Most Helpful Customer Reviews
33 of 37 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Fall? Which Fall?, November 14, 2008
This review is from: The Ruin of the Roman Empire: A New History (Hardcover)
For a couple hundred years after Gibbon's time, the common wisdom was that Rome's empire in the West finally fell to overwhelming and violent barbarian invasions during the 5th century CE (although the precise date and the underlying causes were much disputed). In the 20th and 21st centuries a newer theory gained much ground, claiming that Rome did not fall but merely transitioned from a more or less unitary classical culture to a very decentralized early medieval world over perhaps 200 years (and with migrations rather than invasions). According to this view, the new rulers in the West were well-assimilated into the Roman polity and perpetuated its culture. James J. O'Donnell, author of this book, is a firm adherent of the "no fall" school, but with something of a twist. He believes that there was a fall, but one that came in the 6th century CE and later and at the hands of fellow "Romans," sent from the imperial capital of Constantinople.
Justinian I's attempt to recreate a united empire under his rule by dispossessing the "barbarian usurpers" in the West and in Africa, says O'Donnell, was not only misguided but catastrophic for both West and East. It resulted in the complete ruin of the City of Rome, the fragmentation and devastation of all Italy and the fatal crippling of all of Roman culture in the rest of Western Europe and North Africa. In the East Justinian's policy uselessly sacrificed large amounts of limited (indeed, irreplaceable) resources in pursuit of a hopeless dream while diverting imperial attention both from areas essential to the empire (the Balkans) and from critical problems (the rising power of Persia).
Justinian enjoys few modern admirers and Justinian-bashing is nothing new in historical writing. But O'Donnell has some additional charges for the indictment. O'Donnell believes that an empire (such as the Roman) centered around the Mediterranean is "artificial" while one linking the Fertile Crescent to lands both to its east and west was more natural and certainly more desirable. O'Donnell seems to believe that such a multiethnic empire had at least the potential for promoting a common polity and culture across the entire Eurasian landmass, thus promoting the possibility of future harmony for the whole human race.
O'Donnell also assails Justinian for a foolish religious bigotry. He used this benighted zeal to impose a single form of Christianity in the place of the many that had existed before him and in his own time. In his time the varying forms of Christianity sprang primarily from disputes over the precise nature of Christ: Wholly human, wholly divine or mixed. Justinian believed that a viable state was not possible if there were competing religious systems within it. He therefore set out to extirpate those beliefs that conflicted with the one that he had chosen as correct. This was a goal both within the empire that Justinian took over when he came to the throne and for the Western lands that he was trying to reconquer for that empire (the Arian "heresy" was still strong in the West). O'Donnell believes that this "poison" spread by Justinian was harmful to the development of Christianity overall and that it promoted the religious wars, struggles and attendant fanaticism within and between the major Western religions, wars and struggles that beset us still.
History is a completely contingent process, the result of literally innumerable events great and small (many of them possibly even unknown to posterity). In this respect it is similar to chaos theory in physics. Looking back we can see the result and fashion an explanation that is consistent with known evidence showing to some extent what happened, to a lesser extent how it happened and (to a lesser extent still) why it happened. We cannot be sure that this explanation is the whole story or that it even incorporates all events significant to the outcome. Trying to foresee ultimate outcomes before the various contingent events have occurred is simply impossible. There are too many events and they are too complex for any prediction to be reliable beyond a very short run. Hence I think that O'Donnell's view of what might have happened had Justinian been (as O'Donnell conceives it) both smarter and wiser is ultimately mere speculation. It may or may not be correct, but it cannot be proved (or disproved for that matter). It is, so to speak, a faith-based initiative. Justinian could have been everything that O'Donnell wished him to be and the world today could still be a major mess, perhaps even the same sort of mess that it actually is.
The book is written for a general audience. O'Donnell writes in an informal, almost conversational, style. He does not attempt much deep analysis or make formal arguments with detailed evidence in support. Instead he lightly sketches word pictures of the worlds and people that he describes with data points scattered here and there for support. Important areas (e.g. economics and trade, literacy) are touched on but lightly or not at all. The book is sparsely footnoted by scholarly standards but sufficently for what I take to be the target audience. If it were a painting, the book would be by a French Impressionist.
The writing style is quite readable and generally pleasing, although there are occasional puzzling moments such as when he describes over four lines a "sixth century monk whose views would have long influence" beginning his rule of monastic life by denouncing monks who did not live in a fixed community, but leaves the reader to figure out who this influential monk might have been (St. Benedict fits the facts given and may be the guy that O'Donnell had in mind, but who knows).
I have compared this book to an Impressionist painting. Such a book aims to interest the reader and, with luck, cause him to explore the field further. In these circumstances, suggestions for further reading are very important and offer a major opportunity to the author. The "Further Reading" section in this book is a major disappointment. Less than one page in length, it notes all of six books plus one volume of the multivolume Cambridge Ancient History then airily dismisses the reader to the "Notes beginning on page 397 [which] contain many more titles, almost [sic] all of them well worth browsing ...." This is at best a disservice to any reader who has bothered to read the entire book and reeks a bit of condescension.
This book is, however, well worth reading and will open up a world that many readers have perhaps not visited.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
48 of 56 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Vigorous, partisan, and memorable, September 19, 2008
This review is from: The Ruin of the Roman Empire: A New History (Hardcover)
As the song has it, "Just a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down." Appropos of this book, a shovelful of bias makes the history go down. The book is essentially a review of the Roman Empire (or its remnants) in the sixth and early seventh century -- a very important and often neglected transition between the ancient and the medieval world. The author, James O'Donnell, is exceptionally learned, well-credentialed, and has all has facts straight as far as I can tell. He writes an exceptionally readable history of what often makes for boring or obscure history, but he does it by being deliberately partisan, tendentious, and funny. He makes the following exceptionally provocative claims: (a) that the rump of the Western empire under Theoderic and the Ostragoths was really only a continuation of the old Western Empire in new clothes; (b) that the Western Empire did not "fall" in the fifth century, but was ruined by Justinian's "conquests" in the sixth; (c) that Theodoric and the Ostragoths were more "Roman" than the Byzantines who "re-conquered" Italy in the mid-sixth century; (d) that Theodoric was one of the greatest men who ever lived; and (e) that Justinian, as an imperial disaster, ranks somewhere between Stalin and Bozo the Clown.
In actuality, historians are deeply divided in their evaluations of the principal personages who dot O'Donnell's pages, and the historical conclusions which abound in them. Some think Justianian was a great man, some think he was a mixture of great successes and great failures, and some think he was ultimately a failure -- though none that I am familiar with rate him as low as O'Donnell. After all, some of Justinian's achievements, such as his sponsership of the codes and digests which bear his name, and his construction of Hagia Sophia, had a long-term, beneficent effect on European history. But even here, O'Donnell makes an important point -- virtually all the things Justinian accomplished, he accomplished as a precursor of European history, not as a savior of Roman history. A person less sympathetic to Roman history than ODonnell (Sciavoni, for example) could even argue that Justinian did the West a favor by helping to clear away the detritus that was Rome.
But I will say this for O'Donnell's book -- and this is why I rate it so highly: it is compulsively readible. More balanced treatments, such as Vol. I of the Cambridge Medieval History, Vol. I or A.H.M. Jones' "The Later Roman Empire," are more responsible and ultimately more informative. But what good is a responsible treatment to the layperson if it puts him to sleep in the process of reading? O'Donnell will never do that. So I recommend reading O'Donnell, laughing with or at him, and then, when you want a more scholarly consensus where O'Donnell is being provocative or intemperate, compare his conclusions with one of the drier but less wild-eyed books on the subject.
Incidentally, I have edited this review. For some reason, in my initial review, I noted the author as "James Collins." Perhaps I was confusing the author with the publisher. Or perhaps I was just thinking of the wrong Irish revolutionary.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
17 of 18 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Revisionist Scholarship At Its Finest, October 18, 2008
This review is from: The Ruin of the Roman Empire: A New History (Hardcover)
Most people who have read anything at all about the classical world know that Alexander the Great defended the West from Persian barbarism, that the Roman Empire collapsed because it was attacked by more barbarians, and that Justinian I was the greatest of all the Byzantine Emperors because he held back the barbarian tide. James J. O'Donnell, a classical historian, refutes these commonly held beliefs in a solid work of scholarship that is a delight to read.
O'Donnell divides his book into three parts: Theodoric's World deals with the life and times of King Theodoric, a monarch whose antecedents were from the various tribes who moved into the Roman Empire, but who came closer than many other rulers to actually restoring the Western Empire. Justinian's World examines the Byzantine Empire and the reign of the emperor usually regarded as its most successful, and finds it wanting in many respects. While Justinian is usually praised for having restored the Empire, O'Donnell presents much evidence that his ceaseless wars (usually fought by others while he remained safely in his palace) actually weakened his empire. Gregory's World examines the reign of Pope Gregory the Great and illuminates much of the shadowy years of the end of the western empire and the rise of Roman Catholicism.
O'Donnell writes vividly and elegantly, including as befits a classical scholar many long and stately sentences with multiple subordinate clauses. He has an eye for a revealing anecdote and an enviable ability to write intriguing character sketches that describe complex personalities of the ancient world in just a few paragraphs. Most enjoyably, he is able to come up with some unusual comparisons, as when he calls the Frankish culture of ancient Gaul the Tex-Mex of the day. He also has a refreshing reluctance to take himself or his subjects too seriously. I do not know of many other serious historians who could take a moment to refer to his beanie baby collection without it sounding incongruous or precious! I especially enjoyed O'Donnell's look forward from the ancient world to the present day when he traced the consequences of the fractures between Europeans, South Asians, and Central Asians from the classical era to our own time.
This is an excellent example of historical writing at its finest. Both professional and amateur historians will enjoy it and find much within it to ponder.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
