This site uses cookies to deliver our services, improve performance, for analytics, and (if not signed in) for advertising. By using LibraryThing you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. Your use of the site and services is subject to these policies and terms.
A bold new account of Attila the Hun as empire builder and political threat to Rome reframes the warrior king as a political strategist, capturing the story of how a small, but dedicated, opponent dealt a seemingly invincible empire defeats from which it would never recover.
In writing about Attila The Hun the popular historian is faced with one major problem; there just isn't much source material to work with. The battles are known, but the motivations and personality of a leader who managed to rule most of Northern Europe albeit for a brief period, are not. The vast majority of contemporary accounts are lost to us - and how frustrating it is that no eyewitness accounts of , for example, the meeting of Attila and Pope Leo, survive. Never the less, Kelly does an excellent job in bringing Attila, and the short lived Hun Empire, to life. He draws heavily on the work of Priscus, a Roman scholar who was part of an embassy to Attila's court. Although little of Priscus' 8 volume History of Attila survives, the little that does is illuminating as Priscus clearly had no interest in demonising Attila as the half human barbarian most classical writers depicted him as. Attila comes across as sophisticated and a master tactician; well aware of the weakness of the Western Roman Empire he alternately allies with them, extorts them, traps them and attacks them. Kelly presents Attila as cruel when he needed to be, a master in holding his warlike nation together, but ultimately a "Prince" of whom Machiavelli would have approved
In fact the title of the book is something of a misnomer. The Huns did not cause the end of the Empire; the Vandals, the Goths and the decision of Constantine to split the Empire between East and West (with the East having greater income and less threat) did that. But they certainly rapidly accelerated its demise. In less than a generation from the death of Attila , the last Roman Emperor was peacefully deposed; much like the last Emperor of China he just wasn't important enough to bother assassinating.
This is an excellent read; if at times Kelly goes down some interesting, but not especially relevant byways, such as about Gothic and Hunnic jewellery making skills, we know this is to make up for the lack of direct source material. He's painting a picture of a time and place that have long been hidden. He does it very well indeed ( )
Very good, well written and a fast pace. Excellent reference to ancient historical writtings allows you to feel as though you were there.Author Kelly makes this period very interesting indeed. ( )
A bold new account of Attila the Hun as empire builder and political threat to Rome reframes the warrior king as a political strategist, capturing the story of how a small, but dedicated, opponent dealt a seemingly invincible empire defeats from which it would never recover.
In fact the title of the book is something of a misnomer. The Huns did not cause the end of the Empire; the Vandals, the Goths and the decision of Constantine to split the Empire between East and West (with the East having greater income and less threat) did that. But they certainly rapidly accelerated its demise. In less than a generation from the death of Attila , the last Roman Emperor was peacefully deposed; much like the last Emperor of China he just wasn't important enough to bother assassinating.
This is an excellent read; if at times Kelly goes down some interesting, but not especially relevant byways, such as about Gothic and Hunnic jewellery making skills, we know this is to make up for the lack of direct source material. He's painting a picture of a time and place that have long been hidden. He does it very well indeed ( )