Sword of Attila [Paperback]

Michael Curtis Ford (Author)

Product Details

• Paperback
• Publisher: Thomas Dunne Books (2005)
• ASIN: B000OTOCGK
• Average Customer Review: 4.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (24 customer reviews)

More About the Author

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

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

19 of 19 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Superb Literary Style But Poor Content, July 25, 2005

By 

Julius O. Takacs (Chicago, IL. USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: The Sword of Attila: A Novel of the Last Years of Rome (Hardcover)

The Sword of Attila is the third novel I read by Michael Curtis Ford (previous two: The Last King, The Ten Thousand) and by far this is his best book stylistically. The opening page of the novel is a canvas with colors so vibrant, so beautifully executed that it is the literary version of Delacroix or David. His use of simile and metaphor and his eloquent writing style leaves the reader begging for more. Ford leaves nothing to the imagination in that his descriptions are so clear and vivid it as if the reader is there in 5th century Europe. The words are the brush and the mind is the canvas. Even the acknowledgements are a pure pleasure to read.

The content, however, falls headlong short of its form. The plot and the book’s organization are reminiscent more of a film script than a novel. The reader can almost envision one of Hollywood’s pretty boy actors in the lead role as Aetius Flavius. It begins immediately after the battle of Chalons and then through a series of flashbacks, the reader is brought up to date to the events leading to the battle. Many scenes were so cliché that they are almost laughable. The two salient ones were the failed seduction of Aetius by the emperor’s sister, Honoria and the fighting between the pet wolves of Attila and Aetius while the two men are locked in mortal combat.

The novel’s theme is Aetius’ unwavering morality and strength of character in a world of political ineptitude, moral degradation, and wholesale corruption. In contrast Attila is portrayed as a fierce, uncouth, amoral power hungry barbarian hell bent on the destruction of western civilization. At its conclusion Ford alludes to the notion that Attila is not a barbarian without principle or a moral nihilist but rather a warrior whose morality and code of conduct is not too far removed from that of Aetius. After all, both men lived over a decade with the other during their formative years. Ford would have done better had he developed each of the characters especially in light of the fact that both grew up knowing the other’s culture. This synthesis of two seemingly opposed cultures would have been fertile literary ground.

Ford is a talented writer who should concentrate on developing full-blown literary characters and not Hollywood action figures. Leave that to the screenwriters along with the pet wolves, cheesy seduction scenes, and eunuch jokes.

15 of 16 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Don't cite it as a reference for your dissertation, but...., February 24, 2007

By 

BasinBictory "Mister Basin to You" (Nowhere in particular) - See all my reviews

This review is from: The Sword of Attila: A Novel of the Last Years of Rome (Hardcover)

While there are many inaccuracies throughout the book with regards to the various ages of the characters, the equipment and terminology of the Roman legions (Ford writes as though they were the legions of Marius and Gaius Julius Caesar, but the legions of the 5th century AD were as different from those as Revolutionary War soldiers are from the soldiers of today) this book is nevertheless an entertaining page turner and I enjoyed it a great deal.

The story revolves around the two great generals who fought each other at the Battle of Chalons (aka the Battle of Catalaunian Fields) in 451 AD. On one side is Flavius Aetius, the "last of the Romans," who is depicted as the epitome of the intensely disciplined, completely honorable, upright and puritanical Roman male ideal. (The reality was that Aetius was as ambitious as Julius Caesar and had numerous intrigues in the political arena) On the other side is the King of the Huns, Attila.

The story begins with them as teenage boys - each spending considerable time in the royal courts of each other's homelands as "hostages" to guarantee that alliances would be observed. While Aetius learns the art of Hunnish warfare and indeed is treated as a son by the Hunnish King Rugila, Attila impatiently passes the years in the Roman capital, Ravenna, learning little of Roman ways, but observing their decadence, their weakness, their need for material comforts. As they grow in martial stature and skill, they eventually become friends and develop a genuine admiration for each other, but their destinies are to lead their respective nations against one another.

All of this eventually comes to a head at the Battle of Chalons. Attila and his Hunnish horde had been invincible to this point. Although the book makes only scant mention of it, up until Chalons, Attila's army had lay waste to more than a dozen cities in Gaul (modern-day France) after successfully crossing the Rhine. Aetius finally catches up with Attila when Attila is attempting to attack the city of Orleans (this is also not mentioned in the book) and Attila is forced to turn and fight. The description of the battle is similar to what I read in other accounts, but the numbers involved are frankly, not believeable. Ancient historians had a penchant for hyperbole, and in any event, one million men is just a ridiculous number. Even great modern-day battles like Stalingrad did not involve a million men at a time - but I digress. The Battle of Chalons is technically a draw, since neither side carried the field, but because the Huns had been stopped, finally deprived of clear-cut victory, they were forced to retreat and eventually return to the Hunnish lands beyond the Danube River. It was this victory that preserved the Western Roman Empire from Hunnish domination, even if only for a few more decades...

In all, this was a very entertaining book, and can serve as a good introduction to someone wanting to know more about that period in history, but without having to read through dry, boring academic history texts. I recommend it.

22 of 25 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Exciting but badly flawed, July 7, 2006

By 

Alan Bale (Ashford, Middlesex United Kingdom) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: The Sword of Attila: A Novel of the Last Years of Rome (Mass Market Paperback)

This exciting but flawed book is about the intertwined lives of two men from boyhood to middle age culminating at the battle of Chalons in AD451. One is Flavius Aetius the effective ruler of the western Roman Empire, the other Attila the Hun. Attila is well researched, however the same can't be said for Aetius.The author's poor knowledge of the Roman army and court matters a lot as this is a book about war and power.

The army he describes might have been that of Julius Caesar 500 years earlier, he uses obsolete terms (pilum, praetorian guard etc), he uses `legion' frequently and even mentions the 10th legion - Caesar's favourite, although the legions were split up a century earlier into bands of around a 1000 men, probably better described as units or regiments, The author has no knowledge of armor, army ranks and army life in general. Aetius was not count of Gaul, there was no such title.

The Roman imperial court and ceremonial are virtually ignored, the intrigues (in reality there by the bucketful) and jockeying for position and power by eunuchs and soldiers are absent. In reality the Emperor Valentinian 3rd murdered Aetius in AD454 and was himself killed shortly thereafter as was his successor. The Emperor's sister (called a princess!) is introduced to Aetius not the other way around.

Bizarrely the author uses `Flavius' as a given name and `Aetius' as a surname in the modern manner, the opposite is true, thus he is forced to rename Aetius' father from Flavius Gaudentius to Gaudentius Aetius!

With these exceptions it is a fair read about a rather obscure period of history provided you don't stop to think about the oddities like Aetius the ruler of the west only having a staff of one one-legged man!

I would not have have bothered to write this review but I was irritated by the author's continual reference to his 'research' and having the book vetted by a classicist! also the reviews on the front flyleaf stress the non-existant research.

For me these mistakes spoilt the book and the book's cover sums up my view, it shows a barbarian warrior fighting a soldier wearing vaguely roman armor, 'vaguely roman' says it all.