The Restoration of Rome: Barbarian Popes and Imperial Pretenders 1st Edition

This book is along the lines of Peter's other works like Empires and Barbarians and the Fall of the Roman Empire, a voluminous work of information around 400 pages. I have to admit its less insipid than the other Peter Heather work I read the Fall of the Roman Empire in the sense he adds some colorful language and modern day references to modern day movies like the godfather.

I agree with Peter's premise that there were successor states to the Roman Empire after its fall that continued the Roman Empire albeit in a debilitated and smaller form. Peter mentions these successor states as Theodoric's Gothic kingdom, Justinan's Byzantine empire, Charlemagne's Carolingian empire and the Papal empire. I have to agree Theodoric, Justinan and Charlemagne had empires in the traditional sense of owning large swaths of land and having the feudal privilege of conscripting troops from the areas of land they control. However, I have to disagree with Peter's assertion that the Papal state was a continuation of the Roman empire. Peter skirts around the idea of Empire being a combination of tangible military and political force by saying an empire could also be an empire of ideology. The Papal state was an all pervading empire of ideology in a non-secular sense all throughout Western Europe but was this an empire in the sense of a successor state of the Roman empire in the traditional sense of empire being a combination of military and political force? I have to disagree with this assertion of the Papal State being a successor and continuation of the Roman empire. I also have to demure to Peter's assertion that empire can solely be an ideology. I wouldn't really call that empire but more a predominant philosophy (though the papal state did wield influence in royal and political matters in W.Europe). We can see that this ideology was easily reversed with the Protestant reformation in the 16th century and the so-called Papal empire of pope decretals was easily overthrown by Martin Luther and King Henry the VIII.

I think Peter wanted to add some pages to this book by adding the last section of the book asserting that the Papal State was an empire to make the book larger. Who knows maybe his publisher wants a certain amount of pages or that there is an expectation by himself for his books to be at least 400-500 pages so he added the spurious notion of Papal empire. Another thing I also found annoying was that all the pictures and graphs in the book were not labeled with numbers. When Peter was referencing a specific picture, he would reference the picture by a number in the text. But since the pictures were not labeled with a number I would have to start from the beginning picture in the book and start counting to the number of the picture Peter was referencing. This is such an expected practice to label a picture inside a book to help the reader (especially a historical academic work) as I am not sure why Peter or his publisher's editor missed this.

Overall, a nice book by Peter. If your a history lover like me, I am sure you'll enjoy this work!

The Restoration of Rome is the 3rd book from Peter Heather about the Roman Empire and this time, he focuses on the legacy Rome (or more accurately, Western Rome) left on succeeding centuries subsequent to the overthrow of Romulus Augustulus in 476 AD by Odovacar. Many lay readers, like I, have had the experience of learning history only in the form of ellipses, from my school days, I was broadly aware that the Roman Empire fell in the late 400s and the next thing about Europe I know was the Council of Clermont in 1095 with a mysterious entity called the Holy Roman Empire floating around the giant landmass of the continent and knights and dukes and serfs making merry. This book is really fantastic because it helps fill a gaping hole in this period and Peter Heather shows that while the political structures of the Western Roman Empire had been overthrown, the institutions and mores of the Roman Empire continued to influence and even actively drive the various regimes that arose in replacement. Without morphing into a 'continuity hypothesis' and stating the fall of Rome was not actually a fall at all, Peter Heather does show that for the general populace and the administrative machinery of the former lands of the Empire, the change was a far more gradual and less cataclysmic change.
To illustrate this point, he launches into an in-depth examination of 4 entities that arose to replace the majesty of the Roman Empire. The first was the Ostrogothic Kingdom under possibly the most incredible man profiled in this study, Theoderic. Unlike the vision of a feral and uncivilized warrior that is conjured by the term 'barbarian', the author highlights that Theoderic was a thoroughly Romanized Goth, having lived as a hostage at the Royal Court in Constantinople from the age of 8. Returning to his tribe upon coming of age, he created alliances of various Gothic groups floating in the Pannonian lands after the collapse of Attila's Hunnic empire and created a mighty column which initially wandered around in Thrace and the Balkans trying to pressurize the crafty and wily Eastern Roman Emperor Zeno into giving them concessions which would improve their lot. Zeno used their muscle to elbow out his own rivals at the Byzantine court but was constantly looking to get rid of them by fair means or foul. When Theoderic offered Zeno his services in restoring Nepos (the nominal Western Roman emperor who had been unseated by Romulus Augsutulus' father Orestes) to the Western Roman throne, it is quite likely that Zeno made a deal with Theoderic whereby the latter would go to Italy and unseat Odovacar and then rule as a vassal of Zeno. Theoderic agreed and quickly dispatching Odovacar, he established the Ostrogothic Kingdom of Italy and proceeded to provide nearly 40 years of stability to the country, maintaining good relations with the local Catholic populace despite being Arian himself. He also substantially augmented his dominions, making it clear that he was the overlord of the Vandal Kingdom in North Africa and the Visigothic Kingdom of France and Spain as well as keeping the Franks in check. In terms of territory, Theoderic's successor state was probably the closest anyone came to matching the reach of the erstwhile Empire, with only Britain out of the orbit. However, Theoderic's desire to leave a lasting legacy were undermined by the premature deaths of his designated heirs and the rising power of the Franks, especially after the Battle of Vouille when the Franks unseated the Visigoths from the territory of France. Theoderic's successors were unable to counter the reconquista force of Justinian, the Eastern Roman Empire and within 20 years of his death, the Ostrogothic Kingdom was no more.
Which brings us to the next pretender - Emperor Justinian of the Eastern Roman Empire. It probably tells you something about the character of the man that the most devastating polemic written against him was by a member of his own imperial service. Readers of the Secret History of Procopius of Caesarea will know of Justinian as the arrogant, despotic, vain and venal autocrat who hollowed out the Empire from within with his tyrannical policies. However, on the surface of it, his policy of wars and conquest had some success as the lands of Italy and North Africa were reconquered and Persia fought into a stalemate. Peter Heather, who I fear goes soft on him despite his admission to the contrary, gives an account of his career before these wars, the highlight of which was the massacre he wreaked upon his own citizens to quell the 'Nika' riots. The author posits a 'wag the dog' scenario where Justinian launched these wars of reconquest to regain his standing among his own people and divert their attention from his tyranny. Led by the general Belisarius, his armies had immediate success in North Africa where they unseated the Vandals and then after a protracted series of Wars in Italy, fought the Goths into submission, mainly on account of too many of the Gothic elite dying in battle and not enough leaders left. These wars were ruinous and severely damaged the Italian countryside and left Rome as a provincial backwater for nearly 300 years. In the words of Procopius, Justinian's wars brought misery, death and devastation to all concerned but for some reason, Peter Heather is quite dismissive of the last great historian of Antiquity. In some infuriating passages, on account of which I am deducting 1 star (as far as Procopius goes, I am firmly in the Anthony Kaldellis camp), Peter Heather dismisses some of the most fundamental criticisms leveled by Procopius as exaggerations, falsehoods, elitist conservatism or (and this is really weird) comic relief. I don't think Procopius was aiming for any comedy when he wrote the Secret History and I also fail to be convinced by the author's assertion that since the Imperial Treasury was overflowing with taxes from the reconquered lands it means that North Africa and Italy were not devastated. I'm sorry, but Imperial Treasuries, like the coffers of tyrannical governments today, can become overflowing by simply taxing the populace to death. I'm quite sure that's what happened in this case as well because 1.) Procopius alludes to it and 2.) the first thing Justinian's successors did when they came to power was to reduce taxes - a likely pointer that the local populace was complaining about over-taxation.
Be that as it may, Justinian the Terrible, died relatively peacefully in his sleep, an uneasy peace prevailing over his reconquered lands and an Eternal Peace reinforced with the supowerpower on the border, Persia. However, despite Peter Heather acquitting him of it, I do think that Justinian's policies, along with some accidents or 'acts of God' were responsible for the extraordinary decline of the Eastern Empire within 80 years of his death. The Avars had moved into the Carpathian basin during his reign and by indulging them with tribute, he strengthened them to the point where they created one of the most powerful states in Europe at the time (in a process very similar to the Huns) and eventually, the Avars and their subordinated people, the Slavs, started attacking and weakening the Eastern Empire. In response to the rise of the Avars, the Lombards moved into Italy and once again, Italy was wrested away from the Empire by a Germanic people. Weakened by plague, worne out by another 40 years of War with the Persians (to the extent that Constantinople itself was in danger of being lost), the rump state was unable to wear out the next great world empire, the Arabs who took advantage of the weakness of both empires and within a period of 20 years, the Eastern Roman empire had lost Syria, Egypt and all of North Africa never to be regained.
The 3rd pretender was the Merovingian - Carolingian monarchy of Western Europe, which presided over the decisive northward drift of the center of power in Europe. The Franks established a base in the lands of France and parts of Germany and regional hegemony was achieved by their one time subordinates and eventual successors, the Carolingians, especially Charlemagne who decisively defeated the other Germanic groups in Europe as well as the Lombards in Italy and destroyed the Avar Empire to create a mighty empire that almost rivaled that of Theoderic (with the exception of Spain which was under Islamic rule). Charlemagne cemented his position as a representative of God on Earth in the tradition of the Roman Empire by some deft political dealmaking with the Pope who crowned his as Holy Roman Emperor. However, his efforts to leave a lasting empire were also frustrated by fundamental weaknesses in the administrative structures of the empire. Firstly, his empire was trifurcated among his sons and his later successors were embroiled in constant conflicts with each other. More importantly, unlike the Roman Empire, centralizing forces were weak since the revenues of the state came not through taxes to support a standing army. Instead, the state made grants of land to local leaders who provided men during campaigns - this had the inevitable effect of creating dukes and barons with substantial regional powerbases who undermined Carolingian rule and eventually, the rulers of Saxony became strong enough to effect a regime change the Ottonian dynasty came to power.
The last successor entity, also the most enduring and successful, was backed not by armies or by imperial pretensions but by 'piety' (with all caveats attached) and lots of political acumen. The papacy, an institution that was often twinned with the Imperial throne, not only protected itself from the far reaching changes taking place in the political landscape around them but through deft maneuvering used the imperial pretensions of the Carolingian and Ottonian dynasties to strengthen their position and then eventually break free to become a power center in its own right. In fairness, the Church was not an institution driven by pure cynicism but through the initiative of some idealistic leaders, it preserved the learning and cultural legacy of antiquity and powerful popes also drove strongly reformist agendas. Initially, the power to appoint bishops rested solely with the rulers of a domain but gradually, through a weeding out of black sheep who had purchased their posts in the clergy as well as showdowns with the imperial authorities of different eras, the Pope eventually became sovereign in ecclesiastical appointments, the basis of its subsequent powers. The last part of the book details this struggle between papal and imperial authority, though to be fair, it is also the driest part of the book.
In summary, the author does a fabulous job in showing that while Rome may have died in 476, Roman-ness persisted for a lot longer and influenced politics, spirituality and even daily life in subsequent centuries. The fact that despite the best efforts of many men to revive the imperial majesty of Rome, no one succeeded in creating a replica of Rome perhaps shows that the Roman Empire was a creation of its time and conditions in Europe after 500 AD were far too different to allow the re-emergence of a Rome. Much of these changes were brought about by the Empire itself, in particular through the interactions of Roman imperial might with the lesser developed tribes of the North and the East. That many of the efforts to revive Rome were led by those (or the descendants of those) who at some point of time were opposed to it showcases the impact that the idea of Rome had on not just its own people but also the wider world. In 1071, after Manzikert, the Turks took over the region of Anatolia, labeling it 'Rum' in deference to the majesty of the Empire which held it for more than a millenium. In 1453, when Mehmet II rode into Constantinople, he adopted the title of Kaiser-e-Rum (Caesar of Rome). Till the early 20th century, there was a Kaiser in Germany, a Tsar in Russia highlighting that Rome left an imprint of human history that far outlasted its chronology

This book traces the Roman empire after the fall of the west through the paths of its most famous leaders. Theodoric, Justinian and Charlemagne each receive their own parts, as well as several popes around 1000 AD, focusing on Leo IX and Innocent III.

Heather is an excellent story teller with an informal style, ofter making modern day references. Some may be turned off by this approach, but he does not overdo it and it makes the stories more relatable. Each of the main characters led fascinating lives and ultimately shaped the world we live in today. One of the overarching themes was the prevalence of violence and the overriding ambition of the characters involved, where not even loved ones stood in the way for their quest for power. Throughout the entirety of the story, might makes right, and power is derived from the force of conquest. Although, the power of persuasion is also displayed when the various disagreements are described that often split the church.

The background of the church and the chaotic rise of the popes is also very entertaining. It is too bad more history books are not written in this manner because it truly demonstrates how fascinating the stories that formed our world today are. It also shows how little human nature has changed.