What do you think?
Rate this book
Penguin History of Europe #2
The Inheritance of Rome: Illuminating the Dark Ages, 400-1000
An ambitious and enlightening look at why the so-called Dark Ages were anything but that.
Prizewinning historian Chris Wickham defies the conventional view of the Dark Ages in European history with a work of remarkable scope and rigorous yet accessible scholarship. Drawing on a wealth of new material and featuring a thoughtful synthesis of historical and archaeological approaches, Wickham argues that these centuries were critical in the formulation of European identity. Far from being a middle period between more significant epochs, this age has much to tell us in its own right about the progress of culture and the development of political thought.
Sweeping in its breadth, Wickham's incisive history focuses on a world still profoundly shaped by Rome, which encompassed the remarkable Byzantine, Carolingian, and Ottonian empires, and peoples ranging from Goths, Franks, and Vandals to Arabs, Anglo- Saxons, and Vikings. Digging deep into each culture, Wickham constructs a vivid portrait of a vast and varied world stretching from Ireland to Constantinople, the Baltic to the Mediterranean. The Inheritance of Rome brilliantly presents a fresh understanding of the crucible in which Europe would ultimately be created.
Prizewinning historian Chris Wickham defies the conventional view of the Dark Ages in European history with a work of remarkable scope and rigorous yet accessible scholarship. Drawing on a wealth of new material and featuring a thoughtful synthesis of historical and archaeological approaches, Wickham argues that these centuries were critical in the formulation of European identity. Far from being a middle period between more significant epochs, this age has much to tell us in its own right about the progress of culture and the development of political thought.
Sweeping in its breadth, Wickham's incisive history focuses on a world still profoundly shaped by Rome, which encompassed the remarkable Byzantine, Carolingian, and Ottonian empires, and peoples ranging from Goths, Franks, and Vandals to Arabs, Anglo- Saxons, and Vikings. Digging deep into each culture, Wickham constructs a vivid portrait of a vast and varied world stretching from Ireland to Constantinople, the Baltic to the Mediterranean. The Inheritance of Rome brilliantly presents a fresh understanding of the crucible in which Europe would ultimately be created.
651 pages, Hardcover
First published January 29, 2009
About the author
Chris Wickham
36 books173 followers"Chris Wickham is Chichele Professor of Medieval History, and Faculty Board Chair 2009-12.
I have been at Oxford since 2005. Previously, I was Lecturer (1977), Senior Lecturer (1987), Reader (1988), and from 1995 Professor of Early Medieval History, University of Birmingham; and I was an undergraduate and postgraduate at Keble College, Oxford, from 1968 to 1975.
I am a Fellow of the British Academy, a Fellow of the Learned Society of Wales, and a socio of the Accademia dei Lincei."
I have been at Oxford since 2005. Previously, I was Lecturer (1977), Senior Lecturer (1987), Reader (1988), and from 1995 Professor of Early Medieval History, University of Birmingham; and I was an undergraduate and postgraduate at Keble College, Oxford, from 1968 to 1975.
I am a Fellow of the British Academy, a Fellow of the Learned Society of Wales, and a socio of the Accademia dei Lincei."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 274 reviews
July 15, 2010
Just to be clear: Chris Wickham does not believe that he can explain anything. He repeats this over and over, so you'll not get the wrong idea. Let's be very, very clear: nothing in history is 'inevitable,' everything is 'contingent,' and we'd be fools to write history with our hindsight. Nope, we should see things as they were seen at the time. Except for women: the political role of women in the early middle ages deserves about 15% of a book covering everything from the production of wheel-thrown pottery to the highest of the high adventures, moral and military.
A historian friend of mine tells me these are the conventional pieties of professional historiography, and that I should just ignore them. But, at least in this book, they're so intrusive that it's impossible to do so. Chris Wickham obviously knows everything: from the tribes of Finland to the early Caliphates, it's all in here. He is, says the Literary Review, "a master of a pointillist narrative style." But if you add his immense knowledge to his pointillist narrative (i.e., = no narrative), you get page after page of fairly dull anecdote, none of which is put into any kind of context. Nothing can be compared to anything else without doing violence to the quidditas of the individual. Local experience is everything. If anyone has suggested the existence of a large scale trend (end of Roman civilization/ various crises/ the coming of feudalism) actually happened, Wickham has fifteen good examples to show why it didn't. This is because he disdains moralism in history (you know, the kind of thing where someone gets all huffy because King Wumba raped his mistress in 6th century Visigothic Spain. Evil Wumba! Well, fair enough). But our author is surely aware that these are not the only two ways to write history (see Maccullough, Diarmid; Judt, Tony et al...) Why doesn't he temper the mind-numbing nominalism (names of people, places and factions from the randomly chosen pp 294-5, excluding the ones most people can actually picture or point to on a map: Jubayr, Kufa, al-Farazdaq, Basra, Amman, al-Malik, Hisham, Sulayman, Gregory, Einhard, Synesios, Marwan, Khurasan, Yadi III, Al-Walid, Yamani, Qaysi, Marwan II, Kharijite, Hashimiyya, Quraysh, 'Ali, 'Abbas, Abu Muslim, Merv) with some comparison or generalization? Presumably because generalization has horns, a spade tipped tail, and makes idle hands its plaything.
After this romanticizing folly, you'll be surprised to find that the final chapter is called 'Trends in European History.' It's 13 pages long. Unless you're riveted by the catalog of ships' names in old epic poems, you might want to skip straight to them in your library copy. If you're looking for information about individuals though, this book is great. Also great are the chapters on Islam and its impact on Europe, parade of names aside. Three cheers for that.
A historian friend of mine tells me these are the conventional pieties of professional historiography, and that I should just ignore them. But, at least in this book, they're so intrusive that it's impossible to do so. Chris Wickham obviously knows everything: from the tribes of Finland to the early Caliphates, it's all in here. He is, says the Literary Review, "a master of a pointillist narrative style." But if you add his immense knowledge to his pointillist narrative (i.e., = no narrative), you get page after page of fairly dull anecdote, none of which is put into any kind of context. Nothing can be compared to anything else without doing violence to the quidditas of the individual. Local experience is everything. If anyone has suggested the existence of a large scale trend (end of Roman civilization/ various crises/ the coming of feudalism) actually happened, Wickham has fifteen good examples to show why it didn't. This is because he disdains moralism in history (you know, the kind of thing where someone gets all huffy because King Wumba raped his mistress in 6th century Visigothic Spain. Evil Wumba! Well, fair enough). But our author is surely aware that these are not the only two ways to write history (see Maccullough, Diarmid; Judt, Tony et al...) Why doesn't he temper the mind-numbing nominalism (names of people, places and factions from the randomly chosen pp 294-5, excluding the ones most people can actually picture or point to on a map: Jubayr, Kufa, al-Farazdaq, Basra, Amman, al-Malik, Hisham, Sulayman, Gregory, Einhard, Synesios, Marwan, Khurasan, Yadi III, Al-Walid, Yamani, Qaysi, Marwan II, Kharijite, Hashimiyya, Quraysh, 'Ali, 'Abbas, Abu Muslim, Merv) with some comparison or generalization? Presumably because generalization has horns, a spade tipped tail, and makes idle hands its plaything.
After this romanticizing folly, you'll be surprised to find that the final chapter is called 'Trends in European History.' It's 13 pages long. Unless you're riveted by the catalog of ships' names in old epic poems, you might want to skip straight to them in your library copy. If you're looking for information about individuals though, this book is great. Also great are the chapters on Islam and its impact on Europe, parade of names aside. Three cheers for that.
May 16, 2010
The Roman Empire conquered Europe unchecked until it met the Germanic tribes beyond the Rhine. First, the Germans halted the Roman advance with Arminius’ victory in the Teutoberg Forest. Then, rampaging hordes of Germanic tribes swept across the whole of Europe, tearing down the decadant Empire as they went. Only the Christian church survived to continue Rome’s legacy as it gradually, yet steadily, converted Europe to Christianity – and by then, Europe was far more Germanic in character than Roman. So goes the popular understanding of Roman contact with the peoples of Germania. Germans and Romans are portrayed as antagonists in a clash of cultures, pitting free-spirited, vigorous Germanic tribes against the imperial oppression of Rome and in some cases the Church.
But it is not an accurate view of the time. Despite Roman labelling, Germania was not a land of a single people, the Germans, nor was it even a land of various peoples who held in common a Germanic language as a source of identity. Rather, many of the so-called Germanic tribes were confederations of individuals and groups from various backgrounds who spoke a variety of languages, not just Germanic ones, and who united around charismatic leaders more so than cultural symbols. The decline and disappearance of the Roman Empire was not accomplished by the military might of those barbarian hordes, either. Rather, internal struggles over the office of emperor drew the Roman military away from the borders to fight in those struggles, thus allowing barbarian groups to raid into the Empire and in some cases move freely within it. Once within the weakened Empire on their own terms, many such barbarian groups were accomodated by the Empire and settled as overlords over particular regions. As time went by, those settled barbarian groups became the origins of later medieval kingdoms, but only after becoming far more Roman in culture than barbarian.
From the height of Roman imperial power in the first two centuries A.D. through to Charlemagne’s reign and beyond, Roman ways of life and means of power were emulated by aristocracies both within and without the imperial borders, from the Vandal kingdom in north Africa to the later kingdoms in Denmark and Scandinavia. The barbarian relationship with Roman culture was not a clear-cut one of antagonism, any more than is the relationship of the rest of the world with American culture today. Just as with America now (or the West in general), Rome set the standards for both power and the good life. Whether rising through the ranks of the Roman military (even to become emperor) or ruling over their native people, barbarians sought the power and living standards of Rome, even while replacing Roman government with diverse barbarian kingdoms.
This is a theme which comes through very clearly in Chris Wickham’s The Inheritance of Rome. It is also a theme which sounds distinctly similar to much of the earliest scholarship about early medieval history, in which Rome was the obvious ideal of civilization – a theme increasingly criticized from the turn of the 20th century and then replaced with an emphasis on the vitality (and validity) of Germanic culture. Wickham, however, draws upon neither the assumptions of Classical scholarship nor upon the assertions of nationalist German scholarship. Instead, he lets the evidence speak for itself, discarding ideology in favor of careful examination. As a result, one can see more clearly both the Roman and the barbarian influences on the cultures of the so-called Dark Ages.
Wickham begins with an overview of the Roman Empire just before its decline, characterizing the Empire at its height and emphasizing that its failure was gradual and almost imperceptible during the lifetimes of its citizens. What held the Empire together was a civil administration devoted to tax which paid both the military and government officials. This centralized basis of pay encouraged loyalty (and a sense of belonging) to the centralized system itself, the Empire, rather than to local interests alone. Patronage and corruption were certainly alive and well in the Empire, with every citizen embedded in a hierarchical network of patron-client relationships of power and influence – but those relationships supported imperial coherence because the means of increasing personal wealth relied on the redistribution of wealth through the tax system. Imperial decline began with disruptions of the tax system, especially with the Vandal capture of Carthage which was the breadbasket of the western half of the empire. Thereafter, military and governing power devolved onto the accomodated barbarian groups like the Visigoths.
From their inception, these barbarian-ruled regions developed land rents, in which the peasantry paid the rents with food and produce which was consumed by the ruling elite. In contrast, the imperial tax system collected money from the peasantry after they had sold their produce in local markets. As wealth became more localized through land rents, so the Empire gradually broke up into separate kingdoms whose elites had barbarian roots. The stable continuity of these kingdoms, often supported by the Catholic Church as in the case of the Franks, then influenced the creation of nation-sized kingdoms throughout the North, beginning with the Anglo-Saxons, then the Danes, then the rest of Scandinavia. Thus, early medieval Europe came about through multiple influences: the emulation of Rome, the spread of Christianity, and the one-up-man-ship of Germanic rulers.
Wickham covers much more than this in his book, which is probably of more interest to medievalists than to Heathens. In addition to chapters covering Rome, its break-up, and the rise of the barbarian kingdoms in the wake of the Migration Age, he goes into similar depth for the Byzantine Empire, the rise of Arabic power, and the establishment of Charlemagne’s Holy Roman Empire. Nor is there much about early Germanic religion, other than Aryan and Catholic Christianity. But if one is interested in how medieval Europe came to be, out of the mixture of Roman Empire and Germanic peoples, The Inheritance of Rome is an excellent read, elucidating the evidence from the period without grinding any one theoretical axe in the process.
But it is not an accurate view of the time. Despite Roman labelling, Germania was not a land of a single people, the Germans, nor was it even a land of various peoples who held in common a Germanic language as a source of identity. Rather, many of the so-called Germanic tribes were confederations of individuals and groups from various backgrounds who spoke a variety of languages, not just Germanic ones, and who united around charismatic leaders more so than cultural symbols. The decline and disappearance of the Roman Empire was not accomplished by the military might of those barbarian hordes, either. Rather, internal struggles over the office of emperor drew the Roman military away from the borders to fight in those struggles, thus allowing barbarian groups to raid into the Empire and in some cases move freely within it. Once within the weakened Empire on their own terms, many such barbarian groups were accomodated by the Empire and settled as overlords over particular regions. As time went by, those settled barbarian groups became the origins of later medieval kingdoms, but only after becoming far more Roman in culture than barbarian.
From the height of Roman imperial power in the first two centuries A.D. through to Charlemagne’s reign and beyond, Roman ways of life and means of power were emulated by aristocracies both within and without the imperial borders, from the Vandal kingdom in north Africa to the later kingdoms in Denmark and Scandinavia. The barbarian relationship with Roman culture was not a clear-cut one of antagonism, any more than is the relationship of the rest of the world with American culture today. Just as with America now (or the West in general), Rome set the standards for both power and the good life. Whether rising through the ranks of the Roman military (even to become emperor) or ruling over their native people, barbarians sought the power and living standards of Rome, even while replacing Roman government with diverse barbarian kingdoms.
This is a theme which comes through very clearly in Chris Wickham’s The Inheritance of Rome. It is also a theme which sounds distinctly similar to much of the earliest scholarship about early medieval history, in which Rome was the obvious ideal of civilization – a theme increasingly criticized from the turn of the 20th century and then replaced with an emphasis on the vitality (and validity) of Germanic culture. Wickham, however, draws upon neither the assumptions of Classical scholarship nor upon the assertions of nationalist German scholarship. Instead, he lets the evidence speak for itself, discarding ideology in favor of careful examination. As a result, one can see more clearly both the Roman and the barbarian influences on the cultures of the so-called Dark Ages.
Wickham begins with an overview of the Roman Empire just before its decline, characterizing the Empire at its height and emphasizing that its failure was gradual and almost imperceptible during the lifetimes of its citizens. What held the Empire together was a civil administration devoted to tax which paid both the military and government officials. This centralized basis of pay encouraged loyalty (and a sense of belonging) to the centralized system itself, the Empire, rather than to local interests alone. Patronage and corruption were certainly alive and well in the Empire, with every citizen embedded in a hierarchical network of patron-client relationships of power and influence – but those relationships supported imperial coherence because the means of increasing personal wealth relied on the redistribution of wealth through the tax system. Imperial decline began with disruptions of the tax system, especially with the Vandal capture of Carthage which was the breadbasket of the western half of the empire. Thereafter, military and governing power devolved onto the accomodated barbarian groups like the Visigoths.
From their inception, these barbarian-ruled regions developed land rents, in which the peasantry paid the rents with food and produce which was consumed by the ruling elite. In contrast, the imperial tax system collected money from the peasantry after they had sold their produce in local markets. As wealth became more localized through land rents, so the Empire gradually broke up into separate kingdoms whose elites had barbarian roots. The stable continuity of these kingdoms, often supported by the Catholic Church as in the case of the Franks, then influenced the creation of nation-sized kingdoms throughout the North, beginning with the Anglo-Saxons, then the Danes, then the rest of Scandinavia. Thus, early medieval Europe came about through multiple influences: the emulation of Rome, the spread of Christianity, and the one-up-man-ship of Germanic rulers.
Wickham covers much more than this in his book, which is probably of more interest to medievalists than to Heathens. In addition to chapters covering Rome, its break-up, and the rise of the barbarian kingdoms in the wake of the Migration Age, he goes into similar depth for the Byzantine Empire, the rise of Arabic power, and the establishment of Charlemagne’s Holy Roman Empire. Nor is there much about early Germanic religion, other than Aryan and Catholic Christianity. But if one is interested in how medieval Europe came to be, out of the mixture of Roman Empire and Germanic peoples, The Inheritance of Rome is an excellent read, elucidating the evidence from the period without grinding any one theoretical axe in the process.
May 16, 2023
Early in the book the author says, “This book intends to be comprehensible to people who know nothing about the period, a period that has few household names for a wider public, and it takes little for granted.” I’ll grant that the book’s text does not have the opacity found in much academic writing and can be understood by non-academic readers. However, in my opinion the reader needs to be a sincere history nerd to make it all the way through this tome (32 hrs audio).
Most readers of popular history books—including me—probably think of the Western Roman Empire when they see this book’s title. However, this book not only covers the western region but also the Eastern ((Byzantine) Empire and the (Muslim) Abbasid Caliphate.
That’s a lot of material, and speaking of the title, I noticed that the term “Dark Ages” used in the subtitle is never used in the book’s text—as best I can recall. “Dark Ages” was probably the publisher’s nod to the popular reading audience, and I’ll admit that it caught my attention.
I expected the Byzantine and Muslim histories to be the least interesting portions of the book because of my Western biases, but instead I found the Western history portions of the book to be intolerably tedious. The Byzantine and Muslim empires provided a reasonably coherent somewhat unified story. The former Western Roman Empire in contrast had splintered into many dozens of separate kingdoms and each had its own history and dynasties that needed to be told. Reading the Western portions of this book thus ends up being similar to reading a book of numerous short stories making it difficult to comprehend broad trends.
The Carolingian part of the Western history was a bit more interesting because that was the one time in this era when a large enough land area is combined into a central story to be more interesting. The Western part of the story becomes even more scattered as the history gets into the ninth and tenth centuries because the Vikings, Scandinavians, Slavs, and eastern European regions need to be added to the histories addressed.
In the book’s Introduction the author states that he will be describing each segment of history on its own merits and “avoid teleology.” Consequently, as he portrays conditions during the period of time form the 400 to 550 AD his goal is to describe what happened, not why these happenings would lead to the breakup of the Western part of the Roman Empire. Nevertheless, I as a reader looked for the reasons. It’s obvious to me that encroachment of the various barbarian tribes had something to do with it.
However, the threat from the barbarians was not at first obvious. Most barbarians settled down and became Romanized. There were numerous instances when barbarian armies were used as allies in fighting other barbarian groups. But the areas occupied by barbarians were not inclined to pay taxes and send resources to Rome. The following quotation indicates a significant turning point was the loss of grain shipments from North Africa, and later the same happened to the eastern (a.k.a. Byzantine) empire when it lost Egypt.
The following excerpt caught my attention because I had recently read another book that described how many English made pilgrimages to Rome during the Mediaeval era.
Most readers of popular history books—including me—probably think of the Western Roman Empire when they see this book’s title. However, this book not only covers the western region but also the Eastern ((Byzantine) Empire and the (Muslim) Abbasid Caliphate.
That’s a lot of material, and speaking of the title, I noticed that the term “Dark Ages” used in the subtitle is never used in the book’s text—as best I can recall. “Dark Ages” was probably the publisher’s nod to the popular reading audience, and I’ll admit that it caught my attention.
I expected the Byzantine and Muslim histories to be the least interesting portions of the book because of my Western biases, but instead I found the Western history portions of the book to be intolerably tedious. The Byzantine and Muslim empires provided a reasonably coherent somewhat unified story. The former Western Roman Empire in contrast had splintered into many dozens of separate kingdoms and each had its own history and dynasties that needed to be told. Reading the Western portions of this book thus ends up being similar to reading a book of numerous short stories making it difficult to comprehend broad trends.
The Carolingian part of the Western history was a bit more interesting because that was the one time in this era when a large enough land area is combined into a central story to be more interesting. The Western part of the story becomes even more scattered as the history gets into the ninth and tenth centuries because the Vikings, Scandinavians, Slavs, and eastern European regions need to be added to the histories addressed.
In the book’s Introduction the author states that he will be describing each segment of history on its own merits and “avoid teleology.” Consequently, as he portrays conditions during the period of time form the 400 to 550 AD his goal is to describe what happened, not why these happenings would lead to the breakup of the Western part of the Roman Empire. Nevertheless, I as a reader looked for the reasons. It’s obvious to me that encroachment of the various barbarian tribes had something to do with it.
However, the threat from the barbarians was not at first obvious. Most barbarians settled down and became Romanized. There were numerous instances when barbarian armies were used as allies in fighting other barbarian groups. But the areas occupied by barbarians were not inclined to pay taxes and send resources to Rome. The following quotation indicates a significant turning point was the loss of grain shipments from North Africa, and later the same happened to the eastern (a.k.a. Byzantine) empire when it lost Egypt.
The Visigoths in 418 could be a support for the empire, but fifty years later they were inimical to it. As argued earlier, the conquest of the grain heartland of Africa by the Vandals in 439, which the Romans mistakenly did not anticipate and resist, seems to me the turning point, the moment after which these potential supports might turn into dangers. Army resources lessened too much after that; the balance of power changed. By 476 even the Roman army in Italy may have started to think that landowning was desirable. And, not less important, local élites began to deal with the ‘barbarian' powers rather than with the imperial government, which was by now too distant and decreasingly relevant; the provincialization of politics marked the death knell for the western empire. In the East, the control by the empire of that other huge grain resource, the Nile valley in Egypt, was never under threat in this period, and the logistical structure of the empire remained untouched as a result. When the Persians and then the Arabs took Egypt, and also the Levant, from Roman control after 618, the East would however face a huge and rapid crisis as well. The eastern Roman empire (we shall from that point on call it the Byzantine empire) survived, but it was a close-run thing, and the eastern empire changed considerably as a result. (p.108)With the end of trans-Mediterranean trade the population of the City of Rome declined and de-urbanization was experienced throughout the West as commerce and trade became localized. The same happened later in the East except that some trans-Aegean trading continued. Regional trade around the Mediterranean gradually revived by the year 1000, but grain shipments common during the empire era never revived.
The following excerpt caught my attention because I had recently read another book that described how many English made pilgrimages to Rome during the Mediaeval era.
Above all, pilgrims went to Rome, something which becomes well attested in the late sixth century and developed substantially in the seventh and eighth. The Anglo-Saxons are particularly prominent in our evidence; Benedict Biscop and Wilfrid each went several times. The routes became well known, with the result that, as Boniface of Mainz said in 747, in many cities of Italy and Gaul all the prostitutes were English. (p.174-175)The following excerpt describes how the shrinking size of Byzantium increased its cultural homogeneity and how it prompted the switch from Latin to Greek.
It may be added that the empire was by now more culturally homogeneous, too; in 500 only a minority of the population of the eastern empire spoke Greek, and the official language was still, at least nominally, actually Latin, but by 700, after the loss of Syriac- and Coptic-speaking provinces, nearly everyone was a Greek-speaker, and the occasional Sclavenian and not-so-occasional Armenian were exotic. (p.264)The following excerpt addresses the process by which Orthodoxy in the East began to perceive itself as being separate from the Catholic pope of the West.
The second council of Nicaen condemned Iconoclasm uncompromisingly, refuting (and thus preserving) its theology point by point. It was, in effect, Second Nicaea which invented the theology of images which has remained a structural part of the eastern church. Many of the basic liturgical practices of Orthodox Christianity look back to 787. Images from now on—as never before—not only could be venerated, but had to be. And Nicaea not only invented Orthodoxy, but to a large extent invented Iconoclasm too, turning Constantine V's policies into a totalizing system, which they probably never had been at the time.The following excerpt explains why the history of the Arab controlled lands need to be included in a book about the "inheritance of Rome."
It is not fully clear why Eirene did this. She was certainly bothered by the religious break with the pope, who was by now close to the Frankish kings, and she wished to reunify Rome and Constantinople; her first formal announcement of her intentions was in a letter to Pope Hadrian I. … If Eirene could make herself empress by force, the only woman in Roman history to do so (or in European history before Ilizabeth of Russia in 1741), then she could also orchestrate the invention of Orthodox Christianity to bolster her power. Either way, however, the religious basis of imperial power took a new path from now on. (170-171)
And yet the early Arab period is crucial for us to confront. The caliphate did not rule any part of Europe before the Arab-Berber invasion of Spain in 711, but it cannot be excluded from a history of the Continent. For a start, it was the Arabs who broke in half the surviving section of the Roman empire in the seventh century, ending for ever its dream of continued Mediterranean hegemony, and forcing it to reinvent itself as the state we call Byzantium ... . Secondly, the caliphate was itself built on Roman foundations ... . Notwithstanding the difficulty and unfamiliarity of our narrative sources for it, it arguably preserved the parameters of imperial Roman society more completely than any other part of the post-Roman world, at least in the period up to 750; this is a paradox which it is essential to explore. Thirdly, the caliphate was simply richer and more powerful than any other post-Roman polity. (p.281-282)The following excerpt discusses why the Arab conquests were so successful. The speed of conquest isn't the surprising part; what is surprising is its longevity and relative permanence.
Given the exhaustion of the empires in the 630s, and the new-found religious unity of the Arabs, Arab victories and conquests are not in themselves extraordinary, and of course after the first great battles were won in 636-7 every Arab with a camel was likely to want to take part in the conquests and in the wealth they brought. What was less to be expected was that the conquesty would hold together. There can never have been many Arabs; Yemen is the only substantial part of the Arabian peninsula that can sustain more than a scattered, largely pastoralist, bedouin population, and even the Arabs who had for long settled in Roman-ruled Syria and Palestine seem to have been on the desert fringes there too, and therefore not so very numerous. Arab settlers would have been hugely outnumbered everywhere, and might not have withstood sustained revolts or Roman counterattack if their unity faltered; alternatively, they were at risk of being absorbed into local populations and losing their cultural identity ... . The absence of early revolts was fortunate (they would have been most dangerous in Iran, where the Persian aristocracy was a military one and early Arab settlement was more or less confined to Khurasan in the northeast); as for the surviving Romans/ Byzantines, they were in no military shape to take advantage of Arab civil wars. But the core reason for the survival of Arab rule as not only a political but also a cultural hegemony was not luck. Rather, it was the result of the decision (traditionally, and plausibly, ascribed to 'Umar I in 640-42) to settle the Arab armies, not as a landowning aristocracy as in the Germanic West, but as paid garrisons in newly founded cities (amsar), Kufa and Basra in Iraq, Mosul on the edge of the Iraq-Syria borderlands known as the Jazira, Fustat (the future Cairo) in Egypt, and others. The tax revenues of the provinces went to these garrisons above all, who thus were well rewarded for their separation from the sociopolitical life of the conquered population; being on the local diwan, the register of those entitled to army pay, was a coveted privilege, defended against newcomers as much as possible. 'Umar's policy succeeded; relatively little Arab landowning is recorded for any of these core provinces before 750 (although it seems to have been greater in Khurasan, where indeed Arab settlers were eventually Persianized, and also in the later conquest territories of Africa and Spain). This set the template for a structural separation between a paid army and the rest of civil—civilian—society which was greater even than in the Roman empire, and which marked most Muslim political systems ever after. (p.284-285)The 'Abbasid caliphate was the strongest and largest country in the world for a hundred years, but it eventually did break up into regional sovereignties. Its unity was gone, but the Muslim religion and Arabic language remained in most of its former territory.
One simple reason why the 'Abbasid caliphate broke up was that it was too large. Local societies were too different; communications were always slow; the caliphate was larger than the Roman Empire, and did not have a sea, with its relatively easy bulk transport, at its heart. (p.333)The following is a discussion of the size of the Charlemagne's Carolingian empire and the difficulty of maintaining control of its land.
The Carolingian empire was huge, larger than any subsequent state in Europe has ever been except for brief years at the height of the power of Napoleon and Hitler, and also extremely diverse, stretching as it did from the half-converted and roadless lands of Saxony to the old urban ancieties of Provence and Italy. How it could all be controlled, without the claborate fiscal and administrative system of the Roman empire or the caliphate, was an almost impossible challenge. Assembly politics was one part of it; so was army muster; and the palace, the court of the king or emperor, whether at Aachen or elsewhere, was furthermore a magnet lor the ambitious in every period, as they came to seek justice, gifts or preferment. (p.387)The Carolingian empire did not last. The first generation after Charlemagne had too many inheriting sons, and the second generation had too few.
In 887-8 the empire broke up into five kingdoms, with six or seven claimants, only one of whom was a male-line Carolingian. ... What destroyed Carolingian power was simply genealogy. There had always been too many Carolingians, given the presumption of political division the family had inherited from the Merovingian past. (p.401)I found the following discussion of spoken language during the Carolingian era of interest.
The more complex the Latin used by the educated strata, the further it departed from the Romance spoken by the huge majority of the population of the western and southern parts of the empire; the earliest form of French came to be seen as a separate language for the first time by authors precisely in the Carolingian period. And a high percentage of the Carolingian elite spoke German; ninth-century texts for the first time regularly described people as bilingual ... which implies that plenty of people were not. (p.413)A summary of the book's contents is provided in the concluding chapter. The author avers "six major shifts (or breaks) in the course of the six centuries covered by this book, three in the West, two in the East, and one in the North." He presents them in narrative form, but I have listed them below in abbreviated format.
... there were some efforts to translate the Bible into German (though certainly not into proto-French), but they did not get past Genesis and the Gospels, for the most part in poetic versions. (p.414)
1. Break-up of the Western Empire.One thing not mentioned in the above list, which the author may have considered to be part of Item 6 in the above list but which I think deserved to be called out specifically, is the socioeconomic/cultural movement toward development of the feudal system in the 9th and 10th centuries. It may not have been listed separately because feudalism actually reached its zenith after the year 1000.
2. Demise of Byzantine world and rise of Arab conquests.
3. Development in the West of a moralized political practice (i.e. linked state and semi-autonomous church)
4. Break-up of the caliphate.
5. End of the Carolingian world.
6. Development of numerous political and social hierarchies throughout Europe.
January 18, 2023
A Really Good Book That Can Be Challenging to Read
This is a challenging book to read. There is so much information crammed into every page that you have to read slowly or you'll miss something. And there are 550 pages of this. Having the information crammed so tight doesn't exactly make for an engaging read, but it is worthwhile. This book covers the entire Dark Ages and a bit before, giving a broad overview of the period from the 5th Century Roman Empire to the end of the First Millenium. There is rather a sense of information overload when reading this. Too much is covered in too short a time. Considering how long the book is already I can't see what could really be done about that. Even with all the names thrown at you it feels as if the author is really holding back.
The narrative sections dealing with the political history of the kingdoms especially have an impressive number of indecipherable and hard-to remember names forcing the reader to slow down. The narratives are the worst part of this book reading almost like an encyclopedia article. Part of this is no doubt due to the bared down nature of the sources. Fortunately the chapters are reasonably short and the book will soon pass on to better topics. The author is at his best when describing trends or social conditions. Here he really shines and you can feel something of what it was like to live in these societies. Many of his choices of quotes are perfect, giving an idea of the feel of the society he's describing. The first Roman quote is probably the best. It comes from a children's Greek-Latin Primer and deals with Roman justice which was clearly a particularly chilling affair. The emphasis is always on discovering what changed and what caused these changes, as well as determining what made one culture different from another. The author has a problem with charting the progress back from future events to see what caused events to happen since he feels that this places too much emphasis on what the later writers felt was important and gives a sense of inevitability. He does mention important trends but he tries to see them as they would have been seen at the time. On the whole I think his arguments make sense.
He doesn't take any risks in his interpretations and when he doesn't have much data he refuses to even guess. This is especially apparent in the section on Britain where he refuses to make educated guesses about the questionable sources available. Some of what he chooses to leave out is unfathomable. In 600 pages you'd think he would at least mention the battle of Poitiers, probably the single most important battle of the Dark Ages. I think that he's trying to draw history away from setpiece battles and dramatic personalities and deal more with the changes over a long period of time. It's not always effective. The biggest problem with this book is it's dry tone. It is not a particularly easy read, although some sections are better than others. This book is probably essential as background information for anyone reading up on the Dark Ages. At the least I don't know of any better. At the very least this book is useful as a starting point for future reading.
This is a challenging book to read. There is so much information crammed into every page that you have to read slowly or you'll miss something. And there are 550 pages of this. Having the information crammed so tight doesn't exactly make for an engaging read, but it is worthwhile. This book covers the entire Dark Ages and a bit before, giving a broad overview of the period from the 5th Century Roman Empire to the end of the First Millenium. There is rather a sense of information overload when reading this. Too much is covered in too short a time. Considering how long the book is already I can't see what could really be done about that. Even with all the names thrown at you it feels as if the author is really holding back.
The narrative sections dealing with the political history of the kingdoms especially have an impressive number of indecipherable and hard-to remember names forcing the reader to slow down. The narratives are the worst part of this book reading almost like an encyclopedia article. Part of this is no doubt due to the bared down nature of the sources. Fortunately the chapters are reasonably short and the book will soon pass on to better topics. The author is at his best when describing trends or social conditions. Here he really shines and you can feel something of what it was like to live in these societies. Many of his choices of quotes are perfect, giving an idea of the feel of the society he's describing. The first Roman quote is probably the best. It comes from a children's Greek-Latin Primer and deals with Roman justice which was clearly a particularly chilling affair. The emphasis is always on discovering what changed and what caused these changes, as well as determining what made one culture different from another. The author has a problem with charting the progress back from future events to see what caused events to happen since he feels that this places too much emphasis on what the later writers felt was important and gives a sense of inevitability. He does mention important trends but he tries to see them as they would have been seen at the time. On the whole I think his arguments make sense.
He doesn't take any risks in his interpretations and when he doesn't have much data he refuses to even guess. This is especially apparent in the section on Britain where he refuses to make educated guesses about the questionable sources available. Some of what he chooses to leave out is unfathomable. In 600 pages you'd think he would at least mention the battle of Poitiers, probably the single most important battle of the Dark Ages. I think that he's trying to draw history away from setpiece battles and dramatic personalities and deal more with the changes over a long period of time. It's not always effective. The biggest problem with this book is it's dry tone. It is not a particularly easy read, although some sections are better than others. This book is probably essential as background information for anyone reading up on the Dark Ages. At the least I don't know of any better. At the very least this book is useful as a starting point for future reading.
September 5, 2015
Chris Wickham's "The Inheritance of Rome: Illuminating the Dark Ages" is a very good and witty survey of Late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages that shatters many kinds of misconceptions on the period, even if I think it's at some points overrated. Let me also add that this "enlightening" of the period is exactly what in many ways was promised (and even required) from this work, yet I think there's a partially missing field, as we'll see.
In part I, Wickham exposes many features of Roman society and economy while also evaluating the impacts of the Christianization of the Empire and of its collapse in the western provinces in the 5th century. His exposition was very interesting, namely from the point of view of social and economic history, yet I think his revisionism of the late antique Roman Empire regarding its overall power goes a bit too far and there are a few "weaker" details, but perhaps the biggest issue is that it lacks an accompanying political/military perspective that might have been useful in analyzing the causes of the decline of the Roman Empire (these weren't covered enough in my opinion when these were mostly needed, or were a bit disregarded, namely in the case of the hugepost-Diocletianic bureaucracy).
In part II, the early medieval West from 550 to 750 is investigated and unraveled wonderfully before the reader, from the "shadowy" regions of Britain and Ireland to the Lombard and Visigothic kingdoms. I also loved his emphasis on the study of the peasantry "in opposition" to the aristocracy of all those medieval societies (namely the Frankish), when the book could have easily have become just a history of the elites and the church. I also loved his ponderation of the "continuity vs. transformation" problem. Yet I must say that the comparison between the late Visigothic kingdom and the late Merovingians, although it's true we can't see events teleologically (the greatest fault of much books and even some good scholarship around), ends up being unfair since the Visigoths were in a period of unusual relative political stability in the second half of the 7th century. Moreover, the Visigothic kingdom was also starting to disagregate by the late 7th century (the duchies are one of the greatest signs of this), with royal authority not being respected in practice in several regions, namely on the northern mountains.
Part III was probably the hardest to write for the author, since it dealt with areas almost completely out of his area of expertise (early and high medieval Italy), but he suceeds anyway in making a good introduction. He manages to make a nice, even if a bit stereotypical account of the medieval Roman Empire that suits just fine for a general survey and doesn't fall into the worst prejudices regarding this polity (he only shows some typical, old and baseless prejudices by "Byzantinists", but again, nothing that bad for an introduction). The Islamic world is treated a bit worse as Wickham just relies too much on later 9th century accounts which form the traditional narrative of the period, which has been challenged in the last decades by "Orientalists", so its value is a bit reduced, although it's decent as an introduction.
Part IV is one of the best and worst of the book, depending on the chapter. Carolingian Francia, England and post-Carolingian Latin Christendom are very well explored in the period between the years 750 and 1000 on both political, cultural, religious and socioeconomic histories, yet the chapters on "Outer Europe" should have been better explored. I'll return to this issue at the final paragraph, since my wider critique is general to the work.
Generally, this work has already a great scope and, considering it was written by a single man with a limited expertise (regional rather than continental, which would be practically impossible due to the impossibility of someone having a very deep knowledge of such vas a subject as late antique and early medieval Europe), it's a work of tremendous overall erudition and a monument of knowledge, that gives to the reader a very different picture from that promoted by popular culture. It also has the advantage of being written both as a potential university textbook and as a book of scientific divulgation,yet there are some flaws which I specified along the review that take one star, but I'll now develop my biggest objection to Wickham's effort. I hope that a Penguin History of Europe written by a great scholar (the author is clearly one) should try to leave the typical bias of writing mainly about western Europe (often accompanied by teleological history). While Chris Wickham powerfully manages to shatter the idea that western Europe, namely its northern and central regions, was destined to thrive and even rule the world during the much of the modern period, and manages to include the Mediterranean and the eastern polities in his narrative, still doesn't leave enough the old paradigm of looking mostly to western Europe, since eastern and northern Europe aren't adequately focused. There's just a single chapter on "Outer Europe" that tries to somehow compensate for it, but that isn't enough. Cultures like those of the Slavs, the Northmen (I refrain from the term "Viking"), the Huns, the Khazars,the Magyars, the Avars and also the peoples of pre-Frankish Germany (not in any chronological order, of course) should be much better covered given their overall interest to the History of the period and the fact they covered most of the continent. It's true that written records are much smaller for these regions if existent at all (often these records come from more sophisticated neighbours who wrote down biased accounts of them), yet a different kind of history, an archaeological, social and, when possible, religious one, should be written and I didn't see much effort at making it. I admit a single small chapter is already good for histories of this period, yet more is demanded of a brilliant work.
Four solid stars.
In part I, Wickham exposes many features of Roman society and economy while also evaluating the impacts of the Christianization of the Empire and of its collapse in the western provinces in the 5th century. His exposition was very interesting, namely from the point of view of social and economic history, yet I think his revisionism of the late antique Roman Empire regarding its overall power goes a bit too far and there are a few "weaker" details, but perhaps the biggest issue is that it lacks an accompanying political/military perspective that might have been useful in analyzing the causes of the decline of the Roman Empire (these weren't covered enough in my opinion when these were mostly needed, or were a bit disregarded, namely in the case of the hugepost-Diocletianic bureaucracy).
In part II, the early medieval West from 550 to 750 is investigated and unraveled wonderfully before the reader, from the "shadowy" regions of Britain and Ireland to the Lombard and Visigothic kingdoms. I also loved his emphasis on the study of the peasantry "in opposition" to the aristocracy of all those medieval societies (namely the Frankish), when the book could have easily have become just a history of the elites and the church. I also loved his ponderation of the "continuity vs. transformation" problem. Yet I must say that the comparison between the late Visigothic kingdom and the late Merovingians, although it's true we can't see events teleologically (the greatest fault of much books and even some good scholarship around), ends up being unfair since the Visigoths were in a period of unusual relative political stability in the second half of the 7th century. Moreover, the Visigothic kingdom was also starting to disagregate by the late 7th century (the duchies are one of the greatest signs of this), with royal authority not being respected in practice in several regions, namely on the northern mountains.
Part III was probably the hardest to write for the author, since it dealt with areas almost completely out of his area of expertise (early and high medieval Italy), but he suceeds anyway in making a good introduction. He manages to make a nice, even if a bit stereotypical account of the medieval Roman Empire that suits just fine for a general survey and doesn't fall into the worst prejudices regarding this polity (he only shows some typical, old and baseless prejudices by "Byzantinists", but again, nothing that bad for an introduction). The Islamic world is treated a bit worse as Wickham just relies too much on later 9th century accounts which form the traditional narrative of the period, which has been challenged in the last decades by "Orientalists", so its value is a bit reduced, although it's decent as an introduction.
Part IV is one of the best and worst of the book, depending on the chapter. Carolingian Francia, England and post-Carolingian Latin Christendom are very well explored in the period between the years 750 and 1000 on both political, cultural, religious and socioeconomic histories, yet the chapters on "Outer Europe" should have been better explored. I'll return to this issue at the final paragraph, since my wider critique is general to the work.
Generally, this work has already a great scope and, considering it was written by a single man with a limited expertise (regional rather than continental, which would be practically impossible due to the impossibility of someone having a very deep knowledge of such vas a subject as late antique and early medieval Europe), it's a work of tremendous overall erudition and a monument of knowledge, that gives to the reader a very different picture from that promoted by popular culture. It also has the advantage of being written both as a potential university textbook and as a book of scientific divulgation,yet there are some flaws which I specified along the review that take one star, but I'll now develop my biggest objection to Wickham's effort. I hope that a Penguin History of Europe written by a great scholar (the author is clearly one) should try to leave the typical bias of writing mainly about western Europe (often accompanied by teleological history). While Chris Wickham powerfully manages to shatter the idea that western Europe, namely its northern and central regions, was destined to thrive and even rule the world during the much of the modern period, and manages to include the Mediterranean and the eastern polities in his narrative, still doesn't leave enough the old paradigm of looking mostly to western Europe, since eastern and northern Europe aren't adequately focused. There's just a single chapter on "Outer Europe" that tries to somehow compensate for it, but that isn't enough. Cultures like those of the Slavs, the Northmen (I refrain from the term "Viking"), the Huns, the Khazars,the Magyars, the Avars and also the peoples of pre-Frankish Germany (not in any chronological order, of course) should be much better covered given their overall interest to the History of the period and the fact they covered most of the continent. It's true that written records are much smaller for these regions if existent at all (often these records come from more sophisticated neighbours who wrote down biased accounts of them), yet a different kind of history, an archaeological, social and, when possible, religious one, should be written and I didn't see much effort at making it. I admit a single small chapter is already good for histories of this period, yet more is demanded of a brilliant work.
Four solid stars.
April 6, 2018
Onto the second book in the Penguin series
The introduction is quite extensive & lays out to the reader the thoughts & interpretations of the author to how the material should be presented. The author alludes that the period in question (which he calls the Early medieval Europe) has been misunderstood over the last 2 centuries because of the narratives used, namely that of nationalism & that of modernity..... instead the aim of the author is to firstly deliver a political narrative of the period covering all known peoples, secondly an economical context & thirdly to look at the period AD400-1000 in all its sub periods in their own terms without considering relationship that came before or after. The part I noted was that the book would be comprehensive for someone who hadn’t already studied the period (me!) as well as giving a different perspective for those who had already followed the popular narratives mentioned. It’s also good to hear less of the period being called “The dark ages” although it does form part of the title.....
The book contains maps at critical dates, a page by page reference at the back contains all sources as well as an index. No timeline in this book which is a shame.
It’s split into 4 parts, namely – The Roman Empire & its break-up AD 400-550, The Post-Roman West AD 550-750, The Empires of the East AD 550-1000, The Carolingian & post-Carolingian West AD 750-1000 with each part being sub-divided into chapters
So, how did i find it?
Well it was detailed for sure with lots of names, dates & places but the narrative was driven by that & a lot drier than the prior book in the series which left me floundering in places as I was overwhelmed by a plethora of names/dates presented piecemeal style! I found it a grind at times & did skip a few pages hear & there hoping for the interest to pick up but to no avail as in the end I was willing it to a conclusion...... No-where near as readable as the first in the series nor enjoyable & at journey’s end I feel quite disappointed by it all.
Why disappointed....?
Well my stated aim at the beginning of this series was to learn about the peoples of Europe over it’s history & this book simply does not deliver in that respect as we are “treated” to a continual list of names of rulers along with choice anecdotes about them/their reign AND it becomes a grind in parts 3 & 4 of the book. The first 2 parts are more in tune with the first book & you learn about the peoples, Goths, Vandals et al as opposed to personages.
The real disappointment comes later on when “outer Europe”, that’s everyone between the Franks & Byzantines, is retold in 30 pages where peoples (eg Vikings, Bohemians, Moravians, the Rus) are named but given no real depth at all & for me this is a major omission in any history of Europe in this period AD400-1000.
At journey’s end (and its been a slog in the second half) I’m struggling to give it more than 2 stars in reality, it’s a 1.5 at most as it jus bored me & left me with a sense of not really learning about the peoples named in the book – Id heard of the Franks, Lombards & Moors for instance before I read this book but here I am a month or so later & none the wiser at all about them. I shall have to read elsewhere about them...... I suppose the book has at least put them in some sort of timeline for me, that’s the 0.5pt plus another 1pt as I did finish it..... and the round-up as the first 2 parts were of some interest & in keeping with a readable narrative (ie its about the peoples)
A bit more detail? Well here yer go.........
Starting with The Roman Empire & its break-up AD 400-550 we learn of the differences between the Western & Eastern Empire in social-economic terms with the reasoning for the eventual split being laid out which makes sense in layman’s terms & is easily understandable – It wasn’t really about Attila after all who was in essence a flash in the pan! As well as the barbarians & social-economics we have the effects of Christianity which features highly in another chapter entitled Culture & belief especially the different Christian ideals of worship & its effect on the East/West divide. The most interesting chapter is entitled crisis & continuity & outlines the barbarian migrations/conflicts of the period within Roman borders which highlights a slow drip-drip effect on the economy, for ease the chapter is broken down into periods upto 425, 455, 500 & 550 to make it easier (however you still have a lot of Emperors, Kings & peoples to assimilate) for the reader to establish key factors – for me one major one is letting the Vandals take Carthage & the western oil/grain/trade but a chain of events had to occur to make this possible & in reality it’s a slow erosion / series of misjudgements by the Romans that lead to its eventual break-up over the 150year period. I have covered this period (Rome) in other books so a lot of what was said rang true to me.
The Post-Roman West AD 550-750 is certainly unchartered territory for me & i found this chapter a bit light on detail for someone who knew nothing about the period.... don’t get me wrong, the names & dates are there but its not really fleshed out & if you wanted to know more about say the Franks I would advise you read about them elsewhere for the details as all you get are a series of names of kings, barons, Dukes & bishops (albeit abridged). It gave me a flavour of the period & as I said at the start of this campaign filled in the gaps in my knowledge of the peoples/founding of Europe through its history. In summary we are told....... In Gaul & Germany we have the Franks whilst in Spain & Italy we learn of the Visigoths & Lombards progress, then we touch on the British Isles where no one power reigns supreme although the arrival of the Saxons shakes things up some, where the Bretons (becoming the Welsh at some point) are pushed westward. The one thing that struck me for the period is that we seem to be down sizing in Europe as all parts of the Roman Empire fragment apart from each other, the Romans being the military & administrative glue that had held it all together. Building work & urbanisation shrunk as did trade across the region, kingships (Hegemonies) become frequent (but smaller) all vying for slices of the pie. Religion is discussed namely the pagan vs spread of Christianity throughout the region & plenty of examples are given. The small folk (peasantry) has a (very) short chapter, mainly because the records of the period cover the lords so a typical life can only be gained by archaeological means which isn’t complete by any means. Trade is explored as is culture & the arts & we see the beginnings of trade over the North Sea & English Channel develop through the ports & they’re local artisans. Monetary systems are reinvented post-Roman with the switch being made from Gold to Silver. So many snippets of information help to somewhat build up a picture of the period & for that its interesting if only leaving a sense of being very incomplete.
The Empires of the East AD550-1000 where we start with the Byzantine survival period of AD550-850 which tales of so much infighting & overthrows mostly due to differences of religion before Orthodoxy finally wins out let alone the continual warring on their eastern frontiers & occasionally on the West. During this period we also have how the Arabs took great swathes of the Byzantium Empire away from them namely Egypt & the Levante region. The Arabs themselves are covered in a chapter too which is of interest as it covers the origins & spread of Islam through the region after they successfully took regions from both Persian & Byzantium empires through conquest in periods as short as Alexander & the Mongols, the difference being they held onto it for more than 3 centuries afterwards although they too had their fare share of civil wars, revolts & overthrows of leaders like the Byzantines. The Byzantines had somewhat of a revival AD 850-1000 mostly at the expense of the Arabs (East) & the Bulgers (West) but they never really recover the Middle East (today’s region) & hold lands that the Roman Empire did. Meanwhile the Arabs stabilise after a period of in-fighting & expand across North Africa all the way to Spain which they then invade & partly conquer but still no one faction is dominant & this period sees the rival factions take different regions & build upon their success. Finally the period concludes with a chapter on trade & economy showing the impact of the break-up of the Roman Empire on the region (Mediterranean) as a whole as it’s trade networks break apart & then rebuild over the period as individual parts (factions) which by the end of the period have re-established. The majority of the time though you have to wade through a series of names & dates of rulers, with the odd anecdote or a dozen thrown in along the way....... its really a draining read.....
Next we go back to the West with the Carolingian & Post-Carolingian period AD 750-1000. Its straight into the Charlemagne period so if you want more detail on him you need to read elsewhere as this jus gives the cold hard facts in a few paragraphs. In fact this part was quite hard to really engage with & enthuse about. Very dry in content, with the narrative purely a succession of names (rulers, kings, emperors, popes etc), dates & places covering the period which in essence could have been best served in table format.... this type of narrative first started in the prior chapter but for me has been more pronounced in this & isn’t very enjoyable or making it easy to absorb information. The only real fact ive learnt is the creation of Germany, France & Italy as separate entities is appearing out of the Frankia Empire. England is covered in its own chapter & we run through all the Saxon kings before establishing that England’s tax system was actually diffo to the rest of Europe of the time & the reason that the king (later central government) had so much power over the land owners..... I learnt summit. “Outer Europe” is next up & is done in 30 pages, which is quite a disappointment as it goes through everything I would have liked to learn about in jus a few pages..... for example the Vikings jus merit 6 pages, the East of Europe too is grouped together under the term “Slavs” & covered similarly...... The Rus I would have liked to learn a lot more about as the Moravians. By now it’s becoming a real disappointment as I feel we’ve been assaulted by a barrage of names/dates in chapters at the expense of learning about a nation, its development & origins in more detail which is what i was hoping for. I’m willing this to end now....... it almost seems rushed this part as we’ve spent so much time already on anecdotes & trivia in other parts of the book.
The introduction is quite extensive & lays out to the reader the thoughts & interpretations of the author to how the material should be presented. The author alludes that the period in question (which he calls the Early medieval Europe) has been misunderstood over the last 2 centuries because of the narratives used, namely that of nationalism & that of modernity..... instead the aim of the author is to firstly deliver a political narrative of the period covering all known peoples, secondly an economical context & thirdly to look at the period AD400-1000 in all its sub periods in their own terms without considering relationship that came before or after. The part I noted was that the book would be comprehensive for someone who hadn’t already studied the period (me!) as well as giving a different perspective for those who had already followed the popular narratives mentioned. It’s also good to hear less of the period being called “The dark ages” although it does form part of the title.....
The book contains maps at critical dates, a page by page reference at the back contains all sources as well as an index. No timeline in this book which is a shame.
It’s split into 4 parts, namely – The Roman Empire & its break-up AD 400-550, The Post-Roman West AD 550-750, The Empires of the East AD 550-1000, The Carolingian & post-Carolingian West AD 750-1000 with each part being sub-divided into chapters
So, how did i find it?
Well it was detailed for sure with lots of names, dates & places but the narrative was driven by that & a lot drier than the prior book in the series which left me floundering in places as I was overwhelmed by a plethora of names/dates presented piecemeal style! I found it a grind at times & did skip a few pages hear & there hoping for the interest to pick up but to no avail as in the end I was willing it to a conclusion...... No-where near as readable as the first in the series nor enjoyable & at journey’s end I feel quite disappointed by it all.
Why disappointed....?
Well my stated aim at the beginning of this series was to learn about the peoples of Europe over it’s history & this book simply does not deliver in that respect as we are “treated” to a continual list of names of rulers along with choice anecdotes about them/their reign AND it becomes a grind in parts 3 & 4 of the book. The first 2 parts are more in tune with the first book & you learn about the peoples, Goths, Vandals et al as opposed to personages.
The real disappointment comes later on when “outer Europe”, that’s everyone between the Franks & Byzantines, is retold in 30 pages where peoples (eg Vikings, Bohemians, Moravians, the Rus) are named but given no real depth at all & for me this is a major omission in any history of Europe in this period AD400-1000.
At journey’s end (and its been a slog in the second half) I’m struggling to give it more than 2 stars in reality, it’s a 1.5 at most as it jus bored me & left me with a sense of not really learning about the peoples named in the book – Id heard of the Franks, Lombards & Moors for instance before I read this book but here I am a month or so later & none the wiser at all about them. I shall have to read elsewhere about them...... I suppose the book has at least put them in some sort of timeline for me, that’s the 0.5pt plus another 1pt as I did finish it..... and the round-up as the first 2 parts were of some interest & in keeping with a readable narrative (ie its about the peoples)
A bit more detail? Well here yer go.........
Starting with The Roman Empire & its break-up AD 400-550 we learn of the differences between the Western & Eastern Empire in social-economic terms with the reasoning for the eventual split being laid out which makes sense in layman’s terms & is easily understandable – It wasn’t really about Attila after all who was in essence a flash in the pan! As well as the barbarians & social-economics we have the effects of Christianity which features highly in another chapter entitled Culture & belief especially the different Christian ideals of worship & its effect on the East/West divide. The most interesting chapter is entitled crisis & continuity & outlines the barbarian migrations/conflicts of the period within Roman borders which highlights a slow drip-drip effect on the economy, for ease the chapter is broken down into periods upto 425, 455, 500 & 550 to make it easier (however you still have a lot of Emperors, Kings & peoples to assimilate) for the reader to establish key factors – for me one major one is letting the Vandals take Carthage & the western oil/grain/trade but a chain of events had to occur to make this possible & in reality it’s a slow erosion / series of misjudgements by the Romans that lead to its eventual break-up over the 150year period. I have covered this period (Rome) in other books so a lot of what was said rang true to me.
The Post-Roman West AD 550-750 is certainly unchartered territory for me & i found this chapter a bit light on detail for someone who knew nothing about the period.... don’t get me wrong, the names & dates are there but its not really fleshed out & if you wanted to know more about say the Franks I would advise you read about them elsewhere for the details as all you get are a series of names of kings, barons, Dukes & bishops (albeit abridged). It gave me a flavour of the period & as I said at the start of this campaign filled in the gaps in my knowledge of the peoples/founding of Europe through its history. In summary we are told....... In Gaul & Germany we have the Franks whilst in Spain & Italy we learn of the Visigoths & Lombards progress, then we touch on the British Isles where no one power reigns supreme although the arrival of the Saxons shakes things up some, where the Bretons (becoming the Welsh at some point) are pushed westward. The one thing that struck me for the period is that we seem to be down sizing in Europe as all parts of the Roman Empire fragment apart from each other, the Romans being the military & administrative glue that had held it all together. Building work & urbanisation shrunk as did trade across the region, kingships (Hegemonies) become frequent (but smaller) all vying for slices of the pie. Religion is discussed namely the pagan vs spread of Christianity throughout the region & plenty of examples are given. The small folk (peasantry) has a (very) short chapter, mainly because the records of the period cover the lords so a typical life can only be gained by archaeological means which isn’t complete by any means. Trade is explored as is culture & the arts & we see the beginnings of trade over the North Sea & English Channel develop through the ports & they’re local artisans. Monetary systems are reinvented post-Roman with the switch being made from Gold to Silver. So many snippets of information help to somewhat build up a picture of the period & for that its interesting if only leaving a sense of being very incomplete.
The Empires of the East AD550-1000 where we start with the Byzantine survival period of AD550-850 which tales of so much infighting & overthrows mostly due to differences of religion before Orthodoxy finally wins out let alone the continual warring on their eastern frontiers & occasionally on the West. During this period we also have how the Arabs took great swathes of the Byzantium Empire away from them namely Egypt & the Levante region. The Arabs themselves are covered in a chapter too which is of interest as it covers the origins & spread of Islam through the region after they successfully took regions from both Persian & Byzantium empires through conquest in periods as short as Alexander & the Mongols, the difference being they held onto it for more than 3 centuries afterwards although they too had their fare share of civil wars, revolts & overthrows of leaders like the Byzantines. The Byzantines had somewhat of a revival AD 850-1000 mostly at the expense of the Arabs (East) & the Bulgers (West) but they never really recover the Middle East (today’s region) & hold lands that the Roman Empire did. Meanwhile the Arabs stabilise after a period of in-fighting & expand across North Africa all the way to Spain which they then invade & partly conquer but still no one faction is dominant & this period sees the rival factions take different regions & build upon their success. Finally the period concludes with a chapter on trade & economy showing the impact of the break-up of the Roman Empire on the region (Mediterranean) as a whole as it’s trade networks break apart & then rebuild over the period as individual parts (factions) which by the end of the period have re-established. The majority of the time though you have to wade through a series of names & dates of rulers, with the odd anecdote or a dozen thrown in along the way....... its really a draining read.....
Next we go back to the West with the Carolingian & Post-Carolingian period AD 750-1000. Its straight into the Charlemagne period so if you want more detail on him you need to read elsewhere as this jus gives the cold hard facts in a few paragraphs. In fact this part was quite hard to really engage with & enthuse about. Very dry in content, with the narrative purely a succession of names (rulers, kings, emperors, popes etc), dates & places covering the period which in essence could have been best served in table format.... this type of narrative first started in the prior chapter but for me has been more pronounced in this & isn’t very enjoyable or making it easy to absorb information. The only real fact ive learnt is the creation of Germany, France & Italy as separate entities is appearing out of the Frankia Empire. England is covered in its own chapter & we run through all the Saxon kings before establishing that England’s tax system was actually diffo to the rest of Europe of the time & the reason that the king (later central government) had so much power over the land owners..... I learnt summit. “Outer Europe” is next up & is done in 30 pages, which is quite a disappointment as it goes through everything I would have liked to learn about in jus a few pages..... for example the Vikings jus merit 6 pages, the East of Europe too is grouped together under the term “Slavs” & covered similarly...... The Rus I would have liked to learn a lot more about as the Moravians. By now it’s becoming a real disappointment as I feel we’ve been assaulted by a barrage of names/dates in chapters at the expense of learning about a nation, its development & origins in more detail which is what i was hoping for. I’m willing this to end now....... it almost seems rushed this part as we’ve spent so much time already on anecdotes & trivia in other parts of the book.
October 12, 2018
Who among us doesn’t love Western History from 400 CE to 1000 CE? I know I do and I get discombobulated around those who prefer to ignore this period of history, and frankly prefer not to talk to those kind of people if at all possible unless they know philosophy, science, mathematics, old movies or other periods of history! If I took time to talk to those who don’t appreciate this period of history, I would tell them to read this book because Wickham tells this history better than almost anyone.
This is a fantastic book. I’ll just hint at why I feel confident in saying that. The author knows the fallacy of the myth of narrative history telling and that history must be told from the perspective of the participants and the telos that comes from hindsight does not have a place in how we understand ourselves from re-describing the past and there are ‘paradoxes in history’ (the author wisely points them out and tries to square the circle during his story telling, e.g., why did the Anglo Saxons become the most Carolingian of all of the European states after 850 CE even though they were the least directly effected of the states?).
This book wisely stays away from ‘High Politics’ unless absolutely necessary and doesn’t fall in to the ‘one darn fact after another’ as Susan Bauer does (‘test on Wednesday so we can see how good you can regurgitate the facts while ignoring the context, the meaning or the relevance of what you just learned’, sometimes I think even Bauer would score low on her tests because even she can’t remember all the facts, facts, facts that she presents!).
I discovered this book because I had mentioned the incredibly good and freely available Yale Course by Paul Freedman ‘The Early Middle Ages: 284 – 1000’ and a Goodread friend had listened to it and they went on to comment that this book was recommended in the syllabus (I always mean to read the syllabus but always forget!!), but I always appreciate a stupendous book like this one. (Again, who among us doesn’t love history?).
There is one thing more I want to mention about this book besides how I would recommend it to anyone. That is the author makes a point about the end of the ‘public sphere’ and the closeting of the regular folk (‘those who work’, the 90% of the population), and it starts to happen throughout Europe about 900 CE after rulers, lords and aristocrats start to realize they don’t need or want the peasants to fight for them any longer. I’m reminded of the video Death is Optional where Yuval Harari is interviewed by Nobel Prize Winner Daniel Kahneman and Harari makes a prediction how the oligarchs of the future will no longer have a use for regular people because we are no longer necessary to fight their wars for them. I enjoyed Harari’s ‘Sapiens’ and ‘Homo Deus’ and I was surprised that he didn’t incorporate that belief into ‘Homo Deus’. If one only had time to read one of those two books I would strongly recommend ‘Sapiens’ because ‘Deus’ is not as good and is not as coherent, but, regardless, I would recommend the highlighted video.
This is a fantastic book. I’ll just hint at why I feel confident in saying that. The author knows the fallacy of the myth of narrative history telling and that history must be told from the perspective of the participants and the telos that comes from hindsight does not have a place in how we understand ourselves from re-describing the past and there are ‘paradoxes in history’ (the author wisely points them out and tries to square the circle during his story telling, e.g., why did the Anglo Saxons become the most Carolingian of all of the European states after 850 CE even though they were the least directly effected of the states?).
This book wisely stays away from ‘High Politics’ unless absolutely necessary and doesn’t fall in to the ‘one darn fact after another’ as Susan Bauer does (‘test on Wednesday so we can see how good you can regurgitate the facts while ignoring the context, the meaning or the relevance of what you just learned’, sometimes I think even Bauer would score low on her tests because even she can’t remember all the facts, facts, facts that she presents!).
I discovered this book because I had mentioned the incredibly good and freely available Yale Course by Paul Freedman ‘The Early Middle Ages: 284 – 1000’ and a Goodread friend had listened to it and they went on to comment that this book was recommended in the syllabus (I always mean to read the syllabus but always forget!!), but I always appreciate a stupendous book like this one. (Again, who among us doesn’t love history?).
There is one thing more I want to mention about this book besides how I would recommend it to anyone. That is the author makes a point about the end of the ‘public sphere’ and the closeting of the regular folk (‘those who work’, the 90% of the population), and it starts to happen throughout Europe about 900 CE after rulers, lords and aristocrats start to realize they don’t need or want the peasants to fight for them any longer. I’m reminded of the video Death is Optional where Yuval Harari is interviewed by Nobel Prize Winner Daniel Kahneman and Harari makes a prediction how the oligarchs of the future will no longer have a use for regular people because we are no longer necessary to fight their wars for them. I enjoyed Harari’s ‘Sapiens’ and ‘Homo Deus’ and I was surprised that he didn’t incorporate that belief into ‘Homo Deus’. If one only had time to read one of those two books I would strongly recommend ‘Sapiens’ because ‘Deus’ is not as good and is not as coherent, but, regardless, I would recommend the highlighted video.
August 10, 2016
There's something to be said for resistance to grand narratives about the broad sweep of history. There's often a lot of complicated things going on that challenge the straightforward telling, and a lot of misplaced desire for simple stories about long epochs.
On the other hand, sometimes you need to see the forest and not the trees. At the very least, you don't need to focus on Every. Single. Individual. Tree.
I have no doubt this is thoroughly researched and minutely considered. But I sure could have used a version that was trimmed down by maybe 400 pages and focused on themes and trends a bit more aggressively.
On the other hand, sometimes you need to see the forest and not the trees. At the very least, you don't need to focus on Every. Single. Individual. Tree.
I have no doubt this is thoroughly researched and minutely considered. But I sure could have used a version that was trimmed down by maybe 400 pages and focused on themes and trends a bit more aggressively.
May 23, 2019
Chris Wickham has written a truly wonderful book. It is not only full of fascinating history, brilliant historical tidbits and an interesting premise about the period 400-1000, but the best part is that Wickham can write a great book. This is "dry" history that is so well written and so interesting that even non-history fans might be interested in reading this. If you are a history person, then this is a must-read.
Wickham shows that the shift away from the Roman Empire to the "Dark Ages" wasn't an overnight thing. Rather, with Imperial decline other forces (from Merovingian to later Carolingian) taking over the apparatus. While the "international" scope of the governmental duties ranging from taxes and trade become more local, the new successors still tried to ape the Roman Imperial structures.
Wickham breaks this book into four parts. Part I is the Roman Empire and its Break-Up 400-550, Part II covers the Post-Roman West 550-750, Part III is The Empires of the East 550-1000, and Part IV is the Carolingian and Post-Carolingian West from 750-1000.
A well-written survey of the major players during this period- they are all here from Clovis and Peppin to Alfred the Great and Otto I. Not only was it fun to read, but the history is filled with many small details that are fascinating. This is a great history book, written by a historian with a gift for writing. Do you find your knowledge about the Middle Ages to be poor? Would you like a dense, well researched and scholarly book that also is fun to read? I would suggest this one. A truly superb book and one of the best pure history books I've read this year. Wickham's magnum opus has found a welcome home in my library. Highly recommended for any fan of the history of the Dark Ages 400-1000, but so well written that any history buff of any period will enjoy this survey of the changing dynamics of an Empire devolving into smaller power centers. All factors from politics and religion to military and economics are well analyzed and the most modern information from archeology show many of the trends Wickham speaks of. I was not only entertained but I did add quite a bit to my treasure trove of Dark Ages historical knowledge.
Wickham shows that the shift away from the Roman Empire to the "Dark Ages" wasn't an overnight thing. Rather, with Imperial decline other forces (from Merovingian to later Carolingian) taking over the apparatus. While the "international" scope of the governmental duties ranging from taxes and trade become more local, the new successors still tried to ape the Roman Imperial structures.
Wickham breaks this book into four parts. Part I is the Roman Empire and its Break-Up 400-550, Part II covers the Post-Roman West 550-750, Part III is The Empires of the East 550-1000, and Part IV is the Carolingian and Post-Carolingian West from 750-1000.
A well-written survey of the major players during this period- they are all here from Clovis and Peppin to Alfred the Great and Otto I. Not only was it fun to read, but the history is filled with many small details that are fascinating. This is a great history book, written by a historian with a gift for writing. Do you find your knowledge about the Middle Ages to be poor? Would you like a dense, well researched and scholarly book that also is fun to read? I would suggest this one. A truly superb book and one of the best pure history books I've read this year. Wickham's magnum opus has found a welcome home in my library. Highly recommended for any fan of the history of the Dark Ages 400-1000, but so well written that any history buff of any period will enjoy this survey of the changing dynamics of an Empire devolving into smaller power centers. All factors from politics and religion to military and economics are well analyzed and the most modern information from archeology show many of the trends Wickham speaks of. I was not only entertained but I did add quite a bit to my treasure trove of Dark Ages historical knowledge.
October 4, 2020
I approached this book with an open mind. Even if the ‘Dark Ages’ had been exaggerated by early scholars, my impression was still that not much intellectual progress had been made in Europe after the Greek Hellenistic period (as opposed to in India and the Islamic world) - and that this state of affairs deteriorated after the collapse of the Roman Empire - until the 16th and 17th Centuries. This book has not dissuaded me from that view. If anything, it has strengthened it.
Wickham is right to note that the early Middle Ages “has its own validity as a field of study” (but who claimed otherwise?). He is right to stress that the fall of the western Roman Empire shouldn’t necessarily be seen as a “Bad Thing”—indeed, not much scientific, technological or mathematical progress had been made in the Roman Empire, either. He is certainly right to point out that the Eastern Roman Empire lived on as Byzantium (but who denied this, or am I just in the habit of reading the good historians?). And he is right to state that history did not end with the end of the Roman Empire, but this again seems to me to be a strawman argument: perhaps this argument was advanced many decades ago, but no serious historian that I’ve read makes this claim today.
Meanwhile the book itself demonstrates that matters did become ‘darker’. Political and economic structures drastically simplified, as did architecture. In one comical passage, Wickham notes that poetry and complex prose became unimportant, and that by the end of the ninth century aristocracies in the West were generally unable to read. But he goes on to say that we should be “neutral” about these changes. Neutral? Imagine if, today, a society had lost its ability to generate poetry and complex prose, and that even the upper classes had gradually lost the ability to read? Would this seem neutral to us, or more like a catastrophe? As Ward-Perkins (2005) notes: "widespread literacy in the post-Roman West definitely became confined to the clergy."
This also helps to explain the scarcity of sources during the Early Middle Ages. Some scholars, indeed, labelled the Early Middle Ages 'dark' not so much for intellectual or cultural reasons, but because of the dearth of surviving documents. Wickham does his best to push back against this perception, but throughout the book even he has to concede that, for many regions and periods of early mediaeval Europe, there are very few, if any, sources.
It’s also cheeky of Wickham to include discussion of the Islamic world in a book that’s meant to be part of a Penguin series about European history. For it was in the Islamic world where much of the world’s intellectual progress was being made while the West was ‘dark’. As the author writes: "the caliphate was simply richer and more powerful than any post-Roman polity... [they] far surpassed their neighbours in their wealth and in the sophistication of their intellectual culture". They were responsible for, "by far the largest-scale buildings in Eurasia west of China in this period". Baghdad, he notes "had an economic and cultural importance... that outclassed anywhere in the world, and that certainly impacted on Europe". But to include a history of the Islamic world in a book about Europe simply because it heavily impacted on Europe is a bit dubious.
Yes, things did happen in Europe from 400 to 1000, and Wickham describes them well, from Visigothic Spain to Byzantium. Wickham does highlight that, thanks to Photios, there was something of a revival of intellectual culture in Byzantium in the last 150 years of this period. However, as he notes, the 279 Greek books in his Bibliotheke is far outweighed by the 6,000 books listed in the Index of al-Nadim. And Byzantine intellectual culture was not novel. Nor was the brief revival of intellectual culture in Carolingian western Europe; indeed, as Wickham writes, it "never claimed to be novel".
Overall, then, this is a well-written and engaging book, hampered by poor argument and even poorer marketing. Petrarch was, on the whole, right.
Wickham is right to note that the early Middle Ages “has its own validity as a field of study” (but who claimed otherwise?). He is right to stress that the fall of the western Roman Empire shouldn’t necessarily be seen as a “Bad Thing”—indeed, not much scientific, technological or mathematical progress had been made in the Roman Empire, either. He is certainly right to point out that the Eastern Roman Empire lived on as Byzantium (but who denied this, or am I just in the habit of reading the good historians?). And he is right to state that history did not end with the end of the Roman Empire, but this again seems to me to be a strawman argument: perhaps this argument was advanced many decades ago, but no serious historian that I’ve read makes this claim today.
Meanwhile the book itself demonstrates that matters did become ‘darker’. Political and economic structures drastically simplified, as did architecture. In one comical passage, Wickham notes that poetry and complex prose became unimportant, and that by the end of the ninth century aristocracies in the West were generally unable to read. But he goes on to say that we should be “neutral” about these changes. Neutral? Imagine if, today, a society had lost its ability to generate poetry and complex prose, and that even the upper classes had gradually lost the ability to read? Would this seem neutral to us, or more like a catastrophe? As Ward-Perkins (2005) notes: "widespread literacy in the post-Roman West definitely became confined to the clergy."
This also helps to explain the scarcity of sources during the Early Middle Ages. Some scholars, indeed, labelled the Early Middle Ages 'dark' not so much for intellectual or cultural reasons, but because of the dearth of surviving documents. Wickham does his best to push back against this perception, but throughout the book even he has to concede that, for many regions and periods of early mediaeval Europe, there are very few, if any, sources.
It’s also cheeky of Wickham to include discussion of the Islamic world in a book that’s meant to be part of a Penguin series about European history. For it was in the Islamic world where much of the world’s intellectual progress was being made while the West was ‘dark’. As the author writes: "the caliphate was simply richer and more powerful than any post-Roman polity... [they] far surpassed their neighbours in their wealth and in the sophistication of their intellectual culture". They were responsible for, "by far the largest-scale buildings in Eurasia west of China in this period". Baghdad, he notes "had an economic and cultural importance... that outclassed anywhere in the world, and that certainly impacted on Europe". But to include a history of the Islamic world in a book about Europe simply because it heavily impacted on Europe is a bit dubious.
Yes, things did happen in Europe from 400 to 1000, and Wickham describes them well, from Visigothic Spain to Byzantium. Wickham does highlight that, thanks to Photios, there was something of a revival of intellectual culture in Byzantium in the last 150 years of this period. However, as he notes, the 279 Greek books in his Bibliotheke is far outweighed by the 6,000 books listed in the Index of al-Nadim. And Byzantine intellectual culture was not novel. Nor was the brief revival of intellectual culture in Carolingian western Europe; indeed, as Wickham writes, it "never claimed to be novel".
Overall, then, this is a well-written and engaging book, hampered by poor argument and even poorer marketing. Petrarch was, on the whole, right.
May 27, 2023
This….this book. This is a book that I’ve had for many years and have been a bit intimidated to read (as it turns out, for good reason) despite my interest that sometimes borders on obsession with the time period it’s about. One quick look through this book will tell you that it’s not easy-reading pop history. And that’s totally okay of course, especially for people who have exhausted the info available in books like that and want to dig a little deeper. In the case of Chris Wickham’s The Inheritance of Rome, this book will scratch that itch. If the Early Middle Ages is your bag, baby, (there’s a reference from the Early Middle Ages), then this is kind of a book you really are going to want to read, despite its flaws; and it does have some.
Chris Wickham is a serious historian, and that shows in his writing. He takes the subject matter seriously and doesn’t waste any time with fluff. This book is absolutely packed to the brim with information - potentially to its detriment at times. Wickham covers Western Europe in all its forms during this period, and he does it directly without and messing about.
Some of the chapters were more interesting to me than others. The two chapters on England were absolutely fantastic—one dealing with England in the “early” Early Middle Ages, the other towards the end of the first millennium. Wickham calls this “Carolingian” England, despite the fact that they were not Carolingian at all. He uses this as a reference for the time period, sure, but also writes about how heavily influenced the island was by the Carolingians during this period. I also, unexpectedly found myself engrossed in the chapter about the Byzantines. The Roman Empire after the West fell. There is just a boatload of interesting stuff about the Greek East, and admittedly I have overlooked it a bit over the years.
One thing this book was seriously lacking for me was the human element of the past. There is tons of information here; historiographies, a wealth of information about kings and emperors that are largely forgotten in the collective memory, but there was very little about the average people themselves which was a disappointment for me. The Byzantine chapter maybe had the most of this, and that may be a reason why I loved that chapter so much. Of course, I know there is very little info available about your average schmo in this period, but Wickham refuses to speculate, even a little bit, and this was unfortunate for me. He starts off many chapters with an anecdote, but even so, Chris Wickham is all business. This can make for a dry read at times.
All that said, it was still very much a worthwhile read, and is a very thorough trip through this fascinating and mysterious era we used to call the Dark Ages. Wickham addresses this term as well, and you could say he does a good job at shining a “light” on this misunderstood era!
Chris Wickham is a serious historian, and that shows in his writing. He takes the subject matter seriously and doesn’t waste any time with fluff. This book is absolutely packed to the brim with information - potentially to its detriment at times. Wickham covers Western Europe in all its forms during this period, and he does it directly without and messing about.
Some of the chapters were more interesting to me than others. The two chapters on England were absolutely fantastic—one dealing with England in the “early” Early Middle Ages, the other towards the end of the first millennium. Wickham calls this “Carolingian” England, despite the fact that they were not Carolingian at all. He uses this as a reference for the time period, sure, but also writes about how heavily influenced the island was by the Carolingians during this period. I also, unexpectedly found myself engrossed in the chapter about the Byzantines. The Roman Empire after the West fell. There is just a boatload of interesting stuff about the Greek East, and admittedly I have overlooked it a bit over the years.
One thing this book was seriously lacking for me was the human element of the past. There is tons of information here; historiographies, a wealth of information about kings and emperors that are largely forgotten in the collective memory, but there was very little about the average people themselves which was a disappointment for me. The Byzantine chapter maybe had the most of this, and that may be a reason why I loved that chapter so much. Of course, I know there is very little info available about your average schmo in this period, but Wickham refuses to speculate, even a little bit, and this was unfortunate for me. He starts off many chapters with an anecdote, but even so, Chris Wickham is all business. This can make for a dry read at times.
All that said, it was still very much a worthwhile read, and is a very thorough trip through this fascinating and mysterious era we used to call the Dark Ages. Wickham addresses this term as well, and you could say he does a good job at shining a “light” on this misunderstood era!
December 2, 2021
The Inheritance of Rome is one of those magisterial books that I almost regret reading. Wickham is a senior historian, and he covers 600 years across Europe and the Near East with deliberative detail. His goal is to cast aside the standard view of the period, that they were a Dark Ages where hairy barbarians destroyed the great culture of Rome, and a combination of brutish strongmen and close-minded priests ruled over impoverished dirt farmers for millenia. Contrary to all that, there was a lot going on in this period. The Eastern Roman Empire out of Constantinople survived for centuries. The Umayyad Caliphate maintained a military aristocracy on top of a complex multi-faith society across North Africa and the Near East. The Carolingians embarked on a massive moral-political reform that set the pattern for future developments in Europe.
Yet, there are the ugly facts of the period. The population of major cities declined drastically, especially Rome and Constantinople, which as ex-imperial capitals lost their public grain subsidies from agricultural provinces. Other cities suffered similar declines in population. And it's not like the countryside was doing better, as land fell out of cultivation. Material culture fell back almost everywhere to relatively crude local production, with the fine craft centuries of antiquity forgotten. 476 and the replacement of the last Western Roman Emperor with an Ostrogothic rex Odoacer is as a good as date as any for the end, but the classically educated civilian elite of the Roman Empire continued to write to each other in sophisticated Latin for decades. But by 600 or so, this was all gone in the West, as economies devolved into little regional self-sufficiencies.
Wickham's thesis about the inheritance of Rome is one of the public square, a line from the processions and games at Imperial height, the continuation of these traditions in the East, the Islamic public gathering of faith, and the Western idea of the juridical assembly, but it strikes me that these connections are somewhat ad hoc, aside from the idea that a public space exists. Rather, a better measure that Wickham uses is one of political protagonism. A few exceptional states and individuals had the ability to make sweeping conquests and reforms. But mostly, it seems like struggles became ever smaller, over specific locals, the loyalties of a few hundred warriors, wooden huts rather than marble cities.
Yet, there are the ugly facts of the period. The population of major cities declined drastically, especially Rome and Constantinople, which as ex-imperial capitals lost their public grain subsidies from agricultural provinces. Other cities suffered similar declines in population. And it's not like the countryside was doing better, as land fell out of cultivation. Material culture fell back almost everywhere to relatively crude local production, with the fine craft centuries of antiquity forgotten. 476 and the replacement of the last Western Roman Emperor with an Ostrogothic rex Odoacer is as a good as date as any for the end, but the classically educated civilian elite of the Roman Empire continued to write to each other in sophisticated Latin for decades. But by 600 or so, this was all gone in the West, as economies devolved into little regional self-sufficiencies.
Wickham's thesis about the inheritance of Rome is one of the public square, a line from the processions and games at Imperial height, the continuation of these traditions in the East, the Islamic public gathering of faith, and the Western idea of the juridical assembly, but it strikes me that these connections are somewhat ad hoc, aside from the idea that a public space exists. Rather, a better measure that Wickham uses is one of political protagonism. A few exceptional states and individuals had the ability to make sweeping conquests and reforms. But mostly, it seems like struggles became ever smaller, over specific locals, the loyalties of a few hundred warriors, wooden huts rather than marble cities.
November 18, 2009
Many people refer to the period of 400-1000 as the “dark ages.” After the fall of Rome, when society in Western Europe shut down, people went back to simple, primitive ways – terms like savages and barbarians are often used – as they squabbled and fought against each other, killing mercilessly for a bit of land; the only beacon of hope the growing light of Christianity. I’ve never been a fan of the term “dark ages,” or all the connotations, thoughts, and ideas that people – historians and laymen alike – infer from it. Thankfully there is Chris Wickham: a Chichele Professor of Medieval History at the University of Oxford and author of Framing the Middle Ages. Wickham has worked hard to educate those who are unsure or simply don’t that the period from 400-1000 was one of the most important growth period of ideas, invention, and thought in the history of Western Europe. The Inheritance of Rome does a fantastic job of explaining this in comprehensive detail with viewpoints from all of Western Europe, including the Near East with the Byzantine Empire. I won’t lie to you; this isn’t an easy summer read; it’s a heavy book in every sense of the word; but if you’re looking to educate yourself on what exactly was going on between the fifth and eleventh centuries in Europe, after reading The Inheritance of Rome, you will have amassed an impressive amount of knowledge and be able to defend yourself and the period against anyone who attempts to call it the “dark ages.”
Wickham begins with a concise wrap up of the waning centuries of the Roman Empire, setting the stage for the focus of the book, which is divided into four parts: “Part I – The Roman Empire and its Break-up, 400-550”; “Part II: The Post-Roman West, 550-750”; “Part III: The Empires of the East, 550-1000”; and “Part IV: The Carolingian and Post-Carolingian West, 750-1000.” While the time periods of each part do overlap, this doesn’t prove to be a problem as Wickham is analyzing different areas, but also does a great job of linking what’s happening in a particular location with what was going on in another location in the previous chapter. The author uses maps, illustrations, diagrams, and photographs to illustrate points about the constant trade, migration and commingling of societies, cultures, and kingdoms that continued to thrive during this period and were instrumental in setting a foundation for the eventual High Middles Ages and beginning of the renaissance. Wickham does have a theme and clear point to make, which is in the title: most of Western Europe had at one time been either a part of or bordered with the most dominating and impressive empire the world has ever seen, so it makes perfect sense that most of these different cultures would try to maintain and emulate the ways of Rome, which helped spark a genesis for new forms of writing, new ways of trade and negotiation, new forms of farming, a new judicial system of laws and ways, and forced societies that had been sheltered, supported and lapped from the bosom of Rome for so long, to gain their independence and establish themselves as individuals, with unique technology, development, and cultural ways, which helped give rise to the likes of the Merovingians and Clovis, the Carolingians and Charlemagne, Alfred the Great, William the Conqueror, and many others.
The Early Middle Ages has always been my most favorite period of history and I’ve never been able to explain succinctly why. It has something to do with the fall of Rome and leaving this vast world of different peoples and cultures to live on their own and develop their individuality whilst maintaining contact and trade with each other. It’s about the countries of Western Europe beginning, with the birth of many of the renowned cities we know today. The Inheritance of Rome helps fuel my interest and love for this period. And as more knowledge, evidence, and archaeology about the period is discovered, the more we learn that the “dark ages” is a great misnomer that should be stripped from this important period of discovery and development.
For more reviews, check out the BookBanter site.
Wickham begins with a concise wrap up of the waning centuries of the Roman Empire, setting the stage for the focus of the book, which is divided into four parts: “Part I – The Roman Empire and its Break-up, 400-550”; “Part II: The Post-Roman West, 550-750”; “Part III: The Empires of the East, 550-1000”; and “Part IV: The Carolingian and Post-Carolingian West, 750-1000.” While the time periods of each part do overlap, this doesn’t prove to be a problem as Wickham is analyzing different areas, but also does a great job of linking what’s happening in a particular location with what was going on in another location in the previous chapter. The author uses maps, illustrations, diagrams, and photographs to illustrate points about the constant trade, migration and commingling of societies, cultures, and kingdoms that continued to thrive during this period and were instrumental in setting a foundation for the eventual High Middles Ages and beginning of the renaissance. Wickham does have a theme and clear point to make, which is in the title: most of Western Europe had at one time been either a part of or bordered with the most dominating and impressive empire the world has ever seen, so it makes perfect sense that most of these different cultures would try to maintain and emulate the ways of Rome, which helped spark a genesis for new forms of writing, new ways of trade and negotiation, new forms of farming, a new judicial system of laws and ways, and forced societies that had been sheltered, supported and lapped from the bosom of Rome for so long, to gain their independence and establish themselves as individuals, with unique technology, development, and cultural ways, which helped give rise to the likes of the Merovingians and Clovis, the Carolingians and Charlemagne, Alfred the Great, William the Conqueror, and many others.
The Early Middle Ages has always been my most favorite period of history and I’ve never been able to explain succinctly why. It has something to do with the fall of Rome and leaving this vast world of different peoples and cultures to live on their own and develop their individuality whilst maintaining contact and trade with each other. It’s about the countries of Western Europe beginning, with the birth of many of the renowned cities we know today. The Inheritance of Rome helps fuel my interest and love for this period. And as more knowledge, evidence, and archaeology about the period is discovered, the more we learn that the “dark ages” is a great misnomer that should be stripped from this important period of discovery and development.
For more reviews, check out the BookBanter site.
June 6, 2011
This book has more detail than any book I have ever read and almost no narrative. And yet I did read it and enjoy it almost every day for several months and finished it. For some reason I am currently obsessed with the early Middle Ages (or Late Antiquity). I feel that I should take a course in the subject (but not from Chris Wickham) so that I could really get a grasp on some concepts. The reviewer who mentions a pointillist writing style used a good term - except that with the painter Seurat the dots actually cohere into a composition. And yet it is difficult to find a really good book on this period of history.
January 18, 2013
This is an exceptionally detailed and well thought out book.
Fantastic read - a real pleasure.
Fantastic read - a real pleasure.
February 18, 2014
Just couldn't get into it. Maybe if I had more background in the late Roman Empire. Too many names I'm not familiar with.
September 10, 2020
Найкраща книга про Середньовіччя, яку я читав? Можливо! Великий обсяг дозволяє усебічно розглянути добу, про яку нам відомо найменше – Темні Віки.
Це був би ідеальний підручник (який, втім, довелося б розтягнути на три-чотири навчальні роки): тут вистачає і подробиць, і узагальнень. І увагу приділено не тільки теренам колишньої Римської імперії, Західній Європі та арабському світу, але й, наскільки дозволяють письмові свідчення, регіонам далі на північ і схід, ніж це зазвичай роблять європоцентричні історики.
Зокрема, в загальних рисах описане становлення Русі в контексті європейської історії. Саме так! Тут не прочитаєш хрестоматійної історії про те, як княгиня Ольга мстилася древлянам, бо яке це має значення для історії?.. Натомість Кріс Вікем розповідає про запозичені русинами елементи скандинавської, хозарської і візантійської культур, про їх участь у візантійській геополітиці і про торговельні зв’язки з іншими куточками Європи.
Це був би ідеальний підручник (який, втім, довелося б розтягнути на три-чотири навчальні роки): тут вистачає і подробиць, і узагальнень. І увагу приділено не тільки теренам колишньої Римської імперії, Західній Європі та арабському світу, але й, наскільки дозволяють письмові свідчення, регіонам далі на північ і схід, ніж це зазвичай роблять європоцентричні історики.
Зокрема, в загальних рисах описане становлення Русі в контексті європейської історії. Саме так! Тут не прочитаєш хрестоматійної історії про те, як княгиня Ольга мстилася древлянам, бо яке це має значення для історії?.. Натомість Кріс Вікем розповідає про запозичені русинами елементи скандинавської, хозарської і візантійської культур, про їх участь у візантійській геополітиці і про торговельні зв’язки з іншими куточками Європи.
April 28, 2022
挺遗憾这么好本书没有地图！在一堆重复姓名，以及地图想象中苦不堪言，再加上作者琐碎的夹叙夹议中，彻底迷失，以至于丧失了最后一点儿的耐烦.
April 15, 2012
If you want a layman's introduction to current thinking about the 'Dark Ages' of Europe (400-1000 AD) this is it. The various Penguin History series are all without footnotes and aimed at 'intelligent laymen' or undergraduate review course. The overarching theme is that each area responded differently to the changes of this time, and the more detail is known, the more localized each response becomes.
At the beginning of the book (400 AD) is the Roman Empire and at the end (1000 AD) are the political entities that last for at least most of the next 500 years (although not their geographical extent). However, a map of Europe over 50 year intervals over this time period shows a lot of changes and they do not have a directionality. Europe in 600 AD looked as if it was on the verge of being reunited into one Roman Empire, 100 years later the Arabs/Muslims had a huge empire. It was like that for 600 years, which can be very confusing. The book is broken into four parts; the breakup of the Empire (400-550), early Western Europe (550-750), later Eastern Europe (550-1000) and later Western Europe (750-1000). If you want something simpler, try
The Civilization of the Middle Ages.
On top of that, the field of history over the last 30 years has been incorporating evidence other than written histories (registers, other written evidence, and most importantly archaeology). This has had major impact on this time period. This new evidence shows lots more continuity and lots less disruption and loss than believed 30 years ago, which has lead to the ‘Rome did not really fall’ extreme (gradualism) and the equally extreme ‘Rome did fall and it was horrific’ (catastrophism) camps. Wickham started out towards the gradualist extreme (his original area was northern Italy, an area with a lot less and much later change than others in western Europe) and has become much more centrist as he has widened his field. He has become the spokesman for the new unifying view.
This new view acknowledges that there was a lot of change, but that it happened at different rates and in different ways. There are a lot of commonalities, but every area’s reaction/history depended a lot more on specific conditions than during the Roman empire. The biggest factor is the loss of an overarching unifying entity. Other factors include the rise of the Christian church as the overarching bureaucracy in the West; the split of the church and the development of the idea of heresy; the rise of Islam in the East (and its own inheritance of the Roman Empire); the change from the eastern Roman Empire to Byzantium; the migration of various people without government control throughout Europe; the overall change from a tax based government to a land based government in Western Europe; plus the increase of civilized areas (central government, literacy, etc.) in Western Europe.
There is a chapter by chapter bibliography. If you want to read further, try The Rise of Western Christendom: Triumph & Diversity 200-1000, Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West, 376-568, Framing the Early Middle Ages: Europe and the Mediterranean, 400-800 and Britain After Rome.
A quick note about paper. Penguin editions use the cheaper newspaper type paper for their paperbacks.
At the beginning of the book (400 AD) is the Roman Empire and at the end (1000 AD) are the political entities that last for at least most of the next 500 years (although not their geographical extent). However, a map of Europe over 50 year intervals over this time period shows a lot of changes and they do not have a directionality. Europe in 600 AD looked as if it was on the verge of being reunited into one Roman Empire, 100 years later the Arabs/Muslims had a huge empire. It was like that for 600 years, which can be very confusing. The book is broken into four parts; the breakup of the Empire (400-550), early Western Europe (550-750), later Eastern Europe (550-1000) and later Western Europe (750-1000). If you want something simpler, try
The Civilization of the Middle Ages.
On top of that, the field of history over the last 30 years has been incorporating evidence other than written histories (registers, other written evidence, and most importantly archaeology). This has had major impact on this time period. This new evidence shows lots more continuity and lots less disruption and loss than believed 30 years ago, which has lead to the ‘Rome did not really fall’ extreme (gradualism) and the equally extreme ‘Rome did fall and it was horrific’ (catastrophism) camps. Wickham started out towards the gradualist extreme (his original area was northern Italy, an area with a lot less and much later change than others in western Europe) and has become much more centrist as he has widened his field. He has become the spokesman for the new unifying view.
This new view acknowledges that there was a lot of change, but that it happened at different rates and in different ways. There are a lot of commonalities, but every area’s reaction/history depended a lot more on specific conditions than during the Roman empire. The biggest factor is the loss of an overarching unifying entity. Other factors include the rise of the Christian church as the overarching bureaucracy in the West; the split of the church and the development of the idea of heresy; the rise of Islam in the East (and its own inheritance of the Roman Empire); the change from the eastern Roman Empire to Byzantium; the migration of various people without government control throughout Europe; the overall change from a tax based government to a land based government in Western Europe; plus the increase of civilized areas (central government, literacy, etc.) in Western Europe.
There is a chapter by chapter bibliography. If you want to read further, try The Rise of Western Christendom: Triumph & Diversity 200-1000, Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West, 376-568, Framing the Early Middle Ages: Europe and the Mediterranean, 400-800 and Britain After Rome.
A quick note about paper. Penguin editions use the cheaper newspaper type paper for their paperbacks.
July 11, 2017
This book is so long that inevitably recalls some novels by Borges either about author of Don Quixote or about people of some empire who intended to create so detailed map of their country that it had to be the size of the country... While finishing this book on the pages devoted to XI century the very first chapters telling about V-VI centuries seemed to me so far away as these centuries really are to us, contemporary readers.
The intention of the author is as huge as deserving any respect. Though sometimes the level of details could be way lower. Sorry for too many associations in this review but again this book sometimes falls into sort of Biblical chain of who born whom and how they all fought for a kingdom or an empire or a caliphate. These long periods were very tempting to skip. However while reading the similar lines about Medieval Scandinavia or Kiev Rus I realised that it might be exciting when the author writes about something relevant to a particular reader. It's always curious to look at such a view from outside: how 'they there' see 'our' part of history.
I liked much an author's sober position to the subject: not to follow the catastrophist approach quite common among historians of the discussed period and not to look at it from the perspective of later epochs. History is exciting in itself, it develops without looking to the future, and it's wrong to assess any processes from the position of some future developments. As author claims the most developed region to the end of early Medieval age was Egypt, not Francia (the kingdom of Francs, not contemporary France), or England or even Byzantium. So if we would build any approximations we would definitely fail since high level in X century by no means had helped Egypt to sustain it's position in the changing world. And view on the Carolingian empire from the position of later development of France and Germany is the same wrong.
It was a bit difficult to keep in memory all differences and nuances in political, economic and religious models of all discussed states and empires. But apparently the author fully realised this thus giving some useful summaries. For example, it was the Carolingian empire which first went for a tight unity of political and religious life. Both Byzantium and Arab Caliphate kept these two aspects quite separate from each other. Quite interesting observation with regard to current attitudes.
Also this book deliberately covers in all available details the transition period after the Roman empire collapse (which was not a single moment event but rather a lasting process) and new state entities emergence.
Well, it's difficult to restrain myself from mentioning here all valuable discoveries. I will just recommend this book. It's a really deep dive in the history of the period which is well known as Dark ages. This period is apparently not that dark!
The intention of the author is as huge as deserving any respect. Though sometimes the level of details could be way lower. Sorry for too many associations in this review but again this book sometimes falls into sort of Biblical chain of who born whom and how they all fought for a kingdom or an empire or a caliphate. These long periods were very tempting to skip. However while reading the similar lines about Medieval Scandinavia or Kiev Rus I realised that it might be exciting when the author writes about something relevant to a particular reader. It's always curious to look at such a view from outside: how 'they there' see 'our' part of history.
I liked much an author's sober position to the subject: not to follow the catastrophist approach quite common among historians of the discussed period and not to look at it from the perspective of later epochs. History is exciting in itself, it develops without looking to the future, and it's wrong to assess any processes from the position of some future developments. As author claims the most developed region to the end of early Medieval age was Egypt, not Francia (the kingdom of Francs, not contemporary France), or England or even Byzantium. So if we would build any approximations we would definitely fail since high level in X century by no means had helped Egypt to sustain it's position in the changing world. And view on the Carolingian empire from the position of later development of France and Germany is the same wrong.
It was a bit difficult to keep in memory all differences and nuances in political, economic and religious models of all discussed states and empires. But apparently the author fully realised this thus giving some useful summaries. For example, it was the Carolingian empire which first went for a tight unity of political and religious life. Both Byzantium and Arab Caliphate kept these two aspects quite separate from each other. Quite interesting observation with regard to current attitudes.
Also this book deliberately covers in all available details the transition period after the Roman empire collapse (which was not a single moment event but rather a lasting process) and new state entities emergence.
Well, it's difficult to restrain myself from mentioning here all valuable discoveries. I will just recommend this book. It's a really deep dive in the history of the period which is well known as Dark ages. This period is apparently not that dark!
July 15, 2019
I went into this with high hopes, but the subtitle of this book 'Illuminating the Dark Ages' could not be less accurate. I have read few books that were less 'illuminating' than this one. Perhaps the Dark Ages are something like that--unknowable. The paucity of information obviously presents a real challenge and I am sure Professor Wickham knows his business but his communicative skills in this tome resemble some 9th century monk (ok, admittedly I have read no accounts by 9th century monks). Yet there entire pages. many of them, that might as well be written in Swahili or full of obscure math equations for all that I was able to get out of them. Names/dates/names/dates of mostly obscure aristocrats, brothers, sons, enemies that even a glossary would probably not help in sorting out. A basic chronology of major events might have been a real help. One thing I noticed is that there is almost no data, as in numbers, to support any aspect of what he is talking about. Perhaps they don't exist--but what was the literacy rate? Life expectancy? Size of 'armies' , even population? The whole inclusion of the Muslim empires seems almost forced. Certainly Arabia was never part of the Roman Empire, although obviously their conquests expanded into parts of the old Empire. But it seems forced to consider that movement as part of the Roman 'inheritance'. I am sure the Professor could crush me on that point! There are strengths to the book, for instance an interesting focus on archaeology and what it can tell us about the past as compared with narrative texts. There are some nice photos of some of these very old buildings that might make a future trip more rewarding. And the maps (10 of them) in the front of the book are excellent and probably why I picked this up in the first place. But my final impression as one reviewer aptly said upon finishing this thing was, 'free at last, thank God free at last'.
December 17, 2021
First of all, I understand all the negative reviews. This is an exceptionally dry book, probably only of interest to you if you care about why and how crop yields might have increased in West Francia from the Merovingian to the Carolingian period.
I use that particular somewhat tedious example to scare off anyone who doesn't care about such things. If you DO care, this is an excellent book. It's nearly impossible to fathom the level of knowledge Wickham has about post-Roman society, and he relates it to readers in a way that avoids excessive theorizing or leaps in reasoning.
I profited from this book more because I recently read Mary Beard's SPQR. While not a great book in itself, it at least gave me some understanding of what made Rome *Roman,* which is essential for understanding what makes the post-Roman polities in Wickham's book *post*-Roman.
Wickham does a great job of combining manuscript evidence with archaeological evidence, something not all historians bother trying to do, but something which is crucial for this period. His cogent explanations of everything from the rise of the Umayyad caliphate to al-Andalus to Viking Denmark and Saxon Britain are fascinating.
That said, the book is too dry to live up to the claim in its subtitle that it "illuminates" the dark ages. It is also the wrong book for those who seek to erase the dark ages or to claim they weren't "dark." As Wickham explains, they were great in some ways (less peasant subjection, for example, which was a natural consequence of simpler or nonexistent aristocratic systems), but certainly "dark" in the literal sense that so few literary sources, the primary tool of the historian, exist for this period. While Wickham uses archaeological evidence to fill in the holes, I don't think we can consider the dark ages to have been fully lit up by the light of historical scholarship just yet.
I use that particular somewhat tedious example to scare off anyone who doesn't care about such things. If you DO care, this is an excellent book. It's nearly impossible to fathom the level of knowledge Wickham has about post-Roman society, and he relates it to readers in a way that avoids excessive theorizing or leaps in reasoning.
I profited from this book more because I recently read Mary Beard's SPQR. While not a great book in itself, it at least gave me some understanding of what made Rome *Roman,* which is essential for understanding what makes the post-Roman polities in Wickham's book *post*-Roman.
Wickham does a great job of combining manuscript evidence with archaeological evidence, something not all historians bother trying to do, but something which is crucial for this period. His cogent explanations of everything from the rise of the Umayyad caliphate to al-Andalus to Viking Denmark and Saxon Britain are fascinating.
That said, the book is too dry to live up to the claim in its subtitle that it "illuminates" the dark ages. It is also the wrong book for those who seek to erase the dark ages or to claim they weren't "dark." As Wickham explains, they were great in some ways (less peasant subjection, for example, which was a natural consequence of simpler or nonexistent aristocratic systems), but certainly "dark" in the literal sense that so few literary sources, the primary tool of the historian, exist for this period. While Wickham uses archaeological evidence to fill in the holes, I don't think we can consider the dark ages to have been fully lit up by the light of historical scholarship just yet.
October 18, 2018
In many ways brilliant. Immensely learned, super dense, very well structured, and still incredibly readable, leaving out no details worth recounting. It has only two weaknesses. Wickham too often handwaves between continuity and change, frequently saying they both go too far, but without providing any convincing or integrated model, or even description, that would actually make an intermediate position plausible. This comes off as more a desire to say that the truth is in the middle than an actually tenable historiographical argument. As a result, I often had trouble actually buying Wickham's conclusions and his unwillingness to generalize irritated me a little, however strong the presentation of the empirics is (which it is).
The second is - and this may owe as much to the documentary evidence as anything - that the book is by and large a fairly traditional political narrative history, with social and economic history coming a distant second and all other themes an afterthought. More integration of archaeology into the account might have helped, although I'm not certain. In any case given Wickham's reputation I had expected a more economic historical focus. If you like the 'kings and battles' approach, however, it probably hasn't been done better in contemporary history-writing than this.
The second is - and this may owe as much to the documentary evidence as anything - that the book is by and large a fairly traditional political narrative history, with social and economic history coming a distant second and all other themes an afterthought. More integration of archaeology into the account might have helped, although I'm not certain. In any case given Wickham's reputation I had expected a more economic historical focus. If you like the 'kings and battles' approach, however, it probably hasn't been done better in contemporary history-writing than this.
February 12, 2013
This is a superb book on the Dark Ages and a splendid introduction to the current state of this neglected field. Wickham introduces his work with a good overview of where the scholarship in the Early Middle Ages has gone in the last few decades. That was attractive to me because I had considered this field back many moon ago when I was contemplating grad school and when the field was beginning to experience a modest revival. His handling of the Late Antique material (with which I'm most experienced) was sensitive and illuminating as was his Byzantine material. My ability to judge the later periods and Islamic is rather more limited to my memory of studying mediaeval history back in my BEd. It seems sound and I like the breadth of vision in trying to incorporate Western, Byzantine and Islamic views.
As a stylist, I enjoyed Wickham. He does like to introduce chapters with entertaining stories, but those stories do give an excellent hook to the reader. He manages to be entertaining without losing the scholarship.
So, well worth the read, especially for those trying to learn or, in my case, re-learn the field. Thanks to my brother, Paul, who bought this excellent book for me as a Christmas present.
As a stylist, I enjoyed Wickham. He does like to introduce chapters with entertaining stories, but those stories do give an excellent hook to the reader. He manages to be entertaining without losing the scholarship.
So, well worth the read, especially for those trying to learn or, in my case, re-learn the field. Thanks to my brother, Paul, who bought this excellent book for me as a Christmas present.
May 16, 2019
I've read several of the books in this series; this is by far the weakest. What's sad is there are times the book just lights up; Wickham is an able enough writer. But a lot of it is endless lists of what kings did what and where...tedious. It also dates itself by not taking climatic events into account. For a better book on this period, Peter Brown's The Rise of Western Christendom is recommended.
October 9, 2019
Segunda parada en esta travesía a lo largo de las aguas de la historia de Europa, gracias al segundo libro (de un total de 8), de la serie editada por la editorial Penguim Random House, abarcando la historia del continente Europeo desde la Guerra de Troya y los primeros asentamientos minoicos, hasta nuestros días. Para esta segunda entrega se escogió al historiador de la Universidad de Oxford y medievalista de la Academia Británica, Chris Wickham, para que nos relate la historia de aquella Europa que recibió el legado de un imperio Romano casi acabado e invadido por doquier por tribus “bárbaras”; el inicio de la Alta Edad Media – la mal llamada Edad Oscura – el surgimiento de los reinos herederos de Roma: Merovingios, Carolingios y Otónidas, su auge y caída y la consecución del proyecto romano en mano de su superviviente mitad oriental: El Imperio Bizantino. Un período que comprende más o menos los años 400 a 1000 de la e.c.
Demasiado bárbaro para los historiadores expertos en la Antigüedad Clásica y demasiado antiguo para los medievalistas, la Alta Edad Media es tal vez una de las etapas de la historia humana sobre la que más se ha especulado, mucho se ha inventado y poco se ha investigado, en parte gracias a la ausencia de fuentes entre los siglos VI al IX; o que la mayoría de ellas, son versiones parcializadas escritas por monjes cristianos con su propia agenda. Para los más extremistas, fue la debacle de la civilización antigua y la muerte de todo lo construido por el Imperio Romano. Para los más simplistas, este período es una escueta transición entre la caída Roma y el surgimiento de los estados-nación, transición enmarcada en anarquía y oscurantismo. Chris Wickham de entrada planea rebatir ambas tesis, planteado la suya propia basada en los complejos procesos sociales que se suscitaron en dicha época, desmintiendo la hipótesis generalizada de un período barbárico y oscuro, y en su lugar, indicándonos las dinámicas que permitieron a entidades como la Francia merovingia, la Hispania visigoda, la Italia lombarda, el imperio Carolingio, los Bizantinos, el califato omeya y abasí y la Inglaterra carolingia; hacer uso de la herencia romana para organizarse de acuerdo a los tiempos y las necesidades.
Como vemos, no es un libro que se ubique únicamente en Europa central, sino que incluye dentro de su narrativa las interacciones e intervenciones de protagonistas como el Imperio Bizantino, los vikingos, los eslavenos, los búlgaros y los califatos de oriente en el devenir de esta época, situación que se agradece si tenemos en cuenta que este tipo de contactos generalmente son olvidados al momento de hablar de la Alta Edad Media, considerando además que la historia de oriente y occidente se entremezcló como nunca en este período (basta con ver un mapa de la extensión de terreno del califato omeya y el de Córdoba).
A pesar de las interesantes hipótesis de Wickham y de su notable conocimiento acerca de la época, el libro peca por momentos de confuso y desordenado. Me explico: La intención del autor no ha sido reseñarnos en orden cronológico una serie de nombres, reinados, batallas y árboles genealógicos sino que, por el contrario, abarcar el poco más de medio milenio de historia en 4 grandes capítulos: Imperio romano tardío, Europa posromana y precarolingia (550-750,), los imperios de oriente y finalmente, la Europa Carolingia y postcarolingia. En todos ellos, el centro de atención son las dinámicas sociales y las influencias comerciales y de poder / dominio que ejercieron los reinos más fuertes contra las estructuras sociales más chicas. Sin embargo en ese intento macro de Wickham por mostrarnos el mapa completo, olvida por momentos que, en este tipo de libros la narración cronológica también es importante, pues su ausencia o simple mención a la ligera puede acabar por confundir y perder al lector. Y el ejemplo más claro puede verse al momento de relatar la sucesión de Carlomagno. Para quien nunca hubiese leído sobre ello, se quedará gracias a Wickham, en Luís el Piadoso y sus cuatro codiciosos hijos para acto seguido, arribar a una confusión de nombres, herencias y repartos de tierras francas. ¿Y por qué es importante saberlo?, dirán algunos. Bueno, porque ese evento, el llamado “Campo de las Mentiras” puede tomarse como el origen de la Francia y la Alemania (aunque en su época no se conocían así), y la lista de sucesores de Carlomagno y Luís moldearían Europa para los años siguientes. Así hay varios ejemplos en el libro donde el autor da por sentado que el lector conoce la historia de antemano y no se detiene en ella para explicar sus tesis macro.
A pesar de la crítica, no es un libro malo, aunque sí denso y por momentos difícil de llevarle el ritmo. Las tesis en él planteadas y el hecho de no dejar de lado la periferia europea de la época y sus redes de interacción, le dan un plus que otros libros sobre la Alta Edad Media pasan por alto. Tal vez no fue la elección más contundente para tratar esta época, pues incluso el Framing the Early Middle Ages: Europe and the Mediterranean, 400-800 del mismo Wickham, está mucho mejor estructurado. Y teniendo como antecedentes de la colección, el magnífico The Birth of Classical Europe: A History from Troy to Augustine, podríamos decir que “El Legado de Roma” aprueba con apenas lo justo.
Superadas las tormentas y temporales que no hicieron tan placentero esta segunda etapa del camino, subo ahora en un drakkar para seguir remontando las costas de la historia de Europa, a la espera que la tercera estación sea mucho más afable y grata…
Demasiado bárbaro para los historiadores expertos en la Antigüedad Clásica y demasiado antiguo para los medievalistas, la Alta Edad Media es tal vez una de las etapas de la historia humana sobre la que más se ha especulado, mucho se ha inventado y poco se ha investigado, en parte gracias a la ausencia de fuentes entre los siglos VI al IX; o que la mayoría de ellas, son versiones parcializadas escritas por monjes cristianos con su propia agenda. Para los más extremistas, fue la debacle de la civilización antigua y la muerte de todo lo construido por el Imperio Romano. Para los más simplistas, este período es una escueta transición entre la caída Roma y el surgimiento de los estados-nación, transición enmarcada en anarquía y oscurantismo. Chris Wickham de entrada planea rebatir ambas tesis, planteado la suya propia basada en los complejos procesos sociales que se suscitaron en dicha época, desmintiendo la hipótesis generalizada de un período barbárico y oscuro, y en su lugar, indicándonos las dinámicas que permitieron a entidades como la Francia merovingia, la Hispania visigoda, la Italia lombarda, el imperio Carolingio, los Bizantinos, el califato omeya y abasí y la Inglaterra carolingia; hacer uso de la herencia romana para organizarse de acuerdo a los tiempos y las necesidades.
Como vemos, no es un libro que se ubique únicamente en Europa central, sino que incluye dentro de su narrativa las interacciones e intervenciones de protagonistas como el Imperio Bizantino, los vikingos, los eslavenos, los búlgaros y los califatos de oriente en el devenir de esta época, situación que se agradece si tenemos en cuenta que este tipo de contactos generalmente son olvidados al momento de hablar de la Alta Edad Media, considerando además que la historia de oriente y occidente se entremezcló como nunca en este período (basta con ver un mapa de la extensión de terreno del califato omeya y el de Córdoba).
A pesar de las interesantes hipótesis de Wickham y de su notable conocimiento acerca de la época, el libro peca por momentos de confuso y desordenado. Me explico: La intención del autor no ha sido reseñarnos en orden cronológico una serie de nombres, reinados, batallas y árboles genealógicos sino que, por el contrario, abarcar el poco más de medio milenio de historia en 4 grandes capítulos: Imperio romano tardío, Europa posromana y precarolingia (550-750,), los imperios de oriente y finalmente, la Europa Carolingia y postcarolingia. En todos ellos, el centro de atención son las dinámicas sociales y las influencias comerciales y de poder / dominio que ejercieron los reinos más fuertes contra las estructuras sociales más chicas. Sin embargo en ese intento macro de Wickham por mostrarnos el mapa completo, olvida por momentos que, en este tipo de libros la narración cronológica también es importante, pues su ausencia o simple mención a la ligera puede acabar por confundir y perder al lector. Y el ejemplo más claro puede verse al momento de relatar la sucesión de Carlomagno. Para quien nunca hubiese leído sobre ello, se quedará gracias a Wickham, en Luís el Piadoso y sus cuatro codiciosos hijos para acto seguido, arribar a una confusión de nombres, herencias y repartos de tierras francas. ¿Y por qué es importante saberlo?, dirán algunos. Bueno, porque ese evento, el llamado “Campo de las Mentiras” puede tomarse como el origen de la Francia y la Alemania (aunque en su época no se conocían así), y la lista de sucesores de Carlomagno y Luís moldearían Europa para los años siguientes. Así hay varios ejemplos en el libro donde el autor da por sentado que el lector conoce la historia de antemano y no se detiene en ella para explicar sus tesis macro.
A pesar de la crítica, no es un libro malo, aunque sí denso y por momentos difícil de llevarle el ritmo. Las tesis en él planteadas y el hecho de no dejar de lado la periferia europea de la época y sus redes de interacción, le dan un plus que otros libros sobre la Alta Edad Media pasan por alto. Tal vez no fue la elección más contundente para tratar esta época, pues incluso el Framing the Early Middle Ages: Europe and the Mediterranean, 400-800 del mismo Wickham, está mucho mejor estructurado. Y teniendo como antecedentes de la colección, el magnífico The Birth of Classical Europe: A History from Troy to Augustine, podríamos decir que “El Legado de Roma” aprueba con apenas lo justo.
Superadas las tormentas y temporales que no hicieron tan placentero esta segunda etapa del camino, subo ahora en un drakkar para seguir remontando las costas de la historia de Europa, a la espera que la tercera estación sea mucho más afable y grata…
February 13, 2022
I just listened to this book; at thirty-two hours long, it took me nearly a month. It was masterfully narrated by James Cameron Stewart.
The blurb describes it as having "remarkable scope and rigorous yet accessible scholarship," and that is quite accurate. All of the successors to the Roman Empire in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia are covered. Being more familiar with European history, I had some difficulty following events in other areas, but that's on me. The blurb also notes that Chris Wickham "defies the conventional view of the Dark Ages," and again, that is quite accurate. Of course, historians don't call it the Dark Ages any more. I believe that Early Middle Ages is the preferred term.
It is a stunning book, but to tell the truth, I probably would have enjoyed The Inheritance of Rome if it was sixteen rather than thirty-two hours.
The blurb describes it as having "remarkable scope and rigorous yet accessible scholarship," and that is quite accurate. All of the successors to the Roman Empire in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia are covered. Being more familiar with European history, I had some difficulty following events in other areas, but that's on me. The blurb also notes that Chris Wickham "defies the conventional view of the Dark Ages," and again, that is quite accurate. Of course, historians don't call it the Dark Ages any more. I believe that Early Middle Ages is the preferred term.
It is a stunning book, but to tell the truth, I probably would have enjoyed The Inheritance of Rome if it was sixteen rather than thirty-two hours.
September 10, 2019
This review originally written for Amazon in 2012:
In The Inheritance of Rome, Professor Wickham attempts a new survey of the years 400 to 1000 C.E.--specifically one that avoids the 'two grand narratives' of Nationalism and Modernity. In an introduction that amply spells out his objectives, he argues--effectively, I think--for his methods and techniques, and for the need to look at this epoch without any preconceived notions as to how they fit into those aforementioned storylines. And so the author choses four areas to concentrate on: The Roman Empire and Its Breakup, The Post-Roman West, The Empires of the East, and The Carolingian and Post-Carolingian West, which are examined not as to how they served as the roots of Modern Nations, nor how they were simply 'in the middle' between the high points of the Roman Empire and the Renaissance. Rather, they are looked at on their own merit, as 'every period of history has its own identity and legitimacy, which must be seen without hindsight'.
Up to this point, I was quite enthused about Professor Wickham's description, and, as someone who knew very little about the time in question, I was eager to get on with it. Unfortunately, I became bogged down in the text almost immediately, and from there slogged through the succeeding chapters. I cannot remember another book that I wanted to put down mid-way through as much as this one. One of the reasons is surely Professor Wickham's style, which will appeal to some and not others, as well as some stylistic tics that I thought became tedious after a while. Yet after finishing, I believe that I could have made it past any of those issues, except that I am particularly unsuited for the way the author organized his material.
As I said, I knew little about this time frame, and the danger was that its figures and events would simply turn into a litany of names and dates without any correspondence with each other. This eventually was my experience with The Inheritance of Rome, though perhaps any survey of this scope would run into the same difficulty. Rather than follow any one group through a sequential timeline, examining all of the cultural and political changes through the years, the author instead chose to look at a particular social, economic or educational reality and then compare it across the broad spectrum of the existing peoples. For example, one chapter may deal with the plight of peasants, and describe in general what their conditions were in England, Carolingian France, Andalusia Spain, as well as other regions, and encompass a span of several hundred years. The next chapter might describe economic development in Northern Europe, but adhere to the same general pattern. Thus, while each subject was covered in depth, I had an enormously difficult time placing it in context of the timeline. A leader such as Louis the Pious, Charlemagne's son, might be mentioned across several chapters--once in relation to the state of the aristocracy during his reign, again according to economic development, then in relation to the rise of intellectuals at the court, and again and again and again. This continual forward and back method of relating may very well subvert any nationalistic reading of history, but it failed to give me anything on which to hang the larger story. Add to that the habit of many rulers to take the name of a forefather, and I found myself floundering in a sea of names and events.
This sort of organization lends itself to a deeper conversation about the events. I suspect a text such as this would be perfectly suited for a classroom, one where students would have the time to discuss each of its topics and bring context to them. Did I learn anything despite my quibbles with the layout of information-- certainly. But I feel as if most of it is tenuous--after all the time spent on the book, I can't say I have a very good grasp on the period even still. (2019 update: I can't remember now any detail at all from this book, nor any of the larger themes.)
The Inheritance of Rome may very well be intended to be 'comprehensible to people who know nothing about the period', as the author states in his introduction, but I found it just barely so. Others may find the structure of the book suits them much better--that is the reason for my two stars. There is no doubt Professor Wickham knows his subject, and I can see myself perhaps even turning back to certain sections for reference. (2019 update: Shelf space being the premium that it is, this book was an easy one to sacrifice, as I never went back to look through it again after finishing.) But its lack of linear advancement from point a to b left this general reader in the dust--and still looking for a readable history of the period.
In The Inheritance of Rome, Professor Wickham attempts a new survey of the years 400 to 1000 C.E.--specifically one that avoids the 'two grand narratives' of Nationalism and Modernity. In an introduction that amply spells out his objectives, he argues--effectively, I think--for his methods and techniques, and for the need to look at this epoch without any preconceived notions as to how they fit into those aforementioned storylines. And so the author choses four areas to concentrate on: The Roman Empire and Its Breakup, The Post-Roman West, The Empires of the East, and The Carolingian and Post-Carolingian West, which are examined not as to how they served as the roots of Modern Nations, nor how they were simply 'in the middle' between the high points of the Roman Empire and the Renaissance. Rather, they are looked at on their own merit, as 'every period of history has its own identity and legitimacy, which must be seen without hindsight'.
Up to this point, I was quite enthused about Professor Wickham's description, and, as someone who knew very little about the time in question, I was eager to get on with it. Unfortunately, I became bogged down in the text almost immediately, and from there slogged through the succeeding chapters. I cannot remember another book that I wanted to put down mid-way through as much as this one. One of the reasons is surely Professor Wickham's style, which will appeal to some and not others, as well as some stylistic tics that I thought became tedious after a while. Yet after finishing, I believe that I could have made it past any of those issues, except that I am particularly unsuited for the way the author organized his material.
As I said, I knew little about this time frame, and the danger was that its figures and events would simply turn into a litany of names and dates without any correspondence with each other. This eventually was my experience with The Inheritance of Rome, though perhaps any survey of this scope would run into the same difficulty. Rather than follow any one group through a sequential timeline, examining all of the cultural and political changes through the years, the author instead chose to look at a particular social, economic or educational reality and then compare it across the broad spectrum of the existing peoples. For example, one chapter may deal with the plight of peasants, and describe in general what their conditions were in England, Carolingian France, Andalusia Spain, as well as other regions, and encompass a span of several hundred years. The next chapter might describe economic development in Northern Europe, but adhere to the same general pattern. Thus, while each subject was covered in depth, I had an enormously difficult time placing it in context of the timeline. A leader such as Louis the Pious, Charlemagne's son, might be mentioned across several chapters--once in relation to the state of the aristocracy during his reign, again according to economic development, then in relation to the rise of intellectuals at the court, and again and again and again. This continual forward and back method of relating may very well subvert any nationalistic reading of history, but it failed to give me anything on which to hang the larger story. Add to that the habit of many rulers to take the name of a forefather, and I found myself floundering in a sea of names and events.
This sort of organization lends itself to a deeper conversation about the events. I suspect a text such as this would be perfectly suited for a classroom, one where students would have the time to discuss each of its topics and bring context to them. Did I learn anything despite my quibbles with the layout of information-- certainly. But I feel as if most of it is tenuous--after all the time spent on the book, I can't say I have a very good grasp on the period even still. (2019 update: I can't remember now any detail at all from this book, nor any of the larger themes.)
The Inheritance of Rome may very well be intended to be 'comprehensible to people who know nothing about the period', as the author states in his introduction, but I found it just barely so. Others may find the structure of the book suits them much better--that is the reason for my two stars. There is no doubt Professor Wickham knows his subject, and I can see myself perhaps even turning back to certain sections for reference. (2019 update: Shelf space being the premium that it is, this book was an easy one to sacrifice, as I never went back to look through it again after finishing.) But its lack of linear advancement from point a to b left this general reader in the dust--and still looking for a readable history of the period.
February 26, 2023
How did the former Roman Empire transition into what we have come to know as the Middle Ages? There has been much research to date showing that virtually all of what we thought we know about the early Middle Ages was mistaken, oversimplified, and misinterpreted due to poor systematic research, lack of records, prejudices from earlier work, and many more reasons.
Professor Wickham’s book traces the development of the late Roman Empire into its successor elements and takes the story up to the year 1000 (more or less). Wickham appears to have read all of the new research and provides a detailed account of the transition of six centuries. It is written sharply and is fairly clear, except for the task of accounting for nearly every ruler in every medium sized political entity or larger for six centuries (death dates for all). On the one hand, this reads like a carefully presented popular account - until one realizes that is it deep, thoughtful, and very thorough. If I had been assigned this as a survey text earlier in my life I might have groaned a bit - but I would learn and remember. I have upped my rating from my first reaction.
This is not light bedtime reading (for most people) but it is effective history and I highly recommend the book.
Professor Wickham’s book traces the development of the late Roman Empire into its successor elements and takes the story up to the year 1000 (more or less). Wickham appears to have read all of the new research and provides a detailed account of the transition of six centuries. It is written sharply and is fairly clear, except for the task of accounting for nearly every ruler in every medium sized political entity or larger for six centuries (death dates for all). On the one hand, this reads like a carefully presented popular account - until one realizes that is it deep, thoughtful, and very thorough. If I had been assigned this as a survey text earlier in my life I might have groaned a bit - but I would learn and remember. I have upped my rating from my first reaction.
This is not light bedtime reading (for most people) but it is effective history and I highly recommend the book.
February 21, 2022
A worthwhile read to those interested in the subject. Provides a comprehensive overview of an era of history often neglected in favor of the later medieval and earlier Roman periods. The inclusion of maps is a great addition for illustrating the setting of the the landscape in which the polities the book talks about took place in. The level of detail is immense, helping to convey to the reader to the intricacies of the polities that existed in the post Roman world and the relations ships between them (as far as they can be known, as stated in the book, in many regions the book covers primary sources are not abundant). I feel at times, the book has been “padded out”, making reading at times a little tedious. Never the less, it is still an interesting read, but an intense one.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 274 reviews