Customer Reviews

Terry Jones' Barbarians: An Alternative Roman History

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

Terry Jones' Barbarians takes a completely fresh approach to Roman history. Not only does it offer us the chance to see the Romans from a non-Roman perspective, it also reveals that most of the people written off by the Romans as uncivilized, savage and barbaric were in fact organized, motivated and intelligent groups of people, with no intentions of overthrowing Rome and plundering its Empire.

So you think you know everything about the Romans? They gave us sophisticated road systems, chariots and the modern-day calendar. And of course they had to contend with barbarian hordes that continually threatened the peace, safety and prosperity of their Empire. Didn't they? In his new book and the accompanying four-part BBC Two television series Terry Jones argues that we have been sold a false history of Rome that has twisted our entire understanding of our own history. Terry asks what did the Romans ever do for us?

This is the story of Roman history as seen by the Britons, Gauls, Germans, Greeks, Persians and Africans. The Vandals didn't vandalize - the Romans did. The Goths didn't sack Rome - the Romans did. Attila the Hun didn't go to Constantinople to destroy it, but because the Emperor's daughter wanted to marry him. And far from civilizing the societies they conquered the Romans often destroyed much of what they found. Terry Jones travels round the geography of the Roman Empire and through 700 years of history - bringing wit, irreverence, passion and the very latest scholarship to transform our view of the legacy of the Roman Empire and the creation of the modern world. Welcome to history from a different point of view.

This is a much thicker and more scholarly work than Medieval Lives, but no less humorous (sidesplitting, in fact). I sincerely hope both the BBC2 productions of Barbarians and of Medieval Lives come available on DVD, and soon!

In "Barbarians," Terry Jones and Alan Ereira finally answer the question posed in "Monty Python's Life of Brian": "What did the Romans ever do for us?" "The answer," according to the authors, "is not usually very nice."

Jones and Ereira explain that while there are many books setting out the history of Rome from the Roman perspective, there is no general history in English that tells the tale from the viewpoint of the so-called "barbarians." This book is their attempt to remedy this omission, and it recounts the history of Rome as experienced by the Atlantic Celts, the Germans (including the Dacians), the Hellenes (Greeks and Persians), the Huns and others who encountered the pointy end of Roman civilization. The message is that the Romans were not so much bringers of civilization as destroyers of advanced societies, not innovators but relentless conservatives who deliberately suppressed the hard-earned knowledge of the peoples they conquered. In Tacitus' famous phrase, the Romans had a habit of making a wasteland and calling it peace--at least until they encountered the equally ruthless Parthian and Sassanian empires.

"Barbarians" is "popular history" (it accompanies a BBC TV series), and the effort to tell the story from a non-Roman point of view sometimes lapses into exaggeration--for instance, I'm skeptical that the Greeks were really on the verge of an "industrial revolution" before being rolled by the Romans. Still, Jones (of Monty Python fame) and Ereira are witty racontuers--their latest book is a highly readble and surprisingly illuminating account of the ancient world that will raise the hackles of Romanophiles everywhere.

Terry Jones may be one of the sharpest wits in the historians' arena, and "Barbarians" proves that Jones deserves credit as a serious historian.

That doesn't mean that "Barbarians" should be accepted as gospel. Its value rests in its willingness to examine the role of the "barbarians" in Western civilization . . . and that role is far greater than quaffing mead after a good rape-and-pillage.

Jones reminds us that "barbarians" were everyone who was not Roman - so it covered quite a bit of ground. Accordingly, the Roman concept of a Barbarian was not Conan. Jones goes to great lengths to prove that "barbarians" made several significant contributions to history, but that's not surprising considering the fact that the Greeks qualified as "barbarians" even though they were the leading scholars of the age.

Like most historians zealously pursuing a thesis, Jones clearly overplays his hand in several areas while ignoring Rome's obvious achievements. Jones argues that Rome stood as a bulwark against scientific progress and didn't achieve much of note in the fields of art, literature, or the sciences. But Jones never really gives the Romans their due - the Roman aqueducts and the Coliseum are ignored, and Jones dismisses Rome's magnificent roads because there's evidence that roads were also built in Britain. In other words, Jones ain't playing fair.

But that's fine - the Romans surely diminished the achievements of their neighbors on many levels when writing their own history. And this slant is pretty obvious, so it's easy to read Jones, enjoy him, and still learn something even if you don't take all his conclusions as gospel. This is one of the most entertaining histories of Rome you will read, and that by itself makes it worth a look.

I was perusing my local bookshop and I found "Terry Jones' Barbarians." I was excited by the endorsement on the back cover from a historian that said, "I wish all historical books written by non-historians were so informed and all books by historians so well written." Good enough for me - I grabbed it up and eagerly started reading, looking forward to reading this work by the creator/host of one of my favorite history-based documentaries, The Story of 1.

Boy, was I disappointed.

First of all, neither Jones nor his co-author Alan Ereira are trained historians (neither am I, but I have an appreciation for expertise in an area and how that makes the commentary more accurate) and it clearly shows. Right off the bat (p. 13) they attack Julius Caesar and belittle Romans in general for falsely describing the true nature of the elk (Romans were told of exotic animals by natives and they duly recorded the descriptions, usually false or exaggerated - this happened throughout the Roman era - Jones must not appreciate an inquisitive nature...) and then questions Caesar's ability to describe the Gauls (p. 14) because if Caesar cannot properly describe an elk, what can he describe? Cheap shot, but a warning as to the nature of the book.

The book is based on a simple premise - the barbarians that surrounded Rome were more sophisticated and advanced than most histories of Rome give them credit for. To their credit, Jones and Ereira do make this point early and often. But, rather than just making that point they repeatedly go after the Romans as being the real barbarians filling the book with snide comments about how the Romans destroyed science for more than one thousand years (pp. 152-5) and did little but destroy, loot and maim. Rather than build up the barbarians, they embark on a strategy of tearing down the Romans to make the barbarians look better by comparison. It's cheap history and does not work well. Note, I am not asserting that Rome was morally superior to their "barbarian" neighbors. Clearly, Rome had horrific, barbaric habits such as the gladiatorial games and a very willing tendency to knock their neighbors about for their cash. But, this book pushes it too far.

Other problems:

On page 194 William Cowper is given credit for writing the beloved hymn "Amazing Grace." This was written by a friend of Cowper, John Newton. The story of this hymn was the subject of a recent motion picture and has been recounted in numerous anti-slavery histories for generations. I'm astounded they (and the editors) were so ignorant of the famous and touching story behind the hymn - it inspired the end of the slave trade by the UK and turned the Royal Navy into the world's largest abolitionist force.

But, then again, maybe I'm not surprised. On matters of theology Jones and Ereira show an astounding lack of sophistication. They write extensively on Augustine of Hippo but cannot grasp basic matters such as "Original Sin"(p. 229). My 10 year old can explain it with more depth and understanding than these two educated gentlemen. They also fail to grasp the meaning behind Augustine's comments on the sack of Rome in 410. Augustine notes the relative decency of those barbarians under Alaric(for the most part they did not loot churches or the religious items of civilians and they respected churches as sanctuaries). They mockingly summarize Augustine's thoughts on the matter as "It was Christ who bridled their ferocity and made them act so mercifully - for of course, Alaric was a Christian." (p. 133) They summarize the idea correctly but do no understand why it was correct. Augustine was noting that the spirit of Christ restrained them, as it should any true Christian. The fact that they were Christians is the reason that the churches were respected as sanctuaries. These men are certainly entitled to their opinions but if they cannot grasp the rather basic arguments behind them they should keep those opinions to themselves until they are prepared to write intelligently on the matter.

Archimedes. Please, can we all just agree that he was a genius but he did not invent a ship-burning mirror array? (pp. 148-9) Jones and Ereira note (correctly) that Archimedes could have invented a mirror array that, given time, could start a fire by aiming it's intensified light at one single point for an extended period of time. The problem - the array would have been aimed at MOVING ships - ships that moved up and down by bobbing about in water while they were also moving forward into Syracuse harbor. Most modern computer aided targeting systems would have a hard time aiming at one single pinpoint on a ship in those conditions. How do you think a group of uneducated slaves would do with manual targeting?

They also credit Archimedes with a defensive technique (using cranes to drop weights on opponents) that was used during the Sicilian campaign of the Peloponnesian War hundreds of years earlier, ironically, also at Syracuse.(p. 148)

How about the famous Baghdad batteries? Let's bring out a device that no one's really tested (they do work as batteries if you fill them with modern chemicals but not time-appropriate chemicals), everyone's pretty sure was just a storage vase and claim they were used to electroplate with gold if wires that were not invented at the time were used. Besides that, use it as a chance to bash the Romans as the goons who killed off the people who invented and used electricity (p. 168), thus setting civiilization back by more than a thousand years. Did the Romans kill of the steam engine and vending machines? Why, yes they did, those barbarians! (pp. 153-154)

Jones & Company go to great lengths to demonstrate that the Romans were not the only ones with laws, since the Romans have a great reputation as being the great lawgivers of the ancient world. True enough, the Romans did not invent the concept of "law." But, they did two important things. 1) in the ancient world they applied a uniform system of laws over a vast geographic area. This uniformity was a great boon for trade, much like free trade zones and the European Union have been in the modern world. 2) The West's legal system is based on Rome's emphasis on property rights. Think it's not important? If you've ever sued someone over a car crash - that's because your property was damaged by another. It is a very Roman concept to want to collect for damages to your property. These are not concepts that can be blown off with a few cutesy phrases if this book is really meant to be taken seriously.

To make it all the worse, the last pages, the ones detailing the long slip and final fall of the Western Roman Empire are so dreadfully dull to read that I had to force myself to finish.

In sum, there is a bit of good information here but it is buried in so much half-truth, speculation, mis-information and misunderstanding that I am torn as to whether I should try to sell this book or just dispose of it.

The author(s) have a point to make about the Romans not being the greatest civilization ever to dominate the western world, but being a "made for television" story, they appear to have to enhance the negative side of things in order to present their view. The Roman's neighbours did have many things they did better than the Romans, but they also had numerous faults, which don't get mentioned - in and out of each others' countries with each others' wives and property day and night, for example. And don't get me started about those so-called democratic Greeks continually massacring each other either.

Much about the Greek technical advances has entered the public consciousness since the original TV series, the Greek mirrors even featuring on children's science programmes, and built by Germans...

The author(s) succeed in writing as if Mr Jones was reading the book aloud - which is not necessarily a good thing for 250 pages; I found it did start to drag.

Lord Acton, a once-famous historian, said that you shouldn't judge historical people by our standards, but by their contemporaries' standards. Unfortunately, the Romans (and Christians) didn't leave anyone alive to give their views, apart from the occasional Greek. They do however quote from Tacitus, who does agree with the author(s), so we must let them get away with it.

Here are some recommended books that fill in some of the obscure corners of the period covered by this book, but in a more reasonable tone:
The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History
The Tribes of Britain

About time people begin looking at the Roman Empire with clearer vision. Although a magnificent group, Roman citizens stole wisely from every culture they came in contact with taking full credit. This book examines group by group with appreciation for each contribution to civilization, including language. I personally enjoy Jones' style and it's a relief to examine these issues with a non-scholar (he thinks), but an avid, intelligent inquirer. I have found no real historical errors in his books on Chaucer's murder or the Crusades, and this is a welcome addition.

It's interesting to read a book about Roman history written from the viewpoint of the other side, ie the barbarians which Rome, mostly, defeated. The next time I read any Roman history it will stop me from making the automatic assumption that the Romans were the civilised ones and their opponents just savages.
However, Jones goes too far in his condemnation of the Romans. It surely cannot be true, as he believes, that Roman hegemony over five centuries was purely based on conquest. I suspect that most barbarians welcomed the Pax Romanus as an alternative to constant rivalry between opposing chieftains. This better explains the success of the empire.
Does Jones really believe that the people who built Rome were not superior to at least the vast majority of the tribes they defeated, tribes which never even invented written language? I don't think he really does; it just feels clever to take that viewpoint.
As an antidote to this nonsense, go to Rome and then stand outside the Pantheon. Then say to a nearby tourist: "Of course, the barbarians whom the Romans defeated were more civilised than the people who made this." Watch the tourist nervously back away.

I fell in love with Jones' "Who Murdered Chaucer" and the result was a deepened interest in the period and a return of excitement for the Richard and Henry series in Shakespeare. My return to the joys of Middle English was also prompted. Like that volume, "The Barbarians" is like a pile of leaves found in a dark wood. His picking and mussing those leaves exposes much that I found enlightning. Makes sense that the book of history being written by victors has pushed the Celts and the Gauls and the Germanics into oblivion. Mr. Jones messes about in that pile of leaves and exposes much for our contemplation and wonder. Like his Chaucer Book, I have not examined or tested all of his revelations or pronouncements, but as a book to spark an enduring interest and to seed further exploration I recommend and sing its praises. The Poet's History indeed!

History is written by the victors, at least until Terry Jones and Alan Ereira got their way with the Romans and the Catholic Church.

Managing to squeeze 700 years into under 300 pages, this book's consistent argument is that the 'barbarians' were cultured, scientifically advanced, artistic - you know, the ancient version of sensitive new age guys. While the Romans were a bunch of posers who went around taking credit for everything, while generally acting like, well, barbarians.

The book is full of historical 'facts' to support their argument, and lots of those wonderful "Wow did you know..." type anecdotes. I think the book is a bit biased towards the Barbarians, but that's the whole point of the exercise, isn't it?

I read this book across the course of a couple of flights some weeks apart - it is that type of book. Read it, put a bookmark in, and come back a week, a month or even a year later. There's not a complex plot to be recalled, a series of nuanced arguments that need refreshing, just an easy reading story that turns history as you learnt it at school on its head. I doubt that this book will supplant the widespread belief that the Romans were the good guys bringing culture to the vast hoards of savage barbarians - but once you've read it your views on Rome et al will never be the same. A fun read.

Barbarians, by Terry Jones and and Alan Ereira is a fascinating look at all the people the Romans considered to be barbarians. This is a fascinating read. Terry Jones (that Terry Jones) and Alan Ereira know their stuff and they are opinionated. The book has a point of view.

Jones clearly has it in for the ancient Romans. The book is not the least bit balanced, but it is an excellent additions to anyone's library on the ancient world.