Viggen

Book Review by Neos Dionysos The author in his epilogue states that his purpose in writing this book was to show the change in dynamics that a late Roman Emperor would have had to face and deal with and personally. I think he does an excellent job. He relies on primary sources such as Zosimus, Ammaianus and the Annonymous to name a few as well as several contemporary works by such historians as Peter Heather, AHM Jones and Ramsey MacMullen. The book is around 400 pages long and covers every aspect of the reign of Valens, (as well as his brother in the West Valentinian), from how they came to power, to the end of Valens reign. He covers the challenges Valens faced from simply being of Pannonian birth and of the extreme exertion of will needed to govern the East during the 4th century. The first chapter deals with both emperors, thier background and early life and how they came to be. Also talked about is how the largely Roman elite viewed them and others from this region as well as the difficulties in building a court that would not only work well but not cause trouble. Valentinian was lucky because he went West and gave the East to his younger brother who faced numerous challenges because he was not an easterner nor did he even speak Greek. Lenski addresses these issues and how they were dealt with. In the second chapter, Lenski tells us how quickly Valens faced challenges as in the first year of his reign an ursuper challenged his rule, "the Procopius Revolt", and the difficulties and frustrations he endured putting it down. Valens, like many a late Roman Emperor, had a set number of ideals to which to live by and many contradicted the other but the people expected all to be shown by their emperor. How the revolt ended and the punishments and the reprecussions of it are addressed. Of particular interest is how from this revolt, Valens would forever hold a hatred and grudge against Constantinople and ironically just before his death, having been in the city for two weeks and greeted and recieved with riots and insults, he left the city swearing upon his return he would see it leveled. In the third and fourth chapters, the author tackles Valens first Gothic War and the Eastern Front respectively, showing us the complexity of the issues and the problems he faced in taking the throne in the east. It seemed as though he was never free of revolt or threat from outside force and was usually pulled in 3 or 4 seperate directions that would need his immediate attention. However, he did not have the military strength to handle each when the time demanded. Lenski also points how Valens not only re-secured Armenia but had forced Persia to negotiations which were favorable to Rome and was planning a large-scale invasion to retake land given up by Jovian before him. In the fifth and sixth chapters, the author talks about religion in the empire under the two brothers and of administration and finance. Here we are shown how overall, both emperors preferred not to become involved in the disputes and divisions of religion. Yet in the end, after Valentinian's death, Valens attacked and persecuted certain Christian sects, (namely the Nicenes), and his death was used by them as a divine tool. In a twisted way he is seen as making this sect go from almost extinct to the eventual victor in the struggle. In terms of adminstration and finance, we see how the brothers early exeprience, espcially that of Valens, of running farms and estates prepared them to run the empire effectivly. Both were very zealous in rooting out corruption, fixing the bureaucracy and above all helping the common man whom they personally felt attached to (having suffered the same problems and hardships of corrupt goverment when they were still younger men). In finance, Valens is seen as a genious, his reforming of the taxes, of the coinage and his measures to repair the debasement of coins by making them pure helped alleviate a lot of the stress of the inflation of the times and to help end the economic disaster they inhereted from Julian. Finally, in the seventh chapter, the Diaster at Adrianople is explained in excellent scholarly detail. From the re-settlement, the reasons behind, and the subsequent rebellion we see how much blame is put on Valens unfairly. His lack of immediate response was due to revolts from Arabs, Isaurians and threats from Persia who had violated the peace treaty. He was desperatly short on manpower after having to send a quarter of his army to his brother years before, an army that Gratian kept. We see the problems between the two emperors and the annoyance and grievence felt by Valens toward his nephews, (Valentinian II), whom were elevated to equal status when Valens was clearly their senior. We are shown what drove the Goths to revolt, how so many came into the land, and why they grew into such a huge force, partially from taking in slaves, hiring mercenaries and forcing riparian units from leaving the Danube and allowing previously fellow tribesmen to enter who had been previously denied. Gratian, for his part seemed as though he did not care, since it was not his realm in trouble and reluctantly sent forces to assist (of which Ammanius states were of the poorest qaultiy and of little number). Also shown is that Valens was waiting for his nephew but instead of sending forces he instead chose to chase a defeated barbarian group back over the Rhine and punish them further. Doing this, he even recalled advance units he sent to help his uncle so it is no wonder that Valens was fed up with his nephew from holding back forces, (some of which were part of the army he has sent West). It was a necessity that action had to be taken, and the gravity that the Goths were not a single, unified command but a conglomeration of different peoples as well, (which is attested by their ability to act independent and why the initial reports made it to be only 10000 Goths since the other roving bands had not come back yet), which made them that much more dangerous. ...more Book Reviews! Empire at War: A Compendium of Roman Battles by Don Taylor The Roman Soldier by G. R. Watson The Oxford Classical Dictionary by Hornblower and Spawforth In conclusion, I highly recommend this book for a number of reasons. One, for the person wishing to have a much better understanding of the late Roman Empire and the severity of situations faced by an emperor. Two, it is a much further examination of a time deemed to be the decline when in fact the empire was still vibrant and strong. Three, to better understand Adrianople, what led to it and the aftermath and why Valens as well as the battle have become so negative and seen as a complete and utter failure from the onset. This aspect is shown to be untrue and when based on the evidence and the reasoning for such actions, thelogical and the right choices were made. To put it short, Valens is a scapegoat for a plethora of problems and is unjustly seen by many as the failure when in reality the blame must be spread. He comes out as being more a victim of the circumstances and in my eyes a tragic figure. I give this book a 5 out of 5 and would recommend that anyone who reads it have a good grasp on Roman history and political, social and military background of the era in question before attempting to read, otherwise you will be left constantly stopping to reference something you are not familiar with. Tell us your opinion - Submit your Review - Buy the book! Book Review of Failure of Empire - Related Topic: Enemy Leaders of Rome Bibliography Get it now! Failure of Empire for the UK ________________________________ Archive

Book Review by Ursus Many scholars these days have an agenda, but Mackay is very up front about his. In his introduction, Mackay explains he seeks to present a nuts-and-bolts, no-nonsense introduction to Roman history. He refers to his approach as "traditional" insofar as it internalizes the conventional sources and view points. By "traditional" we of course mean European males at the top of their particular socio-economic ladder, who seemed to act without regard to modern sensibilities concerning wealth and power. The author acknowledges that the new focus in modern scholarship is a revisionist agenda designed to either illuminate heretofore unsung segments of Roman culture, or radically overturn prevailing assumptions of Roman civilization. Mackay feels this new revisionist focus should "complement rather than supplant" the traditional scholarship. It is the author's intention that his readers have the core understandings of "traditional" Roman history before availing themselves of ever-expanding alternative viewpoints. With the author's agenda (such as it is) in mind, we can then analyze the work itself. The work is divided neatly into five sectors of history: The archaic origins of Rome through the conquest of Italy, the various wars in the Mediterranean, the Late Republic, The Early Empire, and the Late Empire through the fall of the West. The "traditional" events and actors are explored at each stage of history. Mackay manages to flawlessly compress centuries of history into 356 pages. Mackay's prose is erudite without being dull (no small feat for an academic). Important points are presented in outline form for easy comprehension. There are a variety of maps, photographs and an appendix to serve the clarity of data. There is little here that a well-read Romanophile will not have already read, but it serves as a handy review. More to the point, it offers (as was designed) a comprehensible introduction to those with little to no prior exposure of the subject. The title is a bit misleading. The "military" is discussed only as it pertains to politics. That is to say there are no overly detailed discussions on Roman martial tactics and military paraphernalia. The battles are highlighted, and they exist not in their own right but as an illustration of Roman strategy and the personalities who forged them. This level of analysis was perfectly acceptable to this reviewer, but hardcore military buffs may find the treatment lacking. Also lacking is any kind of exploration of the softer aspects of Roman civilization - religion, art, literature, daily life. Such of course was the intention in this politico-military sketch of Roman history. Nonetheless, there is a brief chapter of Christianity given the cult's relevance to Rome's later political history. On the fall of the Republic, a topic of great interest to most UNRV members, Mackay does not eagerly champion one side over another. He sees imperial stresses placed on the Republic as inevitably leading to its demise. He blames the obstinacy of conservatives like Cato for allowing no other recourse but civil war, and derides other sympathizers such as Cicero for hypocrisy. However, he clearly has no love for the warlords who actually ended the Republic, and saves his strongest cynicism for Julius Caesar. Mackay suggests that Caesar should have happily accepted exile and humiliation rather than launch the war that finally toppled the Republic, a Republic that Mackay himself suggests was doomed to fall in any event. The lack of logic in Mackay's treatment of Caesar is one of my few criticisms of the book. If there is anyone from the late Republic not treated with skepticism, it is Augustus. Mackay praises his post Actium settlements as sophisticated compromises designed to lend a secure transition from Republic to Empire. The closest thing that the book has to a central thesis is the dynamic between the military and the Roman State. Mackay seems to see the military as the chief reflection, and chief instigator, of changes in political reality. In themes familiar to most Romanophiles, Mackay traces the evolution of Roman civilization from citizen-soldier to military autocracy. Another constant theme is the ability of Roman civilization to incorporate most of its subject peoples. Despite Rome's legendary greed, corruption and cruelty, many subjects were willing to stay loyal to Rome, or become citizens themselves. This is something we need to keep in mind as the legions of revisionists go about deconstructing Roman civilization in a mostly hostile manner. While Mackay's treatment of the subject is not perfect, the flaws are comparatively minor. On the whole this is a great introduction to Roman history. Most UNRV members would probably find it of some worth. ...more Book Reviews! Roman Empire by C. M. Wells Beginnings Of Rome by Tj Cornells The Second Jewish Revolt by Menahem Mor In his own words; I have a BA from the University of Michigan, and a PhD in Classical Philology from Harvard. I wrote my dissertation on the judicial legislation of Gaius Gracchus under the direction of Ernst Badian. I have a wide range of interests, ranging from the philological interpretation of historical texts, through paleography, to historical linguistics. My basic interest in Latin and Roman history has resulted in all sorts of funny projects I never would have imagined in graduate school, from medieval/early modern witchcraft through scholasticism and canon law to Low German and the Anabaptist kingdom of Münster of (I'm close to done with an edition and translation of the only eyewitness account). Christopher Mackay is Associate Professor in the department of History and Classics at the University of Alberta. Associate Editor of the American Journal of Ancient History, he has published extensively on all periods of Roman history. Tell us your opinion - Submit your Review - Buy the book! Book Review of Ancient Rome: A Military and Political History - Related Topic: Roman Military Bibliography Get it now! Ancient Rome for the UK ________________________________ Archive