What do you think?
Rate this book
Aurelian and the Third Century by Watson, Alaric [Routledge, 2004] (Paperback) [Paperback]
Aurelian and the Third Century by Watson, Alaric [Routledge, 2004] (Paperback...
Paperback
First published February 25, 1999
10 people are currently reading
177 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
July 30, 2010
Ah, “Star Trek.” So good yet so...frustrating. In one of its better episodes, “Bread and Circuses,” Kirk, Spock and McCoy find themselves on a world where Rome never fell; gladiatorial combats are broadcast on live TV; and 2,000 years after its founder’s death, Christianity is only now beginning to spread. As an erstwhile historian I have many misgivings about how this parallel history works out. For example, how does English become the lingua franca of the empire when it’s a child of Rome’s barbarian conquerors? But in regard to ST’s relationship to this book, one line in particular always makes me cringe when I hear it. The landing party has been captured by a group of escaped slaves who worship the “sun” (as Kirk, et al., assume), and McCoy makes the observation that it’s odd that these people would worship a solar deity. When Spock asks why, the doctor replies: “Because, my dear Spock, it’s illogical. Rome had no sun worshipers. Why would they parallel Rome in every way but that?” But, of course, Rome had plenty of sun (and Son) worshipers. As a symbol of power, prosperity, virtue and all good things, the sun has always been an important part of Indo-European mythologies. Among the traditional gods, Apollo and Helios (Sol) were solar deities. The Emperor Elagabalus (aka, Heliogabalus) was high priest of a Syrian solar cult. And the subject of this review attempted to reinvigorate the state cult by focusing worship on the Unconquered Sun (Sol Invictus).
What has this digression to do with Aurelian? Not much but I always think of him when I watch the episode, and inevitably am reminded of the show when I read about the emperor.
And the chance to bring in a “Star Trek” reference is an opportunity not to be missed.
Alaric Watson’s* Aurelian and the Third Century is a well written, straightforward account of one of the most critical, if all too brief, reigns in imperial history. In AD 270, the empire looked to have reached the nadir of its fortunes. A century of invasion and civil war had reduced the institutions established by Augustus three centuries before to chaos. A rival emperor ruled in the West, and Odenathus and Zenobia had created a separate state around Palmyra in the East.
Appearances were deceiving: By 275, when Aurelian was assassinated, the empire was reunited, the armies (for the most part) were disciplined and loyal, the currency was in the process of recovering its value, and reforms had begun that would restore fiscal health to the imperial treasury. Due in large part to Aurelian. Without his reign, it’s unlikely that Diocletian’s would have been possible a decade later.
The first part of this book is a narrative of the political and military events of the reign, the bulk of which revolve around the so-called Palmyrene Wars against Zenobia. Part two, focuses on the religious and economic reforms Aurelian undertook. Aurelian’s military campaigns restored unity to the empire and his reforms restored discipline and loyalty, which served his successors well in the decade after his death. His fiscal reforms were not entirely successful but they slowed the economic decline and formed the basis for Diocletian’s more thorough and successful efforts. Only in religion did Aurelian clearly fail.
The image of Aurelian has suffered much because our sources (particularly the notorious Historia Augusta, the Fox News Corp of its day) were written by members of the fading senatorial class, whose influence was being extinguished by the professional military and mandarin classes emerging in the third century. Consequently, they present Aurelian as a bloody-handed tyrant. While, admittedly, Aurelian was not a gentle soul, he showed surprising (for the times) forbearance to most of his enemies. Tetricus, his Western rival, held important posts in the imperial bureaucracy after his defeat; and Zenobia married a Roman senator and comfortably retired to an Italian estate.**
Of course, the officers who murdered Aurelian were convinced that their lives were in danger so we can’t exaggerate the emperor’s clemency too much. In 275, a disgruntled eunuch forged documents purporting to show that Aurelian was preparing to move against certain generals. In a pre-emptive strike, they moved and murdered him at Caenophrurium. The emperor’s loyalists (including the future Diocletian, who was known as Diocles at the time) were able to seize power as the conspirators had no political motivations for their deed and no plans for succession, and the empire was largely spared another debilitating civil war.
As a kid, at the beginning of my love affair with history and Rome in particular, Aurelian quickly became my favorite emperor, bar none. One reason was the name. I really like the name – it sounds and looks good. It’s fortunate that I’m childless since in all likelihood any son of mine would be saddled with that moniker. A second, more substantive, reason is that I was impressed by Aurelian’s foresight and political courage displayed when he evacuated the untenable province of Dacia (which lay on the northern side of the Danube). Watson’s biography reinforces that admiration and respect, and I recommend it to those interested in Roman history. The book breaks no new ground nor does it propose any seriously radical reinterpretation but it’s a lucid and interesting account of what most likely happened, incorporating the scholarship available at the time of writing (1999).
* “Alaric.” Now there’s a name to conjure with. How could a boy named “Alaric” not become a historian of Late Antiquity?
** The marriage may not have been entirely voluntary but considering that the alternatives involved any number of gruesome executions, Zenobia was probably relieved.
*** My favorite emperors and some recommended books about them (both fiction and nonfiction):
Augustus: Augustus (bio), Augustus (fiction), I, Claudius, and there's a story about Augustus in one of the Sandman graphic novels, though I forget which one.
Claudius: I, Claudius, Claudius the God and His Wife Messalina, Claudius, The Twelve Caesars
Vespasian: The Roman Emperors
Septimius Severus: The Roman Emperors, Septimius Severus: The African Emperor
Aurelian: Beyond this biography, I don't know of any general work about the man but his life cries out for a historical novel!
Julian: Julian, Julian and Hellenism: An Intellectual Biography
What has this digression to do with Aurelian? Not much but I always think of him when I watch the episode, and inevitably am reminded of the show when I read about the emperor.
And the chance to bring in a “Star Trek” reference is an opportunity not to be missed.
Alaric Watson’s* Aurelian and the Third Century is a well written, straightforward account of one of the most critical, if all too brief, reigns in imperial history. In AD 270, the empire looked to have reached the nadir of its fortunes. A century of invasion and civil war had reduced the institutions established by Augustus three centuries before to chaos. A rival emperor ruled in the West, and Odenathus and Zenobia had created a separate state around Palmyra in the East.
Appearances were deceiving: By 275, when Aurelian was assassinated, the empire was reunited, the armies (for the most part) were disciplined and loyal, the currency was in the process of recovering its value, and reforms had begun that would restore fiscal health to the imperial treasury. Due in large part to Aurelian. Without his reign, it’s unlikely that Diocletian’s would have been possible a decade later.
The first part of this book is a narrative of the political and military events of the reign, the bulk of which revolve around the so-called Palmyrene Wars against Zenobia. Part two, focuses on the religious and economic reforms Aurelian undertook. Aurelian’s military campaigns restored unity to the empire and his reforms restored discipline and loyalty, which served his successors well in the decade after his death. His fiscal reforms were not entirely successful but they slowed the economic decline and formed the basis for Diocletian’s more thorough and successful efforts. Only in religion did Aurelian clearly fail.
The image of Aurelian has suffered much because our sources (particularly the notorious Historia Augusta, the Fox News Corp of its day) were written by members of the fading senatorial class, whose influence was being extinguished by the professional military and mandarin classes emerging in the third century. Consequently, they present Aurelian as a bloody-handed tyrant. While, admittedly, Aurelian was not a gentle soul, he showed surprising (for the times) forbearance to most of his enemies. Tetricus, his Western rival, held important posts in the imperial bureaucracy after his defeat; and Zenobia married a Roman senator and comfortably retired to an Italian estate.**
Of course, the officers who murdered Aurelian were convinced that their lives were in danger so we can’t exaggerate the emperor’s clemency too much. In 275, a disgruntled eunuch forged documents purporting to show that Aurelian was preparing to move against certain generals. In a pre-emptive strike, they moved and murdered him at Caenophrurium. The emperor’s loyalists (including the future Diocletian, who was known as Diocles at the time) were able to seize power as the conspirators had no political motivations for their deed and no plans for succession, and the empire was largely spared another debilitating civil war.
As a kid, at the beginning of my love affair with history and Rome in particular, Aurelian quickly became my favorite emperor, bar none. One reason was the name. I really like the name – it sounds and looks good. It’s fortunate that I’m childless since in all likelihood any son of mine would be saddled with that moniker. A second, more substantive, reason is that I was impressed by Aurelian’s foresight and political courage displayed when he evacuated the untenable province of Dacia (which lay on the northern side of the Danube). Watson’s biography reinforces that admiration and respect, and I recommend it to those interested in Roman history. The book breaks no new ground nor does it propose any seriously radical reinterpretation but it’s a lucid and interesting account of what most likely happened, incorporating the scholarship available at the time of writing (1999).
* “Alaric.” Now there’s a name to conjure with. How could a boy named “Alaric” not become a historian of Late Antiquity?
** The marriage may not have been entirely voluntary but considering that the alternatives involved any number of gruesome executions, Zenobia was probably relieved.
*** My favorite emperors and some recommended books about them (both fiction and nonfiction):
Augustus: Augustus (bio), Augustus (fiction), I, Claudius, and there's a story about Augustus in one of the Sandman graphic novels, though I forget which one.
Claudius: I, Claudius, Claudius the God and His Wife Messalina, Claudius, The Twelve Caesars
Vespasian: The Roman Emperors
Septimius Severus: The Roman Emperors, Septimius Severus: The African Emperor
Aurelian: Beyond this biography, I don't know of any general work about the man but his life cries out for a historical novel!
Julian: Julian, Julian and Hellenism: An Intellectual Biography
Read
July 28, 2023solid and worthy. The earlier parts of the book, which deal with political history, are even enjoyable. The latter parts are a harder slog, but still very useful for getting to grips with the later roman empire
November 7, 2019
I am convinced that no other Roman is equal to Aurelian in terms of military skills, political acumen, social benevolence and reverence for his culture. Aurelian has earned his spot next to Alexander for his military feats and rests well above him for his social reforms.
April 6, 2025
Aurelian is one of those Roman emperors that the hoi polloi will have zero clue of, whereas for those of us besotted with ancient history, with specific reference to the so-called 'Crisis of the Third Century' he is a vital figure. His self-proclaimed reputation as 'Restitutor Orbis' is definitely hyperbolic, but he did reunite a fractured empire that was in dangerous existential straits. So with the combination of his importance for ancient Roman history in mind, and the relative lack of attention Aurelian has received from non-classicists, it is highly appropriate for a worthy text to be written and published about him. Alaric Watson's Aurelian and the Third Century is just what is needed, and considering the limitations and challenges implicit in the nature of his work, the author has more than met expectations.
The overall quality of this book is due to Watson's ability to produce a highly readable, informative and academic study of Aurelian that offers insights into both the historical persona that the emperor occupied in Ancient Rome, as well as the broader imperial historical narratives of the Third Century CE. Starting with a survey of the political, military and economic problems that arose in the Empire from approximately 250 CE, The author gives the reader a well constructed and comprehensive summary of the problems that Aurelian experienced in his lifetime. Watson does a very good job of this, and as a result one has plenty of contextual information to then support the authors review and analysis of what Aurelian’s regime had to deal with and then signified after the Emperor‘s death.
That Watson positions Aurelian as a 'great' emperor is perhaps more problematic, in that he echoes the classical historical image that has him as the military ruler who brought together a fractured empire, restoring it to much of the unified political and social construct that had presaged the previous forty years or so, where Roman rule been almost destroyed by the cycle of invasions and civil wars. This is understandable, as Aurelian certainly campaigned to both defeat and subdue the Palmyrenes in the east and the so-called Gallic Empire in the west, and he also helped repel several incursions from tribes such as the Goths. His efforts in starting the building of the Aurelian Wall around Rome contributes to the traditional narrative of Aurelian reasserting Roman military and political superiority. There are times when Watson is perhaps too slavish in his celebration of Aurelian's acts, ignoring the efforts of Gallienus, and in the process understating how Aurelian contributed to the destabilisation of his predecessor. Also, Aurelian's efforts didn't so much as restore the Roman empire as bring a pause before its final transformation into a conglomeration of territories ruled over by an assemblage of emperors and caesars, as begun in earnest by Diocletian.
An (arguable) flaw with Aurelian and the Third Century is that Watson doesn't speak to the sources until his main narrative has been concluded. Speaking to the paucity, bias and limits of the literary histories at the beginning of the book would've been far more helpful, espcially as a means to assess the probity and probabiliy of Watson's theses. On the other hand, it must be said that the author brings much to the table with his discussion of numisnatic evidence; considering what is available and how valuable coin evidence is, to use it as watson does makes his work more authentic and meritorious than if he hadn't taken such an approach.
All up Aurelian and the Third Century is going to stand as the most accessible and important study of the Roman emperor, and there is every expectation that anyone wishing to learn about what transpired during the last 3rd Century CE in the empire would benefit from reading Watson's book. For a more demanding student of the period and ancient Rome perhaps there will be issues, but this is a most acceptable text on Aurelian.
The overall quality of this book is due to Watson's ability to produce a highly readable, informative and academic study of Aurelian that offers insights into both the historical persona that the emperor occupied in Ancient Rome, as well as the broader imperial historical narratives of the Third Century CE. Starting with a survey of the political, military and economic problems that arose in the Empire from approximately 250 CE, The author gives the reader a well constructed and comprehensive summary of the problems that Aurelian experienced in his lifetime. Watson does a very good job of this, and as a result one has plenty of contextual information to then support the authors review and analysis of what Aurelian’s regime had to deal with and then signified after the Emperor‘s death.
That Watson positions Aurelian as a 'great' emperor is perhaps more problematic, in that he echoes the classical historical image that has him as the military ruler who brought together a fractured empire, restoring it to much of the unified political and social construct that had presaged the previous forty years or so, where Roman rule been almost destroyed by the cycle of invasions and civil wars. This is understandable, as Aurelian certainly campaigned to both defeat and subdue the Palmyrenes in the east and the so-called Gallic Empire in the west, and he also helped repel several incursions from tribes such as the Goths. His efforts in starting the building of the Aurelian Wall around Rome contributes to the traditional narrative of Aurelian reasserting Roman military and political superiority. There are times when Watson is perhaps too slavish in his celebration of Aurelian's acts, ignoring the efforts of Gallienus, and in the process understating how Aurelian contributed to the destabilisation of his predecessor. Also, Aurelian's efforts didn't so much as restore the Roman empire as bring a pause before its final transformation into a conglomeration of territories ruled over by an assemblage of emperors and caesars, as begun in earnest by Diocletian.
An (arguable) flaw with Aurelian and the Third Century is that Watson doesn't speak to the sources until his main narrative has been concluded. Speaking to the paucity, bias and limits of the literary histories at the beginning of the book would've been far more helpful, espcially as a means to assess the probity and probabiliy of Watson's theses. On the other hand, it must be said that the author brings much to the table with his discussion of numisnatic evidence; considering what is available and how valuable coin evidence is, to use it as watson does makes his work more authentic and meritorious than if he hadn't taken such an approach.
All up Aurelian and the Third Century is going to stand as the most accessible and important study of the Roman emperor, and there is every expectation that anyone wishing to learn about what transpired during the last 3rd Century CE in the empire would benefit from reading Watson's book. For a more demanding student of the period and ancient Rome perhaps there will be issues, but this is a most acceptable text on Aurelian.
February 12, 2019
Arguably one of the most important Roman emperors to have come onto the scene in the 3rd century when the Roman empire was trying to keep the Gauls and Germanic tribes at bay. He tried to bring stability to the economy - which admittedly failed, but no one likely could have. He managed to bring peace to Rome itself by putting down the mint riots and giving the city a much needed defensive wall for when he could not be present which still stands today as the "Aurelian Wall". Given that he only reigned 5 short years it was the longest emperor to have survived during this tumultuous time for the Romans and he ultimately died due to trickery.
All in all the book was quite good, half the book was given to the background of the empire and the emperors such as Philip the Arab, Decius, Hostilian, Valerian and his son Gallienus and then eventually to Aurelian who succeeded Claudius II. The book than transitioned to the reforms and governance of Rome while he was reigning which was quite interesting. This is easily the best bio of the little known emperor, there is apparently another book about Aurelian out there, but supposedly isnt nearly as good but I cannot speak for that one. This however was a tremendous work of scholarship and was a very easy and relaxed read. Would only recommend for those who are relatively well versed on Roman history and the 3rd century, otherwise you will be spinning with all the names.
All in all the book was quite good, half the book was given to the background of the empire and the emperors such as Philip the Arab, Decius, Hostilian, Valerian and his son Gallienus and then eventually to Aurelian who succeeded Claudius II. The book than transitioned to the reforms and governance of Rome while he was reigning which was quite interesting. This is easily the best bio of the little known emperor, there is apparently another book about Aurelian out there, but supposedly isnt nearly as good but I cannot speak for that one. This however was a tremendous work of scholarship and was a very easy and relaxed read. Would only recommend for those who are relatively well versed on Roman history and the 3rd century, otherwise you will be spinning with all the names.
March 15, 2016
An academic look at Aurelian and some of his predecessors. Very good information with a lot of detail, but fairly dry. The book covers some before Aurelian's rise to emperor and during his reign, but almost nothing afterwards. It also covers his relationship with the Roman religion, Christianity, the Senate, and other topics. Great if you're interested in the time period and is one of the few books that goes into depth about it, but it's not a particularly enjoyable read.
January 25, 2013
A very decent book on an emperor that seemed to hold a very fragile, invaded empire together. Fought off multiple invasion attempts by Germans, and kept the people feeling safe when, in reality, right after Aurelian died, the Roman Empire kinda went rather south (save Constantine). Covers his wars and government rather well. Very good book on a very Trajanesque emperor.
April 16, 2011
for a paper. it could have been worse. i suppose it was a good resource.
May 3, 2013
Not as much narrative as I normally like, but contained a plethora of really good information about Aurelian's reign, as well as the events that led up to it.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews