Good, well-written book about the way Chrisitianity was a product of the ancient world; shows the general themes the Christians tried to play into, anGood, well-written book about the way Chrisitianity was a product of the ancient world; shows the general themes the Christians tried to play into, and the way the realities of the ancient world shaped the development of the religion itself. Very erudite and also lots of fun....more
Abandoned this book at the halfway point. Too dreary, and author's droning on about numbers doesn't help. Author thrashes colleagues for wishful thinkAbandoned this book at the halfway point. Too dreary, and author's droning on about numbers doesn't help. Author thrashes colleagues for wishful thinking or ignorance, yet equally bases his own argument on assumption and surprisingly narrow reading of sources. ...more
Highly interesting take on "Roman Empire vs barbarians" and "successor empires and the papacy".
This book has four main parts: Theoderic the Goth and BHighly interesting take on "Roman Empire vs barbarians" and "successor empires and the papacy".
This book has four main parts: Theoderic the Goth and Byzantium, Justinian's reign, Charlemagne and the papacy, and the rise of the papacy. The blurb on the cover didn't really make that clear, at least not to me, which is why I'd thought I'd spell it out here. That's the setting, and Heather gives us a highly educational and entertaining read about the substance of empire and religion for these separate periods. You can tell Heather is either aiming for a more general readership (given the numerous references to The Godfather), or shooting off lingering frustrations about meticulous argumentation and endless debate about details common in academia (given characterisations like 'bullshit'). Probably a bit of both. Overall though, the subjectmatter only lends itself for levity occasionally, and Heather keeps the narrative going commendably.
As mentioned, Heather gives us four specific situations, and then goes about reconstructing them, emphasizing the political, administrative and religious context. He gives us a detailed larger picture, and often refers to previous chapters to make a point. His grasp of material is impressive, but of course not unexpected given his list of publications. He manages to give a fair but critical view of players and circumstances, and several continuous themes he keeps returning to. Very interesting read in this respect. Very interesting in all respects for those who like to read about these periods. Recommended....more
This is Goldsworthy’s most recent, most populist – note that the chapter about Lepidus being dropped from the Triumvirate is dubbed “and then there weThis is Goldsworthy’s most recent, most populist – note that the chapter about Lepidus being dropped from the Triumvirate is dubbed “and then there were two” – and (perhaps consequently) least interesting book to date. I’ve read all his works, aside from the shorter to-go editions, and I found this one lacking a certain je ne sais quoi. Perhaps it’s because the couple in the title evoke a certain passion, and Goldsworthy sets out explicitly to squash everything that has been invented about the couple. This shouldn’t surprise me, because his standard approach is to return to the sources and cut through the flights of fancy and invented traditions that generally come with ancient history, from the Punic Wars to Caesar to Antony and Cleopatra. Still, it felt as though his heart wasn’t really in it.
The narrative meanders a bit towards the end, almost as if Antony’s supposed lethargy had a sympathetic effect on the author. Goldsworthy wanted to make this book accessible to a larger audience, and this means that he doesn’t always have or take too much time to explain theories or backgrounds. This is traditionally one of his strengths, but this time he seems to have sacrificed it for pace. As anyone with any position of responsibility knows, you can’t please everyone, and I think that Goldsworthy tried to please too many people, in the end definitely not pleasing me. Perhaps the sales-figures have justified this approach (or will), but I can’t help but wonder.
As for the book itself, it’s not a bad book. It faithfully tracks the lives of Antony and Cleopatra, starting with their ancestors (Antony’s grandfather, and Ptolemy I for Cleopatra). This part of the book is still quite good, and I found the introduction to the Ptolemies and Ptolemaic Egypt particularly insightful.* It was also thoroughly confusing, considering their incestuous dynastic policy. Goldsworthy always takes pleasure from debunking invented traditions, and this book is no exception. He takes the time to point out that the Ptolemies were Greeks from a Greek tradition, and that we do not know what Cleopatra really looked like. Another point he repeatedly makes is that Cleopatra was utterly dependent upon Roman backing, which is why she attached herself to Caesar and Antony. Augustan propaganda has muddied the waters insofar as it served Octavian to paint a picture of Antony as held in thrall by an alien female monarch (three words to send any Roman aristocrat into apoplexy), and Antony himself did not help himself with his increasingly erratic behavior. Furthermore, Goldsworthy points out that luck and opportunity played a part in Antony’s career (for instance he happened to be consul, i.e. in power, when Caesar was murdered) which helped to obscure the fact that he was not as capable as he would like to present himself. Antony seems to have dropped the ball after the disastrous campaign against Parthia, in a way that is hard to explain without giving the impression of lethargy.
In the end, this is a reasonable retelling of a famous episode from ancient history. Goldsworthy is definitely capable, and this book is not bad. However, I don’t think it’s particularly engaging either, which is a pity.
* If you who read this review know of a good book on this subject, feel free to let me know. ...more
This book was a very interesting read, first of all because I love Roman history, and also because I like Goldsworthy’s style. The title is a bit of mThis book was a very interesting read, first of all because I love Roman history, and also because I like Goldsworthy’s style. The title is a bit of misnomer though; The Roman Empire and the Army from 180 to approximately 500 would perhaps be more correct. That’s not strange, as Goldsworthy has made a career out of writing about the Roman army.
In this book Goldsworthy tries to give his view on what is known as the fall of the Roman Empire (most history-books will mention the year 476 when the last Western Roman emperor was deposed and no new emperor proclaimed, which is adequate enough as an artificial divide), a subject which has gotten a lot of attention in the last decades. Goldsworthy devotes quite a lot of time to discussing popular theories, usually setting out those theories in one or two paragraphs and then moving on to argue for or, more commonly, against them.
In actual fact Goldsworthy gives a narrative from the period of Marcus Aurelius to the first half of the sixth century. Larger themes are the relationship of the Roman superpower (a theme that comes back time and again) with the rest of the world, and the problems faced by the Roman emperors and their administration. It’s very interesting to see how Goldsworthy tends to adjudicate the current trends in academia. As always his style is very fluent, and he knows how to make an argument without coming across as tedious or over bearing, even if he does manage to keep coming back to certain themes and theories, in the case of other people’s theories more often than not to show why exactlythey are to be disregarded.
Potential readers should note that Goldsworthy is writing both from an academic viewpoint, but with an eye for the more casual reader. He’s up to speed with academia, but his narrative is designed to appeal to anyone interested in the period.
I loved it, though I hesitate to give it five out five stars. It was good and all, but not great....more
Not a new book anymore (published originally in 2005), this book attempts to give an explanation for the collapse of the western part of the Roman EmpNot a new book anymore (published originally in 2005), this book attempts to give an explanation for the collapse of the western part of the Roman Empire. Heather goes about building his narrative, after first establishing what “Romanness” and “barbarianism” mean, from the late fourth century. Heather suggests the structural flaws in the empire (troublesome succession was ingrained) combined with diminishing tax-revenues are the root causes. The author also defies numerous theories on the way and gives a lot of corroborating examples for his own positions. Very readable, with an eye for the non-academics, though sometimes a tad populistic, for example characterizing the empire’s financial situation as “skint”.
Loading...
