Customer Reviews

Belisarius: The Last Roman General

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

First off, this book is a military history. Viewing it as anything else is going to be counterproductive. If you want a straight biography then you're just going to have to wait, or else you can read Lord Mahon's biography from the 1820s.

So, the good points first. As a military biography it works. It works quite well in fact. Thanks to Procopius we have a great deal more information on Belisarius' career than on anyone else in that century. Certainly more than we have for any non-Emperor. And Hughes understanding of the military aspect of his career is almost flawless. I don't know what the other reviewer was talking about, I thought his enthusiasm for the era came through quite well. The book progresses in chronological order starting with a chapter on the political situation in Western Europe at the time. It details what little is known about Belisarius' past and private life as well as the lives of the other major players in the book. Some of this information is really thrust at you. A rather longer introduction would probably have been advisable. This section is definitely the weakest in the book. Once it gets onto his battles though, things start to pick up. Each battle has a diagram of the troop formations which is immensely helpful in following what happens during battles. The battle descriptions are easy to understand and the author makes clear their context in the whole war. Throughout Belisarius comes across as an inspired military leader and an expert strategist, although Hughes believes that his tactical ability was not as great as some of Rome's early generals. There are a number of rather nice illustrations, but several of them are reconstructions and several more are taken from other books. It gives the book a hastily thrown together look and I wonder if there was a deadline involved.

The weaknesses of this book come about where it tries to be anything other than a military history. The political situation is rather rushed through (Although he does have interesting thoughts about Belisarius' wife Antonia and where she fit in) and the economic and social conditions are barely mentioned. This is the only reason I rate this book as less than five stars. If it had billed itself as a purely military biography I'd have given it that extra one. The other issue in terms of the Italian war is that it only covers the section where Belisarius is directly involved. There is an obvious reason for that, but it does make it confusing when he goes back. I'd recommend this book be read in conjunction with The Gothic War to get the full picture. I'd also recommend Hughes' other book Stilicho: The Vandal Who Saved Rome. It deals with a somewhat earlier period but it covers the material in a similar way.

Belisarius is a fascinating historical figure--a virtuous man in an age of strife, corruption, and transition--and the right hand man of the last great Roman Emperor, Justinian. Often compared to the greatest generals in history, Belisarius achieved more militarily, with fewer resources, than any general in history.

When I saw this new biography, I snapped it up immediately. Having read the previous biography by Lord Mahon written over 150 years ago, as well as the complete works of Procopius, the History of Agathias, the Chronicle of John Malalas, the Paschal Chronicle, etc., I was impressed with how Hughes made use of the considerable primary source material at his disposal. Most heartening of all, he does not rely overmuch on the scandalous "Secret History" and does not spend more time than is warranted on the supposed sexual escapades of Belisarius's wife, Antonina. To his further credit, Hughes avoids a particular bugbear of mine--blaming Pope Silverius for attempting to betray Rome to the Goths during the first siege. His overall historical grasp of the period seemed very impressive indeed.

Though Hughes's scholarship is not up to the level of Lord Mahon's encyclopedic 19th century standards, it is more than adequate to his purpose. He offers archaeological detail not available in Mahon's day, as well as a detailed look at the arms and armaments of the Persian, Vandalic, and Gothic antagonists of Belisarius. He does succumb to the modern tendency to disbelieve the numbers of troops given by the ancient historians and adjust them so that the victor is invariably shown to have an equal or greater number of troops on hand than the defeated party--a trend popularized by Hans Delbruck in the 19th century. Suffice it to say that I disagree strongly with this method of computation which is often done on the flimsiest of pretenses.

The book itself is an attractive artifact. The writing is good and the numerous illustrations are well placed and help bring the text to life. The inclusion of battle maps is a great boon and allows the reader to better visualize how the various actions developed. I felt that the work ended somewhat abruptly, and Hughes's cursory and dismissive treatment of the legend of the blind Belisarius begging for his bread was unwarranted, particularly considering the amount of effort his predecessor, Lord Mahon, took to prove the veracity of the legend.

Over all, I was well satisfied with this fair and even-handed treatment of Belisarius and recommend it to anyone interested in the man or his times. If this one piques your curiosity, you might also enjoy Lord Mahon's much denser Life of Belisarius, or the historical fiction biography of the general's early life, Belisarius: The First Shall Be Last. Or, you might just dive into the original histories written by Belisarius's secretary, Procopius, which make for great reading in their own right and are readily available in English translation. Start with History of the Wars, The Persian War and go on from there.

There not being a full accounting of the life of the underappreciated Belisarius since that of Lord Mahon over 150 years ago, I was eagerly awaiting publication of this book. I really wanted to like it but it fell just short.

To be charitable, this book did not flow for me - you want the author's enthusiasm for the subject to pick you up and carry you through the narrative, but "Belisaurius, The Last Roman General" was somewhat flat. While not as dry as some books meant only a scholarly audience, neither does it soar like so many popular biographies.

On the plus side, Hughes does an excellent job interpreting the meager and contradictory primary sources. He presents all sides of any historical argument fairly and reaches rationale and compelling conclusions. Hughes does an excellent job of setting the scene of battle and describing the military capacities of each side. He finishes every campaign with a solid summary and evaluation of Belisauius' actions. For that alone, this book is well worth the price. I rated it three stars for average, but probably should have said three and a half stars for slightly above average.

Hughes convincingly makes the case that Belisarius was that rare blend of strategical and tactical genius, combined with a strong force of character. I think this book is not for the casual reader of biography, but will be of interest to those who love reading Roman and Byzantine history. To those readers, I would recommend this book.

The test of any biography is whether you feel as if you know and understand that person better after reading the book - unfortunately, I did not. I blame this as much on the dearth of good primary sources as anything else. But I fear poor unsung Belisarius will have to continue to wait for his consummate biography a little while longer.

Although the sixth century Roman general Belisarius is the hero of one of the finest military histories of late antiquity, along with a novel by Robert Graves and a string of lesser fictional works, he deserves to be better known to serious students of military history than he is. In the service of the eastern Roman Emperor Justinian the Great, Belisarius suppressed a massive popular uprising in Constantinople, successfully defended the Empire's frontiers against the Persians and Kutrigur Huns, and conquered the Vandal kingdom in north Africa and (less completely) the Ostrogothic kingdom in Italy, briefly raising hopes of a restoration of Roman power in the West. He was also an unusually attractive personality who was revered by his troops, respected by his adversaries, and who remained faithful to an imperial master who envied and distrusted his popularity and a wife who repeatedly betrayed him.

Although Belisarius's life was dramatic and unusually well-documented - thanks to the extensive if sometimes conflicting portrayal of him in the writings of his onetime secretary, the historian Procopius of Caesarea -- the last biography of him (by the British parliamentarian Lord Mahon) appeared fully 180 years ago. Ian Hughes, an amateur British historian, has produced a new biography of Belisarius targeted towards readers who know little about the general or his time - the Mediterranean world of the middle third of the sixth century. The book was an obvious labor of love, and (in my view, if not in that of one of the other reviewers) Hughes's enthusiasm for his subject and delight in this project is obvious and touching.

The best aspect of Hughes' book is the conscientious production the author and Westholme Publishing have given it. There are 27 maps, 18 tactical diagrams of five major battles, 33 photographs and sketches, and 15 schematic drawings of weapons and armor types, along with a chronology and an appendix identifying more than 50 persons mentioned in the text. But while Hughes's book will prove informative for readers who are unfamiliar with this period, his writing is pedestrian. The first two chapters in particular are awkwardly written; despite my interest in the subject, I really had to push to get through them. Curiously, the writing improves after these opening chapters, although overall the quality of Hughes's prose can still only be described as serviceable.

This book is therefore best approached with an appropriate level of expectations. It provides a thorough account of its subject and constitutes a highly useful adjunct to the Loeb editions of Procopius's histories of Justinian's wars, which lack the maps and other illustrative material this volume so copiously provides. Westholme Publishing has also recently reprinted Lord Mahon's volume on Belisarius, and readers with a taste or tolerance for the grandeur and occasional fustiness of his late Georgian prose style may find it worth considering as well.

"Belisarius: The Last Roman General" by Ian Hughes is a competent retelling of Belisarius' battles and campaigns. I am still wondering about the subtitle "The Last Roman General" since Belisarius was a "Roman" only in the sense that he was a Roman citizen and served an empire which still thought of itself as Roman. The author makes no attempt to tell us *why* he was the "last Roman general".

There are things the author does well. He does a fairly good job of chronicling campaigns and battles. Mr. Hughes does a very good job of explaining the differences in weapons and tactics between the "roman" forces and their opponents the Persians and the Germanic peoples. He makes the reader aware of the nature and biases of those who left written records of this time period. A careful reader will also get a sense of the ramshackle nature of the later Roman or Byzantine empire. It is a far cry from the Roman empire at its peak with disciplined, well organized and supplied armies of heavy infantry and instead consists of irregularly-paid levies of poorly motivated infantry, elite cavalry and mercenaries.

There were things the author did not do well. We learn very little about Belisarius the man. We read nothing about his early life, where he came from, the circumstances of his political marriage to Antonina and other things that give us insight into this man and the world he lived in. I feel the author did a poor job of making the story interesting. At various points, I dropped the book in favor of another and then came back to it. For me, that's a sign of what another reviewer referred to as "lackluster writing" and I agree with him.

As a biography, this book is very poor. As an effective (but, sometimes a tad dry) history of campaigns and battles, it does a fairly good job. It does a good job of looking at how the roman forces, as well as their opponents, were organized and equipped for battle.

On the whole, it's just okay and I give it three stars.

For anyone nerdy and wondering: yes, Isaac Asimov's "Foundation Trilogy" character Bel Riose is indeed a sci-fi update of the 6th-century Byzantine general Belisarius, subject of this and several other biographies.

This is a good book, even for the nonmilitary history geeks like yours truly. Purely military material (e.g., disquisitions on Ostrogothic horse armor or the organization of the Sassanid infantry corps) is neatly boxed into sections that can be skimmed or skipped if so desired. The format is chronological and easy to follow: each chapter starts with the historical background, adds whatever technical data are needed, narrates events, then analyzes them. Battles are detailed and clearly diagrammed, and their discussion includes evaluations of the generalship of all participants concerned, making the tactical movements and their significance clear for the layman. At the back of the book is a glossary of important items and people, handy because three-fifths of male Byzantines seem to have been named John. The research is thorough, the presentation impartial, the writing clear though not particularly stylish.

That being said, there are a few flaws from a biographical or historical standpoint. The biggest is the almost exclusive focus on Belisarius' military career. There is little discussion of his personal life, or of the lives of other important characters (almost nothing on Justinian or Antonina, very little more on Theodora, not much on Procopius either). In part this is because the existing sources are sketchy and/or unreliable, and Hughes wisely treats them with caution - making his narration far more factual but far less complete. As a result, his narration of events in Belisarius' personal life seem like afterthoughts (his 30+ years of famously tempestuous marriage receive, in total, about one-quarter as much space as the battle of Tricamerum). Likewise, discussions of the greater historical significance of his reconquest of much of the Roman Empire are too brief and incomplete, nor is there any information on later writers' views of Belisarius or his influence on later military tactics. The emphasis is definitely on battles.

This got four stars instead of three because it is the only really impartial discussion of Belisarius' career that I have read. There is a strong tendency to idealize or romanticize him - admittedly, his was a character that lends itself to romanticization - and Hughes does an admirable job of writing a biography instead of a hagiography. He makes no attempt to minimize or gloss over his subject's mistakes, instead analyzing them with as much clarity and thoroughness as the military masterpieces. This makes Hughes' biography a refreshing change from, e.g., Edward Gibbon and Basil Liddell Hart. I recommend it to anyone who wants a good, relatively short introduction to Belisarius' career or the Byzantine reconquest of the Roman empire but doesn't have hours to spend trying to sort Procopius' facts from his fictions.

Anyone wishing to tell a story that involves military maneuvers, equipment and weapons of the world of the 4th and 5th century should use this book as a resource. The detail of the battles Hughes describes are excellent. I'm hoping that future e-books can include videos of the troop unit movements of a battle. Hughes has lots of pictures, maps, sketches and diagrams that enhance the setting within which this great general lived and fought. Speculating on what went on in the mind of Belisarius would have been interesting, but Hughes keeps to history. I highly recommend Belisarius to anyone interested in Roman military history.

The Byzantine Empire, which should more accurately be thought of as the continuing story of the Roman Empire in the east, is usually dominated by the story of emperor, Justinian and his wife, Theodora. At this time, the empire in the west was effectively dead, but Justinian had the dream of reviving it. The man tasked to turn the dream into reality was Flavius Belisarius, a figure little known today.

Ian Hughes' biography attempts to restore the name of Belisarius through a retelling of his life and exploits. Hughes draws extensively on his ancient sources Procopius and Agathias. Procopius, who is the primary source, actually served with the general as his legal advisor and private secretary and was thus an eyewitness to many key events in the story. Over the course of his relationship, however, Procopius' adulation for Belisarius turned to skepticism, which reflects in his account of the man's life and exploits.

Belisarius' life was defined by war. A soldier in Justin I's bodyguard, on the emperor's death he came to the attention of Justinian and at 27 years old was put in command of the army sent to deal with incursions by the Sassanids. He acquitted himself well during the Iberian War, with a major victory at Dara in 531. He was the highest ranking officer when the Nika riots broke out in Constantinople and in that position was instrumental in quelling the bloody affair that saw 30,000 slain in the Hippodrome. As a reward, Justinian assigned him the command of the campaign against the Vandals and in 533 Belisarius took his fleet to Africa. At Ad Decimum, near the Vandalic capital at Carthage, the Byzantines engaged the incumbent and narrowly won. Another victory followed at Tricamarum, which saw the complete surrender of the Vandals and the return of the province of Africa to the Romans. Justinian granted his general a triumph - the last ever held - in which the spoils of Jerusalem retrieved from the Vandals are reported to have been exhibited. Belisarius was elected consul the following year, 534, making him one of the last to hold this office.

Emboldened by victory in the southern continent, Justinian wanted to restore the territories of western Europe. This meant waging war against the Ostrogoths who occupied Italy. Landing in Sicily he first had to divert to Carthage to quell a revolt there, before marching up through Italy. In 536 he took Naples and Rome. The next year he successfully defended Rome from the Goths. The war moved to Ravenna and it was from this point that Belisarius' fortunes changed. The Goths offered the Byzantine the position of emperor of the west. Belisarius accepted, entered the city and then played his trick, declaring the city as Justinian's: but it was enough to cause Justinian to doubt his general's sincerity. He was recalled to deal with the Persian capture of Syria but the campaign was inconclusive, ending in a negotiated truce. Then back to Italy he went to recapture land that had been retaken by the Ostrogoths, but the expedition ended in failure. He decided to retire from public life. He was recalled to lead the emperor's army one last time in 559 and at Melantias near Constantinople he defeated the Bulgars who greatly outnumbered his forces. Three years later, having been accused by one of his own staff under torture, he was put on a charge of conspiracy to kill the emperor and stripped of his titles. Justinian, however, investigated the affair, found him innocent and restored Belisarius to the imperial court. He died in March 565.

The challenge for a biographer of a lesser figure of history - I know because I am one of them - is to shine light upon the subject who is all-to-often obscured by the shadow the greater personages he serves. In this Hughes has done the best he could with the extant sources. Belisarius' exploits are well discussed, but the man remains remote. Hughes sums up his subject as "as a man who was far above average in his military ability and very far above others in his moral integrity". Comparing the Byzantine general to Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar the author concludes Belisarius was not their equal, but "not far below" them either. Perhaps more appropriate men to compare Belisarius against, I would suggest, would be P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus, M. Vipsanius Agrippa, Nero Claudius Drusus Germanicus (Drusus the Elder about whom I have written), Gn. Domitius Corbulo and Trajan? All were highly competent and popular generals who brought their nation glory. Belisarius is known as "the last of the Romans": it was his luck to be born into an age when it was still possible to dream of restoring ancient glories but holding them would prove as transient.

The book is profusely illustrated both with battle and strategic maps as well as sketches of arms and armour, and 33 black and white plates that enliven the text. I recommend it to all interested in the Byzantine Empire and `Dark Age' Europe.