Customer Reviews

The End of Empire: Attila the Hun and the Fall of Rome

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

Although I ordered this book with misgivings about someone building a portrait of Attila from the two dozen or so ancient sources even mentioning Attila, I was enormously pleased with the author's scholarship. The reader must remember that the Huns left no written accounts of their own, essentially no archaeological evidence, and everything written about them came strictly from their enemies. So accounts like Ammianus Marcellinus' (who never saw a Hun) describing them with flattened skulls, misshapen bodies, evil appearances, etc., etc., must be taken with very large grains of salt. Even their horses were supposedly ugly. The author strives mightly to present the probable truth, and is probably as successful as a researcher at this distance can be.

The litmus test for me came early with the author's treatment of cranial deformations to identify the Huns. Although this was a practice of certain steppe dwellers and has been associated with the Alans, whether of not the Huns practiced this is questionable. Amazingly (to me), the author addresses this issue, and in his end notes actually points out that if the process was to beautify, then high ranking Huns like Attila and his wives would have undergone this practice. But no eyewitness description of Attila mentions such a deformation! The author therefore mentions this practice as occurring among the Huns, but carefully retreats from using it as a means of identifying them. Frankly, this is scholarship at its best, and not just because the author agrees with me.

Although the author's careful use and non-use of certain sources might put off some readers, this work is probably as accurate as possible for a modern researcher. Only a couple of other writers have performed anywhere nearly as well, most notable Otto Maenchen-Helfen. The end notes must be read along with the text, and my only criticism of this work is that they should have been placed at the end of each chapter for the reader's convenience. In some places the author was forced to explain why he didn't use certain information a given ancient source, or how he came to certain conclusions based of several contradictory sources and convient end notes would have been helpful. The author is a modern-day detective analyzing the evidence, carefully qualifying his conclusions, and then writing a narrative that is understandable by all. For this he is to be greatly commended.

As an example of the author's analysis, please note that he finds that the Huns fared rather poorly in battle with the main Roman armies although they could and did destroy cities protected by static garrisons while the tactical Roman armies were otherwise occupied. The Goths did better, as at Adrianopole. This is certainly not what is ususally conveyed or understood by conventional wisdom, but is true nevertheless. As a result, it is hardly the case that Attila brought an end to the Western Roman Empire, but he did give it a shove toward its ultimate demise.

At the end of the book the author lists twenty-two ancient sources and their modern editions and translations. The reader is invited to check these sources as I did in several instances to test the author's thoroughness and accuracy. This work passed all tests for accuracy and analysis with flying colors, something almost incredible for a modern book.

I don't mean to gush over this book like a schoolgirl reading her first Gothic romance, but I can't praise this work too highly. I recommend it to all readers interested in the late Roman Empire, the rise of the Byzantine Empire, and the invasions of the Barbarians into Western Europe. It is wonderfully written, clear, and conveys a portrait of the times that is easily understandable.

It also should give American readers pause in considering a political option like buying off threatening powers (such as North Korea.) It didn't work with the Huns, and frankly I can't offer a single incidence in Western History where buying off one's enemies worked. Even the Danes ultimately wanted more than their "Danegelt" from England.

All in all, this is a very fine work, worthy of five stars plus.

It's almost beyond argument that the sudden appearance of the Huns in 4th century eastern Europe helped precipitate the fall of the Roman Empire. The difficulty for any historian of the period is to tell the story of both Huns and Fall from the random scraps of literary and archaeological evidence that have survived antiquity.

Christopher Kelly writes well enough and makes good use of the slender extant materials, especially fragments of Priscus's History of Attila. Following Priscus, Kelly argues that Attila was no irrational barbarian but a sophisticated ruler who played a clever hand in contemporary international politics.

This view is hardly revisionist. Kelly's thesis might almost be summarized from The Columbia Encyclopedia, 3rd edition (1963): "The fear Attila inspired is clear from many accounts of his savagery but, though undoubtedly harsh, he was a just ruler to his own people. He encouraged the presence of learned Romans at his court and was far less bent on devastation than other conquerors before and after him."

End of Empire seems aimed at the History-Book-Club-sort of general reader, and the question these folks will have to answer for themselves before tackling this book is the degree to which they are willing to put up with all the surmises, "perhapses," and "probablys" almost necessary to creating a coherent extended narrative such as this one.

The name "Attila the Hun" is centuries-old shorthand for the senseless, destructive fury of barbarian hordes unleashed upon civilization, bent soley upon its destruction. In his new biography of Attila, Christopher Kelly debunks this stereotype. He instead depicts the legendary Hun as an effective, dynamic monarch and warlord with a sophisticated, nuanced approach to strategy and tactics, purposefully building and maintaining a powerful Hunnic kingdom. Through close examination of the historical record and evidence from recent archaeological finds, Kelly tries in this history to determine what can be known of Attila's character and life.

One of the chief primary sources of information is the account by the Byzantine rhetorician Priscus of his encounter with Attila as part of a diplomatic mission. Priscus's account unfortunately only survives in epitomized fragments from a later Byzantine work, but by close analysis of what remains, Kelly draws some interesting conclusions. He pays particular attention to an official banquet given by Attila, notes the monarch's moderation, his subtle handling of the Byzantine delegation, and the richness of the food, all in stark contrast to the usual old wives tales of Huns dressed in mouseskins, squatting outdoors, eating half-raw meat.

Kelly succinctly and briskly relates how, through a clever combination of negotiation, threats, and military action, Attila was able to play off both halves of the decaying Roman Empire against one another and thereby extract tribute and increased territory. He notes that despite the Huns' fearsome reputation as the worst of the barbarians, they skirted the Empire's edges and never sought to occupy and hold Roman provinces like the Goths or the Vandals. Kelly also points out that the Huns sometimes received some rough handling from Roman troops, again in opposition to the myth of an irresistible, all-conquering horde. Most importantly, Kelly clearly explains the interplay between the Huns with their pressure against the Empire, and that of other hostile peoples such as the Persians to the East and the Goths and Vandals in the West. He shows how this combination of forces acclerated the Roman Empire's decay, in the West to its utter destruction.

I recommend this book both to laymen who are interested in learning about late antiquity and to those with a deeper interest as well. It is relatively short and well written. There are also extensive notes in the back for those interested in reading more deeply on this subject.

The Fall of Rome is one of those rare event that demonstrates that even when history is written by the losers the truth can be in short supply. For a man whose name can still inspire visions of terror Attila the Hun is poorly understood. When he's depicted as a barbarian (see most histories of the Roman Empire written before 1850) Attila seems more Neanderthal Frat Boy than brilliant military leader. When he's shown as a worthy adversary to the crumbling Empire, Attila seems more like Alexander the Great without the fancy tutors.

Christopher Kelly aims to show us Attila as he was - the leader of a civilization that the Romans dismissed out of arrogance, ready to play power politics with Roman, Constantinople, and Persia. This is genuine popular history that draws on the latest archaeological research to show us a society with laws, elites, fools, geniuses, and above all pride. Kelly places the old stories about the Huns in the context of their times, explaining what all that hyperbolic language really meant. He doesn't glorify the Huns any more or less than the Romans or Byzantines. He shows them all acting with honor, lying, conniving, breaking treaties, and upholding right as they understand it.

Best of all, Kelly has a sense of humor and he knows a good story. The story of the Roman librarian on a diplomatic mission is half farce, half James Bond and wholly entertaining. Where else are you going to find scheming eunuchs, Dudley DoRight-esque Roman soldiers, gossipy librarians, stuttering love-sick con men and day long dinner parties? Attila did not bring about the collapse of the western half of the Roman Empire but his story exposes the weaknesses, corruption and rot that did.

Highly recommended for anyone interested in ancient/Roman history.

Kindle note: photographs not included even though they are (annoyingly) referenced in the text.

When people hear the name Attila the Hun, thoughts and ideas immediately come to mind, both pro and con. Some think of him as a ruthless barbarian who slaughtered without thought or mercy. Others think of him as an impressive leader who was able bring an end to the greatest empire the world has ever known. Christopher Kelly, a professor of ancient history at Cambridge University and author of a couple of books on the Roman Empire, presents a complete biography in The End of Empire of Attila the Hun, while also educating readers on the downfall of Rome. After finishing it, readers will then be able to make their own assessment of the kind of man Attila truly was.

Kelly begins a little before the arrival of Attila, setting the stage with a weakening Rome and what's going on with its infrastructure. There are the barbarian tribes on the very border of the empire, shunned and mistreated by the Romans, causing attacks and uprisings. Amidst these barbarian groups come the Huns from the distant steppes, perhaps seeking a more hospitable land. Kelly is quick to point out what is known and what is speculation. Kelly lays out Attila's history from birth, his rise to power and issues with his brother. Eventually he becomes ruler of the Huns, launching attacks at Rome. But Attila is a brilliant leader and strategist, forming alliances and negotiating deals and treaties where necessary to initially protect his people, but ultimately to gain the upper hand. One gets the sense that perhaps Attila was doing this not only just for the Huns, but the other barbarian groups who have been so shunned and mistreated by Rome. Kelly takes the reader through years at a time, advancing Attila's age, and supplying important information and events, eventually leading to the great ruler's death and the legacy he earned from his people.

The End of Empire is a fascinating history book, providing an in-depth look at the causes and events with the fall of Rome and the incredible story of the man known as Attila. His writing style is clear and easy to understand, keeping the reader interested, balanced with lots of photos and illustrations, and the short chapters keep the reader focused until the end. The End of Empire is a great biographical piece for readers looking not to get lost in the long, drawn-out debates of an old professor, but to read an incredible story about a renowned and often misunderstood person that will keep them hooked until the very end.

[...]

This book not only covers the life of Attila the Hun, probably the most important "barbarian" who caused the fall of the Roman Empire, but it covers the last hundred years of the Western Roman empire from the battle of Adrianople through the last emperor of the West.

The book is thorough and complete as mentioned in one other write-up and uses the base sources of Priscus and other Roman writers. From that perspective, it doesn't really offer any new insights on Attila or the Huns and isn't controversial at all in perspective of either. The author assumes that he is controversial when he mentions that Attila was really quite civilized in his dealings with others - e.g. the chapters on Priscus' visit to Attila. However, other sources lay this out also, so this is really nothing new (and a recent TV movie even showed this).

However, it stays away from controversy in these areas: (1) the relationship of Aetius and Attila, although it hints to this, it doesn't really suggest any connection between their relationship and Aetius letting Attila go after Catalaunian Fields battle. The reason that the book provides may seem appropriate - Aetius needed both the Huns and the Goths in order to keep both in check - but when you think about it, especially within the prism of what happend in 452 in Italy, this doesn't seem to be a good rationale (and it would seem that Aetius sure should have expected what happened in 452). Also, Aetius leaving Italy to the Huns in 452 makes one wonder whether Aetius had other reasons than what were brought up in the book - like maybe Attila would eliminate Valentinian and Aetius could take over. And, maybe Attila and Aetius were working together... Not of this was brought up in the book.

Further, the book doesn't get into the whole issue of the size of the Hun armies, essentially ignoring this question by not even mentioning the estimates provided historian of the time numbers that there were hundreds of thousands of invaders. (Of course, recent books have estimated that the number was more like 40,000 which seems more appropriate.)

Even the key battle of Catalaunian Fields is given short shrift without any speculation or perspective of how it went other than what is in the basic sources.

Because of this, in my opinion, the book tends to get dry and somewhat boring. I like a little speculation and controversy and this book on Attila and that time in history is short on both.

Consequently, this is not one of my favorite books on this era. The books that I would recommend if you would like this sort of scholarly analysis but also some level of speculation and controversy are: the novel Attila, the Scourge of God, and the books: The Day of the Barbarians and Rome's Gothic Wars.

This book provides a concise, well conceptualized, and apparently accurate account of the final century of the Western Roman Empire. The brilliant device that Kelly employs to organize and clarify what is a complex and confusing 5th Century is to focus his and the readers attention on the tangled relationships between the Eastern Roman (later Byzantine) Empire, the Western Roman Empire and those legendary people, the Huns.
He develops a very plausible ethnography of the Huns and then traces their role in shaping developments in both halves of the Roman Empire as both allies and enemies. Hun intentions and ambitions strongly influenced the military and diplomatic policies of the later Roman emperors in both halves. In Kelly's telling Attila, the most famous Hun leader appears not as "the scourge of God" of legend, but as a serious leader trying to come to grips with the still viable, but clearly weakened bifurcated Roman Empire(s).
Kelly is particularly good at describing the gradual dissolution of the Western Empire (the last Western Emperor was deposed in 476 c.e.). He makes clear that the causes for its dissolution were numerous, but under the circumstances probably unavoidable. There is little doubt after reading this marvelous book that the Huns had the contradictory roles of prolonging the life of the Western Empire and speeding its dissolution.
A remarkably easy, but authoritative read that clarifies a good deal about the fall of the Roman Empire.

I am glad I bought "The End of Empire," by Christopher Kelly. It offers excellent insight into what is known of relations between the late Roman Empire and its barbarian neighbors. I recommend this book with five stars to anyone specifically interested in the Late Roman Empire or the history of international politics. It will be of only slightly less interest to others.

This book is not so much about Attila the Hun as it is about international politics in Europe during the 5th century. The main players are the Eastern and Western halves of the Roman Empire at the center, the Persians to the southeast, the Vandals to the southwest, the Goths to the northwest, and the Huns to the north.

Attila plays less of a role than the subtitle, "Attila the Hun and the Fall of Rome," implies. In fact, this book made me more curious about the Vandals who seemed more powerful than the Huns over the long run.

The two well-established Romes with their wealth-laden permanent towns and cities suffer a positional disadvantage against highly mobile and more ephemeral opposition all around. Both Romes seem dangerously self-absorbed and deal with their rivals with an odd blend of tools including protection money, concessions, alliances, and intrigue that seem to fail consistently. Military actions also generally fail and the author offers no satisfactory explanation for this.

The lack of clear explanations frustrated this reader. But the problem is rooted in the lack of source material. The author relies heavily on the few most valuable contemporary accounts available. The first-hand accounts of Priscus constitute a good chunk of this book's backing. Unfortunately, personal ambitions contaminate this source to an extent unknowable. The book's author also makes useful reference to the limited archeological findings. But the book leaves me with more questions than answers.

The author makes the motives and actions of national leadership accessible. But there is little imparted about the lives of the everyman of the day. Fortunately, this book offers a remarkably clear view into diplomatic operations of the day as well as into the lives of a few characters that crossed between the Roman and barbarian cultures. I found this material to comprise the most interesting and informative parts of the book.

Other fascinating material to look for in this book:
1) Aetius, "citizen of the world" or Roman traitor?
2) Geiseric, a more successful barbarian than Attila?
3) Careful, bold, and even petty demands made by Attila and Geiseric reminded me of Mao Tse Tung and Joe Stalin during the Cold War.

The book reads well and I assume it makes the best use of what source material is available. But it leaves many questions unanswered, and this is probably the best that can be done in our time. This book puts the late empire in a framework that seems as familiar as 18th or 20th century international politics. The book also makes clear that Attila was really not much different than a modern-day mafia boss. This timeless behavior pattern makes this most famous of barbarians accessible to the modern reader. At the same time when explanations of ancient history resonate strongly with more modern times I ask if the author's use of a modern lens distorts the truth or makes it clearer. I believe this author is on target primarily because he has the credentials of an ancient history specialist and did not seem to plan to package his findings in the framework of international politics that emerges.

I'm going to give this book 3 stars because the author had a lot of information about the fall of Rome, but it tells us the wrong view of Attila. This book says that he was not a barbarian, but Attila was possibly the most barbaric man in history. This book says nothing about his crimes like the fact that he ate his sons, the killing of saint Ursula, etc. If you want to read this book because of Attila, I don't recommend this book, especially if you are a beginner.

Given the ubiquity of references to Attila and the Huns as the scourge of the west and a primary cause of the fall of the Roman empire - and the subtitle of this book itself - I had expected something like a biography of Attila. Interestingly, Attila himself doesn't even appear until about 1/3 of the way into this book. I hadn't realized that so little is known about either Attila or the Huns, and that little is almost exclusively from Roman writings. Given that lack, this author did an excellent job of piecing together the few 'knowns' in readable form without dumbing down. He does occasionally resort to the speculative 'certainly...', and 'surely...', and 'we can imagine...' constructions but these lapses are minimal. And, greatly appreciated by this highly skeptical reader, his speculations are generally supported in the end notes by cited evidence. I agree with another reviewer that the end notes really should have appeared at the end of each chapter, or even, despite the annoyance, as footnotes, because they are so indispensable to the narrative itself. Discussions of the activities of the Goths and Vandals in the same time frame - and the Persians in the east - whetted my appetite for more reading in this quite complex era. Not having ever paid much attention to this historical period, I was particularly impressed by the 'modernity' of the politics and subtlety of the actors. Also, the book does shed light on the great importance of the Goth and Vandal movements relative to the short-lived impact of the Hun activities. All in all, a riveting read.