Customer Reviews

The Sword of Attila: A Novel of the Last Years of Rome

5 star:		(11)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

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.

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.

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.

I can't believe all of the negative comments directed at this fine novel by people decrying it's lack of historical authenticity. What ever happened to the idea of "artistic license"? If a reader is desiring truthful history, I'd suggest that they look in the Non-Fiction section instead of the Fiction section. This book can and should be enjoyed for what it is instead of what it is not. I've read numerous such books by different authors and Mr. Ford is as good or better than any. His characters are well developed and interesting. His description of ancient warfare is so vivid that you can almost smell the blood and hear the anguished cries of the wounded. I can't speak for the historical accuracy of his words, but neither will I judge the novel by it. I can say that if you're looking for a great read that will keep you up late at night turning pages, you can't miss with this one. Enjoy the ride.

Being interested in late Roman history, I was interested to see that there were three books available about Attila, Aetius and the Catalaunian Fields. I have purchased all three of them and will provide my opinion on them. This is the first book for evaluation. Although this book is a fast read and has some interesting spots, it is totally implausible. Although this is fiction, it is stated that is based upon fact, as the author states that "this then is the Battle of Chalons". Well, it's not, at least not for me.

It doesn't depict with any level of accuracy the Roman army of that period. The Roman army at this time was not dressed in traditional legionnaire garb. Any basic reference of that period would clearly advise that this is not accurate. The actual dress of the Roman soldier on the 4th and 5th century is more like a early medieval knight as shown in many good sources on this subject. The Roman army at this time was in major decline and this is not shown with any degree of accuracy.

It provides almost a comic book view of the Huns. These were violent and brutal people.

Finally, the numbers provided for each side are absurd. (Yes, they are!) The Hun army at the time of the battle of the Catalaunian fields is referenced as being one million men. Even the sources of the time, which are considered to be way too high, provide the number as between 300-700,000. Terry Gore advises in his book, Neglected Heroes, that the accurate numbers were from 35,000-45,000 for each side (with the Romans and their allies outnumbering the Huns unlike what this book suggests), and Arther Ferrill in that great book, The Fall of the Roman Empire, the Military Explanation, references that the 300-700,000 men provided in the original sources are not accurate just indicators from these sources that this was a major battle. Well, 35,000-45,000 men each is a major battle for that time.

In order to put some perspective on the numbers, his 500,000 Alammani are 15 times the numbers fought in the battle of Strasbourg. His 250,000 Romans are 20 times the numbers fought in the battle of Strasbourg (100 years earlier when the Roman army was more powerful). This number would have been more than any number of Romans who fought in a battle at any time prior to that, including the Civil Wars between Caesar and Pompey. And, this was 25 years prior to the end of the empire.

I wouldn't make such an issue of this if the author didn't keep harping on the numbers. But, his insistence on the numbers are just an indication of a poorly written book.

I just finished Ford's fourth historic adventure, the Sword of Attila, and enjoyed it. I find the driven quality of Mithridates in the previous book to be more compelling than this version of a driven man, Attila, and I felt that Aetius was quite the thinker and reflector and ... just different than I expect the real man was. This is however not a history of the two men, but rather Ford's choice of their story, so mount up and go on his ride: this is an action adventure drama though backed by research, including culture, ways and means, weapons and tools, food and clothes, homes and camps and a palace. In the afterward Ford not only gives sources and 'further reading' but explains some of his history deviations and plot deviations mostly in the way of cutting major episodes of the hero's and antihero's lives for focus and brevity. Ford left out the Danube scourge, but I did keep wondering why did Attila go straight across to Gaul leaving the eastern empire at Constantinopolis out of his ultimate challenge; I thought it would be far easier just to go south.

That focus keeps this a page-turning romp, not sheer straight history, with sensory feeling of everything they see or hear or touch. I enjoyed the way he bookends chapters on relationships or action with a lead-in and fade-out giving us the topography with some flora and even a bit of fauna as we get to know these two leaders, commanders, foster brothers, teens who go apart as young adults then reunite three decades later in the titanic clash of giants of that century. I could not buy that personal face off at the end, I won't spoil by describing it, but at several points in the story I kept yelling "oh no way" as my mind would see a different direction than the words on the page described. Ford made his story of these times and men even if diverged from my preconceptions, and I went along the ride like I did in The Last King and now ahead in Gods and Legions. I give praise especially for the portenting and forshadowing, and then the gradual unshadowing of the essence of this great horde sweeping from the east with the signal fires going out one by one, advancing inexorably paragraph by paragraph: the riders swarming over the grasslands like a shade darkening leaving nothing beside or behind but total devastation, "they disdained even to follow the road but cut their own swath..." and I coursed right along among them, dust and manure and fire's soot stuffing my nostrils, impressed by Attila's disdain and by his visceral abhorance of Rome's legacy.

oh, and one more thing: "keep the kid ... " no that's wolf! "... in the picture." I totally believe that the Huns had wolves that were something like hunting dogs, trotting alongside in not only hunting but in battle as well. If I had ever found out he had them and cut them, I'd take stars away.

This novel is very hard to put down. The book depicts the violence and politics of men, ca. AD 450. I found myself relating these politics and war of about 1,500 years ago to the present. (Man has not learned much except how to kill each other more efficiently). I also learned that Attila was not always the bad guy. I recommend this book to anyone who loves history and adventure.

I really enjoyed the topic and the interaction between the Romans and Huns. The battle scenes are terrific and Ford has a good grasp of the historical background to the events -- yes it is fiction but very good fiction nonetheless. The battle and all the confusing aspects surrounding it are very well written. A very good book and some rather odd and interesting characters.

I have to say straightaway that "The Sword of Attila" is a far better novel than the other two I've read of Ford's - "The Ten Thousand" and "Gods and Legions". The major reason for this, I believe, is his use of the third person rather than the first. The whole "from the eyes of an anonymous slave/scribe/priest" convention is a tiresome one in historical fiction, and kudos to Ford for moving past it.

I won't bother summarizing the book. If you've made your way to the reviews you've likely already read the description, etc. So, on to my impressions.

First - I think Ford misuses his gift for imagery. He can spend a page describing an entrance into the imperial court, but on the field of battle, where he has three quarters of a million men fighting at the same time, I never once felt a sense of the true, massive scale of the struggle. I realize that in battle, especially in antiquity, it is a simple thing to lose track of all that is going on around you, but the reader needs some sense of how BIG the whole thing is. Continuously stating the numbers is not enough.

Second - Overall, I thought the dialogue was strong, perhaps particularly so considering that I tore through a Clive Cussler book before cracking this one open. There were, however, a few lines that pulled me completely out of the story. One had a fifth century Visigoth proclaiming "it's just what the doctor ordered". I half expected him to pop open a Dr. Pepper...

Third - Fiction or not, there is simply NO WAY that Attila and Flavius Aetius could give their rousing speeches to the entirety of their respective armies.

Fourth - For me, there was no tension in this book. It opens after what becomes the massive, climactic battle. It provides no sense of the horror and fear riding before Attila's horde. Aetius has to convince any allies of just how dangerous the Huns are, for pete's sake. Perhaps providing a better sense of scale, or taking a longer time detailing Attila's march west would have helped ratchet up the tension.

Fifth - the characters. I could never bring myself to care about them. They either have no faults or are riddled with them. They exhibit no fear, no more than a moment's doubt...nobody once teeters on the edge of despair, which it is likely one would do if a MASSIVE BARBARIAN HORDE was threatening the very existence of one's civilization.

Sixth - I am sorry, Mr. Ford, but the ending just did not do it for me. But that is probably a by-product of my apathy toward the characters and the lack of tension.

On whole, the book is not bad, just decent. I will continue to read Mr. Ford's future works, with faith that he will one day put out the story that I know he has the potential to write.

After reading so many rave blurbs about Ford's writing, Sword of Attila is a disappointment, though not without merit. It simply is not a convincing reconstruction of a fascinating era. The numbers Ford ascribes to the armies at the battle of Chalons are simply fantasy. Perhaps this is Ford's way of tipping us off - this is not history but a fantasy from an alternate universe. Once you accept that (and I can't), then you can accept the story and its admitted strengths. Ford seems innocent of knowledge of the Late Roman army as opposed to that of the Principate. He makes statements of historical fact that are at best ludicrous exaggeration. His description of the battle of Chalons is unconvincing in terms of military history. Horses, for example, cannot be made to charge directly onto a phalanx of spears - they are smarter than their riders in this instance. And it goes on and on like this.

Which is a shame because Ford actually has some talent. He can tell a story with verve and conviction. While his battle will not stand up to scrutiny as history, it is dramatic and enthralling. Although his characters are drawn paper thin, his Attila at least has some potential. A ruthless conqueror who dotes on his children is intriguing. As to what really motivates them we get nothing more complex than cliches like "tradition" and "semper fi".

Ford could have written a better, maybe even a great, historical epic if he'd only worked at it a little harder.