What do you think?
Rate this book
The Restoration of Rome: Barbarian Popes and Imperial Pretenders
In 476 AD, the last of Rome's emperors, known as "Augustulus," was deposed by a barbarian general, the son of one of Attila the Hun's henchmen. With the imperial vestments dispatched to Constantinople, the curtain fell on the Roman empire in Western Europe, its territories divided among successor kingdoms constructed around barbarian military manpower.
But, if the Roman Empire was dead, Romans across much of the old empire still lived, holding on to their lands, their values, and their institutions. The conquering barbarians, responding to Rome's continuing psychological dominance and the practical value of many of its institutions, were ready to reignite the imperial flame and enjoy the benefits. As Peter Heather shows in dazzling biographical portraits, each of the three greatest immediate contenders for imperial power--Theoderic, Justinian, and Charlemagne--operated with a different power base but was astonishingly successful in his own way. Though each in turn managed to put back together enough of the old Roman West to stake a plausible claim to the Western imperial title, none of their empires long outlived their founders' deaths. Not until the reinvention of the papacy in the eleventh century would Europe's barbarians find the means to establish a new kind of Roman Empire, one that has lasted a thousand years.
A sequel to the bestselling Fall of the Roman Empire, The Restoration of Rome offers a captivating narrative of the death of an era and the birth of the Catholic Church.
But, if the Roman Empire was dead, Romans across much of the old empire still lived, holding on to their lands, their values, and their institutions. The conquering barbarians, responding to Rome's continuing psychological dominance and the practical value of many of its institutions, were ready to reignite the imperial flame and enjoy the benefits. As Peter Heather shows in dazzling biographical portraits, each of the three greatest immediate contenders for imperial power--Theoderic, Justinian, and Charlemagne--operated with a different power base but was astonishingly successful in his own way. Though each in turn managed to put back together enough of the old Roman West to stake a plausible claim to the Western imperial title, none of their empires long outlived their founders' deaths. Not until the reinvention of the papacy in the eleventh century would Europe's barbarians find the means to establish a new kind of Roman Empire, one that has lasted a thousand years.
A sequel to the bestselling Fall of the Roman Empire, The Restoration of Rome offers a captivating narrative of the death of an era and the birth of the Catholic Church.
504 pages, Paperback
First published July 1, 2013
59 people are currently reading
1957 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 - 30 of 74 reviews
August 14, 2013
An absolutely delicious book. History that reveals both the sweeping big picture and depth and context. History that shows how contingent developments were that now seem inevitable while convincingly arguing for economic underlying patterns. Properly analytical stuff that makes judgements and argues (persuasively I think) for well-reasoned interpretations. Accompanied by great pen portraits and exciting, action-packed narrative. Topped off with a democratic style and pop cultural references to make me smile. Full marks also for calling various elites out on their self justifying bulls**t and rulers for their tyranny. Finally, and best of all, a history that makes full use of legal sources and explains the use and force of various legal systems. I loved this history of Theoderic, Justinian, Charlemagne and the development of the papacy. Highly recommended!
June 15, 2019
“The Restoration of Rome” continues Peter Heather’s history of later Rome that was begun with “The Fall of Rome”. The earlier book traced events from the coming of the Huns through the deposition of the last Roman emperor of the West by the Visigoth king Odovacar. This volume continues the saga, using as an organizing device the lives of three “barbarians” who attempted to restore the western empire: Theodoric the Great, Justinian the Great and Charles the Great (Charlemagne). It concludes with a history of the medieval Catholic Church, which eventually achieved hegemony over western Christianity and secular rulers via the papacies of Leo III through Innocent III.
Through these cameo lives, Heather presents an argument that the non-latin leaders of the later Roman Empire were adapters of established Roman traditions, such as becoming rulers of religious faith and reformers of civil law. The point is also made however that none of the empires that they created could sustain the economic, military and political might of the earlier Roman Empire due to the increasing fragmentation of power within Europe.
As a popular history I felt this book was successful in that it presented nearly seven hundred years in under five hundred pages and managed to be entertaining and insightful, as well as reasonably scholarly. The vignette concept worked well in compressing rather involved periods into a digestible format. The primary sources were indicated clearly, and competing theories were adequately presented.
There were parts of the book where either the complexity of the narrative or the clarity of the explanations lost my attention or interest, such as in the many succession intrigues following Charlemagne’s death, or the papal power struggles leading up to the triumph of the Catholic church. On the whole however I was happy to learn about these important developments in European history.
A major flaw in the writing (noted by several other reviewers) is the awkward insertion of anachronistic speech. I counted dozens of these colloquial clunkers, such as: “medieval succession is like the Godfather”, “the long-running Constantinople soap opera”, “brought the Gothic chickens home to roost”, “you have to admire the Goth’s cojones", "the wheels falling off the Gothic wagons, “the Gothic leopard did not change his spots”, “Justine boldly went where no emperor had dared go before”, "the Vandal cat turned out to be away”, “pin the tail on the Justinian donkey”.
Some of this is funny but most of the time it is just silly. Other than Heather's humor, the book is worthwhile reading. You'll also have a helping of his political views regarding recent Mideastern military interventions thrown in for good measure if you can stand it. It is worthwhile bearing along for the author's grasp of the period.
Through these cameo lives, Heather presents an argument that the non-latin leaders of the later Roman Empire were adapters of established Roman traditions, such as becoming rulers of religious faith and reformers of civil law. The point is also made however that none of the empires that they created could sustain the economic, military and political might of the earlier Roman Empire due to the increasing fragmentation of power within Europe.
As a popular history I felt this book was successful in that it presented nearly seven hundred years in under five hundred pages and managed to be entertaining and insightful, as well as reasonably scholarly. The vignette concept worked well in compressing rather involved periods into a digestible format. The primary sources were indicated clearly, and competing theories were adequately presented.
There were parts of the book where either the complexity of the narrative or the clarity of the explanations lost my attention or interest, such as in the many succession intrigues following Charlemagne’s death, or the papal power struggles leading up to the triumph of the Catholic church. On the whole however I was happy to learn about these important developments in European history.
A major flaw in the writing (noted by several other reviewers) is the awkward insertion of anachronistic speech. I counted dozens of these colloquial clunkers, such as: “medieval succession is like the Godfather”, “the long-running Constantinople soap opera”, “brought the Gothic chickens home to roost”, “you have to admire the Goth’s cojones", "the wheels falling off the Gothic wagons, “the Gothic leopard did not change his spots”, “Justine boldly went where no emperor had dared go before”, "the Vandal cat turned out to be away”, “pin the tail on the Justinian donkey”.
Some of this is funny but most of the time it is just silly. Other than Heather's humor, the book is worthwhile reading. You'll also have a helping of his political views regarding recent Mideastern military interventions thrown in for good measure if you can stand it. It is worthwhile bearing along for the author's grasp of the period.
May 10, 2017
Peter Heather's study of Western Europe after the fall of Rome comes in four parts, with the first three being similar, and the fourth different. Each one is about a separate attempt to restore 'imperial' rule to the Western Roman Empire.
Part one starts with the background of Theoderic, specifically his time as a hostage in Constantinople, and his exposure to Roman civilization. It moves onto Gothic politics, and does a good job looking at them, and how through a series of gambles, and deals, he ended up as the leader of a reduced, but cohesive group of Goths, and took on the job of expelling Odoacer from Italy. The resulting Ostrogothic Kingdom is shown as an attempted restoration of the Empire to Western territories. Despite later disagreements, Theoderic had started with orders from Constantinople, and his later effective control over Visigothic Kingdom in Gaul and Spain allowed him to dominate most of the Western Empire's former territories, and the intent was purely to be seen as the Western Emperor.
The problem was the conjoined Gothic states did not stay so after Theoderic's death, which leads to the second part, Justinian's reconquest of substantial part of the Western Empire. Heather shows that Justinian attempted to legitimize his reign with a couple gambles, law reform and war with Persia, which did not work out. The expedition to Africa and invasion of Sicily were very opportunistic schemes to restore legitimacy. The eventual Justinian law code only went forward based on the political capital gained from success in the west, and the section ends with analysis of the idea that Justinian's wars crippled the Eastern Empire in the long run, and generally comes up negative. I think he didn't consider the impacts on manpower nearly enough, but economically, he's on reasonably solid ground.
The third section is about Charlemagne's crowning as Emperor in 800, and the subsequent collapse of the state over the next few generations. There's some very good analysis in here about how the need to reward followers both allow a moderate sized state to grow quickly (when there's plenty of rewards to give out), and forces it to come apart once that growth slows or stops. Each change in rulers requires a new round of payments to make sure of loyalties, and a few years to 'feel out' which members of the court are the most competent and loyal.
The common thread through the book is the idea how the Romans saw divine approval and power as intertwined. In Christian terms, if God wanted you to be Emperor, then no force on Earth could stop it, and if you were the Emperor, then obviously God wanted you to be so. And since the Emperor was chosen by God, then he had authority over the Church. The fourth section shows this being turned on its head.
Charlemagne's administration produced a set of standard texts for education inside the Christian Church. There is a good discussion of the forgery of the Donation of Constantine, which claims the Western Empire was effectively handed over to the Pope in Rome. The idea presented here is that this was not a Roman (or Papal) forgery, but actually came out of the Carolingian churches. Until this point, the archbishops were the main authority, but if the (distant) Pope was the real head of things, then the bishops didn't need to listen to the (nearby) archbishops. Then, a generation or two later, officials brought up in this tradition end up installed in Rome by German Emperors, and they worked to reform the Papacy into what they thought it should be, an ultimate source of ecclesiastical and temporal authority.
Trying to see this last as an 'imperial' project (so that it fits in with the rest of Heather's theme) hurts this last part of the book. But overall, it is, like the other parts, an interesting look at the post-Roman/early Medieval West. Each part of the book interleaves with the rest, and while it is by no means a complete history of the period, it does a lot to examine just how the Western Empire did not manage to get reestablished.
Part one starts with the background of Theoderic, specifically his time as a hostage in Constantinople, and his exposure to Roman civilization. It moves onto Gothic politics, and does a good job looking at them, and how through a series of gambles, and deals, he ended up as the leader of a reduced, but cohesive group of Goths, and took on the job of expelling Odoacer from Italy. The resulting Ostrogothic Kingdom is shown as an attempted restoration of the Empire to Western territories. Despite later disagreements, Theoderic had started with orders from Constantinople, and his later effective control over Visigothic Kingdom in Gaul and Spain allowed him to dominate most of the Western Empire's former territories, and the intent was purely to be seen as the Western Emperor.
The problem was the conjoined Gothic states did not stay so after Theoderic's death, which leads to the second part, Justinian's reconquest of substantial part of the Western Empire. Heather shows that Justinian attempted to legitimize his reign with a couple gambles, law reform and war with Persia, which did not work out. The expedition to Africa and invasion of Sicily were very opportunistic schemes to restore legitimacy. The eventual Justinian law code only went forward based on the political capital gained from success in the west, and the section ends with analysis of the idea that Justinian's wars crippled the Eastern Empire in the long run, and generally comes up negative. I think he didn't consider the impacts on manpower nearly enough, but economically, he's on reasonably solid ground.
The third section is about Charlemagne's crowning as Emperor in 800, and the subsequent collapse of the state over the next few generations. There's some very good analysis in here about how the need to reward followers both allow a moderate sized state to grow quickly (when there's plenty of rewards to give out), and forces it to come apart once that growth slows or stops. Each change in rulers requires a new round of payments to make sure of loyalties, and a few years to 'feel out' which members of the court are the most competent and loyal.
The common thread through the book is the idea how the Romans saw divine approval and power as intertwined. In Christian terms, if God wanted you to be Emperor, then no force on Earth could stop it, and if you were the Emperor, then obviously God wanted you to be so. And since the Emperor was chosen by God, then he had authority over the Church. The fourth section shows this being turned on its head.
Charlemagne's administration produced a set of standard texts for education inside the Christian Church. There is a good discussion of the forgery of the Donation of Constantine, which claims the Western Empire was effectively handed over to the Pope in Rome. The idea presented here is that this was not a Roman (or Papal) forgery, but actually came out of the Carolingian churches. Until this point, the archbishops were the main authority, but if the (distant) Pope was the real head of things, then the bishops didn't need to listen to the (nearby) archbishops. Then, a generation or two later, officials brought up in this tradition end up installed in Rome by German Emperors, and they worked to reform the Papacy into what they thought it should be, an ultimate source of ecclesiastical and temporal authority.
Trying to see this last as an 'imperial' project (so that it fits in with the rest of Heather's theme) hurts this last part of the book. But overall, it is, like the other parts, an interesting look at the post-Roman/early Medieval West. Each part of the book interleaves with the rest, and while it is by no means a complete history of the period, it does a lot to examine just how the Western Empire did not manage to get reestablished.
December 8, 2013
Peter Heather is, unquestionably, one of the foremost scholars of the late Antiquity/Early Middle Ages period. His analysis is always sound and well thought, with deep insights. His books are always a great pleasure to read, and this book is no exception.
This book is interesting, detailed, scholarly, balanced, and very intellectually rewarding for any reader who is seriously interested in in-depth analysis of this historical period (encompassing the attempts at restoration of the "Roman Empire" by Theodoric, Justinian and Charlemagne, but also with a final section containing a relatively brief analysis of the evolution of the Christian Church through the Early and High Middle Ages). In summary, another of Peter Heather's masterpieces.
The only glitch in this otherwise excellent book is the presence of a couple of over-simplications/profanities/anachronistic moral judgments on some of the characters such as Justinian, who for example is defined a "bast**rd" by the author, for his actions in dealing with the Nika revolt and in pursuing his "ruthless" campaign of "Reconquista" of the former Western Empire. Baffling, I would have never expected this sort of anachronistic, and ultimately meaningless, judgments from an historian of Peter's calibre.
But make no mistakes: apart from this minor intellectual slip, this is a great read, thoroughly enjoyable, fully deserving 5 stars.
This book is interesting, detailed, scholarly, balanced, and very intellectually rewarding for any reader who is seriously interested in in-depth analysis of this historical period (encompassing the attempts at restoration of the "Roman Empire" by Theodoric, Justinian and Charlemagne, but also with a final section containing a relatively brief analysis of the evolution of the Christian Church through the Early and High Middle Ages). In summary, another of Peter Heather's masterpieces.
The only glitch in this otherwise excellent book is the presence of a couple of over-simplications/profanities/anachronistic moral judgments on some of the characters such as Justinian, who for example is defined a "bast**rd" by the author, for his actions in dealing with the Nika revolt and in pursuing his "ruthless" campaign of "Reconquista" of the former Western Empire. Baffling, I would have never expected this sort of anachronistic, and ultimately meaningless, judgments from an historian of Peter's calibre.
But make no mistakes: apart from this minor intellectual slip, this is a great read, thoroughly enjoyable, fully deserving 5 stars.
April 11, 2015
Highly 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.
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.
August 20, 2014
This book reads like a fresh take on the past, relying on the contemporary sources but interpreting them with a wise eye on what most of them they actually are: products of spin-doctors-of-old making their tyrant employers look good. Through his clear eye we see clearly the mindsets of rulers and of the ruled in late Roman times and in the early Middle Ages.
The book can be read as a popularized history book, with the writer's very modern voice explaining the past to us, with references to the Mafia, warlords, neocons, Wikipedia, The Godfather, and current politicians, wars, rebellions and massacres. He links the past firmly to the present, emphasizing the continuity of human venality. But the book is also a scholarly work, with detailed footnotes, maps, lists of primary sources, a full bibliography, and a detailed index.
Refreshingly, the author clearly considers the human costs of war and military expansion. Past, self-justifying historians have tended to brush over these costs as being the necessary evils associated with the creation of an empire that will eventually bring great good.
Read the full and illustrated review at Italophile Book Reviews:
http://italophilebookreviews.blogspot...
The book can be read as a popularized history book, with the writer's very modern voice explaining the past to us, with references to the Mafia, warlords, neocons, Wikipedia, The Godfather, and current politicians, wars, rebellions and massacres. He links the past firmly to the present, emphasizing the continuity of human venality. But the book is also a scholarly work, with detailed footnotes, maps, lists of primary sources, a full bibliography, and a detailed index.
Refreshingly, the author clearly considers the human costs of war and military expansion. Past, self-justifying historians have tended to brush over these costs as being the necessary evils associated with the creation of an empire that will eventually bring great good.
Read the full and illustrated review at Italophile Book Reviews:
http://italophilebookreviews.blogspot...
January 2, 2018
It took me longer than normal to get through this - there is a lot in this book - but I enjoyed it greatly. It draws themes from the post-Roman world and traces them through to the Carolingian era and the rise of the Papacy as a true pan-European force in medieval times; the great strength of the book, however, is in tracing why this was not some inevitable and seamless transition of power from Roman Empire to Roman Church. The anti-Whiggish tone is refreshing and thought-provoking, and Heather's writing style keeps you engaged even when the themes being explored are very complex and full of contingencies.
March 31, 2019
As always, a delightful, intriguing and satisfying read from start to finish. Picking up from where The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians dropped off, Heather guides us through the chaos of 476 AD and the new pecking order in the Mediterranean and demonstrates the attempts by various heads of state to recreate a Roman Empire and why they ultimately failed. Perhaps the most underrated ruler of his era, Theodoric takes his place front and centre as we witness his journey from a young and charismatic prince to the head of the Pannonian Goths. Having outmanoeuvered his Gothic rivals and scheming emperors Leo and Xeno (he even came to the aid of the latter in returning from exile and reclaiming the throne at Constantinople), he eventually turned towards the eternal city and ousted Odoacer from Rome and established a more tolerant, thriving and essentially Roman Kingdom of Italy. Friction between the Arian Christian Goths and Chalcedonian Christian Romans was minimal, Theodoric paid homage to the Eastern Roman emperors as the supreme rulers of the post-Roman world and initiated a number of building programmes in Rome and Ravenna ranging from restoring early imperial aqueducts to repairing dilapidated buildings and establishing new churches and public monuments. Sadly, some of the churches were destroyed around the centuries proceeding and following the Renaissance, public monuments being targetted by the French revolutionary terrorists, the Jacobins, or having been subjected to the age-old Roman process Damnatio memoriae, he and his court being removed from the artwork of his Christ the Redeemer palace church and his bones being scattered after his mausoleum was converted to a church in the wake of the Justinian conquests. At the height of his power, Theodoric ruled the Italian peninsula, the western half of the Balkans, most of the Iberian peninsula, the Burgundians north-west of the Alps and the Vandal kingdom of North Africa. Heather sufficiently demonstrated the inherently-sectarian nature of the Germanic nations, particularly when it came to succession and the division of inheritance. Political marriages broke down, sons and daughters were killed and the empire fragmented again just before his death, leaving it up for grabs by the Eastern Romans and Franks.
From here we are introduced to Justinian and the reign marked by lightning-fast conquests, drawn-out wars similar to the Iraqi and Afghanistan Wars and ambitious literary projects. An inherited rivalry with the Sassanian Persians saw it culminate in a number of minor Persian victories along the frontier before the Shah's death allowed Justinian to conclude a peace treaty with his successor and free up his manpower. However, his reign had now been dogged by insecurity, the Persian defeats and the Nika riots which he supressed with fatal force, and he needed to secure support by the aristocrats and broader civilian population. By now, the boards he'd assembled to sort and compile centuries of Roman jurisprudence and rulings were being published, setting him on the path to eternal fame, but this was not enough in the meantime to cement his rule. The opportunity came as the divided Vandal forces allowed his general Belisarius to sail without opposition to the North African coast and steamroll through the capitals before returning Carthage into the imperial fold after a century of separation. Justinian was now emboldened enough to set his sights on Rome, initiating a protracted war as the Italian Goths continued to stubbornly hold out, regroup and launch new counter-offensives, taking the best part of 20 years to finally end. In between the Italian campaign, war re-ignited with the Persians under Khosrau I, part of which involved both sides pumping their Ghassanid and Lakhmid vassals and their Arabian territories with gold and weapons to fight proxy wars which offered very little gain in exchange for the long term consequences that would arise. Only a plague would tranquilise the tensions and result in another truce. Although Justinian cannot be assigned the blame, his rule was part of the 3 generations which fermented the right conditions for the rise of Islam under forces. Remember, Rome and Persia had been financing their Arab vassals (similar to Sunni and Shiite proxies fighting it out in Iraq and Syria over the last 2 decades) to fight on the fronties where they maintained no presence and had no oversight of what was happening on the ground in a social or political context. Khosrau I's grandson, Khosrau II, was forced to flee following an usurpation of the throne and found refuge in emperor Maurice's court. It was with his support that he was able to reclaim his throne at Seleucia-Ctesiphon and further improve the relationship between the two superpowers. However, the rebellion and usurpation of the throne at Constantinople by Phocas resulted in the execution of Maurice and the wrath of Khosrau being unleashed upon the Eastern Romans. Heraclius took the throne from the unpopular and ineffective Phocas, executed him and turned the tide with the climax of the war taking place around Nineveh. The 26-year war exhausted both empires, their gold had been spent, their armed forces dead or depleted and their land that produced their food and revenue had been devastated. Similar to the previous truce between Justinian and Khosrau which lasted about half a century, another period would be needed for both sides to recover and return to prosperity, a period of respite which would not be found as the Muslim Arab armies made their way through the Mesopotamian valley and captured the wealthy Eastern Roman provincial capitals, and the entire empire in the case of the Persians.
It was on this note that we are introduced to Charlemagne, Karolus Magnus, the man who’d, through skill and luck, inherited the Frankish throne and was crowned emperor on Christmas Day in 800 AD by emperor Leo in Rome. Charlemagne’s role in Christianity is much more extensive than is generally attributed to him via the Christianisation of the Germanic pagans and Arians. The Muslim-conquered Iberian peninsula aside, Charlemagne had brought all of Europe under his realm and united the Gallo-Romans and Germanic Goths into a new Latin Christian entity. With all of the wealth and manpower at his disposal, Charlemagne proceeded to convene councils and meetings where the outcome would result in the reinvigoration of Latin studies and the patronage of countless monasteries, churches and cathedrals, renewing the literary cult of Europe and preserving so much of the knowledge penned during the Roman era. With the Roman papacy and Frankish monarchy working hand-in-hand, European Christendom had been made uniform and was now operating with one spirit and mission. It was in his religious endeavour, and partially, with the Donations of Constantine that the popes were endowed with vast landed estates that would enrich the papacy and support the building programs through the Republic of St Peter. In addition to this, churches and monasteries had been granted landed estates with which they could generate revenue, revenue that was going out of the emperor's pocket. In return, it was expected that bishoprics and monasteries would maintain a professional knight service from which the emperor could levy forces in the time of war as opposed to simple, quasi-professional farmer. As mentioned earlier with regards to the Gothic succession, the luck of the Carolingians dried up as more than one heir reached adulthood and the empire fragmented under dynastic division. This would eventually lead to the creation of East, Middle and West Francia and in turn, their French and German successors who’d continue to fight over Middle Francia until the end of World War II.
At last, we come to the Holy See of St Peter and the prestigious post of the Bishop of Rome. The Hellenic model of kingship in which a king’s power and right to rule is divinely sanctioned gained popularity among the early Christian emperors of Rome. Constantine’s Edict of Milan in 313 legalised the faith throughout the empire, but it was his next move that would set the precedent. In 325, Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea in which the Nicene Creed was formulated and the basic orthodoxy of the faith was established. Subsequent major councils such as those of Constantinople and Ephesus were also convoked by emperors Theodosius I and II. Right through to the reign of the Carolingians, it was the emperor or king, who'd decided when and where to hold the councils, the Bishop of Rome, being the first among equals or his legate, was simply a senior figure at the council. The emperors had good reason to orchestrate the councils, the eastern provinces had been the source of division as they were filled Latin, Greek and Aramaic-speaking Christians, undoubtedly a recipe for confusion and convolution when discussing metaphysical subjects, and this hotbed of sectarianism even led to the emperors themselves getting caught up in heresies in an attempt to come to a compromise between all sides. With the city of Rome and its adherent districts under the rule of the pope and the protection of the Carolingians, it would take the best part of 1,000 years for the papacy to be transformed into the spiritual institution that we know today, operating as the vicar of Christ and the head of the Catholic Church. Again, it would be the Franks and their "barbarian popes" that would achieve this transformation. In 1049, emperor Henry III, a determined reformer, elected his cousin, Bruno of Eguisheim-Dagsburg, to the papacy in an effort to recreate an imperial-papal alliance and end the practice of simony and enforce celibacy. The newly-elected Leo IX's generation of popes even built upon Justinian's legal texts with their own codified papal decrees, laws and legal precedents with texts such as the Concordantia disconcordantium Canonum with footnotes declaring that contradictions existed within it or Justinian's (although that is thanks to playing with semantics and rhetorical analysis of the wording and justification for the rulings).
In summary of the text, we have four entities, whether intentionally or by accident, sought to recreate the Senatus Populusque Romanus but ultimately failed. In the case of Theodoric and Charlemagne, there existed an inherently Germanic problem of the division of assets upon a father's death which extended to and included the kingdom. No matter what heights were achieved, the kingdom or empire would be broken down following the succession of a king by his sons, unless death had mercifully permitted the king to have only one living heir. It was only a matter of time before the emperor was left without a single heir, or inversely, with three or more heirs as we have witnessed with these two figures. In the case of Justinian and the Eastern Roman empire, all the original Roman institutions existed and functioned but the power to exert Roman influence could not be sustained. Justinian's conquests had proven far too costly for his thinly-spread empire. This weakness allowed all of his gains, plus more, to be lost within two generations to the Arab hordes. As for the papacy and the Bishop of Rome, the scope of the institution changed from imperial to spiritual as the pope would have power over a religious empire which transcended borders. However, the pope's authority was limited to the papal states and his spiritual authority was only effective within an allied power. When two Catholic states waged war, the papacy would either become a sought-after ally or a suspect of subterfuge. In the case of emperor Henry, it was evident that if popes did not comply with the emperor, the emperor would ultimately win in the end.
From here we are introduced to Justinian and the reign marked by lightning-fast conquests, drawn-out wars similar to the Iraqi and Afghanistan Wars and ambitious literary projects. An inherited rivalry with the Sassanian Persians saw it culminate in a number of minor Persian victories along the frontier before the Shah's death allowed Justinian to conclude a peace treaty with his successor and free up his manpower. However, his reign had now been dogged by insecurity, the Persian defeats and the Nika riots which he supressed with fatal force, and he needed to secure support by the aristocrats and broader civilian population. By now, the boards he'd assembled to sort and compile centuries of Roman jurisprudence and rulings were being published, setting him on the path to eternal fame, but this was not enough in the meantime to cement his rule. The opportunity came as the divided Vandal forces allowed his general Belisarius to sail without opposition to the North African coast and steamroll through the capitals before returning Carthage into the imperial fold after a century of separation. Justinian was now emboldened enough to set his sights on Rome, initiating a protracted war as the Italian Goths continued to stubbornly hold out, regroup and launch new counter-offensives, taking the best part of 20 years to finally end. In between the Italian campaign, war re-ignited with the Persians under Khosrau I, part of which involved both sides pumping their Ghassanid and Lakhmid vassals and their Arabian territories with gold and weapons to fight proxy wars which offered very little gain in exchange for the long term consequences that would arise. Only a plague would tranquilise the tensions and result in another truce. Although Justinian cannot be assigned the blame, his rule was part of the 3 generations which fermented the right conditions for the rise of Islam under forces. Remember, Rome and Persia had been financing their Arab vassals (similar to Sunni and Shiite proxies fighting it out in Iraq and Syria over the last 2 decades) to fight on the fronties where they maintained no presence and had no oversight of what was happening on the ground in a social or political context. Khosrau I's grandson, Khosrau II, was forced to flee following an usurpation of the throne and found refuge in emperor Maurice's court. It was with his support that he was able to reclaim his throne at Seleucia-Ctesiphon and further improve the relationship between the two superpowers. However, the rebellion and usurpation of the throne at Constantinople by Phocas resulted in the execution of Maurice and the wrath of Khosrau being unleashed upon the Eastern Romans. Heraclius took the throne from the unpopular and ineffective Phocas, executed him and turned the tide with the climax of the war taking place around Nineveh. The 26-year war exhausted both empires, their gold had been spent, their armed forces dead or depleted and their land that produced their food and revenue had been devastated. Similar to the previous truce between Justinian and Khosrau which lasted about half a century, another period would be needed for both sides to recover and return to prosperity, a period of respite which would not be found as the Muslim Arab armies made their way through the Mesopotamian valley and captured the wealthy Eastern Roman provincial capitals, and the entire empire in the case of the Persians.
It was on this note that we are introduced to Charlemagne, Karolus Magnus, the man who’d, through skill and luck, inherited the Frankish throne and was crowned emperor on Christmas Day in 800 AD by emperor Leo in Rome. Charlemagne’s role in Christianity is much more extensive than is generally attributed to him via the Christianisation of the Germanic pagans and Arians. The Muslim-conquered Iberian peninsula aside, Charlemagne had brought all of Europe under his realm and united the Gallo-Romans and Germanic Goths into a new Latin Christian entity. With all of the wealth and manpower at his disposal, Charlemagne proceeded to convene councils and meetings where the outcome would result in the reinvigoration of Latin studies and the patronage of countless monasteries, churches and cathedrals, renewing the literary cult of Europe and preserving so much of the knowledge penned during the Roman era. With the Roman papacy and Frankish monarchy working hand-in-hand, European Christendom had been made uniform and was now operating with one spirit and mission. It was in his religious endeavour, and partially, with the Donations of Constantine that the popes were endowed with vast landed estates that would enrich the papacy and support the building programs through the Republic of St Peter. In addition to this, churches and monasteries had been granted landed estates with which they could generate revenue, revenue that was going out of the emperor's pocket. In return, it was expected that bishoprics and monasteries would maintain a professional knight service from which the emperor could levy forces in the time of war as opposed to simple, quasi-professional farmer. As mentioned earlier with regards to the Gothic succession, the luck of the Carolingians dried up as more than one heir reached adulthood and the empire fragmented under dynastic division. This would eventually lead to the creation of East, Middle and West Francia and in turn, their French and German successors who’d continue to fight over Middle Francia until the end of World War II.
At last, we come to the Holy See of St Peter and the prestigious post of the Bishop of Rome. The Hellenic model of kingship in which a king’s power and right to rule is divinely sanctioned gained popularity among the early Christian emperors of Rome. Constantine’s Edict of Milan in 313 legalised the faith throughout the empire, but it was his next move that would set the precedent. In 325, Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea in which the Nicene Creed was formulated and the basic orthodoxy of the faith was established. Subsequent major councils such as those of Constantinople and Ephesus were also convoked by emperors Theodosius I and II. Right through to the reign of the Carolingians, it was the emperor or king, who'd decided when and where to hold the councils, the Bishop of Rome, being the first among equals or his legate, was simply a senior figure at the council. The emperors had good reason to orchestrate the councils, the eastern provinces had been the source of division as they were filled Latin, Greek and Aramaic-speaking Christians, undoubtedly a recipe for confusion and convolution when discussing metaphysical subjects, and this hotbed of sectarianism even led to the emperors themselves getting caught up in heresies in an attempt to come to a compromise between all sides. With the city of Rome and its adherent districts under the rule of the pope and the protection of the Carolingians, it would take the best part of 1,000 years for the papacy to be transformed into the spiritual institution that we know today, operating as the vicar of Christ and the head of the Catholic Church. Again, it would be the Franks and their "barbarian popes" that would achieve this transformation. In 1049, emperor Henry III, a determined reformer, elected his cousin, Bruno of Eguisheim-Dagsburg, to the papacy in an effort to recreate an imperial-papal alliance and end the practice of simony and enforce celibacy. The newly-elected Leo IX's generation of popes even built upon Justinian's legal texts with their own codified papal decrees, laws and legal precedents with texts such as the Concordantia disconcordantium Canonum with footnotes declaring that contradictions existed within it or Justinian's (although that is thanks to playing with semantics and rhetorical analysis of the wording and justification for the rulings).
In summary of the text, we have four entities, whether intentionally or by accident, sought to recreate the Senatus Populusque Romanus but ultimately failed. In the case of Theodoric and Charlemagne, there existed an inherently Germanic problem of the division of assets upon a father's death which extended to and included the kingdom. No matter what heights were achieved, the kingdom or empire would be broken down following the succession of a king by his sons, unless death had mercifully permitted the king to have only one living heir. It was only a matter of time before the emperor was left without a single heir, or inversely, with three or more heirs as we have witnessed with these two figures. In the case of Justinian and the Eastern Roman empire, all the original Roman institutions existed and functioned but the power to exert Roman influence could not be sustained. Justinian's conquests had proven far too costly for his thinly-spread empire. This weakness allowed all of his gains, plus more, to be lost within two generations to the Arab hordes. As for the papacy and the Bishop of Rome, the scope of the institution changed from imperial to spiritual as the pope would have power over a religious empire which transcended borders. However, the pope's authority was limited to the papal states and his spiritual authority was only effective within an allied power. When two Catholic states waged war, the papacy would either become a sought-after ally or a suspect of subterfuge. In the case of emperor Henry, it was evident that if popes did not comply with the emperor, the emperor would ultimately win in the end.
December 29, 2023
It has been quite a while since I read anything on Rome, and so earlier this year I decided to change this and picked up Peter Heather’s works. I have read book excellent narrative histories as well as some solidly researched books on Roman history by now, so my bar for a good roman history book is much higher than one for, say Chinese history. And despite this, Professor Heather’s works (I read three back to back!) came across as second to none.
This was the second book that I read, after having finished ‘The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians’. The Restoration of Rome can pretty much be read as a sequel to this book, focusing on the Western Roman Empire (or whatever remained of it) after Rome had ‘fallen’ to the barbarians. On a side note, for some reason I expected this to be a history of the Eastern Roman (‘Byzantine’) empire, as in my mind the revival of Rome meant the revival of the second Rome – i.e. Constantinople. Heather corrects these notions of mine, building off from his previous book which argued that Rome did not disappear in a cataclysm overnight, rather it transformed overtime into a relatively weaker polity with factional fights between the ‘insiders’ and barbarians. This pretty much continued after the fall of Rome. What did change however was the power focus of the imperial city, even if culturally and psychologically, Rome held enormous sway over the minds of the leaders and peoples of Western Europe.
This was why a ‘Roman revival’ was brought about: first through the expansion of the Roman identity which was assumed by the barbarian emperors, then through its cultural, social and political institutions, which were kept by not just the barbarian emperors but also non barbarians who sought to revive Rome in their own way (Justinian of Byzantium, Charlemagne of the Franks and Theodoric the Ostrogoth). Of these, Charlemagne’s efforts ultimately lead to the creation of the Holy Roman Empire which lasted in one form or another for a thousand years.
Finally, Rome was also revived (and in a sense has even to date been kept alive in memory, culture and aesthetic) by the rise of the papacy, which consolidated both ecumenical and religious authority, as well as political and economic power, leading to the formation of Medieval Europe. Thus the book highlights the lasting influence of this period on European history, shaping the development of the papacy, the Holy Roman Empire, and the cultural identity of Western Europe.
Overall, an excellent book on Rome. I could not put it down and rushed to read one more book by Heather, this time on Christianity and Rome.
Rating 5 of 5, a must read for Roman History aficionados.
This was the second book that I read, after having finished ‘The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians’. The Restoration of Rome can pretty much be read as a sequel to this book, focusing on the Western Roman Empire (or whatever remained of it) after Rome had ‘fallen’ to the barbarians. On a side note, for some reason I expected this to be a history of the Eastern Roman (‘Byzantine’) empire, as in my mind the revival of Rome meant the revival of the second Rome – i.e. Constantinople. Heather corrects these notions of mine, building off from his previous book which argued that Rome did not disappear in a cataclysm overnight, rather it transformed overtime into a relatively weaker polity with factional fights between the ‘insiders’ and barbarians. This pretty much continued after the fall of Rome. What did change however was the power focus of the imperial city, even if culturally and psychologically, Rome held enormous sway over the minds of the leaders and peoples of Western Europe.
This was why a ‘Roman revival’ was brought about: first through the expansion of the Roman identity which was assumed by the barbarian emperors, then through its cultural, social and political institutions, which were kept by not just the barbarian emperors but also non barbarians who sought to revive Rome in their own way (Justinian of Byzantium, Charlemagne of the Franks and Theodoric the Ostrogoth). Of these, Charlemagne’s efforts ultimately lead to the creation of the Holy Roman Empire which lasted in one form or another for a thousand years.
Finally, Rome was also revived (and in a sense has even to date been kept alive in memory, culture and aesthetic) by the rise of the papacy, which consolidated both ecumenical and religious authority, as well as political and economic power, leading to the formation of Medieval Europe. Thus the book highlights the lasting influence of this period on European history, shaping the development of the papacy, the Holy Roman Empire, and the cultural identity of Western Europe.
Overall, an excellent book on Rome. I could not put it down and rushed to read one more book by Heather, this time on Christianity and Rome.
Rating 5 of 5, a must read for Roman History aficionados.
October 16, 2025
If you have read Peter Heather on the fall of the western Roman empire I can't imagine you can resist reading this follow up volume on the attempts to resurrect the empire by Theodoric, Justinian and Charlemagne, their failure but the eventually 'recreation' rather than 'restoration' of the empire in the form of the papacy. The difference is that while Heather brings the same deep knowledge and readability to the subject it is inevitably more of a challenge simply because while everyone knows about the fall of Rome, even if most of what they know is wrong, how many readers will recognise the three rulers above or have even a passing awareness of the Carolingian renaissance, the Culniac monastic revolution or pope Innocent III and the fourth Lateran council of 1215?
That Professor Heather manages to make the vast complexities of the post Roman world, and that includes the ongoing importance of the Eastern Roman empire, comprehensible is a major plus. Most of us just don't have even a nodding awareness of how the Latin West went from the dissolution of the Roman empire to the emergence of recognisable European polities in the Middle Ages. Most importantly every few of us, even Catholics, have any understanding of how the church as a supra national organisation came into being. Anyone reading Heather will quickly realise that the fairy tales of Dan Brown and the authors of nonsense like 'Holy Blood and the Holy Grail' are simply impossible because they are based on the idea that the institutional Catholic Church as we know and loath actually has real organised corporate bureaucratic roots back before the 11th century.
I loved the history Heather recounts but found his colloquialisms, as many others have noted, very often distracting. Clearly they are an essential part of his teaching style and while they may work in the lecture hall they have, once committed to paper, a tendency to date. References to the 2009 London riots are already likely to be almost meaningless to younger UK readers while for non UK readers I doubt if they ever were meaningful.
Because of the varied subjects and shifting areas of concentration I am sure all readers will at some point find longeurs - despite his best efforts Heather's account of the creation of canon law while excellent is inevitably less then thrilling. But in total the book is immensely fascinating and in the best possibly way makes you think.
That Professor Heather manages to make the vast complexities of the post Roman world, and that includes the ongoing importance of the Eastern Roman empire, comprehensible is a major plus. Most of us just don't have even a nodding awareness of how the Latin West went from the dissolution of the Roman empire to the emergence of recognisable European polities in the Middle Ages. Most importantly every few of us, even Catholics, have any understanding of how the church as a supra national organisation came into being. Anyone reading Heather will quickly realise that the fairy tales of Dan Brown and the authors of nonsense like 'Holy Blood and the Holy Grail' are simply impossible because they are based on the idea that the institutional Catholic Church as we know and loath actually has real organised corporate bureaucratic roots back before the 11th century.
I loved the history Heather recounts but found his colloquialisms, as many others have noted, very often distracting. Clearly they are an essential part of his teaching style and while they may work in the lecture hall they have, once committed to paper, a tendency to date. References to the 2009 London riots are already likely to be almost meaningless to younger UK readers while for non UK readers I doubt if they ever were meaningful.
Because of the varied subjects and shifting areas of concentration I am sure all readers will at some point find longeurs - despite his best efforts Heather's account of the creation of canon law while excellent is inevitably less then thrilling. But in total the book is immensely fascinating and in the best possibly way makes you think.
June 19, 2025
Overall, I think this was a good book, however there was so much crammed into it that it sometimes became too much to digest and understand. The book is split into four sections, 2 of the four sections to me were confusing with so much happening that it became hard to follow the gothic kingdom’s relationship with Constantinople and the ‘fight’ for Italy in the late fifth century. The part on Justinian was great, enjoyed that a lot. The next section was going over Charlemagne and the Carolingian rise to power. This is where the book became so much to handle with the confusing Merovingian/Carolingian dynasties. Finally, Heather stakes his claim that the papacy and the Catholic Church is a form of successor for the Roman Empire. I do not agree with this take. I do see where his argument comes from and this section of the book was well written with great history.
All in all, this book had some great moments, and some that lost me, but I am happy I read it. My true rating would be a 3.5 stars that I have rounded down to 3.
All in all, this book had some great moments, and some that lost me, but I am happy I read it. My true rating would be a 3.5 stars that I have rounded down to 3.
January 23, 2018
A reasonable summary of several occasions when successors sought to recreate (in territory and political trappings) in some fashion the western Roman empire. A little less enjoyable and informative than his other books. His informal style is maybe stronger here. His style does make the story flow easier in general, though it can be distracting; he clearly has deep knowledge of the subject, and he clearly states when there are differing opinions from his own. A nice discussion at the end provides an introductory explanation on the coincidental (not-directly intended) rise of Rome as the leader of a unified Church.
March 27, 2019
Peter Heather casts a wry eye over centuries of packed history - Goths, Vandals, Franks, Byzantines, Persians, Muslims, Popes - and evaluates every one (how they came to be, why they came to be, what it actually was they did) in an accessible yet highly intelligent way. A must read.
May 8, 2020
An interesting look at the transitions in empire.
November 22, 2022
Heather takes a look at the attempts by various leaders in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages to reestablish imperial power in the west. He examines the reigns of Theoderic, Justinian, Charlemagne and several of his heirs, and finally a series of popes whom he argues were the most successful at recreating the empire. It’s an interesting book which at the very least shows how important the concept of empire continued to be in the Middle Ages. For me, it was Heather’s account of the collapse of Charlemagne’s empire—rooted in Frankish customs that divided inheritance among all sons—that was most interesting. This is a long book, but worthwhile.
May 1, 2019
I’ve read several books by Peter Heather and I admire his style. You might call it informally erudite. He has a very precise, forensic, sceptical approach to historical research but he manages to present complex material in a way that even I can understand. There are plenty of footnotes and a lengthy bibliography so every statement is fully evidenced. One niggle I have is whether the author can read Latin or koine Greek because he always cites English translations of primary texts. I assume that as a mediaeval historian he does read Latin for fun, but maybe he doesn’t like to make a show of it.
Anyway, this book focuses on three historical figures – Theoderic, Justinian and Charlemagne – and the contribution each made to restoring “Rome” in principle at least as some kind imperial power. It also covers over 500 years of European history and a myriad of kings, popes, emperors and assorted dukes, bishops and lesser mortals. I thought I knew the period pretty well, not least because I’ve recently read the same author’s Empires and Barbarians and another book I often tout, Peter H Wilson’s The Holy Roman Empire. However, I learned an awful lot from this volume. For example, about the Pseudo Isidore texts. It never ceases to amaze me how much mendacity lies at the heart of church history. It’s head spinning stuff, but the author explains very clearly how the bishops of Rome (i.e. the Popes) asserted their supremacy over the other princes of the church to become key players in European politics. He also explains how attempts to recreate a “Roman” empire based on the Mediterranean failed as the axis of power shifted from southern to northern Europe and as the Byzantine empire shrank in the face of Islamic conquests. As with Empires and Barbarians there is an underlying theme about how modern Europe came into being as a patchwork of political entities (provinces, nation states, borderlands etc.) with differing languages and cultures. Here we also learn how an overarching Catholic Church struggled to impose doctrinal unity but was not sufficient to support any kind of political unity across Europe.
This edition has plenty of maps – very useful for making sense of the geography of the all the political entities mentions in the text – as well as colour illustrations of Justinian, Theodora et al. Overall, I’d happily recommend it to anyone who wants to understand how Europe came about and where it’s likely to go.
Anyway, this book focuses on three historical figures – Theoderic, Justinian and Charlemagne – and the contribution each made to restoring “Rome” in principle at least as some kind imperial power. It also covers over 500 years of European history and a myriad of kings, popes, emperors and assorted dukes, bishops and lesser mortals. I thought I knew the period pretty well, not least because I’ve recently read the same author’s Empires and Barbarians and another book I often tout, Peter H Wilson’s The Holy Roman Empire. However, I learned an awful lot from this volume. For example, about the Pseudo Isidore texts. It never ceases to amaze me how much mendacity lies at the heart of church history. It’s head spinning stuff, but the author explains very clearly how the bishops of Rome (i.e. the Popes) asserted their supremacy over the other princes of the church to become key players in European politics. He also explains how attempts to recreate a “Roman” empire based on the Mediterranean failed as the axis of power shifted from southern to northern Europe and as the Byzantine empire shrank in the face of Islamic conquests. As with Empires and Barbarians there is an underlying theme about how modern Europe came into being as a patchwork of political entities (provinces, nation states, borderlands etc.) with differing languages and cultures. Here we also learn how an overarching Catholic Church struggled to impose doctrinal unity but was not sufficient to support any kind of political unity across Europe.
This edition has plenty of maps – very useful for making sense of the geography of the all the political entities mentions in the text – as well as colour illustrations of Justinian, Theodora et al. Overall, I’d happily recommend it to anyone who wants to understand how Europe came about and where it’s likely to go.
July 7, 2016
Even if Peter Heather were a bland writer this would still be a great book. As it were Heather is probably the only scholar on late antiquity who can genuinely make his audience laugh along with teaching something truly important.
The narrative at hand deals with the varying attempts to resurrect some form of centralized authority in Western and Central Europe following the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in the late fifth century.
This makes for interesting narrative of course as successive Kings and Emperors each attempt some kind of Roman reconstitution with each ultimately failing.
The real gem of this book though is Heather's historical analysis: how Rome rose again.
From its very beginnings what constituted "Roman" was never clear. If you follow the myth Aeneas was Trojan, and Romulus and Remus were sons of Mars from Alba Longa and merely abandoned by the Tiber. Their wives were Sabine and their early Kings were Etruscan. Even six centuries later among the Late Republican/early Imperial figures: Cicero, Octavian, Claudius... none of them were strictly Roman per se having been born outside Rome proper and yet each is still considered Roman.
Of course from the Principate onwards things only expanded outwards until Rome proper had become eclipsed by richer cities of the East, and better defensible cities in the West. Concurrently the spread of colonists and the granting of broad citizenship rights to cities in the provinces meant that "Roman" no longer was an ethnicity or heritage and instead became something closer to a national identity.
That's hardly uncommon by itself. But where these sorts of identities come and go as empires and nations collapse throughout it stuck around with Rome in a complex marriage of Religion, location, history, temperament, philosophy, language and just simple self identification that could each exist independently as easily as in conjunction with one another and yet still make the individual Roman. Peter Heather focuses on the religious in this book and shows very persuasively how Roman auctoritas eventually became Papal Decree in spite of the fact that Gaul, Britannia, and Hispania considered themselves kingdoms unto themselves.
The irony is that the obsession with remaking Rome was pointless. Rome never actually fell.
The narrative at hand deals with the varying attempts to resurrect some form of centralized authority in Western and Central Europe following the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in the late fifth century.
This makes for interesting narrative of course as successive Kings and Emperors each attempt some kind of Roman reconstitution with each ultimately failing.
The real gem of this book though is Heather's historical analysis: how Rome rose again.
From its very beginnings what constituted "Roman" was never clear. If you follow the myth Aeneas was Trojan, and Romulus and Remus were sons of Mars from Alba Longa and merely abandoned by the Tiber. Their wives were Sabine and their early Kings were Etruscan. Even six centuries later among the Late Republican/early Imperial figures: Cicero, Octavian, Claudius... none of them were strictly Roman per se having been born outside Rome proper and yet each is still considered Roman.
Of course from the Principate onwards things only expanded outwards until Rome proper had become eclipsed by richer cities of the East, and better defensible cities in the West. Concurrently the spread of colonists and the granting of broad citizenship rights to cities in the provinces meant that "Roman" no longer was an ethnicity or heritage and instead became something closer to a national identity.
That's hardly uncommon by itself. But where these sorts of identities come and go as empires and nations collapse throughout it stuck around with Rome in a complex marriage of Religion, location, history, temperament, philosophy, language and just simple self identification that could each exist independently as easily as in conjunction with one another and yet still make the individual Roman. Peter Heather focuses on the religious in this book and shows very persuasively how Roman auctoritas eventually became Papal Decree in spite of the fact that Gaul, Britannia, and Hispania considered themselves kingdoms unto themselves.
The irony is that the obsession with remaking Rome was pointless. Rome never actually fell.
August 15, 2014
Peter Heather always applies a droll, sarcastic tenor to any ancient history topic he approaches, and The Restoration of Rome is no exception. This book takes an interesting slice across early medieval kingdoms, comparing the post-Odavacar kingdoms of Theoderic, Justinian, and Charlemagne, showing how each tried to bring back the glory of Rome at its height. The book's greatest achievement is in showing the reader that many of the post-Rome regional kimgdoms - Ostrogoths,Visigoths, Burgundian, Strathclyde - were not nearly as illiterate and barbaric as assumed.
This goal is served best in the chapters discussing the mini-empire of Theoderic, which Heather thinks was a much more advanced kingdom than that of the Merovingian Franks. While there are a few good works on the Visigoths in Gaul and Spain, there are not nearly as many Ostrogoth studies, particularly covering Theoderic's reign.
The chapters on Justinian and Charlemagne provide an interesting perspective on these two periods, but are not nearly as groundbreaking, because of the number of good historical studies that exist already.
The final chapters looking at the bureaucratization of the Catholic Church are useful, particularly in explaining the papal wars for legitimacy in the eighth and ninth centuries, though Heather is less successful than in earlier chapters in describing how the Catholic Church became a source of government legitimacy in its own right.
While Heather's snarky asides comparing medieval trends to the 21st century help to make the book funnier and more readable, they occasionally distract from the successful making of a point. Nevertheless, I would not remove these asides, since they help to give the book a breezier style.
This goal is served best in the chapters discussing the mini-empire of Theoderic, which Heather thinks was a much more advanced kingdom than that of the Merovingian Franks. While there are a few good works on the Visigoths in Gaul and Spain, there are not nearly as many Ostrogoth studies, particularly covering Theoderic's reign.
The chapters on Justinian and Charlemagne provide an interesting perspective on these two periods, but are not nearly as groundbreaking, because of the number of good historical studies that exist already.
The final chapters looking at the bureaucratization of the Catholic Church are useful, particularly in explaining the papal wars for legitimacy in the eighth and ninth centuries, though Heather is less successful than in earlier chapters in describing how the Catholic Church became a source of government legitimacy in its own right.
While Heather's snarky asides comparing medieval trends to the 21st century help to make the book funnier and more readable, they occasionally distract from the successful making of a point. Nevertheless, I would not remove these asides, since they help to give the book a breezier style.
November 29, 2013
A very readable and insightful work, on a period of ancient history which is unfairly underrepresented compared to others, but which turns out to be no less fascinating than the usual done-to-death topics like rise and fall of the Julio-Claudians, or the fall of the Western Empire.
February 26, 2015
Love the guy, but would someone please tell him Emperor Constantius II died in 361, not 351? This mistake runs through his work in a very irritating way.
Otherwise an interesting proposition, reframing the Catholic Church as the last Roman Empire.
Otherwise an interesting proposition, reframing the Catholic Church as the last Roman Empire.
May 17, 2025
這是我讀Peter Heather的第二部著作了。前一本同樣是中信‧新思翻譯引進的《羅馬帝國的殞落》(The Fall of the Roman Empire)，兩者相隔了不少時間，聽說本書當初找譯者就有點困難，現在找適合的人真的不容易。
Peter Heather是北愛爾蘭人，古典晚期跟中世紀早期的學者，專注於研究「蠻族」活動，本書算是他的「系列作」，主題是西羅馬帝國瓦解之後，各繼承政權對這分遺產的各種獨佔與恢復的嘗試。
羅馬帝國是唯一一個曾經統合地中海兩岸的霸權，而人們在建構政治秩序時，總喜歡從過去的「榮光」找尋連結，用來強化統治的合法性，不論什麼地區文明皆然。於是，自五世紀之後，許多野心勃勃或擁有雄心壯志的統治者，無不企圖以古羅馬的霸權為榜樣，效法凱撒、奧古斯都等人的志業。要說歐洲人不想「統一」絕對是錯誤的，是不能也，非不為也。
不過，我本來以為這個主題可能沒什麼太多新意好寫了，但Peter Heather還是讓我「失望」了。作者指出，迪奧多里克、查士丁尼跟查理曼企圖以武力在政治上重建帝國的人，他們最終來說都失敗了；而處於舊帝都羅馬的教皇，則成功的打造出了一個精神領域/意識形態上的「羅馬第二帝國」。說梵諦岡是這個古代帝國的遺緒這個論點並不算新鮮，畢竟整個教會組織確實是複製跟效法羅馬帝國的行政架構去打造出來的產物。但Peter Heather的文筆跟敘事能力跟架構安排上像是剝洋蔥般一步一步導向結論，讓本書極具可讀性。
東哥特國王迪奧多里克是第一位嘗試恢復西羅馬帝國政治秩序的統治者，他在一定時間內算是上成功了。但最終失敗的原因在於，他建立的只是一種「霸權式」的秩序，東哥特並沒有完全實質的征服過去的舊領，只是憑著較為強大的國力跟迪奧多里克個人能力讓周邊其他繼承國屈服。這種秩序建立的條件是很不穩定的，特別是國王本身，隨時可能隨著其能力的衰弱或逝去，而導致崩潰。而最嚴重的問題在於，迪奧多里克沒有子嗣，這不但讓霸權消失，甚至讓其王國在他有生之年就開始不穩。
第二個挑戰者的人是查士丁尼。Peter Heather認為此公純屬投機，因為他在「尼卡暴動」中威信盡失，需要一場軍事勝利還證明自己還是「天命所歸」。恰好北非的汪達爾王國出現不穩，於是他大膽投入這場賭注。而或許真的是上帝的安排，敵人的內亂跟貝利薩留的天才使其豐收滿滿，甚至擁有了雄心收復舊領。個人覺得作者的評論頗有意思，再次翻轉了我的想法。Peter Heather認為查士丁尼的征服固然勞民傷財，但他並不該對於之後六世紀的大衰退負責，當然，伊斯蘭征服更是扯不上邊。這位皇帝也努力的穩固其征服的成果，但有太多不確定的因素使其心血無法維持(例如瘟疫)，作者認為有些事情還是「純屬歷史的偶然，非人力所及也」。這些都是過眼雲煙，查士丁尼真正對後世影響重大的是他編列的那部法典，這讓羅馬法更有體系的保留下來，成為重大的遺產。
第三號來自於北方的「蠻族」，作者說這象徵著歐洲的重心北移。但Peter Heather讓我覺得更有趣的是，他對於西元800年的那場偉大加冕，因為傳記作者艾因哈德宣稱查理曼其實是不願意接受而導致的爭議，有讓人頗信服的解釋。作者指出，因為基督教對於統治者也存在著一種理論，就是「只能是來自上帝的意旨，不能是主動爭取，而且要顯得勉為其難接受」。按照華夏政治文化的那套，就是曹丕搞出來「三讓三辭」戲碼。做為一位統治大半西歐的查理曼，怎麼可能不覬覦帝位，艾因哈德在傳記上寫那些話只是粉飾之詞而已。這點跟《神聖羅馬帝國》的作者布賴斯的見解頗為不同，倒是可以互相參照。總之，儘管教皇也是百般不願，但最終還是得面對現實。
法蘭克人的帝國固然稱霸一時，可還是存在著極為嚴重的弱點：繼承制。他們的這種諸子均分法的缺陷是顯而易見的，但統治者如果只有一個孩子在那個時代風險非常高，除非能穩定改成長子繼承制，這又不符合其民族傳統；對法蘭克人這種實力至上的遊牧民族來說，統治者就算擁有血統也還不夠，必須證明其實力。因此，一旦權力出現交替，過多競爭者實力相等，就會撕裂整個帝國，造成無法挽回的局勢。虔誠者路易之後面臨的就是這種局面，各路心懷鬼胎的諸侯擁護著不同的王子，爭取自己的私利，把加洛林帝國搞得四分五裂。從政治上復興西羅馬至此算是夢碎了，之後的神聖羅馬帝國並沒有達到加洛林這樣的高度，嚴格意義上來說只能是一種不成功的仿製品。
Peter Heather對於這種重建企圖屢屢失敗給了一個頗有說服力的解釋。他認為羅馬當年能夠征服地中海兩岸，主要在於勢均力敵的對手不多。真正的大威脅迦太基剷除之後，西歐剩下的都是文明開化程度較低的部落，只要羅馬自己不亂搞很快就能掌握在手。至於東地中海的希臘各國，自己多年打成一鍋粥，也沒辦法團結抵抗，只能乖乖臣服。而經過數百年的帝國「文明教化」，整個領土在政治經濟水平上逐漸拉近，當它們再次陷入分裂時，彼此間的對抗就是相等的力量，特別是西北歐部分。挑戰者可能需要數代人的努力才做的到，而之後的歐洲史上再也不曾出現過這樣的家族/國家有這等氣運。
在政治/軍事上的統一失敗了，但是，在精神/意識形態領域上卻成功了。Peter Heather指出，教皇在經過幾代人的努力，終於在中世紀盛期時打造出了一個「羅馬第二帝國」。
羅馬大主教是經過一番努力才從平等的五大教區中脫穎而出，並且與皇帝的掌握對抗多年才爭取到上風，最重要的因素其一是西歐政治力量的衰弱，其二是兩份文件的偽造，替教皇爭取到了統治西歐的大義名分與合法性，它分別是「君士坦丁的饋贈」跟「偽伊西多爾教令集」。前者內容說君士坦丁在四世紀時，即已將西部的統治權贈與當時的教皇希爾維斯特；第二份文件利用各種案例賦予了教皇對於各教會的直接管轄與任命權，並削弱了各地主教的力量，並掌握了宗教法庭。就這樣，原本只是一個「特殊的羅馬主教區」，逐漸變成了「基督教世界的精神中心」，在那個神權尚未被挑戰的年代，教皇透過精神與意識形態上的力量，達成對人們的控制，儘管不是全面，也是非典型的，但作者認為，這仍是屬於一種「帝國」。
怎麼看待Peter Heather這個結論就見仁見智了，個人是覺得相當有趣。畢竟考慮到即便是現在，教宗依然是動見觀瞻，對於天主教國家具有極大影響力，那麼，在中世紀盛期的地位可想而知，而作者的觀點應該也不算誇大其辭。
雖然個人是沒有能力比對原文，不過感覺上本書的翻譯還是可以接受，譯者之前的作品也都沒啥問題。期待能夠繼續引進作者的其他作品。
Peter Heather是北愛爾蘭人，古典晚期跟中世紀早期的學者，專注於研究「蠻族」活動，本書算是他的「系列作」，主題是西羅馬帝國瓦解之後，各繼承政權對這分遺產的各種獨佔與恢復的嘗試。
羅馬帝國是唯一一個曾經統合地中海兩岸的霸權，而人們在建構政治秩序時，總喜歡從過去的「榮光」找尋連結，用來強化統治的合法性，不論什麼地區文明皆然。於是，自五世紀之後，許多野心勃勃或擁有雄心壯志的統治者，無不企圖以古羅馬的霸權為榜樣，效法凱撒、奧古斯都等人的志業。要說歐洲人不想「統一」絕對是錯誤的，是不能也，非不為也。
不過，我本來以為這個主題可能沒什麼太多新意好寫了，但Peter Heather還是讓我「失望」了。作者指出，迪奧多里克、查士丁尼跟查理曼企圖以武力在政治上重建帝國的人，他們最終來說都失敗了；而處於舊帝都羅馬的教皇，則成功的打造出了一個精神領域/意識形態上的「羅馬第二帝國」。說梵諦岡是這個古代帝國的遺緒這個論點並不算新鮮，畢竟整個教會組織確實是複製跟效法羅馬帝國的行政架構去打造出來的產物。但Peter Heather的文筆跟敘事能力跟架構安排上像是剝洋蔥般一步一步導向結論，讓本書極具可讀性。
東哥特國王迪奧多里克是第一位嘗試恢復西羅馬帝國政治秩序的統治者，他在一定時間內算是上成功了。但最終失敗的原因在於，他建立的只是一種「霸權式」的秩序，東哥特並沒有完全實質的征服過去的舊領，只是憑著較為強大的國力跟迪奧多里克個人能力讓周邊其他繼承國屈服。這種秩序建立的條件是很不穩定的，特別是國王本身，隨時可能隨著其能力的衰弱或逝去，而導致崩潰。而最嚴重的問題在於，迪奧多里克沒有子嗣，這不但讓霸權消失，甚至讓其王國在他有生之年就開始不穩。
第二個挑戰者的人是查士丁尼。Peter Heather認為此公純屬投機，因為他在「尼卡暴動」中威信盡失，需要一場軍事勝利還證明自己還是「天命所歸」。恰好北非的汪達爾王國出現不穩，於是他大膽投入這場賭注。而或許真的是上帝的安排，敵人的內亂跟貝利薩留的天才使其豐收滿滿，甚至擁有了雄心收復舊領。個人覺得作者的評論頗有意思，再次翻轉了我的想法。Peter Heather認為查士丁尼的征服固然勞民傷財，但他並不該對於之後六世紀的大衰退負責，當然，伊斯蘭征服更是扯不上邊。這位皇帝也努力的穩固其征服的成果，但有太多不確定的因素使其心血無法維持(例如瘟疫)，作者認為有些事情還是「純屬歷史的偶然，非人力所及也」。這些都是過眼雲煙，查士丁尼真正對後世影響重大的是他編列的那部法典，這讓羅馬法更有體系的保留下來，成為重大的遺產。
第三號來自於北方的「蠻族」，作者說這象徵著歐洲的重心北移。但Peter Heather讓我覺得更有趣的是，他對於西元800年的那場偉大加冕，因為傳記作者艾因哈德宣稱查理曼其實是不願意接受而導致的爭議，有讓人頗信服的解釋。作者指出，因為基督教對於統治者也存在著一種理論，就是「只能是來自上帝的意旨，不能是主動爭取，而且要顯得勉為其難接受」。按照華夏政治文化的那套，就是曹丕搞出來「三讓三辭」戲碼。做為一位統治大半西歐的查理曼，怎麼可能不覬覦帝位，艾因哈德在傳記上寫那些話只是粉飾之詞而已。這點跟《神聖羅馬帝國》的作者布賴斯的見解頗為不同，倒是可以互相參照。總之，儘管教皇也是百般不願，但最終還是得面對現實。
法蘭克人的帝國固然稱霸一時，可還是存在著極為嚴重的弱點：繼承制。他們的這種諸子均分法的缺陷是顯而易見的，但統治者如果只有一個孩子在那個時代風險非常高，除非能穩定改成長子繼承制，這又不符合其民族傳統；對法蘭克人這種實力至上的遊牧民族來說，統治者就算擁有血統也還不夠，必須證明其實力。因此，一旦權力出現交替，過多競爭者實力相等，就會撕裂整個帝國，造成無法挽回的局勢。虔誠者路易之後面臨的就是這種局面，各路心懷鬼胎的諸侯擁護著不同的王子，爭取自己的私利，把加洛林帝國搞得四分五裂。從政治上復興西羅馬至此算是夢碎了，之後的神聖羅馬帝國並沒有達到加洛林這樣的高度，嚴格意義上來說只能是一種不成功的仿製品。
Peter Heather對於這種重建企圖屢屢失敗給了一個頗有說服力的解釋。他認為羅馬當年能夠征服地中海兩岸，主要在於勢均力敵的對手不多。真正的大威脅迦太基剷除之後，西歐剩下的都是文明開化程度較低的部落，只要羅馬自己不亂搞很快就能掌握在手。至於東地中海的希臘各國，自己多年打成一鍋粥，也沒辦法團結抵抗，只能乖乖臣服。而經過數百年的帝國「文明教化」，整個領土在政治經濟水平上逐漸拉近，當它們再次陷入分裂時，彼此間的對抗就是相等的力量，特別是西北歐部分。挑戰者可能需要數代人的努力才做的到，而之後的歐洲史上再也不曾出現過這樣的家族/國家有這等氣運。
在政治/軍事上的統一失敗了，但是，在精神/意識形態領域上卻成功了。Peter Heather指出，教皇在經過幾代人的努力，終於在中世紀盛期時打造出了一個「羅馬第二帝國」。
羅馬大主教是經過一番努力才從平等的五大教區中脫穎而出，並且與皇帝的掌握對抗多年才爭取到上風，最重要的因素其一是西歐政治力量的衰弱，其二是兩份文件的偽造，替教皇爭取到了統治西歐的大義名分與合法性，它分別是「君士坦丁的饋贈」跟「偽伊西多爾教令集」。前者內容說君士坦丁在四世紀時，即已將西部的統治權贈與當時的教皇希爾維斯特；第二份文件利用各種案例賦予了教皇對於各教會的直接管轄與任命權，並削弱了各地主教的力量，並掌握了宗教法庭。就這樣，原本只是一個「特殊的羅馬主教區」，逐漸變成了「基督教世界的精神中心」，在那個神權尚未被挑戰的年代，教皇透過精神與意識形態上的力量，達成對人們的控制，儘管不是全面，也是非典型的，但作者認為，這仍是屬於一種「帝國」。
怎麼看待Peter Heather這個結論就見仁見智了，個人是覺得相當有趣。畢竟考慮到即便是現在，教宗依然是動見觀瞻，對於天主教國家具有極大影響力，那麼，在中世紀盛期的地位可想而知，而作者的觀點應該也不算誇大其辭。
雖然個人是沒有能力比對原文，不過感覺上本書的翻譯還是可以接受，譯者之前的作品也都沒啥問題。期待能夠繼續引進作者的其他作品。
June 16, 2017
I found this to be a fascinating book, greatly enlightening me regarding the period from about 800 to 1200 AD which I knew so little about. Heather nicely explains how Western Europe made the transition from being part of the Roman Empire to being broken up into kingdoms of the early Middle Ages, and the creation of the Holy Roman Empire. He completes this great transition in the final chapters by showing how the Catholic Church filled in the loss of the Roman Empire as the Pope became the dominating authority over the disparate societies of this region and era.
This had always been a "dark age" for me as I had always wondered how these changes had all come about. I would mention that Ludwig Heinrich Dyck's book, The Roman Barbarian Wars, was a good prequel as he nicely defined and provided maps of the tribal structure of this area during the early Roman Empire, and this made the later struggles of Peppin and Charlemagne much clearer to me.
I found the reading a bit slow, however, as Heather has packed so much information into his pages, although his informal style of writing helps ease the burden. On the other hand, I found his use of interjecting side-issues by means of dashes to be too disruptive, especially where he made so much use of these in the final chapters about Papal history. But Heather's analysis of the history of this period made any effort very worthwhile.
This had always been a "dark age" for me as I had always wondered how these changes had all come about. I would mention that Ludwig Heinrich Dyck's book, The Roman Barbarian Wars, was a good prequel as he nicely defined and provided maps of the tribal structure of this area during the early Roman Empire, and this made the later struggles of Peppin and Charlemagne much clearer to me.
I found the reading a bit slow, however, as Heather has packed so much information into his pages, although his informal style of writing helps ease the burden. On the other hand, I found his use of interjecting side-issues by means of dashes to be too disruptive, especially where he made so much use of these in the final chapters about Papal history. But Heather's analysis of the history of this period made any effort very worthwhile.
March 28, 2023
I won't go into too much detail about the content, it's clearly stated by other reviewers. The book is basically 4 parts; Theoderic, Justinian, Charlemagne and Papacy. We get a nice overview of with lots of interesting details on the eras and the actors involved.
The author is also not really afraid to criticize others and write his original opinion on the matter. You can see him analyse other historians and give his personal opinion on the matter which i always find such a breath of fresh air. Sure, he could be wrong, but at least the opinions are original and argumented.
Where his books really differ from others is his writing style. I can see why some people would dislike it, but i think it works since it's basically unique for him from my experience. There is really no shortage of modern cultural comparisons.
What do i mean? Well, he compares a situation in the Gothic Court to Godfather I; he says about a description of Justinian that it looks like a child of the movies Omen and Deep Throat. And of course, he uses modern slang, often words you would expect in a 2Pac song, not a book about Roman History. Oh, and that i mention the odd swear word gets in the book? It feels weird, but it actually makes it a very engaging read. And the author is clearly knowledgeble. So great book overall.
The author is also not really afraid to criticize others and write his original opinion on the matter. You can see him analyse other historians and give his personal opinion on the matter which i always find such a breath of fresh air. Sure, he could be wrong, but at least the opinions are original and argumented.
Where his books really differ from others is his writing style. I can see why some people would dislike it, but i think it works since it's basically unique for him from my experience. There is really no shortage of modern cultural comparisons.
What do i mean? Well, he compares a situation in the Gothic Court to Godfather I; he says about a description of Justinian that it looks like a child of the movies Omen and Deep Throat. And of course, he uses modern slang, often words you would expect in a 2Pac song, not a book about Roman History. Oh, and that i mention the odd swear word gets in the book? It feels weird, but it actually makes it a very engaging read. And the author is clearly knowledgeble. So great book overall.
October 18, 2022
My first love is Medieval History, probably because my two favorite classes in college were on the Medieval period. I picked up this book with anticipation since its kind of a survey of the medieval period (but not really, it focuses on the development of the Roman Church as a center of both political power and learning).
Unfortunately, I was disappointed. Peter Heather knows his stuff and is clearly an excellent historian, but this book suffered from the fatal flaw of many history books. It was boring!
I was obviously not the target audience for this book.
Oddly, Mr. Heather spends a LOT of time on such boring subjects as taxes in the Carolingian Empire. Seriously? Taxes? Who, outside of a handful of historians of the medieval period, cares about how and how much taxes they collected. Mr. Heather goes on and on about this.
Also, the development of Catholic canonical law. Sure, this was important because it set the framework for law down to the modern period, but like five people in the world care about how it came about, yet Mr. Heather writes as if this were the most important part of the development of the Roman church. Ahhhhh!!!!!!! It was killing me.
Anyway, I did finish the book, but it was boring.
Unfortunately, I was disappointed. Peter Heather knows his stuff and is clearly an excellent historian, but this book suffered from the fatal flaw of many history books. It was boring!
I was obviously not the target audience for this book.
Oddly, Mr. Heather spends a LOT of time on such boring subjects as taxes in the Carolingian Empire. Seriously? Taxes? Who, outside of a handful of historians of the medieval period, cares about how and how much taxes they collected. Mr. Heather goes on and on about this.
Also, the development of Catholic canonical law. Sure, this was important because it set the framework for law down to the modern period, but like five people in the world care about how it came about, yet Mr. Heather writes as if this were the most important part of the development of the Roman church. Ahhhhh!!!!!!! It was killing me.
Anyway, I did finish the book, but it was boring.
November 23, 2022
Thorough and enlightening history on four "successor" roman empires. Ranking the four sections
1. Justinian & the ERE
2. Charlemagne & the franks
3. Theodoric
4. The Popes and evolution of Catholicism.
The analysis was the standout of the book and made it more memorable than the dry and fast retelling of the successive leaders and events. It was sometimes hard to follow due to some time skips and everything wasnt presented in a logical order. That said, the sharp wit and thought provoking analysis on things like Justinian's conquests, Charlemagne's religious and intellectual reforms, and the slow reform of the papacy which occurred almost entirely outside of Rome. I think the best true story telling occurs in the first couple of chapters regarding theodorics rise and upbringing in the shadow of Constantinople. It did feel like a slog in some areas, so I wouldn't make this a high priority read unless you are more intrigued with the middle/medieval ages.
1. Justinian & the ERE
2. Charlemagne & the franks
3. Theodoric
4. The Popes and evolution of Catholicism.
The analysis was the standout of the book and made it more memorable than the dry and fast retelling of the successive leaders and events. It was sometimes hard to follow due to some time skips and everything wasnt presented in a logical order. That said, the sharp wit and thought provoking analysis on things like Justinian's conquests, Charlemagne's religious and intellectual reforms, and the slow reform of the papacy which occurred almost entirely outside of Rome. I think the best true story telling occurs in the first couple of chapters regarding theodorics rise and upbringing in the shadow of Constantinople. It did feel like a slog in some areas, so I wouldn't make this a high priority read unless you are more intrigued with the middle/medieval ages.
April 2, 2022
Este libro funciona como segunda parte del impresionante "La Caida del Imperio Romano" del mismo autor. Y en él utiliza un enfoque novedoso: Heather glosa las figuras de aquellos que perpretaron los intentos más serios de revivir dicho imperio: el ostrogodo Teodorico, el bizantino Justiniano y el Franco Carlomagno, hasta llegar a la cuarte parte del libro donde nos revela quien, a su juicio, fue el verdadero restaurador del Imperio Romano, que no es otro que la institución del papado apostólico y romano.
Poco más que decir, estando como está a cargo de uno de los mejores divulgadores de Historia Antigua y Alto-Medieval del panorama actual. Si el tema te interesa, "La restauración de Roma" no te decepcionará.
Poco más que decir, estando como está a cargo de uno de los mejores divulgadores de Historia Antigua y Alto-Medieval del panorama actual. Si el tema te interesa, "La restauración de Roma" no te decepcionará.
May 27, 2025
The Restoration of Rome argues for the importance of emperors in the leadership of Christianity between Constantine and the rise of the power of the papacy / Leo IX, looking specifically at three "barbarians" who sought to restore the empire: Theodoric, Justinian, and Charlemagne.
I've come to really appreciate Peter Heather's inquiry into the messiness of early Christian history and really value the way he walks readers through the evidence and the historic work of interpretation. This book requires some background, but I'd recommend it to people diving back into the mess of post-Constantine Christendom along with Heather's other book, Christendom.
I've come to really appreciate Peter Heather's inquiry into the messiness of early Christian history and really value the way he walks readers through the evidence and the historic work of interpretation. This book requires some background, but I'd recommend it to people diving back into the mess of post-Constantine Christendom along with Heather's other book, Christendom.
August 28, 2020
Vivid and clear writing, but occasionally quite jarring. The use of the word "bullshit" in several places, amid otherwise scholarly (but not boring) prose left me bothered. Not because I don't have a fairly profane mouth, but it seemed such a clear rhetorical ploy to pander to some readers. Or maybe not, but either way, it ruined good moments in the book's arguments.
Still, I picked up a lot of information about events and personalities that I hadn't come across before, and that was utterly worthwhile.
Still, I picked up a lot of information about events and personalities that I hadn't come across before, and that was utterly worthwhile.
November 18, 2020
Together with Chris Wickham's works about the high middle ages, Peter Heather's The Restoration of Rome brings light to a period historically regarded as unprogressive, uncivilized and barbaric. Through it, we'll discover the attempts made by the eastern roman empire, the Ostrogoths, the Carolingians and their successors to restore the values, philosophy, ideals and power of the Roman Empire in an increasingly multicultural society created by violent upheavals, restless monks and missionaries, ambitious emperors and brave germanic tribal leaders.
January 9, 2020
Excellent and witty book arguing that the papacy was the restoration of the Western Roman Empire. Interesting a well-argues thesis on the power of law to constrain and ability of demand for something by powerful people (in this case a strong central church authority) can bring that thing into being with unintended consequences (that thing is powerful). Not unlike the power of USD!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 74 reviews