The Restoration of Rome: Barbarian Popes and Imperial Pretenders Hardcover – March 21, 2014

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

The Restoration of Rome is Peter Heather's loose conclusion of a trilogy of works covering Late Antiquity starting with the decline and fall of the Roman Empire to the coronation of Charlemagne and the rise of the formal Catholic Church in Western Europe as the spiritual successor to the institutions and embodiment of the Roman Empire. Heather's earlier two works:  The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians  and  Empires and Barbarians: The Fall of Rome and the Birth of Europe  are all loosely interconnected with one another, but this work is more in synch with his more famous book on the final century of the Roman Empire in the West.In this book, Dr. Heather tackles 4 competing factions or persons that attempted to maintain the Roman legacy after the deposition of Romulus Augustulus. First, is Theodoric, who is perhaps the most successful of the three kings/emperors who attempted to preserve, or re-create, the old Roman Empire. This composes the first of four parts in Heather's book, and one comes to an understanding that, despite the "fall of the Roman Empire," Italy under Theodoric is still relatively flourishing and there is much cultural and educational/philosophical "renaissance" in this interregnum period. In particular, the philosopher Boethius is a much forgotten (unfortunately) figure and one of the first philosophers of the Scholastic tradition that would come to dominate Medieval philosophy and proto-science (St. Thomas Aquinas is probably the most famous scholastic philosopher). However, for personal reasons, Theodoric will have Boethius imprisoned and killed. But for Theodoric, his attempt to restore Roman glory lays in his bid to restore Pax Romana, but ultimately is unable to achieve external stability and Ostrogoth Italy is in a dire position after his death.Enter Justinian, often hailed by popular authors of the Byzantine Empire (Lars Brownworth, or John Julius Norwich) as being one of the greatest, if not the greatest of the Byzantine emperors. This view is less common among scholars of Late Antiquity and the Byzantine Empire proper (actual PhDs in the field). As Heather highlights, Justinian's egotistical view of himself as the rightful heir, or continuer, of the Roman tradition leads him into a series of deadly conflicts in the west. His initial destruction (not really his, but that of his general Belisarius) of the Vandals gives him overconfidence that reaches an apex when he orders the invasion of the Ostrogoths in Italy. The war in Italy will last 20 years and lead to the real destruction of the remnant prosperity forged by the successor kingdom, and the war decimated the city of Rome which wouldn't be able to recover until the onset of the early Renaissance. Furthermore, Heather draws connections between Justinian's foreign policy and that of neoconservative thinking. Justinian, despite his 'success,' actually sets the Byzantine Empire up for failure and decline in the coming two centuries. The success is superficial, and the creation of the Avars, a future war with Persia, will lead to a weakened Byzantine Empire unable to defend itself from the Avars, the Persians, and the Arabs and start a long period of decline before the stabilization of the empire under the Macedonian Dynasty. Heather even goes as far as to call Justinian, "An autocratic bastard."The third figure is Charlemagne (covered in Part 3). Charlemagne's coronation as Holy Roman Emperor and a theoretically unified empire is his attempt to restore the splendor and authority of the Roman Empire, but soon after his death, logistical, infrastructural, and political problems allow all to realize that Charlemagne is the third of the failed pretenders to the Crown of Augustus.However, the forgotten restoration of the Roman Empire is with the Latin Church, which we know today as the Roman Catholic Church. The Latin Church inherited many of the responsibilities of governance, management, and education with the collapse of the Roman polity in 476. As Heather attempts to show, and I think somewhat convincingly, how the Latin Church already had preserved aspects of the Roman tradition and with the aftermath of Charlemagne's failed attempt at restoration, while he, personally, failed, Charlemagne laid the foundation for the future success of the Latin Church to become the Catholic Church that remains with the world today. Thus, the Latin (Catholic) Church achieved a symbolic and spiritual restoration of the Roman Empire and the Roman tradition (Roman law formed the basis for Roman Catholic Law, the Roman political and religious titles were inherited by the Church, the system of Roman political governance was inherited by the Church, the classics preserved by the Church, etc. etc.). However, from this, and this is where Heather's analysis, while unique and insightful, might prove to be controversial and sailing against the prevailing waves of Late Antiquity scholarship--is that this spiritual restoration provided the foundation for a new imperial restoration under the Roman Papacy. As Heather calls it, "the Papal Roman Empire" which held universal sway over Christendom. While the Church had extensive influence over the lands of the nobility of Europe during this period, it is a bit of a stretch (in my opinion) to assert that the Latin (Roman Catholic) Church had also become a quasi-imperial entity.Personally, the commentary on Justinian is very intriguing, especially when one notices the possible parallels with American foreign policy and that of Justinian's. Heather is not the only scholar of Late Antiquity or the Early Middle Ages to make the connection between Justinian's foreign policy and that of American Neoconservative thinking (see James J. O'Donnell's  The Ruin of the Roman Empire: A New History  or Edward Luttwak's  The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire ). In the end, Heather's work is important, offers new ideas and commentaries about the world of Late Antiquity, but fails to do justice to the sincere religious and theological beliefs held in this period, rather seeing these as fronts for the new Roman imperial project undertaken by the Papacy. Nonetheless, Heather's conclusion to his loose trilogy is a must-read for students of Late Antiquity.

I’ve read several books by Peter Heather and I admire his style. You might call it informally erudite. He has a very precise, forensic, sceptical approach to historical research but he manages to present complex material in a way that even I can understand. There are plenty of footnotes and a lengthy bibliography so every statement is fully evidenced. One niggle I have is whether the author can read Latin or koine Greek because he always cites English translations of primary texts. I assume that as a mediaeval historian he does read Latin for fun, but maybe he doesn’t like to make a show of it.Anyway, this book focuses on three historical figures – Theoderic, Justinian and Charlemagne – and the contribution each made to restoring “Rome” in principle at least as some kind imperial power. It also covers over 500 years of European history and a myriad of kings, popes, emperors and assorted dukes, bishops and lesser mortals. I thought I knew the period pretty well, not least because I’ve recently read the same author’s Empires and Barbarians and another book I often tout, Peter H Wilson’s The Holy Roman Empire. However, I learned an awful lot from this volume. For example, about the Pseudo Isidore texts. It never ceases to amaze me how much mendacity lies at the heart of church history. It’s head spinning stuff, but the author explains very clearly how the bishops of Rome (i.e. the Popes) asserted their supremacy over the other princes of the church to become key players in European politics. He also explains how attempts to recreate a “Roman” empire based on the Mediterranean failed as the axis of power shifted from southern to northern Europe and as the Byzantine empire shrank in the face of Islamic conquests. As with Empires and Barbarians there is an underlying theme about how modern Europe came into being as a patchwork of political entities (provinces, nation states, borderlands etc.) with differing languages and cultures. Here we also learn how an overarching Catholic Church struggled to impose doctrinal unity but was not sufficient to support any kind of political unity across Europe.This edition has plenty of maps – very useful for making sense of the geography of the all the political entities mentions in the text – as well as colour illustrations of Justinian, Theodora et al. Overall, I’d happily recommend it to anyone who wants to understand how Europe came about and where it’s likely to go.

One of my favourite periods about which to read is the fall of the Roman Empire and the so-called 'Dark Ages' which followed. At times the period seems remote, but despite the intervening distances, which brought about such radical developments in technology and culture, human nature hasn't changed that much and, though some of them were hidden from the ancients, economic, political and psychological laws operated then just as inexorably as they do now.Ancient Rome fell partly because the elites stopped supporting it and, apart from the Church, left the lower classes, including what composed the military rank and file, to fend as best they could with diminishing state and social support. Sounds familiar?I am but halfway this latest work of Peter Heather but already I want to read his previous work on the Fall of the Roman Empire. He has a light and easy style of writing, which is both erudite and a page-turner (though admittedly the occasional lapse into colloquialism or slang can be a bit jarring). A mere chronicle of events, exciting though they are, would not be enough for me. Heather supplies a political, diplomatic and economic hinterland without which no real sense can be made of what followed the Fall. He basically sets out the explain why in the changed conditions of the world hundreds of years Anno Domini the Roman Empire could not be reconstituted. Basically, Rome taught the barbarians how to fight and the residual culture of Rome taught them how to rule so that there could be no longer be one overarching power such as Rome had exercised until perhaps now with the project of the European Union.The only complaint I have against Peter Heath is that because his writing is so good my plan of reading in history for the next several months is wrecked while I read and consume this and his previous work!Ave atque vale. ('Hail and Farewell'.)

This is one of the best historical reads I have had in a long time. Peter Heather gives a coherent and convincing account of how exactly the medieval world, dominated, by the Papacy, emerged. It portrays a world, now so alien to us, where the need to have a semi-divine figure of moral and authoritarian power allowed the Papacy to emerge as a substitute. It is all written in a delightful jokey style as if one had dropped in on an informal undergraduate seminar. Get this if you care about this period of European history.

Sorry - the style of writing felt like a series of lectures which had been taken down by a short-hand typist and then put in a book, unedited. For me, it was virtually unreadable and I ended up skipping paragraph after paragraph, even page after page. There was an awful lot of waffle - the book could have easily been half the size.

A thorough piece of work that completes the story from Rome's decline in late 4th century, particularly in the West, to the rise of Roman Catholic power in the middle of the second millennium. Immaculately researched and well written. Perhaps less interesting as it moves on to the Papal era, but the author's infatuation with the Gothic kingdoms are thoroughly aired and cast a new light on the 'so-called' early 'Dark Ages.' Fascinating stuff if a little more prosaic than the death throes of Rome in the West!