Rome Resurgent: War and Empire in the Age of Justinian (Ancient Warfare and Civilization) by Peter Heather (PDF)

Description

Between the fall of the western Roman Empire in the fifth century and the collapse of the east in the face of the Arab invasions in the seventh, the remarkable era of the Emperor Justinian (527-568) dominated the Mediterranean region. Famous for his conquests in Italy and North Africa, and for the creation of spectacular monuments such as the Hagia Sophia, his reign was also marked by global religious conflict within the Christian world and an outbreak of plague that some have compared to the Black Death. For many historians, Justinian is far more than an anomaly of Byzantine ambition between the eras of Attila and Muhammad; he is the causal link that binds together the two moments of Roman imperial collapse. Determined to reverse the losses Rome suffered in the fifth century, Justinian unleashed an aggressive campaign in the face of tremendous adversity, not least the plague. This book offers a fundamentally new interpretation of his conquest policy and its overall strategiceffect, which has often been seen as imperial overreach, making the regime vulnerable to the Islamic takeover of its richest territories in the seventh century and thus transforming the great Roman Empire of Late Antiquity into its pale shadow of the Middle Ages. In Rome Resurgent, historian Peter Heather draws heavily upon contemporary sources, including the writings of Procopius, the principal historian of the time, while also recasting that author’s narrative by bringing together new perspectives based on a wide array of additional source material. A huge body of archaeological evidence has become available for the sixth century, providing entirely new means of understanding the overall effects of Justinian’s war policies. Building on his own distinguished work on the Vandals, Goths, and Persians, Heather also gives much fuller coverage to Rome’s enemies than Procopius ever did. A briskly paced narrative by a master historian, Rome Resurgent promises to introduce readers to this captivating and unjustly overlooked chapter in ancient warfare.

User’s Reviews

Editorial Reviews: Review “Heather offers a clear, logically argued analysis of what Procopius wrote.” — Mike Markowitz, The NYMAS Review”Rome Resurgent is utterly brilliant.” — Adrian Spooner, Classics for All”This is a well-written, lucid, and persuasive general history of the reign of Justinian and the broader context within which it should be understood, one that offers an up-to-date account of a crucial moment in the history of the Mediterranean and Middle East and should certainly replace some of the older popular literature on Justinian and his reign.” — John Haldon, The American Historical Review”Bold, absorbing and thoroughly compelling . . . Combining a wealth of literary material, a flare for swashbuckling narrative, and the most up-to-date archaeological discoveries available, Heather endeavours to achieve a critical realignment of the traditional and often contradictory views of Justinian’s attempt to reconstitute the West at the point of a sword.”- BRYN MAWR CLASSICAL REVIEW”This book does full justice to ‘the extraordinary historical phenomenon which is Justinian.’ It combines a refreshingly sane view of the sixth-century East Roman Empire which Justinian came to rule, of the western world on which he impinged in a series of memorable military adventures, and of the overall significance of his achievements. Written with a sharp sense of the unpredictable in war and politics, it catches, as few other books have done, the breathtaking quality of the reign of the last truly great emperor of Rome.”–Peter Brown, author of Ransom of the Soul and Through the Eye of a Needle”Not since the days of Julius Caesar had the Romans conquered so much territory as they did under Justinian–or rather reconquered it. Bracketed between the fall of the western empire in the fifth century and the fall of the Roman Near East in the seventh, the empire of New Rome came out swinging on all fronts. Heather brings clarity and verve to his narrative, but also explains the overall strategic calculations that are often missing from other accounts. Rome Resurgent is now the modern military history of the reign.”–Anthony Kaldellis, author of Streams of Gold, Rivers of Blood and A Cabinet of Byzantine Curiosities “Peter Heather’s new book is an admirably accessible, authoritative, and up-to-date guide to the reign of Justinian and the place of the emperor in the broader sweep of Roman and Byzantine history. It deserves a wide readership amongst both the general public and specialists alike.”–Peter Sarris, author of Empires of Faith and Byzantium: A Very Short Introduction “While [Rome Resurgent] is required reading for the specialist the Late Empire and early Middle Ages, it is also a good read for the layman with a passing interest in the period.” –NYMAS”A magisterial account of the recovery of Rome after the collapse of the western provinces. Peter Heather sets out how stability and prosperity returned to the Roman East and paved the way for a new golden age. This is not just an interesting book but an important one too.”–Peter Frankopan, author of The Silk Roads and The First Crusade”Heather provides general readers a clear and thorough narration of Justinian’s wars and historians with food for thought concerning their impact … Recommended.” — CHOICE About the Author Peter Heather is Professor of Medieval History at King’s College London, and author of The Fall of the Roman Empire, Empires and Barbarians, and The Restoration of Rome.

Reviews from Amazon users which were colected at the time this book was published on the website:

⭐Half of this book showcases Peter Heather’s strengths, which were abundant in his previous work “Empires and Barbarians” and make up the beginning and end of this work. He does an exceptional job analyzing the geopolitics and broader patterns within the Eastern Roman Empire. Critically, he spends several pages discussing how emperors earn authority, given that they were subject to frequent usurpation. Besides exploring a fascinating if understudied subject, this analysis forms the backbone of the thesis of this work: Justinian’s wars of conquest in the central and Western Mediterranean were not nearly as planned as have previously been suggested, and were instead a last-ditch gambit to cement his authority after a series of disasters in the Middle East. At the end of this book he then discusses the implications of these wars and the effect they had on reshaping the Mediterranean world – eg, the depopulation of Rome and the Italian peninsula. However, neither topic comes remotely close to the kind of detail we as readers were spoiled with in “Empires and Barbarians”, and I personally would have loved to read ~400 pages of analysis on the broader geopolitical and cultural forces that shaped Justinian’s reign, as well as the implications of his reign.Instead the middle 200 or so pages detail the wars that define that time period, namely against the Persians, the Vandals, and the Goths. Heather focuses on the actual military actions that define these wars, focusing on troop deployment, maneuvering, casualties, etc. Unfortunately, true to his background as a historian, he cannot provide too many details on these battles, because most of what we know from them comes from a single source (credit where credit is due: Heather does qualify many of his commentaries by suggesting where this source was during a particular battle, or how his opinion may have changed over the course of his lifetime). While reading this I often lost track of how many years had passed between certain events, since battles and sieges are rattled off in rapid succession. The most disappointing bit, though: the fascinating characters that define this period, Justinian and his wife Theodora, are virtually absent throughout this portion of the book. In fact the very idea of specific characters, with personalities and idiosyncrasies that influence events around them, seems to have been deprioritized (I will say that this was also the case in “Empires and Barbarians”, but those shortcomings were more than compensated by his comprehensive analysis of the trends defining that time and place). Characters like Solomon, Chosroes, and Totila appear suddenly and cease to be mentioned when they exit the world stage, with limited examinations of why they may have taken certain courses of action or preferred certain strategies.In short, it seems that this is trying to be two books at once: a serious review of the geopolitical and cultural trends leading up to and following Justinian’s thirty-year reign, as well as a short review of the wars throughout that reign. In my mind, Heather excels at the first and does a decent job of the second. With the exception at the occasional potshots toward contemporary politicians, it is very well written and engaging. However, in juggling these two roles, it does not provide the details on either subject that members of a target audience might crave.

⭐The topic of this book has attracted a lot of interest: to what extent, if at all, were the extensive foreign campaigns of Justinian (reigned 527-565 CE) counterproductive in causing the Roman Empire long-term weaknesses, especially in the realm of military defense? This is a difficult question that requires a differentiated answer. The conquest by Belisarius of North Africa, for instance, was almost painless against the Vandal occupiers; but the Gothic wars in Italy were devastating. As Heather correctly describes it, Constantinople was faced by enemies on three fronts: the Persians to the East, the Vandals and Goths to the West, and the various tribes in the Balkans; and the capital city was not always successful in managing all three simultaneously. Heather’s arguments, which are based not only on literary sources but also on the increasing body of archaeological evidence, do not point conclusively in one direction or another, but do suggest that Justinian set a very high bar that, at the least, his successors were far short of reaching. I thought the first chapter, on the role of military victory in legitimizing central authority, was especially helpful in thinking about the reasons for Justinian’s aggressive policies.

⭐Just to add a thought or two, I’ve long believed Justinian wrongly blamed for the seventh century disaster which stemmed from the betrayal of Maurice and his wise policy and the exhaustion of what was to that time probably the greatest war in history, the fight to the death between Byzantium and Persia in the early 600s. Most of his western conquests were clever gambles which he’d often seem to hope to achieve largely via diplomatic dance, backed by skillful but limited force and Justinian seems to have been a master at the art of buying off enemies at relatively low cost rather than fighting until the Gothic rebellion, aided enormously by the bubonic plague, forced him to finally mass larger forces to secure Italy at devastating cost. One problem though with the book is that it does seem to leave personalities behind, even its star, Justinian and surprisingly his able partner/wife/coemperor Theodora, whose counsel Justinian relied on in rather fascinating ways and who, by my reading at least, played a major role tag-teaming her husband in his diplomacy and his efforts to curb religious conflict.

⭐The work of a master historian, this work offers a magisterial account of the reign of Justinian, and the follow-on events from his reign, leading to the dominance of Islam. Very detailed for avrage history buffs, who might find themselves skipping through the litany of war, depopulation, destruction of cities, and toal disregard for the well-being of “the people.” – it’s one of the darkest and most sordid periods in the history of the west. So… I was amused by Peter Frankopan’s comments on the back cover, stating that the book is about “how stability and prosperity returned to the Roman East and paved the way for a new golden age” – obviously, Frankopan either didn’t read the book or know his history..

⭐This is a gem of book that reappraises the reign of Justinian and reviews, analyses and discusses in depth the main themes debated by historians for several generations. It is very accessible, easy to read and well supplemented by half a dozen maps, a glossary and a chronology and backed up with a comprehensive bibliography. In other words, this is a book written by a scholar but successfully targeted at the general reader.While they may be a few glitches, these are minor and clearly no enough to spoil the book. I will mention just one of these to illustrate the point.There are a couple of instances where the author feels obliged to vent his anger and personal feelings with regards to a certain Boris Johnson being betrayed by one of his allies, something that is both anachronistic and difficult to relate with the subject at hand. However, apart from these two instances, I found all of the rest – and in particular the author’s ability to integrate seamlessly the abundant existing scholarship – simply excellent.The over-arching question is to reassess whether Justinian and his re-conquest of Africa and Italy should be seen as the root cause of what Peter Heather calls “the Fall of the Eastern Empire”, that is the loss of about three quarters of its territory to the Muslim onslaught, but also the invasion of Italy and of the Balkans by, respectively, the Lombards and the Slavs. In other words, was the Empire so overstretched as a result of these efforts so as to be incapable of resisting the Arab attacks?Within (or perhaps alongside) this question, which used to receive a positive answer, lay a number of other assumptions. One was that Justinian always had a “grand strategy” – an over-arching plan to re-conquer the western part of the Roman Empire – or at least as much of it as he could – at the earliest opportunity. Here, and alongside other authors writing on the topic over the last thirty years or so, Peter Heather’s answer is a resounding “no” which he demonstrates by analysing both the key features of the Christian Roman Empire including its ideology and culture of Victory, and the events that lead to the invasion and conquest of Vandal Africa. The author demonstrates very convincingly that the later was essentially a “last desperate gamble”, and a high risk one, from a regime that had just survived a coup by slaughtering tens of thousands when putting down the Nika riot, and which badly needed a victory to acquire legitimacy. The gamble, however, paid off rather magnificently and to such an extent that Justinian’s position became unassailable for decades. Even the invasion and sack of Antioch by the Sassanids – largely made possible by the depleted state of the Roman army in the East with many of the troops sent to conquer Italy – did not lead to attempts to overthrow him.The initial stages of the conquest of Italy over the Goths were also opportunistic although, in this case, Justinian and his general Belisarius failed to win the war quickly for a number of reasons including mistakes, all of which are well presented and explained in detail in the book. This inability to win the war quickly enough did indeed have consequences with regards the defence of the east but the plague epidemic and the additional strain was clearly unpredictable and cannot be blamed on Justinian, nor can the onslaught of the Lombards on Italy and of the Avars in the Balkans shortly after his death. Additionally, and as shown throughout the book, starting with the introduction, Justinian did not abandon or even neglect the defence of the Balkans. There was an impressive fortification program meant to allow it to withstand nomadic raids and Slavic invasions and while it could not entirely compensate for the troops that had been shifted to other fronts (Italy in particular), it did allow the Empire to maintain control, even at the price of much suffering.Another interesting section is an appraisal of Justinian’s personality and aims, together with an explanation of the apparently strange ambivalence of some of the sources – Procopius in particular. Essentially, according to the author, all of Justinian’s achievements, including the great legal reforms, were aimed at bolstering his regime and staying in power. As mentioned, the implication was that there was no “great plan” to reconquer the western half of the Empire. Moreover, the Emperor was not seeking the good of his subjects but merely to act in ways that cemented his grip on the throne and his power. However horrible this may seem to our modern eyes, this is probably a very realistic assessment that corresponded to the need for the Emperor to ensure his own political (and physical) survival including against whatever internal opposition that could arise if he was to suffer defeat or failure.To conclude, the author shows that it is his successor Justinian II, and his unwise policy of antagonising both the Sassanid Persians and the Avars and, even more so, the long war against Sassanid Persia following the execution of Emperor Maurice in AD 602 which lasted more than a quarter of a century that brought the Empire to its knees, leaving it barely able to withstand the Arab onslaught but incapable to defend its eastern provinces.The main value of this book is therefore to present a comprehensive reassessment of Justinian, his reign, his achievements and his shortcomings within the context and ideology of his times, a reassessment that pulls together and draws upon the vast amount of studies that the Age of Justinian has generated over the past thirty years of so. Five stars.

⭐Potted, rambling, irrelevant. Every major factor is missed or mangled. Read Procopius or Browning instead.A. SPEND, SPEND, SPENDJustinian’s empire was the biggest, richest state on the planet, with the biggest armed forces. (China was also about to reunite, and then probably became bigger.) The empire had hundreds of thousands of men, all of whom were paid and fed on time in the massive exercise of taxation and logistics which is what the Romans did.At the top level, the Empire never ran out of money or supplies. Enormous subventions were paid to the Persians and others. Huge building programmes were carried through. The capital was fed and entertained. A large court was maintained.At the same time, the Empire could readily make colossal additional expenditures when required : 100,000 Roman gold pounds on the failed attack on the Vandals in 468. This is more than the entire income of the Achaemenid empire at its height in 450 BCE.Heather misses this completely.B. BUDGET BREAKDOWNIt would be a straightforward exercise to use the varied sources to estimate the size of the main budget items : number of units and men, and their pay and provisions ; the fleet ; foreign aid ; the public works, the capital’s supplies, etc.Heather misses this completely.C. TAX, TAX, TAXSo Constantinople’s tax system raised lots of money and supplies and everyone got paid on time with a big surplus to spend on additional measures. It must have been an imposing system.Heather explains none of this. Instead he gives us tales of tax dodgers from two and three hundred years earlier, padded out with scams from his own imaginings ; one delay in army supplies two centuries earlier (and even then the provisions did eventually get through) ; and one army payroll heist. This would all have been ancient history to Justinian.And Heather quotes with approval the example of English taxation 700 years later, at its nadir under King John. England was a small unitary kingdom, and John’s micro management led the barons to revolt and force him to sign Magna Carta. So this is not a very helpful example.Sometimes it is true the pay did not get through and the troops might desert. But this was down to the logistical difficulties in the war zone, not shortage of money, and the arrears were repaid when the troops rejoined the colours.D. DEATH AT THE HIPPODROMEThe unruly Hippodrome factions had been allowed to have a central role in the choice of emperor, and had forced a previous emperor to beg his crown back from them. The crowds rioted against Justinian, proposing a new emperor. 30,000 of them were killed, along with senatorial opponents and imperial hopefuls. This was the correct imperial response to restore order and stability. For Heather it leaves Justinian reeling and in need of a quick PR coup in the West. But all the opposition was dead, and the emperor was large and in charge.E. GO WESTJustinian pulled out of the stalemate on the eastern front, by giving territory back to the Persians and a one off gold subsidy. He then switched all his key resources to the reconquest of the West. Shameful and humiliating, says Heather, which makes it all the more striking as a policy change. It would take a year to assemble and prepare the fleet of 600 ships needed for the West, so this was not a sudden whim. Yes Justinian agonised and prayed over the fleet. The same happened on D Day. But he also performed meticulous planning to avoid the disasters which had overtaken previous armadas. The fleet stopped midway at a friendly port to pick up vital intelligence, and the equally vital fresh horses for the cavalry. Carthage was recaptured at the first attack. Dithering and fluke, says Heather.F. THE FLEETJustinian’s fleet performed faultlessly on its first major mission to Africa. It then landed men and supplies at will repeatedly on the coasts of Italy throughout the following campaigns. This put Constantinople at a huge military advantage. Heather misses this completely.G. GENERALS AND MINISTERS.Justinian chooses able lieutenants, and sticks by them even when they are defeated or unpopular. Belisarius obviously stands out – able to win battles by surprise, speed and stratagems, often without all his troops, or even any troops at all. Heather thinks this is cheating and underhand. Belisarius can also stay on the defensive, shepherding superior Persian forces out of Syria in 541. Heather thinks this is pusillanimous. All of these men remained loyal to Justinian, and he could even let Belisarius celebrate the first non royal triumph for half a millennium.H. SUCCESSION PLANNINGRome always had a spare heir for any neighbouring kingdom. So another Antiochus could take over at Antioch, and another Herod be sent to Palestine. Justinian continued this time honoured approach, with the disaffected royals and rebels from the barbarian kingdoms coming over to him. Heather complains this is sneaky and underhand. But it was absolutely standard for the time. The Persian king even asked Justinian to take in his favourite third son, Chosroes, to improve his life chances.Justinian’s own handover of power, to another Justin, is carried through flawlessly, a complete change from the hit and miss riotous successions of the previous century, as Heather fails to note.I. ONE HOLY CATHOLIC & APOSTOLIC CHURCHHeather’s attempts to describe the admittedly dense squabbles within the church are themselves too dense, formulaic and repetitive to understand.Browning perhaps wisely explains it more in terms of the personalities involved, rather than the persons of the Trinity.Certainly the reconquest of the awkward Rome and Carthage made it easier for Justinian to get Church unity.J. RECONQUISTABy the end of the reign provinces were rejoining the empire voluntarily – the richest quarter of Spain came back within the imperial fold with no violence or destruction. For Heather this is a cheat and doesn’t count.K. POTTED, RAMBLING AND IRRELEVANTHeather devotes 110 pages, a full third of the book, to introductory material, way too much. Most of it is problems from two and three hundred years previously, ancient history. The rest is jerky accounts of the previous century, flashbacks within flashbacks, too compressed and bitty to follow. Heather himself has already covered this ground much better in earlier works. Justinian’s reign is action packed, so Heather is able to provide little narrative thread or context in the remaining space. Heather adopts a sour 21st century sneering tone throughout. His limited storyline is convincing only when closely following Procopius.Heather finally takes up the final 30 pages of his book with a similar potted ramble through the next century, short on relevance and long on uncontrolled what ifs, which vanish up their own hypotheses.L. LEGACYJustinian fulfilled the imperial job spec and then some. He unified the Church, he laid down the Law, he reconquered most of the lost provinces, he rebuilt the foundations of imperial defence, literally. He built great churches and public buildings. He firmly stamped out disorders, he securely established the succession. Most of these were things his predecessors had been conspicuously failing to do. The Balkans and Syria perhaps paid a price for this at times, although to leave field armies there would mostly have been idle (Syria) or waiting for hordes they couldn’t predict and couldn’t catch (the Balkans).The empire he handed on was immeasurably stronger. When the Islamic whirlwind swept out of Arabia, the only major state left standing between the Loire and the Indus was the remnant of this empire, its immovable forward line in the Taurus mountains, within easy distance of Damascus and Baghdad, its fleet and defences throwing back repeated attacks. It withstood Islam for 800 years. From Constantinople went forth the missionaries to convert Eastern Europe and to establish the third Rome. Constantinople went on to provide much of the knowledge base for the Italian Renaissance.Behind this bulwark, the rest of Christendom had the time and space to develop the resources and technologies to call forth New Worlds and bypass Islam. Otherwise we would all be speaking Arabic.

⭐I’ve read several books by Peter Heather and I consider him the master of this period of Roman and European history (I believe it’s known as Late Antiquity these days as “the Dark Ages” is now considered a completely misleading term).Some of the material in this book overlaps with two other books by the author, Empires and Barbarians and The Restoration of Rome, both of which I’ve reviewed on Amazon. The latter lists Justinian as one of the “restorers” of Rome (along with Theoderic and Charlemagne). In this volume, the author shows Justinian more as a destroyer than a restorer, though it’s in the nature of history that there isn’t really a contradiction here. The premise of this volume is that Justinian’s wars against Persia in the East and his campaigns to regain lost chunks of the Roman Empire in the West were ultimately ruinous in terms of loss of life and led to no lasting political or economic stability for those who survived. However, one of the author’s hallmarks is his judicious sense of balance and he stops short of arguing – as other revisionists do – that Justinian’s wars contributed directly to the 7th century East Roman Empire’s inability to withstand the onslaughts of Islam. Those revisionists would argue that a stronger East Roman Empire, perhaps allied with Zoroastrian Persia, could have checked the Islamic armies and changed the course of world history. Maybe they have a point, maybe not. Heather refuses to get into that kind of speculation. Instead he merely argues that East Roman weakness in the 7th century wasn’t directly attributable to Justinian but to the mistakes of his successors later in the sixth century.However, he has no time for an older generation of historians who saw Justinian as “one of history’s great romantics, desperate to return the Roman Empire to its glorious apogee.” Instead he argues that Justinian’s military campaigns began as a “desperate gamble to save his imperial skin”. That gamble arose from the events of January 532, which Heather describes in gripping detail. It’s amazing to think what a powerful effect chariot racing and the animosity between the rival teams of Blues and Greens could have on imperial affairs. It’s also noteworthy that it was Justinian’s wife, the Empress Theodora, who put the fire in his belly when he was ready to cut and run. Ultimately, though, as Heather argues, it was Justinian’s need to stamp his authority on the empire that led him to provoke a war with Persia and then seek to recover Italy and the former Roman North Africa from the Goths and Vandals respectively. Heather says, “all the many thousands of human beings who died….were killed to satisfy the short-term political agendas of an autocratic ruler who cared not one jot for the fate of anybody outside his immediate circle.” This is revisionist history at its best: not overtly ideological but just humanitarian.I’ve noted before that Heather has a very engaging style. He presents a mass of complex material in a lively and informal way. He must be good at this because even I can follow what he’s saying.I would recommend this book with enthusiasm to anyone who has read other books by the author; to anyone who is interested in this period of European history; and to anyone who enjoys reading history that is written in an erudite but entertaining way.

⭐Peter Heather is an academic historian writing for the non-specialist reader although some broad knowledge of the Roman world in late antiquity would be an advantage. I have long been interested in the later Roman Empire and wanted to know Heather’s assessment of Justinian’s efforts to re-establish East Roman rule over parts of the former Western Empire in the 6th century.This is not a weighty tome and is relatively easy to read. Do not be misled by the slimness of this volume however as the author analyses his subject thoroughly, wearing his learning lightly and providing sufficient narrative to allow us to follow both the historical events he is describing and the arguments he is developing.Heather poses two questions:1. Did the Eastern Roman emperor Justinian have a romantic vision of reuniting the two halves of the Roman Empire by re-conquering the former Western Roman Empire?2. Did the hard work to re-conquer the Western half of the Empire namely in the money and manpower expended leave the expanded Empire seriously weakened and vulnerable in the 7th century firstly to Persian and then to Arab invaders?As a good historian Heather discusses his sources and he deals extensively with Procopius who provides much of our knowledge of the period and its military campaigns. Procopius appears to say different things e.g. in the Secret History compared with his other books although Heather has an answer for this – criticism of the emperor was not encouraged and could be punished by exile or worse and so Procopius could let off steam and provide gossip e.g. about Theodora which he knew to be untrue. In general Heather considers that Procopius is more reliable than other authors when describing military campaigns although he cannot use him exclusively as he was not present on all occasions. The bibliography shows that the author has read widely in both primary and secondary sources. Although his sources appear mostly literary he frequently mentions archaeological evidence that back up his arguments particularly in the later parts of his book where he reaches his conclusions about the value of Justinian’s reconquests and their effect on the continuing security of the Eastern Roman Empire.Heather shows us that the position of an emperor could be a highly precarious one and that Justinian despite his long reign had not always been so secure. Emperors depended on the perception of divine favour to rule, so it was important that an emperor show he had God’s continuing support. One way to show His favour was by winning military victories against the Empire’s enemies; Persians and barbarians. Conversely, losing military campaigns indicated the withdrawal of divine support and leaving the emperor vulnerable to ousting by potential rivals.Therefore early defeats to the Sassanid Persians were very damaging to Justinian and the subsequent Nika riots came very close to seeing him replaced but bribery did just enough to see him retain power albeit precariously. What he needed was a win, specifically a military victory.The Vandal kingdom established in modern Tunisia and Sardinia had for many decades had been a major loss to the Western Empire in terms of tax revenues and various attempts to expel these barbarians had failed due to the difficulty in launching a successful seaborne invasion. So for Justinian to launch another invasion even under the competent Belisarius was somewhat of a gamble. A success would be a great underpinning of Justinian’s status as emperor but a defeat could have both the Blues and Greens (the semi-Mafiosi-like supporters of the chariot racing teams in the Hippodrome) baying for his blood and the installation of a new emperor. The gamble came off and Justinian was far more secure and had additional revenues for further conquests.Heather doesn’t say that military success is the only reason for an emperor continuing in power although it was very important to be seen to be a victor; especially when vanquished peoples were paraded in chains at Constantinople at the triumph for the general and where the emperor received even more glory as it had been done at his command. Justinian had also to be a lawgiver and a theologian. The emperor had to ensure that the written law was maintained as this was a potent symbol of the continuing civilisation of the Empire and a practical measure to preserve domestic tranquillity. Regarding the Christian faith he had to ensure a unity in belief across the Empire to avoid discord and schism. Whereas an emperor was less likely to lose his position for solely legislative and ecclesiastical reasons, no one wanted to have potential rivals using dissatisfaction in these areas to drum up support by championing the disaffected.Justinian’s codification of Roman law was far more successful than his attempt to arbiter religious disputes but even here he could only do so much and elements of the consolidated codes and commentaries appear to have been rushed in places. Even so the importance of having been seen to have instigated a great legal triumph in his reign was important to strengthen his hold on power as his predecessors had not been able to achieve this. In a believing age the religious controversy about the divine and human natures of Christ had great potential for causing domestic unrest and was a legitimate matter for the emperor to take interest. As vice-gerent of God on earth the emperor had to preserve both the religious unity of his own Eastern Empire and relations with the Western Empire in the form of the Pope who was the sole authority there. Justinian’s efforts to reconcile the decision of the Council of Chalcedon with the beliefs of many eastern bishops were only ever partly successful.The conquest of Italy was much lengthier and more costly than the fight against the Vandals. There were successes and reversals depending on the demands of the Persian front and the amount of fresh supplies and soldiers that could augment the existing armies. Gradually the Ostrogoths were worn down and their fighting cadre destroyed. It had helped that the kingdom was initially bereft of strong leadership but even when this was supplied it could only slow down the resistance to the tactical supremacy of the Eastern armies under first Belisarius and then Narses. The success in Italy proved to be short lived as the peninsula was attacked from the north by the Lombards only three years after the death of Justinian and many gains were soon lost.In conclusion Heather provides answers to his two questions. Justinian did not have a master plan to re-conquer the former Western Empire from the various barbarians who had carved out kingdoms in its lands. It was more by expediency; this project was started as a desperate gamble to gain any military success to steady Justinian’s hold as emperor. That it went well was partly due to luck but also due to good generalship which in Belisarius (who rarely put a foot wrong) and later Narses, he was fortunate to have in command of the large but expensive armies. The conquest of Italy was pursued because the succession crisis in the Ostrogothic kingdom offered Justinian an opportunity to make easy gains although they eventually proved time-consuming and costly. The success in southern Spain which Heather only briefly mentions was transient and left no lasting Roman rule as in Africa and Italy.Heather argues that these costly military campaigns did not weaken the Eastern Empire as the African lands were not lost until the mid 7th century and parts of Italy were retained for longer. The Empire gained considerable tax revenues from the re-absorbed lands of the old Western Empire which more than paid for the cost of taking them. Archaeological and other evidence suggests that trade and commerce were not diminished over the rest of the 6th century. It was not until the following century that the disaster of defeats to Persia and then the Arabs which lost Syria, Palestine and Egypt at first temporarily and then for good greatly weakened the Eastern Roman Empire of late antiquity and its successor based primarily in its Anatolian heartland was both a different and medieval Byzantine empire.This is a book I can recommend highly. My only caveat is that Heather often uses up to date analogies when trying to make his points. I can understand why he does this but in the long term it may be counterproductive to mention Boris Johnson and Michael Gove as future readers may not be aware of these current political figures depending on how successful they may be in their own present day struggles for power.

⭐I thought this was a very good price for a brand new hard back and it looks a really interesting read. It arrived well packed and to the normal Prime delivery deadline. I have enjoyed all Peter Heather’s previous books on later Rome so I expect this will also be an excellent and illuminating read.

Keywords

Free Download Rome Resurgent: War and Empire in the Age of Justinian (Ancient Warfare and Civilization) in PDF format
Rome Resurgent: War and Empire in the Age of Justinian (Ancient Warfare and Civilization) PDF Free Download
Download Rome Resurgent: War and Empire in the Age of Justinian (Ancient Warfare and Civilization) 2018 PDF Free
Rome Resurgent: War and Empire in the Age of Justinian (Ancient Warfare and Civilization) 2018 PDF Free Download
Download Rome Resurgent: War and Empire in the Age of Justinian (Ancient Warfare and Civilization) PDF
Free Download Ebook Rome Resurgent: War and Empire in the Age of Justinian (Ancient Warfare and Civilization)