Rome Resurgent: War and Empire in the Age of Justinian by Peter Heather

Rome Resurgent: War and Empire in the Age of Justinian Reviews

• 
  Faustibooks

  This was another great book by Peter Heather, this time looking at the reign of Justinian I (527-565) and answering an extremely interesting question: "Did the conquests of Justinian fatally undermine the integrity of the Eastern Roman Empire, paving the way for the disastrous territorial losses of the seventh century?"
  
  When Justinian became the (Eastern) Roman Emperor, the Western Roman Empire had already ceased to exist for almost half a century. However, Justinian's long and eventful reign saw large parts of the former Western Empire being reconquered by his generals such as Belisarius and Narses. The North of Africa, parts of Spain, Sicily, and Italy including the city of Rome were all added to Justinian's empire. The nature of these conquests was not a planned restoration of the empire's former glory as its propaganda tried to convey, but merely an opportunistic conquest to keep the emperor in power by achieving victories. These remarkably quick conquests, however, were met by an aggressive campaign by the Persians in the East, with insurgents and barbarians in the conquered territories further complicating the situation.
  
  Some scholars argue that Justianian's conquests overstretched the empire, making it impossible to defend itself against the rise of Islam in the seventh century. Heather makes it clear that this is not really true, as the weakening of the empire was mostly due to the reigns of Justin II and the subsequent total war against the Persians which lasted many decades that weakened the Eastern Roman Empire. This destructive war and the following Arab conquests turned the massive Roman empire into a regional power based around Anatolia, losing almost two-thirds of the territories of the empire, but astonishingly still surviving (even if severely altered) for many centuries afterward. Their rivals the Persians on the other hand, fell entirely to the Arab armies.
  
  This was a very good book, which I, unfortunately, started to read during one of the busiest times of my academic life, but I can still say that I enjoyed it a lot and that it was very readable and informative. Peter Heather is a great writer, however, due to the content of the book I don't think that I can recommend it to everyone. Chapters about Roman fiscal policy, religious disagreements, and the creation of a legal code are all very interesting but also quite heavy for someone who may not know that much about the Romans. But for those who do I can definitely recommend it! Four very well-deserved stars!
• 
  Liviu

  Excellent reinterpretation of Justinian's reign, wars and legacy; put in context and showing how his reconquest policy evolved by chance after the comprehensive but unexpected victory against the Vandals and the retaking of North Africa for the Empire and also how the resurgence of the Persian Empire doomed his Italian conquest in the long run though it overall paid for itself even partial and unfinished as it was; the 7th century Islamic rise and the collapse of the Empire to a medium power is shown tom be due to his successors rather than his overextension of imperial resources
  
  Somewhat technical and fairly dense but highly recommended
• 
  Dvd (#)

  24/07/2022 (*****)
  
  Saggio molto ben scritto, a conferma dell'ottima opinione già avuta sui testi dell'autore da precedenti esperienze (vedi
  La caduta dell'impero romano. Una nuova storia).
  
  La narrazione si concentra sul lungo regno (526-565) di Giustiniano e sulla fondamentale domanda se il suo avventurismo espansionista - che portò alla conquista di nord Africa e Italia, dopo una guerra, e soprattutto una guerriglia, durata decenni - sia stata la principale causa del repentino collasso dell'impero romano d'Oriente nel secolo successivo vista l'eccessiva estensione dello stato verso Occidente.
  
  La risposta, circostanziata, che Heather da è: no, o almeno solo in minima parte. Troppi decenni passano dalle conquiste di Giustiniano al collasso sotto la spinta dell'invasione araba nonché svariati altri regimi (di cui diversi fallimentari) e non ci sono prove che le parti di territorio conquistati e poi mantenute non si siano poi ripresi economicamente dall'uragano della guerra. Casomai il principale difetto di Giustiniano, che rimane nell'opinione dell'autore un bieco e cinico opportunista mosso esclusivamente da un accentuato spirito di autoconservazione, è il monumento che esso stesso si eresse, e che pesò su tutti i regimi immediatamente successivi: essi spesero in guerre continue il proprio capitale politico per non essere schiacciati dall'ombra incombente delle conquiste incredibili del grande predecessore, mandando lo stato in bancarotta e preparandolo al crollo del 600.
  
  Peraltro, che le conquiste del nord Africa e dell'Italia siano state incredibili non è una esagerazione. Con pochissima spesa, soprattutto in Africa, Giustiniano riuscì a annettere i due regni romano-barbarici più ricchi e floridi d'Occidente, grazie soprattutto alla superiorità tattica delle proprie truppe, che ben avevano assimilato gli insegnamenti derivati dal cataclisma unno e dalle nuove tattiche militari che sembrarono renderli invincibili (soprattutto, l'uso accorto e bilanciato della cavalleria, in particolare dei micidiali arcieri montati).
  Avere poi un ottimo generale come Belisario fece il resto.
  A completare il quadro, ci mise il suo anche una fortuna sfacciata, che favorì in ogni modo il generale: come diceva Napoleone, ai generali bravi è meglio preferire quelli fortunati.
  
  Entrambe le conquiste, rapide e inattese, vennero mosse secondo l'autore come scelta disperata da parte dell'imperatore per riguadagnare consenso, dopo i traumatici inizi funestati dall'esito disastroso della guerra contro i Persiani e dalla grave rivolta di Nika, in cui Giustiniano rischio seriamente il trono. E entrambe le azioni trovarono i nemici - rispettivamente, vandali e ostrogoti - in momenti di particolare vulnerabilità. La parte dificile non fu tanto la conquista, aiutata come detto da eventi fortunosi e da un vantaggio tattico incolmabile, ma il mantenimento dei territori, con particolare riguardo all'Italia, dove i goti - a differenza dei vandali - non erano affatto stati sterminati e/o deportati: a una prima fase (535-540) di conquista, culminata con l'ingresso a Ravenna, seguì una seconda fase (550-562) di guerriglia, che ebbe effetti devastanti sulla penisola italiana. Per gli storici, è ormai convinzione comune quella di considerare l'inizio in Italia dell'alto medioevo (e, conseguentemente, la fine dell'età tardo-antica) con la guerra greco-gotica, che segnò uno spartiacque nettissimo nella vita della Penisola, probabilmente il più colossale shock (economico, culturale, demografico, politico) della pur travagliata storia del nostro Paese, come emerge in maniera evidente dalle rilevanze archeologiche. Non è esagerato dire che l'invasione bizantina (romana, sarebbe meglio dire) cambiò radicalmente la storia d'Italia e di tutta l'Europa: cosa sarebbe successo se i goti, dopo Teodorico, fossero riusciti a creare una monarchia nazionale nella penisola, è difficile anche solo da immaginare (si pensi, in primis, all'evoluzione che ne avrebbe avuto il cattolicesimo romano e all'impatto che uno stato unitario fortissimo avrebbe avuto sui regni coevi nell'Europa settentrionale).
  
  La conclusione di Heather, come detto, fugge dal più consolidato motivo di biasimo presente nella storiografia circa l'epopea di Giustiniano, ossia che il suo regime fu l'origine di tutti i mali futuri dell'oriente bizantino: si dice che l'imperatore non poteva prevedere la crescita esponenziale da un lato della potenza avara (che costrinse di fatto i longobardi, loro vicini sul Danubio, a emigrare verso il vuoto lasciato dalla guerra in Italia) e, soprattutto, della potenza araba, che finirà per travolgere entrambe le superpotenze orientali, Costantinopoli e Persia, in breve tempo al volgere della metà del VII secolo. Della distanza di tempo trascorsa dal suo regno al collasso (quasi un secolo) e dei diversi regimi intermedi non propriamente illuminati intercorsi in mezzo si è già detto.
  
  Lungi da parte dell'autore sostenere l'encomio dell'uomo e dello statista Giustiniano, che come detto fu mosso solo e esclusivamente dal più bieco spirito di conservazione, senza nessuna stella polare di ordine strategico o morale che non fosse la sua permanenza sul trono: da lì gli azzardi, in parte riusciti e in parte no, che contraddistinsero il suo regime e che gli hanno garantito una fama imperitura, e tutto sommato non del tutto motivata, nei posteri (basti pensare a Dante, che lo mise in Paradiso come protettore della giustizia).
  
  Diciamo che in quanto a giocatori d'azzardo, non siamo di fronte a un altro Cesare.
  
  Molto interessante, infine, l'analogia che l'autore fa fra Attila e Maometto, nei loro ruoli di federatori di popoli e tribù ai margini delle grandi potenze del tempo, e di come le loro fulminee invasioni, così simili nella genesi e nei primi sviluppi, si differenziarono enormemente in quanto a durata e impatto: da una parte le effimere conquiste di un truce brigante (per quanto intelligente), che conquistò un impero immenso tenuto insieme dal puro terrore e che si sfasciò non appena morto lui; dall'altra, le durature conquiste di un altro truce brigante (per quanto intelligente), che conquistò un impero immenso tenuto insieme dal migliore oppio dei popoli mai inventato: la religione. E non a caso il mondo arabo è ancora lì al suo posto, dopo millequattrocento anni, e poco è mancato che tracimasse qui da noi; di Attila non sappiamo più nemmeno dove sia la tomba.
  
  Nemmeno di Giustiniano, a dir la verità, dato che le sepolture imperiali ai SS Apostoli vennero saccheggiate durante il sacco veneziano del 1204 e che al posto della cattedrale oggi c'è una moschea.
  
  Il saggio è scritto benissimo, la lettura è agevole, il filo logico dei ragionamenti dell'autore cristallino, anche se rimane un'opera molto specialistica, che probabilmente potrebbe annoiare chi non fosse interessato all'argomento. Ampiamente consigliato.
• 
  Eddie Clarke

  Justinian generally has a glowing historical reputation (as far as modern society thinks about Byzantine emperors), but Heather isn’t having it.
  
  Justinian was successful militarily, recapturing both North Africa and Italy for the Empire, reforming the legal system, keeping a lid on church factionalism, and engaging in massive architectural projects - The Hagia Sofia in Constantinople being the star project.
  
  Heather argues that the western conquests were driven not by strategy but by the purest personal opportunism. Justinian just didn’t care about anyone or anything, just so long as he remained emperor. His endless wars caused huge humanitarian disasters - Italy was left largely depopulated - and forced a massive tax burden on the agrarian late-antique empire.
  
  The question is posed: did Justinian’s over-expansion actually weaken the empire, making it easy prey for the Islamic invasions of the 7th century?
  
  Heather argues against. He makes interesting comparisons between the contexts of Attila and Mohammed, suggesting both emerged out of similar empire-border dynamics. Attila left no legacy in Europe, but Islam secured a firm hold on the Middle East . In contrast, the wealth of Western Europe shifted northwards towards Attila’s old stamping grounds and away from the Mediterranean - in the east, Islam emerged from Arabia but Arabia itself quickly returned to marginal status and the wealthy cities of Syria, Palestine, Egypt and Turkey remained the drivers of culture there, but now within an Islamic rather than Christian context. Heather sees the rise of Islam within the context of a 50 year war between the superpowers of Constantinople and Persia (initiated against his policy by Justinian’s heir on assuming the throne), leaving both exhausted and unable to react to developments in Arabia.
• 
  Kaye

  4,5
• 
  Nathan Albright

  Is it really just or appropriate to view this book as a book about Rome, seeing as it is a generally praiseworthy effort to place the conquests of Justinian in the context of the internal politics of legitimacy in the Byzantine Empire as well as the grand strategic efforts of the Byzantines with Persia as well as the barbarians of its border regions.  Admittedly, reading about the Roman or Byzantine Empires is not anything particularly unusual for me, but it was intriguing to see the author take an approach of seeking to view Justinian's military behavior in light of the politics of the Byzantine Empire and the expectations that were placed on leaders.  The author certainly does not view Justinian or his era as being perfect, but all the same this is a book that seeks to absolve him of blame for the collapse of Byzantine power from its hegemonic aims and massive achievements during Justinian's time to the regional power it became in the aftermath of the rise of Islam.  If you find the mix of high politics, diplomacy, and military history to be appealing, as I did, this is a book that is well worth enjoying even if the work is more about Byzantine and than Roman history as its focus is on Constantinople and not Rome.
  
  This book is a bit more than 300 pages long and is divided into eleven chapters.  The book begins with some maps and then an introduction about Justinian and the fall of the Roman empire.  After that the author provides a historical context to the period between Constantine and Justinian (1) as well as the military-fiscal complex of the ancient world and Rome in particular (2) and the problem of regime change in Constantinople (3).  This leads to a look at the gamble of the invasion of North Africa to distract from major failures at home (4) as well as the small expeditionary invasion of Italy (5) and the longer conflict to conquer Italy (6).  The author explores the culture of victory that developed thanks to the successes of Belisarius and Narses (7) as well as the struggles with Persia (8) and the insurgencies that developed in North Africa and Italy that hindered the establishment of peace (9).  The author then looks at the aftermath of the conquests and what territories were included within the Western Empire of Justinian (10) as well as the factors that led to the drastic decline of the Eastern Roman empire in the decades after Justinian (11), after which there is a timeline, glossary, notes, primary sources, bibliography, and index.
  
  This book is perhaps best for exploring the ways that Byzantine emperors in the early part of the Byzantine Empire (and sometimes long afterwards) could ensure their legitimacy and the crippling problems that succession could provide for ancient regimes.  Both of these are areas worthy of additional study.  An absence of succession can be an attempt to hold on to real power (one of the reason why second term US presidents are invariably less effective, because they are term-limited) while it can also be a sign of the presence of competing elements that need to be brought together in a ruling coalition that might divide based on too much focus on the question.  Likewise, passing and organizing laws, building noteworthy construction projects, and winning wars have often been solid ways of ensuring one's legitimacy of a ruler and passing on a sound legacy.  It is a shame that after Justinian the Byzantine Empire was so poorly served by its leaders in a disastrous time that had catastrophic results.  Such is the reality of the world in which we live, though, when our greatest efforts are often ephemeral in their result.
• 
  Stuart

  A very detailed and enjoyable book on a neglected area of history. Manages to be both engaging and illuminating fleshing out the politics, domestic and foreign, of Late Antiquity. So many what ifs, so much opportunism and of course so many power struggles, this is still Roman after all. The only mistake I found was that 457 was given as the vandal sack of Rome instead of 455 but other than that it was extremely well researched.
  
  The best thing I can say about this book is Nika! Nika! Nika!
  
  
• 
  Pieter

  If one should name one Byzantine emperor, it will be most likely Justinian I, or sometimes called 'Justinian the Great'. Indeed, during his reign (527AD - 568 AD) Justinian and his brilliant military commander Belisarius have achieved a lot: building of the Hagia Sophia, a new codification of Roman law, managing intense theological debates and of course the 'reconquista' of parts of the Mediterranean.
  
  The start of his regime was definitely no rose garden: war with Persia, a civil war in Constantinople destroying half of the city. Like Charlemagne, the Byzantine emperor needed power brokers and a swift victory was advised to secure his regime. Trouble in the Vandal Kingdom of North Africa opened a window of opportunity. And thereafter, Italy and its capital Ravenna fell into the hands of Constantinople. Even part of the Spanish coast and the Balkan were added to Byzantium. Mr Heather highlights that there was no planned strategy to reunite the Roman Empire though, it was more like an "overseas adventurism as the last desperate gamble of a bankrupt regime". But it worked out well. Most of the new territories remained in Byzantine hands for a century and a half. Obviously, one can speculate to what extent Justinian's exhausting war with Persia, has eased Arab militias to conquer the Middle East and North Africa during the 7th century.
• 
  Felix

  This is an excellent overview of the reign of Emperor Justinian. Focusing principally on the military aspects of Justinian's leadership, this book takes a close look at each of the various campaigns of Belisarius, as well as providing a great deal of analysis on the question of whether the Roman Empire really was 'resurgent' under Justinian.
  
  Justinian is a mercurial figure in our written sources. The principal historian of the period, Procupius, runs hot and cold on Justinian - with little in between the extremes. Procopius's Wars present the emperor as wise, successful and divinely ordained. The Anekdota of Procopius presents the opposite view, even going so far as to suggest that Justinian might have been the antichrist.
  
  Heather moves to the centre-ground, between the two Procopian extremes. The Justinian of Rome Resurgent is a canny political operator, albeit one with seemingly very short-term goals. The Justinian of this book is a very effective propagandist, but less of an effective strategist and imperial leader.
• 
  Nina Usherwood

  Not good as his other books. Concentrated on a geographical narrative as opposed to a chronological narrative. This forced the author to discuss how event in one location were effected by concurrent events elsewhere. The book is full of phrases like (will discuss in chapter #) or as seen in chapter #.
  
  This time is history (late Rome era) is something I know little about other than an old science fiction time travel story (which I will read again next). I choose this author to read for this period as I have enjoyed his other books on Rome.
  
  A good book
  
  
• 
  Tomas Riklius

  Engaging account of the emperor Justinian’s rule, conquest of the west, religious battles, and legal reforms. Sometimes backstories seem a little bit too long and perhaps redundant but I suppose that it’s virtually impossible to talk about any Byzantine emperor without describing the intricate and sometimes delicate political context. The main argument that Justinian’s conquest of the west in a way destabilized the Eastern Roman Empire long before the fall of Constantinople is thoroughly examined.
• 
  Michael Samerdyke

  I'd give this 4 and a half if that were possible.
  
  This is a very interesting look at the reign of Justinian, the "last great Roman emperor." Heather makes a convincing case that instead of obsessively following a grand plan, Justinian took advantage of events, the general situation as he found it, and reacted to internal pressure in his campaigns in North Africa and Italy.
  
  I think Heather's explanation is pretty convincing. I also agree with him that the collapse of much of the Eastern Empire in the next century was due more to external events than a legacy of Justinian's actions.
  
  Heather is a good writer who can bring ancient history alive for readers.
• 
  Peter Bennett

  I was not expecting repeated mention of Michael Gove, Boris Johnson, and Brexit in a book on Justinian but there you go.
  
  Heather's goal is to attack the argument that Justinian's westward expansion strained the empire's resources and thus led directly to the catastrophic fall of the near east to the Arabs in the seventh century.
  
  Heather shows that the recovered African provinces were in fact prosperous and successfully integrated into the empire's economic superstructure at the time of Justinian's death in 565. A similar claim is made for Sicily and southern Italy. Nonetheless, Heather does concede that the denuding of the Balkan armies to provide reinforcements for the Gothic war in Italy did open the door to increased raids across the Danube. Heather further concedes the ephemeral nature of the very partial reconquest of Hispania.
  
  Rather than the westward reconquest, Heather cites almost 50 years of economically ruinous war with Persia following Justinian's death as the reason the empire was so ill-prepared for the eventual Arab onslaught. One's thoughts may stray towards the loss of Britain's empire after the similarly economically ruinous imposition of two world wars in less than half a century.
  
  Overall, the argument is convincing to an extent. At the very least, it is hard to see the Arab conquest occurring as swiftly as it did without the Roman (and Sassanid) economic exhaustion that so much continuous warfare had engendered.
• 
  Arthur Wangchuk

  Quit.
  Wrong book for me.
  The keywords are "war" and "politics", not "Justinian". There is no story, but "history".
  
  1. The title "emperor" referred to the supreme military leader. Military success legitimized an emperor. After the empire converted to Christianity, military success became even more important because it meant God blessed the emperor. And this was getting titular, as the monarchy was finally formed. No more emperor was so great as they propagated. Perhaps this was partly why the late Roman history reads so disgusting. Every leader looks like a boasting coward.
• 
  Giovanni Casula

  Un libro interessante con qualche imprecisione/refuso storici, ma tutto sommato interessante.