Generalissimos of the Western Roman Empire (Classical) [Paperback]

John Michael O'Flynn (Author)

Book Description

ISBN-10: 0888640315 | ISBN-13: 978-0888640314 | Publication Date: January 1, 1983

John Micheal O'Flynn traces the development of the position of the generalissimo, or emperor's commander of the military forces, in the western part of the Roman Empire during the first century AD. From the arrogant barbarian Arbogast, who treated the youthful emperor Valentinian as his puppet, to Odovacar, who dismissed the last western emperor and was pronounced king of Italy in 476, the generalissimos' seizure of power led to dissolution and chaos from which would emerge the political patterns of medieval and modern Europe.

Product Details

• Paperback: 250 pages
• Publisher: The University of Alberta Press (January 1, 1983)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0888640315
• ISBN-13: 978-0888640314
• Product Dimensions: 9 x 6 x 1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 14.9 ounces
• Average Customer Review: 4.3 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (3 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #7,543,514 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Invaluable Assement of the Western Roman Empire, November 6, 2008

By 

Phillip J. Ramirez (Chicago, IL USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Generalissimos of the Western Roman Empire (Classical) (Paperback)

The purpose of this book is to examine the changing aspects of the Western Roman Empire after the death of Valentinian and until the arrival of Theodoric the Great. Using this, the focus falls on the 'generalissimos' of the Western Roman Empire which, for lack of a better term, is all you could call them. The men who took the position of patrician and magister militum assumed a whole new power base and influence. Unlike the East where the Magister Peditum, (Master of Foot), and the Magister Equitum, (Master of Horse), were equal and the title of Patrician merely was an honor bestowed upon a civilian or friend of the Senate, in the West the title Patrician came to be associated with that of a powerful general or warlord and the Master of Foot always dominated and was superior to the Master of Horse. This was never an formal legalization, it simply evolved and because these titles and this structure never had any definition they continued to evolve until the men who truly ruled Rome in the West adopted their own titles and their own definitions of power and this continued until the last of them finally became acclaimed as 'Rex' the first King sine the days of the Tarquins. Many sources are used throughout the work and the author takes pains to illustrate both the ancient descriptions and well as what later scholars later implied and how they understood it and in doing so, along with new information that had come after, he shows how many sources have been very biased or to quick to judgment when little or no evidence presented itself. Primary sources include Zosimus, Ammianus Marcellius, Claudian, Procopius, Jordanes and more. For the secondary sources they include Gibbon, Bury, Cameron, AHM Jones, Otto Seeck and others.

The first chapter starts with the death of Valentinian and ends with the death of Theodosius and this centers on the generals Merobaudes, Bauto and Arbogast. O'Flynn shows how Gratian slowly lost power and it was transferred to the Masgister Peditum who then also began to control and influence the younger Valentinian II. This would a pattern later on. Also showed is how the West constantly referred to the East as the superior of the two halves of the empire especially when Theodosius the Great ruled there. This would a constant pattern as well, where the West slowly lost legitimacy and emperor's became figureheads, the powerful men of the West would turn to the East for action and legitimacy, because that is were real Emperors truly ruled. The final victory of Theodosius at Fridigus River shows that while propagandists and the like portrayed it as Christianity defeated Paganism, due to Arbogast and his Emperor Eugenius using Pagan idols and ideology for their army, this is false it was not a resurgence or a Pagan last gasp it was merely Theodosius' opponents trying to consolidate whatever support they could get because up to the confrontation they appeased both Christians and Pagans.

In the second, third and fourth chapters, Stilicho is the key figure discussed. O'Flynn tries hard to show Stilicho for what he really was and throws out a lot of pre-conceptions about him and the reader is left with an honest, objective picture of Stilicho. His policy was one in which he took from Theodosius concerning barbarians, and one which would be constantly repeated. The idea that any barbarian force could be potential allies against other barbarians, and the idea that you did not want to completely destroy an enemy force because they could be used by Rome. Rome could only benefit if barbarians killed barbarians, and Rome was a master at using this tactic for the rest of her existence in the West. Stilicho, though half-Barbarian was Roman through and through in actions and is shown through his actions to have been extremely loyal to the Theodosian House. He never aspired to the purple, (and of all the generalissimos only Constantius made himself emperor, it was apparent and clear that to have supreme power one did not need to be emperor and eventually one did not even need an emperor), though some claim he tried. The chapters continue to show his campagins against Alaric and the usurpers in Gaul as well as the administers of the East and O'Flynn shows that Stilicho's downfall came because he gambled to much to try and keep the empire safe.

In the fifth chapter the topic falls on Stilicho's successor Constantius who was a full Roman and who after seems to have forced Galla Placidia to marry him after her time in captivity and marriage to one of the Visigothic chieftains. By her Valentinian III was born and she quickly tried to assert some form of influence but was overshadowed, (as she was under Stilicho), by the power of Constantius and he unlike his predecessors or successors made himself emperor as well, though this was not recognized in the East, (which was something that would happen more and more). Following his death there came to be more generalissimos and this time though Placidia worked well to play each general off the other. One though who she did beat, but who came back stronger than ever was Flavius Aetius.

In the sixth and seventh chapters Flavius Aetius is the main focus. Here is it shown that Aetius was the perfect man for the job and task at hand for leading and defending the empire during these darkening days. The fact he was of good Roman stock meant he had no opposition from the anti-barbarian segment of the the Roman aristocracy and he had invaluable understanding of both the Visigoths and the Huns whom he spent time with as hostage as a boy. His closeness with the Huns actually is what made and broke him. He started his powerbase in Gaul and later influenced Italy as well though as long as he held the sway of the army he was in command and control despite facing the stiff opposition posed by Placidia and her influence and control over her son, Emperor Valentinian III. Aetius became so powerful, foreign envoys went to him and made treaties with him, not Valentinian III or Rome itself, this was the extent to the power that the generalissimo accumulated. Finally, Aetuis fell when the Huns became hostile to Rome. Before, he could use them to fight for Rome or for his own personal use and as long as he held that control and they were friendly Placidia and Valentinian could do nothing, once they became hostile and no longer under is control he lost his power. It should be shown that the policy toward barbarians first begun by Theodosius finally paid it's value as Aetius was able to call upon a large gathering of Germanic peoples, (all former enemies of Rome), to come to Rome's defense against Attila and it is suggested that the battle was inconclusive not because the battle was so bloody, but because Aetius wanted it this way. He was continuing the Roman balancing act of the barbarians. He did not want the Huns destroyed, because then his powerbase is gone and he would no longer be of use, and he did not want the Visigoths gone, because he needed them for the defense of Gaul and Spain and as an offset to the Huns. Afterall, if the Huns had suffered so terribly how could Atilla launch a campaign into Italy so soon after the battle. Aetius would later be killed, and his killer Valentinian by men loyal to Aetius.

In chapters eight and nine the final focus falls on Ricimer and Odavacer mainly though Orestes is spoken of as well. In these chapters we see the struggles with the Vandals which was a major deal concerning Aetius become ever more clear and how the emperor now no longer of the Theodosian House, would be seen as nothing more than a figurehead and something that was superfluous. The East would intervene often and many times the West would remain without and emperor as the generalissimos preferred this since they could do as they pleased and they seemed happen to govern the West as the viceroy to the Eastern Emperor in Constantinople. It also became apparent that real power no longer meant having the title of Magister Militum or Peditum and Patrician but of simply having the loyalty of the barbarian army of the West. Scholars show that the West died when Romulus abdicated and sent the Imperial regalia East saying it was no longer needed, it should be pointed out that Romulus was never recognized in the East as Emperor of the West and the last recognized one, Julius Nespos, would continue to rule from Dalmatia until 480. Finally, when Odavacar became too much for the East to bear Theodoric was sent with his Ostrogothic host to rule Italy. Theodoric did so with the titles of a Roman general and nobleman though when he received his victory in 490 he no longer used them and used the title 'rex' as his predecessor had done. It should also be pointed out that Theodoric quickly asked Emperor Leo to 'bestow' upon him the title of 'Rex' seeing as again, the East was where legitimate rule could only be granted and accepted by the Romans of the West. The East would eventually intervene directly by way of conquest only decades later under Justinian, when it seemed apparent they wanted to do so, so many year previously.

All in all, this is a most excellent read. I would have to give it 5 out of 5 as it fills a lot of vacant information that many simply do not know of the Late Roman Empire. It covers many sources and is fair in the assessment given by the author. I would caution that this be read by those who have at least a basic understanding of the Late Empire, otherwise you may become lost and find yourself checking and re-checking some facts or facets of information the author assumes the reader would know. This book is essentially, in my opinion, to understanding the development and the root causes and effects on the evolution or collapse of the Roman Empire, (depending on your opinion).

4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars nice little book, January 31, 2007

By 

D. Held (New York, NY) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: Generalissimos of the Western Roman Empire (Classical) (Paperback)

One of the most difficult books to get on the net (I've seen a price of $650 for this 200 page paperback). It's mostly old wine in new casks (same ancient sources used again in different combinations); but the wine is delicious nonetheless! Covers the last c.75 years of the Western Roman Empire. Forget about emperor-centric accounts, the real guys were the Generalissimos. The nifty bar chart in the back listing the Western, Eastern Emperors and Generalissimos is well worth the $193 price tag (not!; but still a nice resource). Get this modest little paperback from the library if you can.

4.0 out of 5 stars Good Period, Good Detail, Questionable Thesis, October 13, 2011

By 

Stuart McCunn (New Haven, CT) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Generalissimos of the Western Roman Empire (Classical) (Paperback)

This book deals with the military leaders who rose up to take control during the last century of the Roman empire. O'Flynn calls them generalissimos but a better term might be warlords. Part of the reason for that is that these men weren't always generals but they used their power and their threat of force to make new chains of command. Tyrants might be a better term if used in the Classical sense of a man who ruled illegally. These were men who were the power in Rome and they ruled through weak or puppet emperors. The reason for this would be an interesting study but O'Flynn merely takes a look at the men themselves.

Stilicho was half-Vandal and he was one of the first generalissimos to rise to power. As O'Flynn points out the power in the West had actually been in the hands of the earliest "generalissimos" for several years. There was a child on the throne and the power naturally went to the military leader who controlled him. But when little Valentinian tried to exert his power his general Arbogast rudely told him that he didn't take his orders from him. The poor boy then did the only thing he could do to inconvenience the man and hung himself in shame. With no figurehead behind which to rule Arbogast was forced to promote a new emperor and hope no one else objected, which of course they did. Theodosius led his forces against Arbogast crushing him completely. His untimely death a few months later led to the Western throne passing into the hands of his young son Honorius. The West found itself in the same situation again with Stilicho ruling in the name of the child. Generally Stilicho has a pretty good reputation for his loyalty to the Theodosian house and his noble death but he had his dark side as well. There's an exellent study of Stilicho out called Stilicho: The Vandal Who Saved Rome. It's mostly a military history but it goes into more detail than this one.

Constantius' main difference from the rest is that he actually did become emperor. He married Honorius' sister and became co-ruler for a brief time. Still, he had always been the power behind the throne. There isn't much written on him so it's nice to see him covered in this work.

Aetius was the first pure-blooded Roman on this list. He used his relationship with the Huns to secure his power and keep Rome's enemies at bay. He is most famous for defeating Attila at the Battle of the Catalonian Fields. Once Attila died the emperor Valentinian III actually managed to establish his power by personally assassinating Aetius. Given his general ineffectiveness this was not the best solution and he found himself dead shortly after. So the Huns and the Western Romans found themselves leaderless at the same time. O'Flynn's view on Aetius is rather less rosy than that commonly given. He focuses a lot on the selfishness of the man's actions. While all these people were certainly selfish men or they wouldn't have gotten to power, the placing of one's personal interests above what was best for the Empire as a whole is a common theme of the Romans as a whole. It certainly isn't something unusual about these men. There's a book coming out on Aetius called Aetius: Attila's Nemesis by the same author who wrote the above-mentioned book on Stilicho. Hopefully this will be as good a look at that man as his previous one was for its subject.

Ricimer was the eventual successor to Aetius. He's the first man on this list to be a pure-blooded barbarian. O'Flynn takes the rather common view that Ricimer was a treacherous and untrustworthy barbarian although he really doesn't seem particularly worse than any of these other men. Ricimer's thing was the creation of puppet emperors. His first one rebelled against him and had to be destroyed, another one died prematurely, and the last one was forced upon him by the Eastern Emperor. Following a depressing trend Ricimer defeated his enemy (this time the failed Emperor) and then promptly died leaving a power vacuum. This was filled by several men before the whole Empire collapsed and was replaced by the kingdom of Italy.

Odovacer was Rome's first king in a millennium. He saw the way in which Rome was going and decided for whatever reason to do away with the tradition of rule through a powerless Emperor and assume the power himself. While his actual position was never securely determined he managed to rule Italy for over a decade before being overthrown by Theoderic.

I'm not sure I buy his thesis. He believes that all of these men held the same unofficial position. The warlords he lists have plenty of similarities but there are many differences as well. These men never occupied any one established position (as he points out) so they never had a formalized role. Treating their role as a single evolving position is thus doomed to failure. These were just men who took advantage of a power vacuum to make a place for themselves. The assumption that these men acted as they did because of their Germanness is also an annoyance. These men didn't view themselves as Germans but as Romans. Stilicho for example, despite his much vaunted Vandal ancestry had a Roman mother and was raised in the Roman manner. His successor Aetius was pure Roman. Yes he was raised amongst the Huns, but to make everyone who was influenced by barbarians into a barbarian is to eliminate all meaning of the word. Everything was barbarized to one degree or another by this point in the empire. That these men had German origins/influence is not even slightly surprising. If you consider that a cause for the fall of Rome then that's fine but making these men seem exceptional in that sense is just wrong. Perhaps this is being too harsh on the man. It is after all an older book (1983) which came out around the same time as many of the revolutionary new surveys of late antiquity. If you wish to view it that way then it adheres to the old school of thought and is simply somewhat out of date.

Another annoyance about this book is its use of quotes. He leaves these in their original language with the translations in the back. I can usually work my way through them but I know many others can't. Whether stopping to translate or stopping to flip to the back of the book it is an unnecessary annoyance. These aren't short quotes either, some of them take up almost a page. Unless your Greek and Latin are really good this is guaranteed to bug you. The strange thing about this is that apart from that the book as a whole seems aimed at a more general audience. The examination of the generalissimos is rather cursory with each one getting maybe 30 pages, and the details are limited. I'd say it was a popular history but for these quotations. For a scholarly work it is somewhat lacking since it never goes into as much depth as it should. This inconsistency of purpose is rather annoying.

For a better look at the period in general I would strongly recommend Peter Heather's The Fall of the Roman Empire. It has its own set of flaws but is highly readable and makes the period comprehensible. A better book on the "generalissimos" is Late Roman Warlords. That book only covers the warlords after Aetius' death but it does so in such unparalleled detail that it makes one wish she would turn her pen to covering the earlier ones next. This book serves well as a general history of these men and their actions but it is somewhat superficial and doesn't apply enough analysis to their positions.