost a century thereafter distinguished western relations with this quarter of the globe—the process that is loosely termed the "opening of China."
Originally published by UNC Press in 1975, Peter Ward Fay's study was the first to treat extensively the opium trade from the point of production in India to the point of consumption in China and the first to give both Protestant and Catholic missionaries their due; it remains the most comprehensive account of the first Opium War through western eyes. In a new preface, Fay reflects on the relationship between the events described in the book and Hong Kong's more recent history.
Customer Reviews:
An epic and fascinating read.......2004-01-17
While there are regrettably few definitive one-volume accounts of the imperialist foreign rape of China (and anyone seeking a balanced and fair account is forced by this dearth of material to digest the information contained across vastly differing accounts from both the Chinese and foreign side), Fay's study is easily one of the most engaging. It is not a dry history, nor a polemic. It is beautiful, fresh and literary writing that reads like a novel, packed with ground-level observations, much gathered from the journals of the Western participants themselves. Fay also does a better job than many others in dissecting the psychologies behind the politics and clashing cultures. Fay also succeeds by never straying from the bottom line: the opium and opium trafficking.
Authoritative and Elegant.......2000-11-21
Nearly three decades after it was first published, Fay's book remains the best single volume on the Opium War, and one of the best books on China in the 19th century. It is easy to read, but is scholarly enough for the most fastidious. Unlike the other reviewer I had no particular difficulties with the timeline, although that can be a problem with any historical narrative. Be advised that this is a narrative history and can be read with joy by those who find social or economic histories tedious, but the background of the war is covered in particular detail as well. Fay is not a professional sinologist, and came to this book through his studies of the East India Company, but the book seems none the worse for his wide knowledge. It was recommended to me by some very distinguished historians of China, and their enthusiasm was justified. It is not a weighty tome, like those of Mary Wright or Vincent Shih on China in the 19th century, but it is authoritative on its subject, and like the best of Fairbank, it is great fun to read. Can one say better things about a book? If you are interested in the Opium War, Qin dynasty history, imperialism, or just like reading a good narrative about a war, please indulge yourself-- and read this book.
This is one of the most frustrating books I've ever read........1998-11-27
Peter Fay's book on the Opium War is one of the most detailed studies of the period between 1838-1842 one can find at anything like the price, and would be a valuable resource except for one major flaw--there is no time-line given, and dates are provided, at most, with day and month, not year. This may seem like an insignificant thing, but given that correspondence took at least six months in one direction from China to England, and that the war was taking place with sailing ships up and down most of China's coast, it quickly becomes impossible to tell, either from the footnotes or the text, what year precisely specific events happened. Since so few dates are given at all, it is impossible to get a good sense of the exact sequence of events, particularly as the fighting part of the war heated up. When the book is next released, it should have a time line!
Book Description
This fourth volume in John Pocock's great sequence on Barbarism and Religion focuses on the idea of barbarism. Barbarism was central to the history of western historiography, to the history of the enlightenment, and to Edward Gibbon himself. As a concept it was deeply problematic to enlightened historians seeking to understand their own civil societies in the light of exposure to newly-discovered civilizations hitherto beyond the reach of history. The troubled relationship between philosophy and history is addressed directly in this fourth volume.
Book Description
This volume of translated source materials from the late Roman Empire to the mid-15th century introduces students to the diversity of medieval culture, covering all aspects of medieval life--social, religious, economic, intellectual, institutional.
Customer Reviews:
Great.......2005-10-19
The book was in great condition, it was a older version then we used in class, but it stil works. It also arrived a little later then I was hoping for.
Professor Tierney's research pays off for you!.......2002-05-20
Brian Tierney has collected so many excellent primary sources. If you are interested in what people of that time thought about or wrote, by all means get anything by Tierney. If you are a history student or teacher, these gems will enliven the discussion in the classroom and will even challenge your ideas of modernity. Enjoy!
Books:
- The Federalist Papers (Signet Classics)
- The Freedom Writers Diary : How a Teacher and 150 Teens Used Writing to Change Themselves and the World Around Them
- The Great School Wars: A History of the New York City Public Schools
- The Jamestown Project
- The Jamestown Project
- The Landmarks of New York: An Illustrated Record of the City's Historic Buildings
- The Lost Realms: Book IV of the Earth Chronicles
- The Measure of a Man: A Spiritual Autobiography (Oprah's Book Club)
- The Mosaic of Shadows (A Byzantine Mystery)
- The Second World War (Six Volume Boxed Set)
Books Index
Books Home
Recommended Books
- Parenting With Grace: Catholic Parent's Guide to Raising Almost Perfect Kids
- Frommer's Europe
- The Favored Circle: The Social Foundations of Architectural Distinction
- The Moviegoer
- American Wall Stenciling, 1790-1840
- Criminalistics: An Introduction to Forensic Science
- Art of Being a Wolf
- The Blank Canvas
- Timeless Cities: An Architect's Reflections on Renaissance Italy
- Isabel Allende Vida Y Espiritus
Rome
| Ancient
| History
| Subjects
| Books
The Fall of Rome: And the End of Civilization
Caesar: Life of a Colossus
Augustus: The Life of Rome's First Emperor
God's War: A New History of the Crusades
Persian Fire: The First World Empire and the Battle for the West
