Later Roman Empire 284-602: A Social, Economic and Administrative Survey

by A.H.M. Jones

The book presents a narrative account of Roman political, military, and religious history from 284 to 602.

Genres: History, Ancient History, Roman History, Economics, Military Fiction, Ancient, Roman

1838 pages, Paperback

First published March 1, 1964

About the author

Arnold Hugh Martin Jones (9 March 1904 – 9 April 1970) — known as A.H.M. Jones — was a prominent 20th century British historian of classical antiquity, particularly of the later Roman Empire.

Jones's best-known work, The Later Roman Empire, 284–602 (1964), is considered the definitive narrative history of late Rome and early Byzantium, beginning with the reign of the Roman tetrarch Diocletian and ending with that of the Byzantine emperor Maurice. One of the most common modern criticisms of this work is its almost total reliance on literary and epigraphic primary sources, a methodology which mirrored Jones's own historiographical training. Archaeological study of the period was in its infancy when Jones wrote, which limited the amount of material culture he could include in his research.

He published his first book, The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces, in 1937. In 1946, he was appointed to the chair of the Ancient History department at University College, London. In 1951, he moved to Cambridge University and assumed the same post there. He was elected a Fellow of the British Academy in 1947.

Jones was reportedly an extremely fast reader with an encyclopedic memory. His disdain for "small talk" sometimes made him seem remote and cold to those who did not know him well, but he was warmly regarded by his students. He was sometimes criticized for not fully acknowledging the work of earlier scholars in his own footnotes, a habit he was aware of and apologized for in the preface to his first book.

Jones died of a heart attack in 1970 while traveling via boat to Thessaloniki to give a series of lectures.

Since Jones's death, popular awareness of his work has often been overshadowed by the work of scholars of Late Antiquity, a period which did not exist as a separate field of study during his lifetime. Late Antiquity scholars frequently refer to him, however, and his enormous contributions to the study of the period are widely acknowledged.

Reviews

[Al · Rating 5 out of 5]

I can’t praise this work, or feat, highly enough. This work is exceptional, and I was tempted to compare Jones with Mommsen or Bury, but this work isn’t prodigious, its narrowly focused. It rests on three pillars: one is the narrative history of the Late Roman Empire from the Antonines to Maurice, during what is popularly known as the Byzantine Empire. Within this narrative in volume 1, Jones sets the stage for a comprehensive look at the administrative and social workings of late Rome, which make up the second and third pillars. Following his narrative history, Jones examines the administrative workings of empire to include finance, justice, the army, civil service, and the administration of cities and provinces. Volume 2 continues this survey with chapters on land, industry and trade, religion and morals, education, and finally the decline, experienced under Maurice by the end of AD 602 and the reign of Phocas, AD 602-610, before the rise of Heraclius. This is clearly a reference work, and I freely admit that it was dry reading and very slow going. But what makes this work truly exceptional are the maps, notes, appendices and bibliography. The narrative occupies just shy of half of volume 2; the rest is the apparatus which makes this an enduring classic, despite its age. There are 7 maps which list the Severan provinces and dioceses from the Verona list; those according to the Notitia Dignitatum; the financial districts and mints from the early 4th century AD; the order of battle and distribution of the army; the distribution of cities; the empire in AD 565 at the death of Justinian; and the ecclesiastical organization under Justinian. One reviewer said that the notes are discursive, and I can only say that he did not read the books; the notes are virtually all in Latin, and in no way discursive; they quoted from the primary sources, such as the Notitia Dignitatum and documents and books found in the MGH, PG and PL. The notes are truly comprehensive in scope, and serve to bolster, amplify, and expand on the conclusions that Jones makes in the body of the text. Jones includes tables of measurements, currency, etc., and includes 3 appendices. The appendices expand on the largitiones, the res private, the Notitia Dignitatum, and the dioceses and provinces, with copious use of tables. Finally, there is the Bibliography. I capitalize the word “bibliography” because the scope DEMANDS capitalization!! As a historian, I can only say that the bibliography is prodigious in the way that Bury or Mommsen wrote their works, but it surpasses the apparatus of almost any work, past or present. This is where I lived as a graduate student. This work has something for everyone: the amateur, the dilettante, the scholar, and the casual reader. History isn’t written like this today; its all PC, with a focus on what can be written to secure a grant. This is truly awesome.

[John Cairns · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is still the authority on this period though some more modern historians question its conclusions eg that Diocletian actually doubled nos in the army. It's exhaustive and clearly written with the original documents in Latin and Greek he's made his deductions from given in the notes along with any elaboration of a point.

He concludes the barbarians were responsible for the fall in the West which was in any case less rich than the east and had more of a frontier to defend. Its richest province, Africa, was only a quarter as rich as Egypt. Besides the West didn't have a secondary line of defence on the barbarians breaking through, unlike the East which had the walls of Constantinople. The increasing nos of barbarians necessitated a bigger army and an administration to supply it that increased the nos of idle mouths to feed at the expense of the peasant population since agricultural resources if anything decreased. The church added to this economic burden while also creaming off able men. In the West, that the senators didn't leave many independent small holdings didn't help. The civilian population didn't bear arms and wasn't expected to fight. it didn't, unless led.

He finds strange a Greek townsman's preference for life among the Huns. This casts another light on that encounter in Priscus. Another reflection of his I find interesting was on the wish in Treviri for the reconstituting of the games there, which Salvian upbraids as degenerate, as civilised defiance.

He estimates the size of the cities as between 500,000 to 750,000 for Rome in the 4th century and Constantinople in the sixth, Alexandria between 250,000 and 375,000 and Antioch between 150,000 and 200,000, giving us an idea of the relative smallness of the population over a large area.

[AC · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is THE book one topic. Not a casual read.

[John Randall · Rating 5 out of 5]

A masterpiece - the first thing I go to when looking at the Later Roman Empire

[Nicholas · Rating 5 out of 5]

An amazing piece of work that remains essential as a starting point for almost any research into the government and administration of the Later Roman Empire. Jones' style is a little dry, but still quite readable for the interested audience and the sheer scope of this work ensures that it is unlikely to be superseded by any other single work in the near future.

[Laura Jones · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have actually only read volume I of the work, which was of more relevance to what I am studying at the moment. But just the fact that this remains to be of importance in the historical debate after decades shows how great a survey Jones has written. Possibly not the most fascinating book ever written, but very good for getting a grasp on the later Roman Empire.