Peter Heather's Three Volume History of the Late Roman Empire
I'm going to take the time to briefly endorse in review, Peter Heather's three volume history of the late Roman Empire from its demise in the west to the rise of Charlemagne in the west. From 2005-2014, he has written these three books, in chronological order:
The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians (far right, 2005),
Empires and Barbarians: The Fall of Rome and the Birth of Europe (middle, 2009), and
The Restoration of Rome: Barbarian Popes and Imperial Pretenders (left, 2014). These three books all serve as important references I am basing, not entirely however, the content when discussing the Roman Empire in Chapters 1 and 2, as well as some parts on Justinian (although I presented Justinian somewhat positively, Heather views Justinian negatively. I actually view Justinian very negatively in my own work, but I decided to present Justinian in the AAR in a manner I think most Byzantine historians, i.e., John Julius Norwich, Charles C.W. Oman, Lars Brownworth, and others have presented him -- I think somewhat disingenuously but I digress). They will also serve as references when I talk about Western Europe. At the end of the AAR, I will provide a fuller bibliography of references for the reader's interest.
His first book,
The Fall of the Roman Empire, tries to answer the age-old question of why Rome fell? He takes the time to go back to the formation of the Roman Empire, its powerful and nearly invincible armies, and how much of the Roman Empire was already Romanized. Heather also goes to great lengths, combining modern scholarship and archaeology to show what I've already stated in passing, the Barbarians aren't really Barbarians (except for the Huns). The Germanic tribes were predominately sedentary, they lived in villages and towns (not like Romans in size and grandeur however), and practiced agriculture and animal raising. Ultimately, while he does stick a more conservative answer in which the Barbarians play a major role in the fall of Rome rather than Roman instability, but concludes that Roman imperialism and conquest eventually hardens the Barbarians (who aren't, or weren't, as many people think, this mythologized great warrior like Conan or the Barbarians as depicted in
Gladiator) who become better warriors after 3 centuries of war with Rome. When the Barbarians are pushed into the Roman Empire for a multitude of reasons, the Romans lost their major advantage - military dominance over the Barbarians. They eventually hire Barbarians as their own generals and soldiers, and as the old story goes, they eventually marched on Rome.
Empires and Barbarians focuses more on the Barbarians than the Romans, as his first book did, and brings us to the Early Middle Ages, ca. 1000 C.E. Here, Heather takes a lot of time painstakingly countering the old "Dark Age" assumptions people have, especially about the Barbarians. Instead, Roman wealth extends beyond the borders of the empire and influences the economies and wealth of the Barbarian tribes through trade. However, for reasons like the Hunnic invasions and poor harvests and Barbarian wars among themselves, other Barbarian tribes are forced west and seek, essentially, asylum in the Roman Empire. They wish to be part of the Roman Empire, pay taxes, and share in the defense and glory of Rome. However, Rome either balks, or doesn't have a plan to counter what is essentially a wave of illegal immigration swarming across Roman borders. Heather also takes the time to counter the Late Antiquity theory that the Roman Empire transformed (this happens to be the position I hold, but hey, few historians ever write completely to the satisfaction of others, and I think he does a good job in presenting how this view might be faulty, even if I disagree with him -- he is in the minority with regards to this view, but it's still a very erudite attempt to counter some of the claims of Peter Brown, et al.).
The Restoration of Rome looks at three principle eras: Theodoric, Justinian, and Charlemagne, and how each attempts to restore the grandeur of the old Roman Empire. Ultimately, the attempts to restore Rome from the Barbarian successor kingdoms fail for several reasons: economically, Italy, for example, cannot sustain itself and then, out of the blue, "The bastard" Justinian (Heather's words) invades and lays waste to Italy. So revival in the west fails. Justinian fails, his disastrous wars lays the foundation for the crises the Byzantines face in the seventh and eighth century, in part, because Justinian losses his best forces in war and bankrupts the empire right on the eve of another war with the Sassanids and the birth of Islam who take advantage of Byzantium's delicate situation (this is why he views Justinian negatively, and the same reason I do). Also, his wars decimate Italy and the city of Rome itself, which was actually still doing very well under Theodoric (you can read Boethius as a primary source about the relative grandeur and prosperity under Theodoric). Charlemagne also attempts to restore the empire, but as we all know, the H.R.E. is an animal in its own right. Therefore, imperial restoration attempts fail, but the Popes who seek to restore Rome, in Heather's eyes, succeed, but in a different way. This is not an altogether shocking view among historians, most of whom would say that the Latin Catholic Church is the true embodiment and successor of the Roman legacy but in a different form. The political entities, namely the Barbarian kingdoms and the Byzantine Empire in the east, have their own problems (even if the Byzantines are the political continuation of the empire in the east, by the end of Justinian's reign, and by the time of Heraclius, it is almost unrecognizable to the old Roman tradition).
All three books are very scholarly, and among a sea of many books published on the Roman Empire, these three works by Heather will provide the reader with a good overview of the latest trends in Roman historiography.
