provides a good overview of the end of the western Empire in this volume, He does analyze things, and come to conclusions, but the primary focus is providing a chronological outline of events.
That latter is the primary value as it can be hard to find any coherent look at the four decades from the death of Aetius to the death of Odovacer.
There's no central figure, which is part of the point, political power and fortunes were so fractured by this period that no one entirely rises above the other players.
However, Ricimer who should be more prominent in synopses of this era does provide the central focus for part of this book enough so that I wonder if Hughes really should have focused in a little bit more and done a book purely on him.
He is generally considered to have been the 'power behind the throne' for, oh, maybe fifteen years, and often takes the fall for the instability of the West.
Hughes gives good reasons to believe that this is not the case, and that his actions were often in response to other political pressures.
This largely comes down to the Roman Senate, which, like in his book on Stilicho, takes the blame for a fair number of ills without introducing any real evidence.
He may reference some pertinent sources in the end notes which I have not gone through, but there is nothing in the main body.
Nobody from the senate is mentioned by name, No description of what the senate was like in the Fifth Century is provided, Now he ascribes the senators as a whole with motives that are likely protecting their own position, and the safety of their own lands, but there's nothing here to actually support these assertions, so it's nothing more than an axiom of the book.
Other than that hole, there's a lot of interest here, Beyond any problems with the Senate, problems of the division of the Empire between East and West are made manfest.
Thanks to a lack of a stable dynasty, and a horde of ongoing problems, in the West, the Eastern Empire has become the senior political partner, which ends up crucially weakening the West.
Any time an Emperor dies too common, there is a wait while the choice of a new Western Emperor is coordinated with the East.
If the Eastern court doesn't care for what's going on, political and military support can get withdrawn, which leaves the West's leadership high and dry.
Additionally, Marcellinus maintains an almost independent existence as comes rei militaris Dalmatiae for almost this entire period as he's supported by the East, but refuses to work with Ricimer's administration of the West.
And of course, at the same time there is growing 'barbarian' influence in the territories outside Italy and Dalmatia.
The book has about one map per chapter showing the slowly shifting patterns of who had control of what.
Now, these groups are settled in the Empire by agreement, and acknowledge it's authority, Mostly. Even the better actors, like the Visigoths under Theoderic acted largely independently of the administration in Italy, even when pursing the same goals.
Meanwhile, Vandal kingdom in Africa raided Italy regularly, and the book shows two attempts to counterinvade that came apart utterly, and likely recriminations did much to make the situation in Italy worse.
Hughes figures Gaiseric to be the most able leader and diplomat of the period to explain his long stable reign, and the Empire's inability to reclaim Africa.
Hughes sticks to a largely chronological format, which means he doesn't give any one subject his full attention as nothing got wrapped up neatly within one year.
Mostly, this is well handled, but with some real longterm trends going on here, I think seeing something concentrating on just one of them would be a real plus.
I don't recommend this one for a more casual read because of this, but it is definitely a great framework for anyone in an interest in the last years of the Western Empire.
My opinion of this book,
Excellent. Hughes provides an Interesting and thorough history of the Western Empire, It is one of the finest books I have ever read in my entire life, I would recommend this to any person interested in the fall of the Western Empire,
, A scholarly analysis of the fragmentary written source material and archaeological evidence from ADto, during which theyearold empire collapsed and gave way to able commanders among the Goths.
Hughes combines scanty and sometimes contradictory information to study the outstanding individuals involved, and give a coherent account of events overwhelming the empire.
He does this in a balanced fashion, exposing his reasoning for each sequence of events, and conceding that the evidence is susceptible of other interpretations.
I now have the feeling historians of this period must have, of peering closer and closer and itching to adjust the focus more sharply.
A history that follows the actors at the end of the Western Roman Empire proceeding Aetius, It is not a book on 'Why did the Empire fall' but rather more like a narrative history which can be sorely needed for some readers.
Lot of history, but very poorly presented
The book is well researched, but not written for general readers may be the author intended it for History students , but the publisher decided otherwise.
For general readers like me, it was torture It was a very bad experience Inth century AD, Western Roman Empire was in dire straits.
Its territory infested with barbarian incursions, citizens outside Italy were losing faith to the ability of Roman legions to protect them, while in Italy, Senate and members aristocracy continued to cling to values and interests that were detrimental to the survival of the empire.
Figures central to its survival, the emperors, were reduced to figureheads and puppets to powerful Magister militums from barbaric, germanic tribes, a trend that started with Stilicho and most powerfully represented by Ricimer, who supported and toppled numerous emperors at his whim.
In short, the Empire was a shitshow,
This sad, shadow of its former glorious self was reduced to maintaining mercenary, barbarian army, depending on its Eastern counterpart to send support.
Even the western Emperor needed support and confirmation from eastern Emperor, Its predicaments were not helped by the fact that the Empire faced some of the greatest military leaders in history, the likes of Attila the Hun, Alaric the Visigoth and Gaiseric the Vandal.
Faced with the scarcity of historical sources, the author had done his best chronicling the downfall of Western Roman Empire.
Because of this condition, anything that was chronicled was discussed even further, with numerous hypotheses, Still, for a book that focused on the rather neglected aspect of Roman Empire, this book is adequately written.
Hughes has written three books on fifth century Rome Stilicho: The Vandal Who Saved Rome and Aetius: Attila's Nemesis, both of which offer an decent introduction to Patricians and Emperors: The Last Rulers of the Western Roman Empire.
Patricians and Emperors offers a clear and concise narrative of the final decades of the Western Roman Empire: the period from the death of the magister militum Master of the Troops Aetius inand when the West already lost Africa, Spain and major parts of Gaul to the death of Odoacer, the man ruling Italy until the Ostrogoths under Theoderic the Great took over power in Italy in.
The first part of the book sets the background to the period, including brief histories of Stilichoand Aetius, explaining the nature of the empire and the reasons for its decline.
After the dead of Aetius, we enter thedecade period that tends to be reduced to a footnote in the history of the Roman Empire with mostly insignificant emperors the dates refer to their rule such as:
Petronius Maximus Marchth,Maystmurdered by the Roman mob
Avitus, magister militium under Petronius Maximus, proclaimed Emperor by the Visigoth king Theoderic II Julyth,Octoberth,gt deposed and later killed by Ricimer
Majorian AprilAugustnd,gt deposed by his troops and beheaded by Ricimer
Libius Severus NovemberAugustgt probably poisoned by Ricimer
Anthemius Aprilth,Julyth,gt executed by Ricimer
Olybrius, soninlaw of Marcian, appointed by Ricimer, with the support of Pope Leo I Julyth,Novembernd,gt natural causes
Glycerius MarchJunegt deposed by Julius Nepos to become Bishop of Salona
Julius Nepos, nephewinlaw of the eastern Emperor Leo I Junespringgt deposed in Italy by Flavius Orestes, a Roman general and politician of Pannonian ancestry, who was briefly in control of the remnant Western Roman Empire inand.
Maintained as figurehead in Italy by Odoacer to his natural death in
Romulus Augustus, son of Orestes, not recognized by the Eastern Empire.
Octoberst,Septemberth,gt deposed by Odoacer, who ruled in the name of Julius Nepos,
Ricimer and Odoacer
As the list above shows, Ricimer c,Augustth,and Odoacerdominated the last Roman emperors as emperor makers/murderers and puppet masters”, It is common for a puppet ruler to be kept isolated from events and surrounded by supporters of the puppeteer, a job well done by Ricimer and Ocoacer.
Hughes also points out the strong influence that Ricimer seems to have had on the Senate in Rome.
In fact, Ricimers choices echoed the desires of the Senate and the citizens of Italy, It is clear that at this time Ricimer was acting within the context of Senatorial politics, which as always were focused upon the safety of Italy and the protection of their estates in Southern Gaul.
Ricimer also kept an eye on the events in Constantinople, When on Januaryththe Emperor Marcian died, on Februaryththe Eastern magister militum Aspar installed a man named Leo I ruledas the new emperor in the East.
One of Leos first actions was to send messengers to Rome, and on FebruarythRicimer was appointed the new Western patricius and Majorian and Ricimer were both made magister equitum.
Leo I, did not however recognized Majorian as the Emperor of West, possibly because he intended to reign alone.
After the disposal of Romulus Augustus in, Odoacer became King of Italy as a viceroy of Zeno emperor of the East fromtoand again fromto.
Theoderic the Great
Born c,, Theoderic the later Theoderic the Great went to Constantinople in, as a hostage to secure a treaty the Ostrogoths had concluded with the Byzantine Emperor Leo I the Thracian ruled.
For the next ten years he received a Roman probably Greek education and was released in, AroundTheodedric was in conflict with the Eastern emperor Zeno, and inhe plundered Macedonia and Thessaly, This appeared to be the last straw for Zeno and in the following year a deal was struck whereby Theoderic regained the post of magister militum, and was also announced as consul for.
But inTheoderic again rebelled, and again ravaged Thrace, InTheoderic led his forces against Constantinople and, although he
failed to capture the city the pressure paid off and negotiations with Zeno were resumed.
Nevertheless, Theoderic, remained the main threat in the Balkans,
The Ostrogoths needed a place to live, and Zeno was having serious problems with Odoacer, the King of Italy who had come to power in.
Ostensibly a viceroy for Zeno, Odoacer was menacing Byzantine territory and not respecting the rights of Roman citizens in Italy.
At Zeno's encouragement, Theoderic invaded Odoacer's kingdom in,
Almost certainly on or before AprilstOdoacer became aware of Theoderics advance towards Italy, He gathered his troops to face the Ostrogoths, The war dragged on until Februarythwhen John, bishop of Ravenna, was able to negotiate a treaty between Theoderic and Odoacer to occupy Ravenna together and share joint rule.
After a threeyear siege, Theoderic entered the city on Marchth, Odoacer was dead ten days later, slain by Theoderic while they shared a meal,
Like Odoacer, Theoderic was ostensibly only a viceroy for the emperor in Constantinople, In reality, he was able to avoid imperial supervision, and dealings between the emperor and Theoderic were as equals.
Unlike Odoacer, however, Theoderic respected the agreement he had made and allowed Roman citizens within his kingdom to be subject to Roman law and the Roman judicial system.
The Goths, meanwhile, lived under their own laws and custom, But that is another story to be continued,
Conclusion
The merit of this book is that it offers a very valuable and a quite unique narrative, wellresearched and clearly presented overview of this troubled period that is too often neglected, largely because of problems with the sources.
Also very valuable and little known, for instance, are the developments on the strategic importance of Dalmatia and Marcellinus in particular, the great rival of Ricimer.
To end this review, I would like to quote Hughes with a lessons that we, historians, must never forget.
We have the 'benefit' of hindsight, A dangerous trap! Hughes states that:
"One final aspect of the fifth century is rarely analyzed in detail, largely because historians writing after the event have the benefit of hindsight and realize that the Empire would fall.
The Romans did not know this, It is certain that barbarian groups allowed into the Empire were not seen as the threat that they later became.
This is due in part to Roman arrogance, In the preceding centuries all of the tribes and political entities that had been conquered by Rome had seen the benefits of inclusion and became members of the Empire: there was no reason why tribes such as the Goths or Franks should be any different.
Allowed to settle and have the benefits of Roman rule they would lose their identity amongst the common Roman citizenry.
This theory helps to explain why so many German leaders were accepted into service in the army, By serving the Empire they would gradually absorb the benefits and mentality of citizens as had happened to the Gauls, the Britons and many other belligerent tribes.
"
.
Grab Patricians And Emperors: The Last Rulers Of The Western Roman Empire Depicted By Ian Hughes Accessible As Digital
Ian Hughes