Status
Available
Call number
Publication
Oxford ; New York : Oxford University Press, 2009.
Description
"Here is a fresh, provocative look at how a recognizable Europe came into being in the first millennium AD. With sharp analytic insight, Peter Heather explores the dynamics of migration and social and economic interaction that changed two vastly different worlds--the undeveloped barbarian world and the sophisticated Roman Empire--into remarkably similar societies and states. The book's vivid narrative begins at the time of Christ, when the Mediterranean circle, newly united under the Romans, hosted a politically sophisticated, economically advanced, and culturally developed civilization--one with philosophy, banking, professional armies, literature, stunning architecture, even garbage collection. The rest of Europe, meanwhile, was home to subsistence farmers living in small groups, dominated largely by Germanic speakers. Although having some iron tools and weapons, these mostly illiterate peoples worked mainly in wood and never built in stone. The farther east one went, the simpler it became: fewer iron tools and ever less productive economies. And yet ten centuries later, from the Atlantic to the Urals, the European world had turned. Slavic speakers had largely superseded Germanic speakers in central and Eastern Europe, literacy was growing, Christianity had spread, and most fundamentally, Mediterranean supremacy was broken. The emergence of larger and stronger states in the north and east had, by the year 1000, brought patterns of human organization into much greater homogeneity across the continent. Barbarian Europe was barbarian no longer. Bringing the whole of first millennium European history together for the first time, and challenging current arguments that migration played but a tiny role in this unfolding narrative, Empires and Barbarians views the destruction of the ancient world order in the light of modern migration and globalization patterns. The result is a compelling, nuanced, and integrated view of how the foundations of modern Europe were laid"--Provided by publisher. "At the start of the first millennium AD, southern and western Europe formed part of the Mediterranean-based Roman Empire, the largest state western Eurasia has ever known, and was set firmly on a trajectory towards towns, writing, mosaics, and central heating. Central, northern and eastern Europe was home to subsistence farmers, living in wooden houses with mud floors, whose largest political units weighed in at no more than a few thousand people. By the year 1000, Mediterranean domination of the European landscape had been destroyed. Instead of one huge Empire facing loosely organized subsistence farmers, Europe - from the Atlantic almost to the Urals - was home to an interacting commonwealth of Christian states, many of which are still with us today. This book tells the story of the transformations which changed western Eurasia forever: of the birth of Europe itself"--Provided by publisher.… (more)
Media reviews
Peter Heather’s compendium Empires and Barbarians is an impressive work in its scope, ambition, and sheer size. At 734 pages, this is a serious academic work, yet its tone and language remain admirably accessible and engaging for the interested, if uninitiated, general audience. Empires and
Show More
Barbarians’ subject is the events occurring in Europe after the third-century crisis in the Roman Empire Show Less
Now Heather has produced a weightier and more ambitious book. The full title is misleading, since it suggests that the birth of Europe follows closely on the fall of Rome, which is not his contention. Rather, his book covers a much longer period, down to about 1000 CE, and takes the reader through
Show More
not only the violent encounters between Rome and various Germanic groups in the fourth and fifth centuries but also the subsequent movement of Slavic peoples into central and eastern Europe, or from the Marcomannic wars of the second century to the Viking invasions of the 10th and the birth of Rus, creating the basic ethnic and linguistic map that persists to this day. Show Less
User reviews
LibraryThing member Shrike58
Thesis/Antithesis/Synthesis. In this wide-ranging work Peter Heather makes a good effort at placing migration back in the analysis of how the world of Roman Late Antiquity eventually gave way to Europe, this is after such concepts were read out of theory; due to a combination of failing to fit the
Pulling all the information together, Heather offers a narrative which sees the Germanic peoples undergo a process of economic and social development that eventually allows them to contend with Roman military power, particularly once the catalyst represented by Attila's invasion forced the hand of assorted polities to choose escape; peoples who were already used to migration as a solution to intractable problems. A comparable process then happened with the Slavic peoples who back-filled the lands previously held by Germanic peoples, with their catalyst being the Avars.
The telling point then comes with the irruption of the Magyars, which did not provoked the sort of migratory response of the previous two episodes of nomadic invasion. Heather would argue that the peoples who moved were the ones who decided to seek economic improvement along with their refuge. Those who fought the Magyars existed in a much more evenly developed economic landscape, besides enjoying a high-enough level of development themselves that fighting made more sense than running; thus ending the migratory patterns of the first quarter of the last millennium.
As for the future, Heather's final point is to consider how empire seems to create its own challenger by association, but that's mostly just an aside.
If I have a particular quibble with this work, I wouldn't mind seeing the impact of disease touched upon a bit. While that is certainly not Heather's main concern, I'd note that his examination of the case of Roman Britain seems to go around in circles, as the evidence doesn't allow one to come down on the side of whether what happened was the sort of ethnic cleansing that the historians of the last generation or so wanted to be done with, or whether there was merely a replacement of one leadership class with another. Entering a landscape decimated by disease would be another element to consider in the process of cultural change.
Show More
archaeological facts on the ground and the embarrassing lengths to which legends of great migrations had been used by romantic nationalists to justify political platforms.Pulling all the information together, Heather offers a narrative which sees the Germanic peoples undergo a process of economic and social development that eventually allows them to contend with Roman military power, particularly once the catalyst represented by Attila's invasion forced the hand of assorted polities to choose escape; peoples who were already used to migration as a solution to intractable problems. A comparable process then happened with the Slavic peoples who back-filled the lands previously held by Germanic peoples, with their catalyst being the Avars.
The telling point then comes with the irruption of the Magyars, which did not provoked the sort of migratory response of the previous two episodes of nomadic invasion. Heather would argue that the peoples who moved were the ones who decided to seek economic improvement along with their refuge. Those who fought the Magyars existed in a much more evenly developed economic landscape, besides enjoying a high-enough level of development themselves that fighting made more sense than running; thus ending the migratory patterns of the first quarter of the last millennium.
As for the future, Heather's final point is to consider how empire seems to create its own challenger by association, but that's mostly just an aside.
If I have a particular quibble with this work, I wouldn't mind seeing the impact of disease touched upon a bit. While that is certainly not Heather's main concern, I'd note that his examination of the case of Roman Britain seems to go around in circles, as the evidence doesn't allow one to come down on the side of whether what happened was the sort of ethnic cleansing that the historians of the last generation or so wanted to be done with, or whether there was merely a replacement of one leadership class with another. Entering a landscape decimated by disease would be another element to consider in the process of cultural change.
Show Less
LibraryThing member 100yards
A long book. 734 pages in the paperback edition. Scholarly apparatus of maps, notes, primary sources and bibliography.
This is the time of the Völkerwanderung when all roads, so it seemed, led to the Eternal City. This was the process that shaped the birth of Europe as we have come to know it.
The
Peter Heather is Professor of Medieval History at King’s College London.
I feel bound to give this the 5-star award.
francis cameron, oxford, 28 august 2010
This is the time of the Völkerwanderung when all roads, so it seemed, led to the Eternal City. This was the process that shaped the birth of Europe as we have come to know it.
The
Show More
consideration includes Huns, Franks, AngloSaxons,Slavs and Vikings – and Charlemagne’s ‘United Europe’.Peter Heather is Professor of Medieval History at King’s College London.
I feel bound to give this the 5-star award.
francis cameron, oxford, 28 august 2010
Show Less
LibraryThing member annbury
Marvelous history of the barbarianization of Europe, and of the Europeanization of the barbarians, covering (mostly) 300-1000AD. This book is full of ideas as well as of standard history, much amplified by the introduction of archaeological evidence. It focuses on the debate between the
Show More
old-fashioned interpretation of what happened (migration led to the fall of Rome, and to most of what followed) and the more modern view that internal evolution explains the history of the period. Heather concludes that it was both, and makes persuasive arguments -- some of which still apply. A wonderful book. Show Less
LibraryThing member Wmt477
Nice book but I'm missing all the illustrations refered to on the credits page. I've written Oxford University Press
and the author. I wonder how many other copies are without their pictures and drawings?
and the author. I wonder how many other copies are without their pictures and drawings?
LibraryThing member loveseabooks
Mr. Heather wrote an excellent historical version of Empires and Barbarians. His clear style of writing allowed me to understand subject matter extremely well. He explains everything in detail and you can tell that the book was well researched. The book covers the Roman Empire, along with the
So, if you want to get educated on the ancient empires and the Barbarians, then this is the book for you. Highly recommend.
Show More
Goths, Hans, etc, and it also goes into the fall of Roman Empire. There are also interesting stories based on actual accounts of the folks that lived during the period.So, if you want to get educated on the ancient empires and the Barbarians, then this is the book for you. Highly recommend.
Show Less
LibraryThing member milocross
NOTA BENE: The introduction of my edition of this book gets its own title wrong, calling itself, "Emperors and Barbarians." That made me roar with laughter because here's this absolutely fabulous book and some lazybones in the Macmillan offices couldn't be bothered to copyedit it with care. Same
Although I'd like to say I enjoyed it as much as Heather's "The Fall of the Roman Empire," I can't say that without a caveat: this was denser and more academic in tone. One had the feeling at times that Heather's secret target audience was composed of other academics whose theories he swipes casually or rebuts in brief as if the rest of us won't really care or notice the little spats going on behind the rostrum. Like opera divas fighting in the wings and barely visible before they come on stage.
Another quirk was that overall the style was ponderous, much heavier and information rich than the very readable "The Fall." So he tries to lighten the tone with the kind of anachronistic modern joke that would go down very well in a university lecture hall but jars a little when plonked in the middle of a long discourse.
What I hadn't expected was the very generous time given to Slavic immigration and the Scandinavian diaspora. Somehow this book might have been packaged a little more clearly. Because the definition of "empires" starts to wobble as we move past the fifth century. Also the summaries of types of emigration, e.g. elite transfer, mass migration, etc. could have used a chart, graph or something to wrap it up visually across the board.
Occasionally I felt there was another entire book lurking backstage; "Post-Soviet Late Antiquity Historiography Revised" dealing with the newest rethinks of Polish, German, Russian, Scandinavian interactions, now that the Happy Soviet Family agenda has been discarded.
Anyway, a masterpiece, Mr. Heather.
Show More
problem with Macmillan's editing of Heather's new "Restoration of Rome: Barbarian Popes & Imperial Pretenders," where no one caught the mistake in Emperor Constantius II's death date, (361 AD, not 351 AD) as well as other typos that any reputable publisher should catch.Although I'd like to say I enjoyed it as much as Heather's "The Fall of the Roman Empire," I can't say that without a caveat: this was denser and more academic in tone. One had the feeling at times that Heather's secret target audience was composed of other academics whose theories he swipes casually or rebuts in brief as if the rest of us won't really care or notice the little spats going on behind the rostrum. Like opera divas fighting in the wings and barely visible before they come on stage.
Another quirk was that overall the style was ponderous, much heavier and information rich than the very readable "The Fall." So he tries to lighten the tone with the kind of anachronistic modern joke that would go down very well in a university lecture hall but jars a little when plonked in the middle of a long discourse.
What I hadn't expected was the very generous time given to Slavic immigration and the Scandinavian diaspora. Somehow this book might have been packaged a little more clearly. Because the definition of "empires" starts to wobble as we move past the fifth century. Also the summaries of types of emigration, e.g. elite transfer, mass migration, etc. could have used a chart, graph or something to wrap it up visually across the board.
Occasionally I felt there was another entire book lurking backstage; "Post-Soviet Late Antiquity Historiography Revised" dealing with the newest rethinks of Polish, German, Russian, Scandinavian interactions, now that the Happy Soviet Family agenda has been discarded.
Anyway, a masterpiece, Mr. Heather.
Show Less
LibraryThing member jerry-book
Remarkable tale of the barbarians who put an end to the Roman empire and created the Europe that we know today.
LibraryThing member MarthaJeanne
This is long and complicated. What kept my attention was not the history, but the metahistory. What can we know about this period, and how and why do we know it? How do ancient and modern patterns of migration compare? What does one tell us about the other?
LibraryThing member DinadansFriend
Peter Heather has researched the massive culture shift at the end of the roman empire, and has concentrated on the migrations. He has documented the three types of Migrations and explored their effects on Europe and the Mediterranean. It is a very interesting addition to the literature on the
Show More
transition to the Middle ages. Show Less
LibraryThing member dhmontgomery
A thorough, educational and thought-provoking — if massive and occasionally overwhelming work about the "barbarian invasions" that wracked Europe for more than a half century, coinciding with the fall of Roman hegemony in the West, the rise of successor kingdoms, and then those kingdoms' own
The revisionist theory holds that the conventional tale of hordes of barbarians moving, families in tow, across vast expanses of Eurasia and leaving the Roman Empire shattered in its wake has little basis in reality. Populations remained relatively constant, with only small numbers of new people moving, and changes in material culture observed in archaeology reflecting cultural change rather than the replacement of one people by another. This argument has the virtue of having been true in at least some times and places, the best-documented of which is the Norman invasion of England in 1066: William the Conquerer's army was relatively small, and simply replaced the old Anglo-Saxon aristocracy with new Norman aristocracy. Life then continued as normal, with a French-speaking elite and Anglo-Saxon-speaking peasantry gradually, over the centuries, developing a common culture.
Heather's book, in documenting the history of the so-called "barbarian invasions," is responding to this thesis, which he says has attained the status of orthodoxy in some parts of the field. He readily acknowledges some of the revisionist points, and critiques the traditionalist view of "nations on the march" for going too far and being too subjugated to 19th Century political concerns. But Heather is convinced that barbarian migration actually does and did happen, and draws on a wide array of historical accounts, archaeological evidence, studies of modern migrations and more to try to convince you, the reader, too.
At the root of Heather's case are arguments based on agricultural economics: complex societies with division of labor and a dedicated warrior caste require an agricultural surplus to support non-farming citizens. In one fascinating aside, he notes that the Germania area that Rome's borders never subsumed had notoriously thick and unproductive soil in antiquity, making it incapable of supporting a large society. Rome never conquered Germania not because it didn't want to, but because by the standards that mattered, Germania couldn't produce enough to justify conquering it. This drawback was only gradually solved as agricultural technology advanced (in particular better plows that could turn the soil), which enabled the area to support larger populations — to the detriment of the Roman frontier.
Using both contemporary observations and archaeological finds (midden-heaps and graves from certain places and times are laden with ornate luxury goods and tools, while others are spare), Heather meticulous documents where we can conclude that migrations happened, where the evidence is sketchier, and where we can be pretty sure that a supposed "invasion" was only a relatively small number of people. This being ancient history, he's forced to fall back on the old "we must suppose" standby more often than a history fan might like, but there's really no way around it and Heather never oversells his evidence. You'll come away better informed about both the facts and the historiographic arguments concerning the surprisingly relevant question of Rome's fall (if you can soldier through more than 600 occasionally dense pages).
Show More
struggles against future waves of barbarian invaders. Heather's book is one part history and one part disputation, weighing with voluminous evidence into an academic debate that has fiercely divided the field of Late Antique and Early Medieval studies: is the standard story of barbarian invasions causing the fall of Rome actually true at all?The revisionist theory holds that the conventional tale of hordes of barbarians moving, families in tow, across vast expanses of Eurasia and leaving the Roman Empire shattered in its wake has little basis in reality. Populations remained relatively constant, with only small numbers of new people moving, and changes in material culture observed in archaeology reflecting cultural change rather than the replacement of one people by another. This argument has the virtue of having been true in at least some times and places, the best-documented of which is the Norman invasion of England in 1066: William the Conquerer's army was relatively small, and simply replaced the old Anglo-Saxon aristocracy with new Norman aristocracy. Life then continued as normal, with a French-speaking elite and Anglo-Saxon-speaking peasantry gradually, over the centuries, developing a common culture.
Heather's book, in documenting the history of the so-called "barbarian invasions," is responding to this thesis, which he says has attained the status of orthodoxy in some parts of the field. He readily acknowledges some of the revisionist points, and critiques the traditionalist view of "nations on the march" for going too far and being too subjugated to 19th Century political concerns. But Heather is convinced that barbarian migration actually does and did happen, and draws on a wide array of historical accounts, archaeological evidence, studies of modern migrations and more to try to convince you, the reader, too.
At the root of Heather's case are arguments based on agricultural economics: complex societies with division of labor and a dedicated warrior caste require an agricultural surplus to support non-farming citizens. In one fascinating aside, he notes that the Germania area that Rome's borders never subsumed had notoriously thick and unproductive soil in antiquity, making it incapable of supporting a large society. Rome never conquered Germania not because it didn't want to, but because by the standards that mattered, Germania couldn't produce enough to justify conquering it. This drawback was only gradually solved as agricultural technology advanced (in particular better plows that could turn the soil), which enabled the area to support larger populations — to the detriment of the Roman frontier.
Using both contemporary observations and archaeological finds (midden-heaps and graves from certain places and times are laden with ornate luxury goods and tools, while others are spare), Heather meticulous documents where we can conclude that migrations happened, where the evidence is sketchier, and where we can be pretty sure that a supposed "invasion" was only a relatively small number of people. This being ancient history, he's forced to fall back on the old "we must suppose" standby more often than a history fan might like, but there's really no way around it and Heather never oversells his evidence. You'll come away better informed about both the facts and the historiographic arguments concerning the surprisingly relevant question of Rome's fall (if you can soldier through more than 600 occasionally dense pages).
Show Less
Subjects
Language
Original publication date
2010
Physical description
xvii, 734 p.; 25 inches
ISBN
0199892261 / 9780199892266