What do you think?
Rate this book
Empires and Barbarians: The Fall of Rome and the Birth of Europe
Here is a fresh, provocative look at how a recognizable Europe came into being in the first millennium AD. With sharp analytic insight, Peter Heather explores the dynamics of migration and social and economic interaction that changed two vastly different worldsthe undeveloped barbarian world and the sophisticated Roman Empireinto remarkably similar societies and states.
The book's vivid narrative begins at the time of Christ, when the Mediterranean circle, newly united under the Romans, hosted a politically sophisticated, economically advanced, and culturally developed civilizationone with philosophy, banking, professional armies, literature, stunning architecture, even garbage collection. The rest of Europe, meanwhile, was home to subsistence farmers living in small groups, dominated largely by Germanic speakers. Although having some iron tools and weapons, these mostly illiterate peoples worked mainly in wood and never built in stone. The farther east one went, the simpler it became: fewer iron tools and ever less productive economies. And yet ten centuries later, from the Atlantic to the Urals, the European world had turned. Slavic speakers had largely superseded Germanic speakers in central and Eastern Europe, literacy was growing, Christianity had spread, and most fundamentally, Mediterranean supremacy was broken. The emergence of larger and stronger states in the north and east had, by the year 1000, brought patterns of human organization into much greater homogeneity across the continent. Barbarian Europe was barbarian no longer.
Bringing the whole of first millennium European history together for the first time, and challenging current arguments that migration played but a tiny role in this unfolding narrative, Empires and Barbarians views the destruction of the ancient world order in the light of modern migration and globalization patterns. The result is a compelling, nuanced, and integrated view of how the foundations of modern Europe were laid.
ebook
First published January 1, 2009
About the author
Peter Heather
28 books199 followersPeter Heather is currently Professor of Medieval History at King's College London. He has held appointments at University College London and Yale University and was Fellow and Tutor in Medieval History at Worcester College, Oxford until December 2007.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 70 reviews
Read
October 3, 2019Peter Heather's book is a big, ambitious account of the history of first millennium Europe.
The key, he argues, to explaining the cultural and linguistic map of Europe today, is the social and economic development of Europe in the iron age and the processes of migration that took place osmois-like in response to the uneven pattern of development which saw wealth and power concentrated around the Mediterranean sea.
More particularly he wants to define a middle ground between an older view of complete peoples moving from A to Z, like billiard balls, unchanging as they richotte around the geography of Europe and the view that developed, particularly in the study of prehistory, that there were never any migrations and change has to be understood as a process of evolution among peoples who were always there. In stead he supports a snowball pattern of migrations during the first millennium, there were movements but they were messy, accumulating or loosing sub groups as they moved and changed by their interactions with others. Migration and development are parallel processes that can not be separated. Complicated by external and internal pressures which remind him of mass population movements from Rwanda and Kossovo in the near past.
Heather's third point is what he calls 'Newton's third law of empires' - that empire is ultimately a self destructive endeavour. Imperial assertion, maintenance , or if you like self-defence, forces those that the Empire is asserting itself against to organise to such a degree that they can eventually defeat that empire, and indeed the empire may well in pursuit of it's own self interest hasten that process.
For Heather, as in Barry Cunliffe's Greeks, Romans & Barbarians borders and frontiers are not absolute boundaries but zones in which interactions are controlled. And needs on the one side for labour (slaves and soldiers) food, or luxury goods (amber, furs) caused or enabled the development of client states on the other side of the border.
The first and last chapters concentrate more on the theory, while those in between advance chronologically from Rome and it's fall through to rise of the Slavs, the arrival of the Vikings, the Carolingians and the Ottonians. Drawing nicely on the archaeology, DNA evidence and modern migration studies as well as written sources as it goes. In places he relies on the close reading of a source, Ammianus Marcellinus or Procopius, stressing at times the peculiar significance of a plural or a phrase, at others while making use of the archaeology he points out that the dating has been significantly reinterpreted, or cannot be tied down precisely enough to allow a full understanding - the emergence of Slavic peoples is particularly obscure.
This book was published just a few years after Francis Pryor's Britain AD which takes entirely the opposite view of the Anglo-Saxon migration to Britain than Heather - that it did not occur, Pryor stresses agricultural continuity, Heather tells us that Roman era villa estates were broken up and that this is a clue that the migration was fairly large - large enough anyway that the only way to reward all the key migrants involved in the take over was by breaking up villa estates. Assuming that both Heather and Pryor are serious scholars with a close acquaintance with the evidence - indeed with the very same evidence, then I feel it fair to observe that while Heather lays out a convincing and coherent account of the migrations into Roman Europe the evidence is still open to alternative interpretations due to the relative rareness of coin deposits during this period it is hard to narrow down dates to less than twenty-five year periods and their have been dramatic reinterpretations, individual groups can not always be identified from their archaeological remains and in places Heather relies on close readings of a single text stressing the significance of the use of the plural or a certain precise phrasing. None of this is unreasonable, but it does indicate how contingent conclusions are, not just in this book but in virtually all if not all books about the 'Dark Ages' .
At the same time Heather argues that because of the "self-reproducing cultural complex which could be taught at school" (p.14) that emerged particularly in nineteenth century Europe that the Dark Ages, despite or because of their darkness or properly said, their obscurity, saw the birth of the nations and national identities of Europe.
Heather tells us that an early view that the era saw huge movements of entire peoples across Europe across Roman frontiers and settling into new locations was replaced by an assumption that smaller groups of warriors smashed across those borders and replaced the existing elites in the places where they settled and that what Heather reads as happening was a larger scale movement of peoples but not as 'billiard balls' (neat, precise, coherent) but as snowballs (messy, contingent, changing), that groupings might merge for a time or permanently, or later break apart, they might absorb people from many other groups (some of whom might pop out a generation or two later and send off to Sweden for a new King ) and adopt new customs, to be a Goth, a Hun, a Saxon, was for Heather always a political state, an elective affinity, an imagined community not a homogeneous group all speaking the same language and sharing the same ancestry (although in some cases they might have done).
Heather asserts the importance of the Dark ages in the formation of Europe, perhaps slyly undercutting national myths seeing gangster-like violence as a key element in state formation and the cheerful adoption of Christianity by state building elites as the final stage in creating unified states through organised persecution and intolerance.
The key, he argues, to explaining the cultural and linguistic map of Europe today, is the social and economic development of Europe in the iron age and the processes of migration that took place osmois-like in response to the uneven pattern of development which saw wealth and power concentrated around the Mediterranean sea.
More particularly he wants to define a middle ground between an older view of complete peoples moving from A to Z, like billiard balls, unchanging as they richotte around the geography of Europe and the view that developed, particularly in the study of prehistory, that there were never any migrations and change has to be understood as a process of evolution among peoples who were always there. In stead he supports a snowball pattern of migrations during the first millennium, there were movements but they were messy, accumulating or loosing sub groups as they moved and changed by their interactions with others. Migration and development are parallel processes that can not be separated. Complicated by external and internal pressures which remind him of mass population movements from Rwanda and Kossovo in the near past.
Heather's third point is what he calls 'Newton's third law of empires' - that empire is ultimately a self destructive endeavour. Imperial assertion, maintenance , or if you like self-defence, forces those that the Empire is asserting itself against to organise to such a degree that they can eventually defeat that empire, and indeed the empire may well in pursuit of it's own self interest hasten that process.
For Heather, as in Barry Cunliffe's Greeks, Romans & Barbarians borders and frontiers are not absolute boundaries but zones in which interactions are controlled. And needs on the one side for labour (slaves and soldiers) food, or luxury goods (amber, furs) caused or enabled the development of client states on the other side of the border.
The first and last chapters concentrate more on the theory, while those in between advance chronologically from Rome and it's fall through to rise of the Slavs, the arrival of the Vikings, the Carolingians and the Ottonians. Drawing nicely on the archaeology, DNA evidence and modern migration studies as well as written sources as it goes. In places he relies on the close reading of a source, Ammianus Marcellinus or Procopius, stressing at times the peculiar significance of a plural or a phrase, at others while making use of the archaeology he points out that the dating has been significantly reinterpreted, or cannot be tied down precisely enough to allow a full understanding - the emergence of Slavic peoples is particularly obscure.
This book was published just a few years after Francis Pryor's Britain AD which takes entirely the opposite view of the Anglo-Saxon migration to Britain than Heather - that it did not occur, Pryor stresses agricultural continuity, Heather tells us that Roman era villa estates were broken up and that this is a clue that the migration was fairly large - large enough anyway that the only way to reward all the key migrants involved in the take over was by breaking up villa estates. Assuming that both Heather and Pryor are serious scholars with a close acquaintance with the evidence - indeed with the very same evidence, then I feel it fair to observe that while Heather lays out a convincing and coherent account of the migrations into Roman Europe the evidence is still open to alternative interpretations due to the relative rareness of coin deposits during this period it is hard to narrow down dates to less than twenty-five year periods and their have been dramatic reinterpretations, individual groups can not always be identified from their archaeological remains and in places Heather relies on close readings of a single text stressing the significance of the use of the plural or a certain precise phrasing. None of this is unreasonable, but it does indicate how contingent conclusions are, not just in this book but in virtually all if not all books about the 'Dark Ages' .
At the same time Heather argues that because of the "self-reproducing cultural complex which could be taught at school" (p.14) that emerged particularly in nineteenth century Europe that the Dark Ages, despite or because of their darkness or properly said, their obscurity, saw the birth of the nations and national identities of Europe.
Heather tells us that an early view that the era saw huge movements of entire peoples across Europe across Roman frontiers and settling into new locations was replaced by an assumption that smaller groups of warriors smashed across those borders and replaced the existing elites in the places where they settled and that what Heather reads as happening was a larger scale movement of peoples but not as 'billiard balls' (neat, precise, coherent) but as snowballs (messy, contingent, changing), that groupings might merge for a time or permanently, or later break apart, they might absorb people from many other groups (some of whom might pop out a generation or two later and send off to Sweden for a new King ) and adopt new customs, to be a Goth, a Hun, a Saxon, was for Heather always a political state, an elective affinity, an imagined community not a homogeneous group all speaking the same language and sharing the same ancestry (although in some cases they might have done).
Heather asserts the importance of the Dark ages in the formation of Europe, perhaps slyly undercutting national myths seeing gangster-like violence as a key element in state formation and the cheerful adoption of Christianity by state building elites as the final stage in creating unified states through organised persecution and intolerance.
September 27, 2021
Heather is outstanding, and his knowledge of the period is impressive. He is probably the best scholar when it comes to the knowledge of this specific historical period.
Peter Heather has produced again a work of amazing depth and erudition. Highly recommended to anybody who is seriously interested in this subject.
Peter Heather has produced again a work of amazing depth and erudition. Highly recommended to anybody who is seriously interested in this subject.
February 5, 2019
It is a lengthy overview of the 1st millennium AD in Europe. This period is subject to a substantial controversy between the historians for the obvious reasons - not many written sources and those existing are rarely reliable. The most controversial point is the role of migrations in this period. Peter Heather gives a solid overview of the problem and related points of view from no migration to so called "invasion hypothesis" - the theory prevailing in the first half of the 20th century and before, when a certain "people" fought its way into a territory and ethnically cleansed the existing population. It was later discredited and rejected. Heather's own view is somewhere in the middle: 1) there are different kids of migrations; 2) it is always more complicated then it seems (probably not surprisingly); 3) a metaphor of a "billiard ball" of the rapid movement of one "people" is replaced by "the snowball" of the mixed population movement (including women and children) and in other cases - elite's replacements. 4) Roman empire and later Byzantine empire and even the Arabs where source of both positive and negative influence of the evolving populations (not totally surprisingly again).
Heather comes across as a historian who does not believe that "the history is a foreign country" as many others do. He extensively deduces his hypothesis from the analysis of the recent migrations such as Rwanda genocide for example. His theories and ideas are always lucid and he is open about the difficulties he faces. I had only problem with the book - it was quite repetitive at times.
The first chapter is the most interesting and theoretical. He summarises his views and ideas. This is followed by more or less chronological narrative of the millennium starting with Goths and moving to the Slavs in the later half of the millennium. I found the The Slavs' chapters the most fascinating: he posits that the early Slavic states were based economically on the huge trading surplus from slave and fur trade in the region by the Scandinavians and the Western Slavs selling the Eastern Slavs (this bit is the most unpleasant, if true). The discussion of Franks and Anglo-Saxons I found the weakest. I did not feel it was enough evidence in the book to support Franks' mass migration. With Anglo-Saxons, he said it was a substantial migration to replace the elite and more as the existing ownership structures were replaced. However, as far as I understood him, it was not more than that. I struggle how then the language was totally replaced as well. Maybe that is because we know about it only based upon the written sources I presume. But the sources would come from the very small strata of population who could write then. Anyway, I am still puzzled about that period in England.
Overall, it is very interesting, well written and well argued book, if only a little repetitive.
Heather comes across as a historian who does not believe that "the history is a foreign country" as many others do. He extensively deduces his hypothesis from the analysis of the recent migrations such as Rwanda genocide for example. His theories and ideas are always lucid and he is open about the difficulties he faces. I had only problem with the book - it was quite repetitive at times.
The first chapter is the most interesting and theoretical. He summarises his views and ideas. This is followed by more or less chronological narrative of the millennium starting with Goths and moving to the Slavs in the later half of the millennium. I found the The Slavs' chapters the most fascinating: he posits that the early Slavic states were based economically on the huge trading surplus from slave and fur trade in the region by the Scandinavians and the Western Slavs selling the Eastern Slavs (this bit is the most unpleasant, if true). The discussion of Franks and Anglo-Saxons I found the weakest. I did not feel it was enough evidence in the book to support Franks' mass migration. With Anglo-Saxons, he said it was a substantial migration to replace the elite and more as the existing ownership structures were replaced. However, as far as I understood him, it was not more than that. I struggle how then the language was totally replaced as well. Maybe that is because we know about it only based upon the written sources I presume. But the sources would come from the very small strata of population who could write then. Anyway, I am still puzzled about that period in England.
Overall, it is very interesting, well written and well argued book, if only a little repetitive.
August 29, 2010
Once again Peter Heath has written an extraordinarily complex and nuanced account of Europe in the first millennium AD, a period when the modern foundations of European society were established. He focuses on migration and its role in transforming the Mediterranean-centered world of Late Antiquity into the Atlantic-centered one of the Medieval and Modern eras. Toward that end, the author looks at the drift of Germanic tribes ever westward into the Roman Empire (to c. AD 600); their replacement by Slavs in north and central Europe (after AD 400); and the last great migrations of the Vikings (AD 700-1000). Up to the 1960s, the theory – influenced by 19th Century ideas of nationalism and, frankly, racism – of mass migrations of large, coherent “nations” of peoples sweeping through the old provinces of Rome and exterminating or pushing all before them dominated the historiography. As textual and archaeological evidence accumulated, this view grew more and more inadequate. It engendered a reactive scholarship that emphasized internal transformations on both sides of the frontier rather than migrations as critical factors (Preface and Chapter 1, “Migrants and Barbarians”). Walter Goffart is a good (and intimidating) example of this school.* Heather argues that neither extreme is terribly productive in explaining what happened, and we should take a more nuanced view that incorporates the very real internal transformations that made Constantine’s empire very different from Augustus’ and Fritigern’s Germania very different from Arminius’ and the external migrations of significant populations that certainly took place (p. x).
In his zeal to restore the good name of “mass migration,” Heather may himself stray into the pitfall of overemphasis but not too often and not too deep.
A reader hoping to understand or find out about the anti-migration argument will be disappointed but I’d refer you to Heather’s earlier book, The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians, or (better since it’s from a proponent) Goffart’s work.** That aside, Heather’s argument for restoring a balance in our perceptions of a nascent European culture is valid, and the evidence he martials for his case, impressive. And eye-opening. Heather has a particular facility in evoking the society of late Antiquity and making the reader see events through the eyes of the participants.
Heather begins the book by looking at the difference between the social and economic development of “Germania” from our first glimpse of it in Roman literature (primarily Cornelius Tacitus) to the Frankish hegemony of the 8th Century (including the Anglo-Saxon conquest of Celto-Roman Britain) (here the primary text is Ammianus Marcellinus). He then looks at the Slavicization of north and central Europe in the wake of the Germanic migration. And he rounds off his survey by examining the Viking migrations that crowned the last few centuries of the first millennium AD. The basic argument for all of these developments is this: Migration is motivated by negative factors such as war and political turmoil but also by positive factors such as economic opportunity. People look toward wealthier economies for the promise of a better life. In the face of a strong polity like Rome before c. 400, a four-tier zone developed: (i) Rome proper, relative to others a highly developed, mature, wealthy economy; (ii) an inner periphery of barbarian polities intimately tied to Rome in trade and politics; (iii) an outer, less developed periphery; (iv) a zone with little or no direct contact with even the inner periphery much less Rome where the levels of technological, political and economic development remained at an Iron Age level (or less). A paradox of this development is that in pursuing its own economic interests, the more advanced culture sows the seeds of relative (if not absolute) decline. In the face of Roman aggression and manipulation, the barbarians on the Empire’s frontier developed more complex and richer economies and equally complex and more powerful political organizations. In 9, Arminius led a coalition of tribes that annihilated three Roman legions (c. 18,000 men) yet within a decade punitive campaigns had thoroughly pacified the frontier and at no time was the Rhine border or the provinces behind it seriously threatened. The situation was different 150 years later when Marcus Aurelius faced the well organized alliance of the Marcomanni in a devastating 10-year war. And the tipping point had been reached by 378 when Tervingi and Greuthungi Goths annihilated another Roman army at Adrianople. At that time, the frontier was fatally breached and the Empire was never able to completely regain its dominant position.
A similar paradigm governed all the migratory movements of the first millennium. There are differences in detail, of course. For example, in the case of the Anglo-Saxon conquest of Britain, elite replacement was a more influential factor than in the Gothic and Frankish conquests of Gaul. Historical accident plays a role and you can’t hitch your star to any single (or simplistic) explanation for outcomes. Migration played an enormous role in the development of Europe but that role diminished over the course of time as other developments came to the fore. By the end of the millennium, Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals was sufficiently advanced socially, economically and politically that subsequent migrations such as the Magyars and the Mongols were the assimilated rather than the assimilators.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this and highly recommend it to Roman and European history buffs. I do have several caveats, alas:
1. As mentioned in another review, Heather’s authorial tone is – at times – too folksy and colloquial. I’ve complained before in other reviews, and I’ll continue to do so, but this is not acceptable for a serious book of this nature. I’ll continue to read future works by Heather but I’ll hope (probably in vain) that the tone will be closer to his earlier books.
2. Typos: I’m a copy editor. I’m not obsessive about typos; I make enough of my own not to take too high a position on moral grounds; I’m willing to overlook one or two in a 700+ page work (though I shouldn’t). But in a professionally published, scholarly work such as this there were far, far too many to excuse. Some examples are inconsistent spellings, i.e., “Rurikid” vs. “Riurikid” or “Vojnomer” vs. “Voinomer,” and straight out (and easily avoided) misspellings, “itineration” vs. “itiration.”
3. And my crowning complaint: At many points in the narrative, Heather refers to photographs and there’s a “picture acknowledgements” page but nowhere is there a section of photographs. Nowhere! This is beyond inexcusable. That quality control failed so spectacularly in this print run of the book leaves me spluttering in indignation. I can’t convey how frustrated I feel…argh!
Maybe the paperback edition will correct these mistakes. If you’re interested in reading this book, I’d wait for it.
* Full Disclosure: I respect and admire Goffart and, in the face of his erudition, it’s hard for the dilettante historian such as myself to resist his arguments but I think Heather’s point about ignoring the role of migration is valid.
** Goffart is not as user-friendly for the general reader as Heather but any serious, even if amateur, student of the period needs to read his work (see my review of Barbarian Tides: The Migration Age and the Later Roman Empire here).
In his zeal to restore the good name of “mass migration,” Heather may himself stray into the pitfall of overemphasis but not too often and not too deep.
A reader hoping to understand or find out about the anti-migration argument will be disappointed but I’d refer you to Heather’s earlier book, The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians, or (better since it’s from a proponent) Goffart’s work.** That aside, Heather’s argument for restoring a balance in our perceptions of a nascent European culture is valid, and the evidence he martials for his case, impressive. And eye-opening. Heather has a particular facility in evoking the society of late Antiquity and making the reader see events through the eyes of the participants.
Heather begins the book by looking at the difference between the social and economic development of “Germania” from our first glimpse of it in Roman literature (primarily Cornelius Tacitus) to the Frankish hegemony of the 8th Century (including the Anglo-Saxon conquest of Celto-Roman Britain) (here the primary text is Ammianus Marcellinus). He then looks at the Slavicization of north and central Europe in the wake of the Germanic migration. And he rounds off his survey by examining the Viking migrations that crowned the last few centuries of the first millennium AD. The basic argument for all of these developments is this: Migration is motivated by negative factors such as war and political turmoil but also by positive factors such as economic opportunity. People look toward wealthier economies for the promise of a better life. In the face of a strong polity like Rome before c. 400, a four-tier zone developed: (i) Rome proper, relative to others a highly developed, mature, wealthy economy; (ii) an inner periphery of barbarian polities intimately tied to Rome in trade and politics; (iii) an outer, less developed periphery; (iv) a zone with little or no direct contact with even the inner periphery much less Rome where the levels of technological, political and economic development remained at an Iron Age level (or less). A paradox of this development is that in pursuing its own economic interests, the more advanced culture sows the seeds of relative (if not absolute) decline. In the face of Roman aggression and manipulation, the barbarians on the Empire’s frontier developed more complex and richer economies and equally complex and more powerful political organizations. In 9, Arminius led a coalition of tribes that annihilated three Roman legions (c. 18,000 men) yet within a decade punitive campaigns had thoroughly pacified the frontier and at no time was the Rhine border or the provinces behind it seriously threatened. The situation was different 150 years later when Marcus Aurelius faced the well organized alliance of the Marcomanni in a devastating 10-year war. And the tipping point had been reached by 378 when Tervingi and Greuthungi Goths annihilated another Roman army at Adrianople. At that time, the frontier was fatally breached and the Empire was never able to completely regain its dominant position.
A similar paradigm governed all the migratory movements of the first millennium. There are differences in detail, of course. For example, in the case of the Anglo-Saxon conquest of Britain, elite replacement was a more influential factor than in the Gothic and Frankish conquests of Gaul. Historical accident plays a role and you can’t hitch your star to any single (or simplistic) explanation for outcomes. Migration played an enormous role in the development of Europe but that role diminished over the course of time as other developments came to the fore. By the end of the millennium, Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals was sufficiently advanced socially, economically and politically that subsequent migrations such as the Magyars and the Mongols were the assimilated rather than the assimilators.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this and highly recommend it to Roman and European history buffs. I do have several caveats, alas:
1. As mentioned in another review, Heather’s authorial tone is – at times – too folksy and colloquial. I’ve complained before in other reviews, and I’ll continue to do so, but this is not acceptable for a serious book of this nature. I’ll continue to read future works by Heather but I’ll hope (probably in vain) that the tone will be closer to his earlier books.
2. Typos: I’m a copy editor. I’m not obsessive about typos; I make enough of my own not to take too high a position on moral grounds; I’m willing to overlook one or two in a 700+ page work (though I shouldn’t). But in a professionally published, scholarly work such as this there were far, far too many to excuse. Some examples are inconsistent spellings, i.e., “Rurikid” vs. “Riurikid” or “Vojnomer” vs. “Voinomer,” and straight out (and easily avoided) misspellings, “itineration” vs. “itiration.”
3. And my crowning complaint: At many points in the narrative, Heather refers to photographs and there’s a “picture acknowledgements” page but nowhere is there a section of photographs. Nowhere! This is beyond inexcusable. That quality control failed so spectacularly in this print run of the book leaves me spluttering in indignation. I can’t convey how frustrated I feel…argh!
Maybe the paperback edition will correct these mistakes. If you’re interested in reading this book, I’d wait for it.
* Full Disclosure: I respect and admire Goffart and, in the face of his erudition, it’s hard for the dilettante historian such as myself to resist his arguments but I think Heather’s point about ignoring the role of migration is valid.
** Goffart is not as user-friendly for the general reader as Heather but any serious, even if amateur, student of the period needs to read his work (see my review of Barbarian Tides: The Migration Age and the Later Roman Empire here).
July 27, 2017
Peter Heather's book on the period from the decline of the Western Roman empire to the end of the first millennium is both revolutionary and conservative in its outlook, largely because he pushes to restore, albeit with far finer resolution and detail, the migration to our ideas of the 'Dark Ages.' While other reviewers found his book repetitive, I found his brief reviews of both his complex theory and the available evidence to be refreshing and useful; by the latter part of the book, when I felt reasonably immersed in his evidence, I'd skip the synopsis. This is not a deeply academic book in the sense of being difficult, and is virtually jargon-free, a unique achievement in the field.
I write historical fiction for a living, and I read history every day. Books like this, and their extensive bibliographies of primary source evidence and archaeological evidence are the very bedrock of good history and historical fiction, at least to me. Thanks, Prof. Heather!
I write historical fiction for a living, and I read history every day. Books like this, and their extensive bibliographies of primary source evidence and archaeological evidence are the very bedrock of good history and historical fiction, at least to me. Thanks, Prof. Heather!
January 17, 2018
In “Empires and barbarians”, Peter Heather attempts to tackle two of the biggest questions in history of European continent. The first of those questions is how, in a course of millennia, Europe transformed from a territory equally divided between Roman empire and a multitude of Germanic tribes lacking any “national” structures into a socio-political construct of proto-national states which to a large degree remains unchanged into our own time. Simultaneously, he tries to figure out the answer to parallel and equally important question about what role, if any, did large scale migrations play in this metamorphosis.
After this short introduction to the purpose and content of this book, let me proceed with a short clarification of this review. When it comes to serious history works (and in my humble opinion, this volume falls most certainly into this category), I am of opinion that any meaningful discussion must be split into two distinct parts, pure literary assessment being the first one. While I am most definitely a history buff, I am not a historian. As such I require for my history books to be easily accessible and engaging. As much as I desire to learn from history books, I also read for the sake of enjoyment. The other part of my “reviews” of books such as this one consists of evaluation of actual factual content. After all, what’s the point of a history book, if it fails to learn you something new about actual history.
If we start off with the literary “review”, let me put it bluntly - this was one of the toughest reading experiences I’ve had in several years. Now, don’t get me wrong here, I am not saying that it’s a badly written book! On quite contrary, the literary skills of the author are beyond reproach. As a matter of fact, the main reason for why I started reading “Empires and barbarians”, besides the obvious fact that the topic is interesting to me, was my very pleasant experience with one of author’s previous works – “The Fall of the Roman Empire”. Writing style of that book was what I usually look for in a history book – an informed narrative presentation of events, complemented by author’s personal conclusions and observations.
The issue with “Empires and barbarians” is that being written with same skill is the one thing it has in common with "The Fall of the Roman Empire". In pretty much every other respect, it is a very different beast and the reason is pretty straightforward - those two books serve different purpose. Unlike “The Fall of the Roman Empire”, which is clearly intended for general public, “Empires and barbarians” is at its core a presentation of a serious academic thesis and a contribution to ongoing discussion in a very active academic field of study. Yes, it can be read by “general public”, but make no mistake - it is primarily directed, both stylistically and content-wise, toward other academicians. This is very important to realize, because the topic discussed in this book is always contentious and quite often volatile among historians and this book is a direct assault on beliefs held by some of them. As consequence, in what I assume is anticipation of inevitable scrutiny and criticism of peers, the content of this book exhibits painstaking meticulousness and attention to detail seldom encountered in popular history books.
As it turns out, for this “casual” reader who (as stated above) just wants to read a good story and learn something new, this approach didn’t transfer into a pleasant reading experience. Once again, I’m not saying that this is a bad book! On quite contrary, the author’s literary skills are very commendable and every once in a while, when the “plot” manages to get off the ground, this book and author’s theories are absolutely fascinating. However, author spends far too much time for my liking on reiterating same concepts and conclusions and their fortification by even more scientific evidence as it becomes chronologically relevant. This repetitious “hammering down” of individual arguments makes perfect sense in an academic discussion, but doesn’t do any favors to natural narrative flow of the story that is being told. As member of “general public” I had to really struggle through this volume for one simple reason - author’s meticulousness made parts of “Empires and barbarians” into boring read. As paradoxical as it may sound, this book is as close to serious academic report as I can tolerate in my history studies.
And having said that, let me now turn on a dime and say that content-wise, this book is a splendid piece of history literature. The consensus regarding the topic discussed in this book, is currently that that the migrations of first millennium weren’t as significant events in formative process of our continent as it was previously claimed. Indeed, if one is to believe author’s analysis of “current state of affairs”, the opinion prevalent in many academic circles goes to the extreme of complete dismissal of such migrations as fantasies of contemporary historians who were too ignorant to understand what was really going on. “Empires and barbarians” exposes such views for what they are – a folly having more in common with modern cultural and political baggage than with facts and existing evidence.
What Peter Heather does in this book is simply to begin from “square one” and analyze the events that took place during the first millennia, one “case” at the time. He starts with contemporary historical sources and then sees how what’s being told can be embossed with help of most recent archeological evidence, modern theories regarding group identities and migration patterns, etymology and whatever other scientific tools that can be used to fill out the gaps in our knowledge of these “dark ages”. This inter-disciplinary comparative study, mixed with a healthy dose of common sense, renders a series of coherent, inter-locking, parallel processes that starts with the collapse of Roman Empire and end with appearance of proto-states at the end of first millennia. I would not go as far as saying that this book provided us with definitive answer about what happened in Europe in first millennia after birth of Christ. But his model is far more complex, nuanced and plausible than the dogmatic theories currently dominating discussion about those events.
“Empires and barbarians” is not an easy book to absorb, but it is certainly thought-provoking. For me personally, it was a struggle to get through it. But on the other hand, I never considered giving up on it – once I started, I simply had to continue ‘til the end. Does this mean that it’s a “good book”? I’m not entirely sure that it does. But I am most certainly glad I persevered, because this book needs to be read by anyone with the interest in such varied topics as fall of Western Roman Empire, so called dark ages that followed, emergence of European states and indeed even today’s migration crisis.
After this short introduction to the purpose and content of this book, let me proceed with a short clarification of this review. When it comes to serious history works (and in my humble opinion, this volume falls most certainly into this category), I am of opinion that any meaningful discussion must be split into two distinct parts, pure literary assessment being the first one. While I am most definitely a history buff, I am not a historian. As such I require for my history books to be easily accessible and engaging. As much as I desire to learn from history books, I also read for the sake of enjoyment. The other part of my “reviews” of books such as this one consists of evaluation of actual factual content. After all, what’s the point of a history book, if it fails to learn you something new about actual history.
If we start off with the literary “review”, let me put it bluntly - this was one of the toughest reading experiences I’ve had in several years. Now, don’t get me wrong here, I am not saying that it’s a badly written book! On quite contrary, the literary skills of the author are beyond reproach. As a matter of fact, the main reason for why I started reading “Empires and barbarians”, besides the obvious fact that the topic is interesting to me, was my very pleasant experience with one of author’s previous works – “The Fall of the Roman Empire”. Writing style of that book was what I usually look for in a history book – an informed narrative presentation of events, complemented by author’s personal conclusions and observations.
The issue with “Empires and barbarians” is that being written with same skill is the one thing it has in common with "The Fall of the Roman Empire". In pretty much every other respect, it is a very different beast and the reason is pretty straightforward - those two books serve different purpose. Unlike “The Fall of the Roman Empire”, which is clearly intended for general public, “Empires and barbarians” is at its core a presentation of a serious academic thesis and a contribution to ongoing discussion in a very active academic field of study. Yes, it can be read by “general public”, but make no mistake - it is primarily directed, both stylistically and content-wise, toward other academicians. This is very important to realize, because the topic discussed in this book is always contentious and quite often volatile among historians and this book is a direct assault on beliefs held by some of them. As consequence, in what I assume is anticipation of inevitable scrutiny and criticism of peers, the content of this book exhibits painstaking meticulousness and attention to detail seldom encountered in popular history books.
As it turns out, for this “casual” reader who (as stated above) just wants to read a good story and learn something new, this approach didn’t transfer into a pleasant reading experience. Once again, I’m not saying that this is a bad book! On quite contrary, the author’s literary skills are very commendable and every once in a while, when the “plot” manages to get off the ground, this book and author’s theories are absolutely fascinating. However, author spends far too much time for my liking on reiterating same concepts and conclusions and their fortification by even more scientific evidence as it becomes chronologically relevant. This repetitious “hammering down” of individual arguments makes perfect sense in an academic discussion, but doesn’t do any favors to natural narrative flow of the story that is being told. As member of “general public” I had to really struggle through this volume for one simple reason - author’s meticulousness made parts of “Empires and barbarians” into boring read. As paradoxical as it may sound, this book is as close to serious academic report as I can tolerate in my history studies.
And having said that, let me now turn on a dime and say that content-wise, this book is a splendid piece of history literature. The consensus regarding the topic discussed in this book, is currently that that the migrations of first millennium weren’t as significant events in formative process of our continent as it was previously claimed. Indeed, if one is to believe author’s analysis of “current state of affairs”, the opinion prevalent in many academic circles goes to the extreme of complete dismissal of such migrations as fantasies of contemporary historians who were too ignorant to understand what was really going on. “Empires and barbarians” exposes such views for what they are – a folly having more in common with modern cultural and political baggage than with facts and existing evidence.
What Peter Heather does in this book is simply to begin from “square one” and analyze the events that took place during the first millennia, one “case” at the time. He starts with contemporary historical sources and then sees how what’s being told can be embossed with help of most recent archeological evidence, modern theories regarding group identities and migration patterns, etymology and whatever other scientific tools that can be used to fill out the gaps in our knowledge of these “dark ages”. This inter-disciplinary comparative study, mixed with a healthy dose of common sense, renders a series of coherent, inter-locking, parallel processes that starts with the collapse of Roman Empire and end with appearance of proto-states at the end of first millennia. I would not go as far as saying that this book provided us with definitive answer about what happened in Europe in first millennia after birth of Christ. But his model is far more complex, nuanced and plausible than the dogmatic theories currently dominating discussion about those events.
“Empires and barbarians” is not an easy book to absorb, but it is certainly thought-provoking. For me personally, it was a struggle to get through it. But on the other hand, I never considered giving up on it – once I started, I simply had to continue ‘til the end. Does this mean that it’s a “good book”? I’m not entirely sure that it does. But I am most certainly glad I persevered, because this book needs to be read by anyone with the interest in such varied topics as fall of Western Roman Empire, so called dark ages that followed, emergence of European states and indeed even today’s migration crisis.
January 23, 2020
Peter Heather's "Empires and Barbarians: Migration, Development and the Birth of Europe" is a history of barbarian Europe and of its peoples, from the first to the tenth century, with a focus on its interactions with the neighbouring imperial powers and the processes of development and migration that in that range of time transformed the physical and human landscape and brought the lands east and north of the Rhine and Danube rivers, up to Scandinavia and the plains of Russia, to an almost complete cultural, economic and social integration with the western and Mediterranean lands, giving birth to modern Europe.
Traditional pre-second world war historiography saw this age as the age of mass migration of unified, homogeneous, self-reproducing population groupings, precursors to the later European states, completely evacuating their areas of provenance and taking over and totally replacing the inhabitants of the lands where they settled. In reaction to the scientific overreach and the potential for nationalistic abuses of these "invasion theories," post-war historiography and archaeology highlighted instead the plasticity of group identities and the ad-hoc nature and openness of these groups, up to the extreme of denying that coherent barbarian populations ever existed or that mass migration ever occurred, discounting any contemporary historical source that suggested the opposite, and emphasising smaller-scale movements and local explanations for cultural changes.
Heather instead describes how the expansion of the highly developed Roman Empire brought it into contact with the less advanced Germanic populations who inhabited Central Europe and started a process that created zones of differential development (the inner frontier, the outer frontier, the periphery), stimulating the transformation of the then simple material culture and social organisation of the Germani and encouraging the formation in the inner frontier of more centralised and militarised entities, better able to withstand both the outward imperial pressure and the inward pressure of more peripheral Germanic groups. The big shocks of the Hunnic arrival and of the later formation and collapse of Attila's empire accelerated these processes and pushed over the frontier even larger groups, finally able to overcome whole Roman armies and to take over entire regions of the former Roman Empire.
Analysing the sources and the archaeological evidence and employing the tools of modern migration studies, Heather identifies numerous positive and negative factors that encouraged migration and contends that while the old invasion model is certainly simplistic and wrong, what happened in the fifth and sixth century encompassed the full spectrum of possibilities, from partial elite replacement, to complete elite replacement accompanied in some cases by language change, to repeated migrations covering thousands of kilometres of entire populations inclusive of women and children. He goes on to identify similar patterns in the second half of the millenium, first in the expansion of the Slavic peoples after the Germanic collapse, then in the Viking diaspora, and finally in the formation of the new Slavic states, with the Avar empire playing a role similar to the Huns, and the Frankish and Saxon Holy Roman empires replacing the old Roman empire.
The end of the book finds then a continent that would have been unrecognisable to anyone living in the first century, with centres of power that had moved from the Mediterranean to Northern Europe, less unequal levels of development and a recognisable continental shared culture.
This was a very interesting book, and I found myself agreeing with most of Heather’s conclusions, especially because in the years since publication the case for migration has also been made, almost definitely in my view, by ancient DNA studies. Even if you don’t completely agree with it, the book remains full of information and gives a quick but comprehensive treatment of events, like development in first half of the millennium Germany, migration in eastern Poland and the Pontic region, or the Slavic expansion, that are usually overlooked by histories more focused on the Roman Empire and its successor states. My only major criticism is that, especially in the first half, it felt a little too often that arguments and examples already made in previous chapters were repeated without adding anything significant in the new context, and that the chapters could have been made more compact. All in all though this is a book I’d recommend to anyone with an interest in this period of history.
Traditional pre-second world war historiography saw this age as the age of mass migration of unified, homogeneous, self-reproducing population groupings, precursors to the later European states, completely evacuating their areas of provenance and taking over and totally replacing the inhabitants of the lands where they settled. In reaction to the scientific overreach and the potential for nationalistic abuses of these "invasion theories," post-war historiography and archaeology highlighted instead the plasticity of group identities and the ad-hoc nature and openness of these groups, up to the extreme of denying that coherent barbarian populations ever existed or that mass migration ever occurred, discounting any contemporary historical source that suggested the opposite, and emphasising smaller-scale movements and local explanations for cultural changes.
Heather instead describes how the expansion of the highly developed Roman Empire brought it into contact with the less advanced Germanic populations who inhabited Central Europe and started a process that created zones of differential development (the inner frontier, the outer frontier, the periphery), stimulating the transformation of the then simple material culture and social organisation of the Germani and encouraging the formation in the inner frontier of more centralised and militarised entities, better able to withstand both the outward imperial pressure and the inward pressure of more peripheral Germanic groups. The big shocks of the Hunnic arrival and of the later formation and collapse of Attila's empire accelerated these processes and pushed over the frontier even larger groups, finally able to overcome whole Roman armies and to take over entire regions of the former Roman Empire.
Analysing the sources and the archaeological evidence and employing the tools of modern migration studies, Heather identifies numerous positive and negative factors that encouraged migration and contends that while the old invasion model is certainly simplistic and wrong, what happened in the fifth and sixth century encompassed the full spectrum of possibilities, from partial elite replacement, to complete elite replacement accompanied in some cases by language change, to repeated migrations covering thousands of kilometres of entire populations inclusive of women and children. He goes on to identify similar patterns in the second half of the millenium, first in the expansion of the Slavic peoples after the Germanic collapse, then in the Viking diaspora, and finally in the formation of the new Slavic states, with the Avar empire playing a role similar to the Huns, and the Frankish and Saxon Holy Roman empires replacing the old Roman empire.
The end of the book finds then a continent that would have been unrecognisable to anyone living in the first century, with centres of power that had moved from the Mediterranean to Northern Europe, less unequal levels of development and a recognisable continental shared culture.
This was a very interesting book, and I found myself agreeing with most of Heather’s conclusions, especially because in the years since publication the case for migration has also been made, almost definitely in my view, by ancient DNA studies. Even if you don’t completely agree with it, the book remains full of information and gives a quick but comprehensive treatment of events, like development in first half of the millennium Germany, migration in eastern Poland and the Pontic region, or the Slavic expansion, that are usually overlooked by histories more focused on the Roman Empire and its successor states. My only major criticism is that, especially in the first half, it felt a little too often that arguments and examples already made in previous chapters were repeated without adding anything significant in the new context, and that the chapters could have been made more compact. All in all though this is a book I’d recommend to anyone with an interest in this period of history.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 3, 2018
Too much academic for my taste. Deals more with research and explaining how archeology is important than actual events. As a study for an academic student it's perfect. Not so much for the general public if you wish to learn more about the actual events during the Great Migration.
March 22, 2019
A thorough, educational and thought-provoking — if massive and occasionally overwhelming work about the "barbarian invasions" that wracked Europe for more than a half century, coinciding with the fall of Roman hegemony in the West, the rise of successor kingdoms, and then those kingdoms' own struggles against future waves of barbarian invaders. Heather's book is one part history and one part disputation, weighing with voluminous evidence into an academic debate that has fiercely divided the field of Late Antique and Early Medieval studies: is the standard story of barbarian invasions causing the fall of Rome actually true at all?
The revisionist theory holds that the conventional tale of hordes of barbarians moving, families in tow, across vast expanses of Eurasia and leaving the Roman Empire shattered in its wake has little basis in reality. Populations remained relatively constant, with only small numbers of new people moving, and changes in material culture observed in archaeology reflecting cultural change rather than the replacement of one people by another. This argument has the virtue of having been true in at least some times and places, the best-documented of which is the Norman invasion of England in 1066: William the Conquerer's army was relatively small, and simply replaced the old Anglo-Saxon aristocracy with new Norman aristocracy. Life then continued as normal, with a French-speaking elite and Anglo-Saxon-speaking peasantry gradually, over the centuries, developing a common culture.
Heather's book, in documenting the history of the so-called "barbarian invasions," is responding to this thesis, which he says has attained the status of orthodoxy in some parts of the field. He readily acknowledges some of the revisionist points, and critiques the traditionalist view of "nations on the march" for going too far and being too subjugated to 19th Century political concerns. But Heather is convinced that barbarian migration actually does and did happen, and draws on a wide array of historical accounts, archaeological evidence, studies of modern migrations and more to try to convince you, the reader, too.
At the root of Heather's case are arguments based on agricultural economics: complex societies with division of labor and a dedicated warrior caste require an agricultural surplus to support non-farming citizens. In one fascinating aside, he notes that the Germania area that Rome's borders never subsumed had notoriously thick and unproductive soil in antiquity, making it incapable of supporting a large society. Rome never conquered Germania not because it didn't want to, but because by the standards that mattered, Germania couldn't produce enough to justify conquering it. This drawback was only gradually solved as agricultural technology advanced (in particular better plows that could turn the soil), which enabled the area to support larger populations — to the detriment of the Roman frontier.
Using both contemporary observations and archaeological finds (midden-heaps and graves from certain places and times are laden with ornate luxury goods and tools, while others are spare), Heather meticulous documents where we can conclude that migrations happened, where the evidence is sketchier, and where we can be pretty sure that a supposed "invasion" was only a relatively small number of people. This being ancient history, he's forced to fall back on the old "we must suppose" standby more often than a history fan might like, but there's really no way around it and Heather never oversells his evidence. You'll come away better informed about both the facts and the historiographic arguments concerning the surprisingly relevant question of Rome's fall (if you can soldier through more than 600 occasionally dense pages).
The revisionist theory holds that the conventional tale of hordes of barbarians moving, families in tow, across vast expanses of Eurasia and leaving the Roman Empire shattered in its wake has little basis in reality. Populations remained relatively constant, with only small numbers of new people moving, and changes in material culture observed in archaeology reflecting cultural change rather than the replacement of one people by another. This argument has the virtue of having been true in at least some times and places, the best-documented of which is the Norman invasion of England in 1066: William the Conquerer's army was relatively small, and simply replaced the old Anglo-Saxon aristocracy with new Norman aristocracy. Life then continued as normal, with a French-speaking elite and Anglo-Saxon-speaking peasantry gradually, over the centuries, developing a common culture.
Heather's book, in documenting the history of the so-called "barbarian invasions," is responding to this thesis, which he says has attained the status of orthodoxy in some parts of the field. He readily acknowledges some of the revisionist points, and critiques the traditionalist view of "nations on the march" for going too far and being too subjugated to 19th Century political concerns. But Heather is convinced that barbarian migration actually does and did happen, and draws on a wide array of historical accounts, archaeological evidence, studies of modern migrations and more to try to convince you, the reader, too.
At the root of Heather's case are arguments based on agricultural economics: complex societies with division of labor and a dedicated warrior caste require an agricultural surplus to support non-farming citizens. In one fascinating aside, he notes that the Germania area that Rome's borders never subsumed had notoriously thick and unproductive soil in antiquity, making it incapable of supporting a large society. Rome never conquered Germania not because it didn't want to, but because by the standards that mattered, Germania couldn't produce enough to justify conquering it. This drawback was only gradually solved as agricultural technology advanced (in particular better plows that could turn the soil), which enabled the area to support larger populations — to the detriment of the Roman frontier.
Using both contemporary observations and archaeological finds (midden-heaps and graves from certain places and times are laden with ornate luxury goods and tools, while others are spare), Heather meticulous documents where we can conclude that migrations happened, where the evidence is sketchier, and where we can be pretty sure that a supposed "invasion" was only a relatively small number of people. This being ancient history, he's forced to fall back on the old "we must suppose" standby more often than a history fan might like, but there's really no way around it and Heather never oversells his evidence. You'll come away better informed about both the facts and the historiographic arguments concerning the surprisingly relevant question of Rome's fall (if you can soldier through more than 600 occasionally dense pages).
October 28, 2015
I picked up Peter Heather's 2009 book simply because it was cheap on Kindle at one point. I'm now thinking I want to get a proper hard copy book. This is mostly a measure of how much I liked the book, but there are a number of good maps that I'd like a better look at too.
The primary purpose of this book is to re-examine Europe from the Roman to Dark/Early Middle Ages, and argue against the cultural continuity/no migration stance that has gained popularity from the 70s onward. The main new thing brought to the analysis is concepts from modern migration studies (it was highly appropriate that I started this book about the time the Syrian migration crisis started hitting the headlines). These have identified a lot of trends in how and why migration happens, and Heather then applies those concepts to Roman narratives and archaeological evidence.
Starting around 1 AD, he notes that the areas the Romans conquered were relatively prosperous and well developed; Roman expansion in Europe pretty much petered out when it reached (largely Germanic-speaking) areas that were less well developed with less intensive agricultural patterns. In fact, agriculture still relied on picking up and moving every couple of generations as the land was exhausted. Heather points out that migration studies show that people who have migrated once are likely to do it again, and that the next couple generations retain the habit. So, if there's an entire cultural system that has to pack up and move every so often, it's likely that migration will be a major answer to any new problems that come up.
One of major motivators of migration is economic disparity. More prosperous areas draw people from less prosperous areas. Not only was the Roman Empire the most developed part of Europe, but the Empire spent a fair amount of money and effort in promoting power structures on the frontier, and occasionally breaking them apart when they got too big. Heather shows that the fall of the Western Empire started when this system failed (and argues that this had to happen at some point, but the actual event was earlier than it had to be). Rome's wars in the east drew off troops, and allowed the short-lived Hunnic Empire to form in central Europe, causing all sorts of groups to migrate to get out of the way, and then it came apart, causing all sorts of groups to migrate away from the resulting chaos.
After tracking how the late fourth and fifth centuries play out, Heather continues with the evolution of central and eastern Europe through the year 1000. This involves the Avar Empire, the spread of Slavic speakers through much of Eastern Europe, the Viking era of Scandinavian migration, and briefly the Magyars, and why they didn't set off any noticeable migrations.
So, it is a study of the fall of the Roman Empire, from outside of the Empire, and a study of the demographic changes that happened across most of Europe over a thousand years. I think it does a lot to correct current scholarly wisdom (which, itself, was a much-needed correction), and I found it very informative and well argued.
The primary purpose of this book is to re-examine Europe from the Roman to Dark/Early Middle Ages, and argue against the cultural continuity/no migration stance that has gained popularity from the 70s onward. The main new thing brought to the analysis is concepts from modern migration studies (it was highly appropriate that I started this book about the time the Syrian migration crisis started hitting the headlines). These have identified a lot of trends in how and why migration happens, and Heather then applies those concepts to Roman narratives and archaeological evidence.
Starting around 1 AD, he notes that the areas the Romans conquered were relatively prosperous and well developed; Roman expansion in Europe pretty much petered out when it reached (largely Germanic-speaking) areas that were less well developed with less intensive agricultural patterns. In fact, agriculture still relied on picking up and moving every couple of generations as the land was exhausted. Heather points out that migration studies show that people who have migrated once are likely to do it again, and that the next couple generations retain the habit. So, if there's an entire cultural system that has to pack up and move every so often, it's likely that migration will be a major answer to any new problems that come up.
One of major motivators of migration is economic disparity. More prosperous areas draw people from less prosperous areas. Not only was the Roman Empire the most developed part of Europe, but the Empire spent a fair amount of money and effort in promoting power structures on the frontier, and occasionally breaking them apart when they got too big. Heather shows that the fall of the Western Empire started when this system failed (and argues that this had to happen at some point, but the actual event was earlier than it had to be). Rome's wars in the east drew off troops, and allowed the short-lived Hunnic Empire to form in central Europe, causing all sorts of groups to migrate to get out of the way, and then it came apart, causing all sorts of groups to migrate away from the resulting chaos.
After tracking how the late fourth and fifth centuries play out, Heather continues with the evolution of central and eastern Europe through the year 1000. This involves the Avar Empire, the spread of Slavic speakers through much of Eastern Europe, the Viking era of Scandinavian migration, and briefly the Magyars, and why they didn't set off any noticeable migrations.
So, it is a study of the fall of the Roman Empire, from outside of the Empire, and a study of the demographic changes that happened across most of Europe over a thousand years. I think it does a lot to correct current scholarly wisdom (which, itself, was a much-needed correction), and I found it very informative and well argued.
August 2, 2019
The period between Late Antiquity and the High Middle Ages has always been one where there has been a wide degree of controversy because of the various political questions that result from the dramatic changes of that time. How violent was the transition between Roman rule of Western Europe to the rule of various barbarian tribes? What was the influence of Christianity on European peoples, whether they were fast or slow in adopting it, as well as on the various pagan faiths that were neighbors of Hellenistic Christian states? What sort of authority systems did the various regimes of the early Middle Ages have, and to what extent were these what we would consider legitimate? Why was it that the Roman empire stopped where it did, or why was it that the Slavs became known to history in such a dramatic way in territory that had previously been Germanic? How large were the armies of the early middle ages? This book tackles all of these questions with a mixture of a sound and generally positive approach to the historiography of the period as well as a close eye towards archaeological findings, and is certainly a very worthwhile book if you want to read about the Europe in the early Middle Ages from 300-1000AD or so.
This book is a somewhat large tome, taking only 11 chapters to cover 600 pages and roughly 700 years of history in Western Europe. Admittedly, this is not a book of political history although it does deal with questions of the legitimacy and power projection of various regimes during the course of its study. After a preface and a prologue the author provides a chapter that looks at migrants and barbarians, examining what it was that drew the barbarians towards the Roman empire and how proximity to the empire encouraged a consolidation process that would allow the barbarian regimes to have more options in dealing with the Roman empire whose wealth they coveted (1). After that the author discusses globalization and its effects on the various Germanic tribes based on what we can see of trade routes (2) as well as a discussion of whether all roads led to Rome during the period of late antiquity (3) in Western Europe. The author writes about the fourth and fifth century crises of the Roman Empire as it was crumbling with a discussion of migration and border collapse (4) and then examines the Huns and their migrations as well as their collapse after the death of Attila (5). After that the author discusses the case of the Anglo-Saxons and Franks as a migration or elite transfer (6) as well as the New Europe that was developed in the aftermath of Rome's fall (7). The author spends a great deal of time looking at the rise of the Slavs (8) as well as the Viking diasporas that took place towards the end of the first millennium AD (9). Finally, the author closes with a discussion of the first European Union of Christendom (10) and the end of migration with the rise of fixed castles and the birth of what we view as Europe (11), after which there are maps, notes, primary sources, a bibliography, and an index.
While this is a deeply interesting book, it seems at times that the author does not realize that the subject is of interest to a mass audience. This particular volume qualifies as one of those books that I happen to deeply enjoy but which I think may go over the head of many readers, as this author not only discusses the findings of castles defending the core regions of states like like Bohemia, Great Moravia, Piast Poland, and the Grand Duchy of Kiev, and even Denmark, but also engages in debates over migration and elite transfer and the failures of Marxism to account for the cultural development of the Slavs and for their expansion during the collapse of the Avar confederation. The history is compelling, even where textual sources are thin on the ground, but the author has aims that are both about legitimizing the proper understanding of migration to European history during the period as well as writing about what happened from a point of view that focuses a great deal of attention on the strength that various polities were able to present in their struggle with various rivals and enemies. The material is worth reading, but is not going to be an easy read for most who would attempt it.
This book is a somewhat large tome, taking only 11 chapters to cover 600 pages and roughly 700 years of history in Western Europe. Admittedly, this is not a book of political history although it does deal with questions of the legitimacy and power projection of various regimes during the course of its study. After a preface and a prologue the author provides a chapter that looks at migrants and barbarians, examining what it was that drew the barbarians towards the Roman empire and how proximity to the empire encouraged a consolidation process that would allow the barbarian regimes to have more options in dealing with the Roman empire whose wealth they coveted (1). After that the author discusses globalization and its effects on the various Germanic tribes based on what we can see of trade routes (2) as well as a discussion of whether all roads led to Rome during the period of late antiquity (3) in Western Europe. The author writes about the fourth and fifth century crises of the Roman Empire as it was crumbling with a discussion of migration and border collapse (4) and then examines the Huns and their migrations as well as their collapse after the death of Attila (5). After that the author discusses the case of the Anglo-Saxons and Franks as a migration or elite transfer (6) as well as the New Europe that was developed in the aftermath of Rome's fall (7). The author spends a great deal of time looking at the rise of the Slavs (8) as well as the Viking diasporas that took place towards the end of the first millennium AD (9). Finally, the author closes with a discussion of the first European Union of Christendom (10) and the end of migration with the rise of fixed castles and the birth of what we view as Europe (11), after which there are maps, notes, primary sources, a bibliography, and an index.
While this is a deeply interesting book, it seems at times that the author does not realize that the subject is of interest to a mass audience. This particular volume qualifies as one of those books that I happen to deeply enjoy but which I think may go over the head of many readers, as this author not only discusses the findings of castles defending the core regions of states like like Bohemia, Great Moravia, Piast Poland, and the Grand Duchy of Kiev, and even Denmark, but also engages in debates over migration and elite transfer and the failures of Marxism to account for the cultural development of the Slavs and for their expansion during the collapse of the Avar confederation. The history is compelling, even where textual sources are thin on the ground, but the author has aims that are both about legitimizing the proper understanding of migration to European history during the period as well as writing about what happened from a point of view that focuses a great deal of attention on the strength that various polities were able to present in their struggle with various rivals and enemies. The material is worth reading, but is not going to be an easy read for most who would attempt it.
September 24, 2017
This is a really long book that I read in 10-15 page snippets over a few months, so a lot is mighty hazy to me right now.
There is a lot of good info in it, and it has an interesting argument. It's main focus is on the role of migration in European history in the first millennium AD. Heather notes that scholars once at migration as playing a key factor in the fall of Rome, with singular tribal/ethnic units entering into the Empire. That was discredited after WWII with Hitler's Aryan beliefs discrediting much of that foundation. Groups weren't singular. Ethnic groups were malleable and flexible and shouldn't be read back as a specific, distinct entity for all eternity. With those changes, migration fell from favor. Scholars instead focused on the flexibility of identity and ethnicity as a social construct - and really minimized the role of migration.
Heather argues for a revised view of migration's importance. Oh, a lot of the critique is correct, he agrees. Units aren't singular and eternal. The old school oversimplified. But the new school oversimplifies, too, he contends. (Identity isn't just a social construct - or who'd ever volunteer to be identified as a slave or underling)? And there is enough movement to provide evidence for migration.
So what happened and why? Heather tries to look at modern migration, most notably the South African Voortrek by Boers in the 1830s - as a reason to understand what happened then. Leaders of bands had followers if he could provide for them, and if he could he'd get more followers. That led to migration being more of a group dynamic than it often is in the 21st century. Some warriors may lead with raids, but then others come. Economic disparity plays a role as people go to places with more wealth. Outside factors - like the appearance of the Huns - also play a role in making people want to leave. Oh, and factors like knowledge play a role. You go to places you know something about.
Heather goes through all sorts of migrations one at a time like this - the late Roman migrations, post-Roman ones, the Vikings, the rise of Serbs, and finally the Magyars. He notes the Huns caused all sorts of secondary migration effects as groups scattered away, but when the Magyars came, everyone stayed. Heather says this is a sign of how Europe had changed. There was more wealth in the North now, with better plows, and trade routes (about slaves and furs) to the Muslims, and to the Byzantines, and to Rome's successor states. That wealth helped lead to state formation and a fixed sense of rootedness. So that's why they didn't leave when the Magyars came. And since then, people have largely stayed in place as groups.
The book is interesting, but it's a little too long and sprawling. A lot of the early chapters in particular just replicate points he'd previously made in his book on the fall of the Roman Empire. But in general it's a very fine effort.
There is a lot of good info in it, and it has an interesting argument. It's main focus is on the role of migration in European history in the first millennium AD. Heather notes that scholars once at migration as playing a key factor in the fall of Rome, with singular tribal/ethnic units entering into the Empire. That was discredited after WWII with Hitler's Aryan beliefs discrediting much of that foundation. Groups weren't singular. Ethnic groups were malleable and flexible and shouldn't be read back as a specific, distinct entity for all eternity. With those changes, migration fell from favor. Scholars instead focused on the flexibility of identity and ethnicity as a social construct - and really minimized the role of migration.
Heather argues for a revised view of migration's importance. Oh, a lot of the critique is correct, he agrees. Units aren't singular and eternal. The old school oversimplified. But the new school oversimplifies, too, he contends. (Identity isn't just a social construct - or who'd ever volunteer to be identified as a slave or underling)? And there is enough movement to provide evidence for migration.
So what happened and why? Heather tries to look at modern migration, most notably the South African Voortrek by Boers in the 1830s - as a reason to understand what happened then. Leaders of bands had followers if he could provide for them, and if he could he'd get more followers. That led to migration being more of a group dynamic than it often is in the 21st century. Some warriors may lead with raids, but then others come. Economic disparity plays a role as people go to places with more wealth. Outside factors - like the appearance of the Huns - also play a role in making people want to leave. Oh, and factors like knowledge play a role. You go to places you know something about.
Heather goes through all sorts of migrations one at a time like this - the late Roman migrations, post-Roman ones, the Vikings, the rise of Serbs, and finally the Magyars. He notes the Huns caused all sorts of secondary migration effects as groups scattered away, but when the Magyars came, everyone stayed. Heather says this is a sign of how Europe had changed. There was more wealth in the North now, with better plows, and trade routes (about slaves and furs) to the Muslims, and to the Byzantines, and to Rome's successor states. That wealth helped lead to state formation and a fixed sense of rootedness. So that's why they didn't leave when the Magyars came. And since then, people have largely stayed in place as groups.
The book is interesting, but it's a little too long and sprawling. A lot of the early chapters in particular just replicate points he'd previously made in his book on the fall of the Roman Empire. But in general it's a very fine effort.
June 6, 2014
The author believes that even without invading Huns, the Roman Empire’s borders would have become more diffuse and eventually collapsed merely by the process of civilizing the peoples on its borders and bridging the gap in technological development. By the end of the 1st Century AD the Romans were mostly maintaining an area they had already won and which was profitable. The barbarians on the periphery of empire will naturally be aware of the empire’s prosperity and migrate towards it, although it is a strategy that is more readily adopted by populations that are already mobile. Migrating on an individual basis was rarely a successful endeavor when attempting to access the wealth of a greater nation such as the Roman Empire. Germanic agricultural communities were accustomed to moving on when they couldn’t maintain productive farming.
The author also writes extensively about the waves of migration to the British Isles, which overlaps with Norse migration there and as far as Greenland to the west and the Caspian Sea to the southeast. He contrasts the elite replacement which occurred with Anglo-Saxon migration versus the small settlements of the Vikings, which often included women. In fact, one third of Icelandic female DNA derives from Norwegian ancestry because Vikings were much more likely to take women with them as they explored further from their homelands, whereas Saxon men had tended to migrate alone.
I also learned about the Slavic people who expanded faster than their Germanic counterparts due to the benefits of regular contact with the prosperous Islamic world, an easily navigable set of rivers, and an abundance of rich, flat farmland. By the end of the first millennium, the ethnic map of Europe roughly resembles that of today. One of the reasons that mass migrations eventually ceased had to do with agriculture developing to a point where generation after generation found it unnecessary to move, and over time became more reticent to take on such endeavors as mass migration.
The author also writes extensively about the waves of migration to the British Isles, which overlaps with Norse migration there and as far as Greenland to the west and the Caspian Sea to the southeast. He contrasts the elite replacement which occurred with Anglo-Saxon migration versus the small settlements of the Vikings, which often included women. In fact, one third of Icelandic female DNA derives from Norwegian ancestry because Vikings were much more likely to take women with them as they explored further from their homelands, whereas Saxon men had tended to migrate alone.
I also learned about the Slavic people who expanded faster than their Germanic counterparts due to the benefits of regular contact with the prosperous Islamic world, an easily navigable set of rivers, and an abundance of rich, flat farmland. By the end of the first millennium, the ethnic map of Europe roughly resembles that of today. One of the reasons that mass migrations eventually ceased had to do with agriculture developing to a point where generation after generation found it unnecessary to move, and over time became more reticent to take on such endeavors as mass migration.
January 21, 2013
NOTA BENE: The introduction of my edition of this book gets its own title wrong, calling itself, "Emperors and Barbarians." That made me roar with laughter because here's this absolutely fabulous book and some lazybones in the Macmillan offices couldn't be bothered to copyedit it with care.
Just finished it and although I'd like to say I enjoyed it as much as Heather's "The Fall of the Roman Empire," I can't say that without a caveat: this was denser and more academic in tone. One had the feeling at times that Heather's secret target audience was composed of other academics whose theories he swipes casually or rebuts in brief as if the rest of us won't really care or notice the little spats going on behind the rostrum. Like opera divas fighting in the wings and barely visible before they come on stage.
Another quirk was that overall the style was ponderous, much heavier and information rich than the very readable "The Fall." So he tries to lighten the tone with the kind of anachronistic modern joke that would go down very well in a university lecture hall but jars a little when plonked in the middle of a long discourse.
What I hadn't expected was the very generous time given to Slavic immigration and the Scandinavian diaspora. Somehow this book might have been packaged a little more clearly. Because the definition of "empires" starts to wobble as we move past the fifth century. Also the summaries of types of emigration, e.g. elite transfer, mass migration, etc. could have used a chart, graph or something to wrap it up visually across the board.
Occasionally I felt there was another entire book lurking backstage; "Post-Soviet Late Antiquity Historiography Revised" dealing with the newest rethinks of Polish, German, Russian, Scandinavian interactions, now that the Happy Soviet Family agenda has been discarded.
Anyway, a masterpiece, Mr. Heather.
Just finished it and although I'd like to say I enjoyed it as much as Heather's "The Fall of the Roman Empire," I can't say that without a caveat: this was denser and more academic in tone. One had the feeling at times that Heather's secret target audience was composed of other academics whose theories he swipes casually or rebuts in brief as if the rest of us won't really care or notice the little spats going on behind the rostrum. Like opera divas fighting in the wings and barely visible before they come on stage.
Another quirk was that overall the style was ponderous, much heavier and information rich than the very readable "The Fall." So he tries to lighten the tone with the kind of anachronistic modern joke that would go down very well in a university lecture hall but jars a little when plonked in the middle of a long discourse.
What I hadn't expected was the very generous time given to Slavic immigration and the Scandinavian diaspora. Somehow this book might have been packaged a little more clearly. Because the definition of "empires" starts to wobble as we move past the fifth century. Also the summaries of types of emigration, e.g. elite transfer, mass migration, etc. could have used a chart, graph or something to wrap it up visually across the board.
Occasionally I felt there was another entire book lurking backstage; "Post-Soviet Late Antiquity Historiography Revised" dealing with the newest rethinks of Polish, German, Russian, Scandinavian interactions, now that the Happy Soviet Family agenda has been discarded.
Anyway, a masterpiece, Mr. Heather.
April 19, 2010
Combining a fluency in archeology, sociology, linguistics, history, and economics with a command of data that can only be described as breathtaking, Peter Heather had produced a work of astonishing depth and erudition with Empires and Barbarians: The Fall of Rome and the Birth of Europe. He tackles an audacious question: what dynamics led to the formation and distribution of peoples that gave rise to post-Roman Europe. ||Heather brings together an extraordinary array of data: distributions of Roman coins and grave goods, linguistic evolution, shifts in social stratification and customs, all combined with a close reading of ancient texts in order to demolish the image of waves of ethnically homogeneous hordes invading Europe. Much to his credit, he does not seek to replace this explanation with another all encompassing hypothesis, but presents the evolution of Europe in terms of the interplay of several discreet dynamic forces. Some groups did indeed migrate with identities intact, while others formed over time. In order to better explain these distant events, he offers a range of more familiar historical analogies, from the elite transfer of the Norman invasion to the mass flight that followed the Rwandan genocide.
This is not a volume for the casual reader. Dense prose and data demand close attention. A better than passing familiarity with late Roman history is also extremely useful. Still, Heather does all he can to assist, from an assortment of excellent maps to a surprisingly wry sense of humor. For the serious student of history, Empire and Barbarians will prove an illuminating essential read.
This is not a volume for the casual reader. Dense prose and data demand close attention. A better than passing familiarity with late Roman history is also extremely useful. Still, Heather does all he can to assist, from an assortment of excellent maps to a surprisingly wry sense of humor. For the serious student of history, Empire and Barbarians will prove an illuminating essential read.
July 13, 2019
The premise of this book is "Nazis were bad, therefore our view of history must be wrong, lets reevaluate". In a nutshell author is trying to look at the medieval invasions and downplay the national factor (did not matter in 4th century), size of people involved (mostly elites), bloodiness (some were relatively peaceful). Fine, every invasion/migration was unique if you look closely and had economic reasons. I dont think anyone was arguing the opposite.
As for the book. It is very bad as a history book. Author jumps from century to century and back, comparing things that were not yet discussed in the book fully, skipping important events, repeating himself.
Book does not have chronological structure or any other structure, it is a mess.
The reader will spend more time digging graves than learning about historical events, the focus is archaeology.
Author is adding more confusion when he mentions many contradicting theories and disproves some of them, but it makes him look unsure about what he is writing about.
The problem of this historical period is the lack of written sources and a lot of guesswork, but instead of looking at the period from Roman perspective (biased, but existing), he is trying to fantasize about Barbarian perspective based on "potsherds".
As for the book. It is very bad as a history book. Author jumps from century to century and back, comparing things that were not yet discussed in the book fully, skipping important events, repeating himself.
Book does not have chronological structure or any other structure, it is a mess.
The reader will spend more time digging graves than learning about historical events, the focus is archaeology.
Author is adding more confusion when he mentions many contradicting theories and disproves some of them, but it makes him look unsure about what he is writing about.
The problem of this historical period is the lack of written sources and a lot of guesswork, but instead of looking at the period from Roman perspective (biased, but existing), he is trying to fantasize about Barbarian perspective based on "potsherds".
June 24, 2020
It was a great pleasure to get to know this book. It is a high-quality, comprehensive synthesis of the history of migrations in the first millennium AD, discussing how the movements of people were influenced by and in turn shaped the geography of development in the late Roman and early medieval Europe. I very much like the Author’s take against the ‘responsible history’ of Guy Halsall’s as I prefer the traditional school of historiography that sticks more to the sources and less to conjecture. I do not like the notion of challenging the content of the sources without very good reasons, and the idea that it should be done in order to fight political demons goes, in my opinion, against the very core of the historian’s craft. The fact that far-right extremists fuel their ideas on the myths associated with the Migration Period cannot justify a complete rewriting of history. Peter Heather’s writing is responsible in the way that it sticks to the proper historical method. He may be sometimes mistaken (not too often though, I think); he has his own bias (don’t we all?); but he’s not trying to write the past to suit the present, his work is thorough, and he’s sensitive to nuances and complexities of human behaviours.
May 17, 2018
I was only able to get to page 100 in this book. It was much more about barbarians than empire and I just wasn't that interested. There was a lot of detail about various barbarian groups, with much about current archeological findings. It was pretty academic, like a book that you have to read for a class that you have to take. Just not that enjoyable for me.
July 17, 2020
Way back in 1991 I took a class at BYU called The Early Middle Ages, and I learned about the fall of Rome and the migrations of Germanic barbarians that created Europe as we know it. I will always look back on this as one of my favorite university courses, so when I saw this book that expanded on the same basic topic, I was really excited to read it.
Peter Heather is clear about his objective: he is trying to correct and center the pendulum swing of interpretation of barbarian migrations in the first millennium. Up until the 1960s the preferred theory was that massive invasions of homogenous "peoples" largely replaced native groups, through ethnic cleansing and forced displacement. In the late 1900s reactionary historians rejected this hypothesis and instead proposed that there was no great Völkerwanderung, but rather a replacement of only small groups of elites. Heather stands on an evidence-based middle ground, showing that the pull of unequal development brought less advanced groups closer to Roman territory, first for small-scale trade opportunities, then eventually in conglomerated military bands with large enough numbers to challenge for position and wealth. Combined with the Empire's internal weaknesses, struggles against the Sassanid Empire in the Southeast, and a gradual loss of agricultural tax base, eventually the old system gave way to a new. Migration played a huge role in the evolution of Europe, but the incoming groups were less unified and much more heterogenous than originally believed, and while they displaced the old elites, they did not drive away natives. The balance of this process varied from area to area, and Heather breaks this all down.
While I remembered a lot about Germanic groups from my college course, Heather took me beyond my syllabus and taught me more about Viking invasions not just in England and Normandy, but also in Rus territories. I learned about the Slavicization of the Balkans and Eastern Europe in the second half of the first millennium, sustained largely by capturing and selling European slaves to the Islamic Empire. I think my biggest take-away from the book was a much better understanding of why various European countries speak the languages they do. I now understand why Anglo-Saxon displaced Celtic and Pict dialects in Britain, yet resisted the pull of Norman and Viking invaders. I see why France and much of Italy, which were developed by Germanic groups, held onto its Latin-based speech, while earlier inhabitants of what become the Holy Roman Empire adopted the tongue of in-migrating peoples. I also now roughly understand the distribution of Slavic languages.
So... there was a lot of really good information in Empires and Barbarians, but I'm only giving it 3.25 stars. Why? First off, there was sooooo much detailed information that I thought I would drown in chapters about material culture in the form of pottery, variations in inhumation and cremation sites, weapons caches preserved in bogs, and other archeological evidence for migration and cultural assimilation. I was ready to believe Heather's assertions without having to personally learn every tiny bit of supporting cross-discipline evidence out there! Secondly, there is so much repetition, so much recapitulation of the author's stance on migration at the close of each section. Sections of the book were stimulating, but it's been awhile since 700 pages felt so long for me.
Peter Heather is clear about his objective: he is trying to correct and center the pendulum swing of interpretation of barbarian migrations in the first millennium. Up until the 1960s the preferred theory was that massive invasions of homogenous "peoples" largely replaced native groups, through ethnic cleansing and forced displacement. In the late 1900s reactionary historians rejected this hypothesis and instead proposed that there was no great Völkerwanderung, but rather a replacement of only small groups of elites. Heather stands on an evidence-based middle ground, showing that the pull of unequal development brought less advanced groups closer to Roman territory, first for small-scale trade opportunities, then eventually in conglomerated military bands with large enough numbers to challenge for position and wealth. Combined with the Empire's internal weaknesses, struggles against the Sassanid Empire in the Southeast, and a gradual loss of agricultural tax base, eventually the old system gave way to a new. Migration played a huge role in the evolution of Europe, but the incoming groups were less unified and much more heterogenous than originally believed, and while they displaced the old elites, they did not drive away natives. The balance of this process varied from area to area, and Heather breaks this all down.
While I remembered a lot about Germanic groups from my college course, Heather took me beyond my syllabus and taught me more about Viking invasions not just in England and Normandy, but also in Rus territories. I learned about the Slavicization of the Balkans and Eastern Europe in the second half of the first millennium, sustained largely by capturing and selling European slaves to the Islamic Empire. I think my biggest take-away from the book was a much better understanding of why various European countries speak the languages they do. I now understand why Anglo-Saxon displaced Celtic and Pict dialects in Britain, yet resisted the pull of Norman and Viking invaders. I see why France and much of Italy, which were developed by Germanic groups, held onto its Latin-based speech, while earlier inhabitants of what become the Holy Roman Empire adopted the tongue of in-migrating peoples. I also now roughly understand the distribution of Slavic languages.
So... there was a lot of really good information in Empires and Barbarians, but I'm only giving it 3.25 stars. Why? First off, there was sooooo much detailed information that I thought I would drown in chapters about material culture in the form of pottery, variations in inhumation and cremation sites, weapons caches preserved in bogs, and other archeological evidence for migration and cultural assimilation. I was ready to believe Heather's assertions without having to personally learn every tiny bit of supporting cross-discipline evidence out there! Secondly, there is so much repetition, so much recapitulation of the author's stance on migration at the close of each section. Sections of the book were stimulating, but it's been awhile since 700 pages felt so long for me.
July 19, 2014
Confession, any problems that I have with this book stem from me not knowing what I was getting into when I purchased it and began to read it. I was expecting a history of the 1st millennium, with some migration and development thrown in for good measure. What I got was a book of human migration, economic development, and state creation with precious little history included. I'm not sure that I personally would even say that this is a history book (though strictly speaking it of course is) but would probably qualify it as a book of anthropology, ethnology, and sociology. It uses historical events when they pop in the event of migration, ex. the Hunnic invasions of Europe in the 370s and early 400s. But the 732 battle of Poitiers—one of the most important events of the second half of the 1st millennium—isn't even mentioned.
None of this is to say that aspects of Heather's book aren't fascinating. His lengthy discussion of human movement beyond the Roman frontier border, and how that helped to bring about events that ultimately destabilized the Western Roman Empire was fascinating. His discussion of political unification of the Germanic tribes in central and eastern Europe was also very interesting, because of the historical ramifications of those happenings. Similar to the other work of Heather's I've read (The Fall of the Roman Empire) he bases the collapse of Rome not on internal events in Rome (or Ravenna) but to things happening hundreds of miles away on the Rhine and Danube frontiers. It was ultimately the great influx of barbarians that broke apart Rome. And these barbarians went on to create the dynastic countries of Europe that would dominate European politics and life for the next thousand years. His chapter on the Slavs was not what I had hoped it to be—this large and mysterious ethnic group was something I wanted to learn more about, but didn't as much as I would have hoped. His chapter on the Anglo-Saxons and Franks, and the one on the Norsemen, was very good reading.
This is is a very scholarly book, and incredibly well-written and researched. Anything I didn't get from it was because it was above my pay grade. Somethings, like the vernacular of cultural types and archaeological terminology, was easy to get bogged down in. But I enjoyed parts of this book, and maybe one day will like the others. But as semi-well read person on this era, and more of a general observer then a serious student, I reckon that there was a lot I missed because there were things I didn't understand.
None of this is to say that aspects of Heather's book aren't fascinating. His lengthy discussion of human movement beyond the Roman frontier border, and how that helped to bring about events that ultimately destabilized the Western Roman Empire was fascinating. His discussion of political unification of the Germanic tribes in central and eastern Europe was also very interesting, because of the historical ramifications of those happenings. Similar to the other work of Heather's I've read (The Fall of the Roman Empire) he bases the collapse of Rome not on internal events in Rome (or Ravenna) but to things happening hundreds of miles away on the Rhine and Danube frontiers. It was ultimately the great influx of barbarians that broke apart Rome. And these barbarians went on to create the dynastic countries of Europe that would dominate European politics and life for the next thousand years. His chapter on the Slavs was not what I had hoped it to be—this large and mysterious ethnic group was something I wanted to learn more about, but didn't as much as I would have hoped. His chapter on the Anglo-Saxons and Franks, and the one on the Norsemen, was very good reading.
This is is a very scholarly book, and incredibly well-written and researched. Anything I didn't get from it was because it was above my pay grade. Somethings, like the vernacular of cultural types and archaeological terminology, was easy to get bogged down in. But I enjoyed parts of this book, and maybe one day will like the others. But as semi-well read person on this era, and more of a general observer then a serious student, I reckon that there was a lot I missed because there were things I didn't understand.
May 12, 2019
The blurb on my edition states: "a jaunty man-of-the-people prose style masks a sure and scholarly grip on the history...". That says a lot about the person who wrote the review and serves as a warning to anyone who picks up this book.
This isn't a book you read to relax or on the side. The average sentence stretches over 4 to 5 lines and the mastery of sub clauses is impressive. If you don't pay careful attention you loose the tread very fast.
What this book won't give you is an overview of the history of the first millennium or how the Roman empire ended. You need a sure grip of that before you read this book or something on the side to look up the facts and persons involved.
The bool feels like a lecture series turned into a book.
The author has a theory on how the Roman empire ended and this is what he sets out to prove. It's not a consecutive depiction of events. He picks up one theory after the other and recounts the specific line of events over and over to disprove each of these theories and prove his own.
That is quite tiring after the first few iterations. And the jaunty language mentioned above probably refers to the anecdotes and word play sprinkled into the text. I felt like I was back in my college days and the prof made a very lame joke he thought funny and aimed at getting in touch with the students. Dutiful chuckles and a lot of eye rolling. It'S even worse in print.
Once you have come to terms with this and having a genuine interest in the subject (and as mentioned above a thorough background on the facts) there'S a lot to learn here.
And quite unexpected for me the book picked up a lot when it mode to the Slavs. Not really my interest but apparently also not the primary field of the author. This actually turned out to be a consistent story with people, cause and events being described. If the rest of the book, the part I bought it for, had been like this I'd have happily given five stars.
This isn't a book you read to relax or on the side. The average sentence stretches over 4 to 5 lines and the mastery of sub clauses is impressive. If you don't pay careful attention you loose the tread very fast.
What this book won't give you is an overview of the history of the first millennium or how the Roman empire ended. You need a sure grip of that before you read this book or something on the side to look up the facts and persons involved.
The bool feels like a lecture series turned into a book.
The author has a theory on how the Roman empire ended and this is what he sets out to prove. It's not a consecutive depiction of events. He picks up one theory after the other and recounts the specific line of events over and over to disprove each of these theories and prove his own.
That is quite tiring after the first few iterations. And the jaunty language mentioned above probably refers to the anecdotes and word play sprinkled into the text. I felt like I was back in my college days and the prof made a very lame joke he thought funny and aimed at getting in touch with the students. Dutiful chuckles and a lot of eye rolling. It'S even worse in print.
Once you have come to terms with this and having a genuine interest in the subject (and as mentioned above a thorough background on the facts) there'S a lot to learn here.
And quite unexpected for me the book picked up a lot when it mode to the Slavs. Not really my interest but apparently also not the primary field of the author. This actually turned out to be a consistent story with people, cause and events being described. If the rest of the book, the part I bought it for, had been like this I'd have happily given five stars.
February 11, 2012
Not an easy book to read, even for an historian ;-)
A hefty volume, cluttered with facts and figures. Interesting? Yes, certainly to see why the Roman empire was pulled under by barbarian tribes flowing in from all directions, both because the barbarians got themselves better organised, because of the way the Romans used money and subsidies to keep the tribes calm (but only luring other tribes in who also want part of this wealth) and the declining strength of the Roman army.
The second part of the book describes the waves of immigration and the way existing tribes and people are replaced or displaced by newcomers. Interesting? Yes, but here the fact that there are so many facts and figures mentioned make following the narrative very difficult. Only if you are a dedicated reader and want to know all about this period it is advisable to read the whole book.
A hefty volume, cluttered with facts and figures. Interesting? Yes, certainly to see why the Roman empire was pulled under by barbarian tribes flowing in from all directions, both because the barbarians got themselves better organised, because of the way the Romans used money and subsidies to keep the tribes calm (but only luring other tribes in who also want part of this wealth) and the declining strength of the Roman army.
The second part of the book describes the waves of immigration and the way existing tribes and people are replaced or displaced by newcomers. Interesting? Yes, but here the fact that there are so many facts and figures mentioned make following the narrative very difficult. Only if you are a dedicated reader and want to know all about this period it is advisable to read the whole book.
October 21, 2022
If anyone is looking for a narrative history of the fall of the Roman Empire, then this book is probably not for you. Instead, this book is much more of an academic piece reasoning the role of migration in the evolution of Europe up to and following the collapse of the empire. The author does a good job of explaining not only his reasoning, but also how his theories contend with other leading thoughts and the inherent difficulties drawing assumptions underlying any history from this period. If that sounds up your alley, then you will likely enjoy this book as I did.
As an additional side note, this author loves the phrase “a priori” as much as he seems to dislike some dude named Guy Halsall – which after a little googling, I can understand why.
As an additional side note, this author loves the phrase “a priori” as much as he seems to dislike some dude named Guy Halsall – which after a little googling, I can understand why.
July 14, 2021
Warning: this is not a History book, but a detailed exploration of the reasons behing the migrations in the first millenium. So if you don't know anything about the background history, maybe get some basic information first.
That said, the author made a very thorough study of his topic (16 years!), with comments on other scholars' approach, presenting evidence and advancing his own arguments theories.
I particularly like the part on the slavic kingdoms, as this is not often discussed in English language books of this period.
Only caveat: the structure is a bit too academic. And some ideas are repeated ad nauseum.
Otherwise, really worth reading it.
That said, the author made a very thorough study of his topic (16 years!), with comments on other scholars' approach, presenting evidence and advancing his own arguments theories.
I particularly like the part on the slavic kingdoms, as this is not often discussed in English language books of this period.
Only caveat: the structure is a bit too academic. And some ideas are repeated ad nauseum.
Otherwise, really worth reading it.
January 19, 2018
Very much a scholarly work; very long and contains much information. Some of it seems inconsistent at times, but that may be because of its length and depth. It draws its conclusions from historical sources, archeology, and linguistics, as well as comparative studies of contemporary situations. It is not an easy book to comprehend; still I believe it’s a book that it is good to own. The information is very interesting, varied, and comprehensive; also it is supported with many footnotes and discussion of alternative theories.
April 2, 2010
A pretty good examination of the "migrations" that made modern Europe during and after the collapse of the Roman Empire. Not as well-written or as interesting, in my humble opinion, as Heather's previous volume, "The Fall of the Roman Empire." Also, for such a scholarly book, Heather adopts a somewhat playful and irreverent tone at times, right up to the concluding section, "Newton's Third Law of Empires?" . . .
April 2, 2016
This book has a different focus than Heather's previous book The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians; its focus is after and outside of Rome. It's also a more technical book, I feel, so general readers might find it a bit hard to digest.
October 19, 2018
The great thing about this book is how academic it is and how it takes a responsible look at what is clearly a thinly evidenced period in history. The bad thing about it is also that it's academic, and so is a pretty difficult read. There's some neat revelations though about the nature of migrations, and what the enormous shifts in culture and population mean for ethnic identities that have been twisted by various nationalist movements.
November 3, 2022
Emperadores y Bárbaros está lejos de ser un libro de divulgación y se asemeja más a una tesis doctoral, por lo monótona de su narración y la insistente reiteración de la idea central que mueve al autor: el refutar la existencia de grandes migraciones de pueblos enteros a lo largo de la europa del primer milenio. No resultó en lo absoluto una lectura agradable y solo resulta recomendable para quienes se dediquen profesionalmente al estudio de la historia europea.
February 29, 2024
This book is incredibly enlightening, but I had difficulty with the way it was written.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 70 reviews