Product Description

A military history of the campaigns of Belisarius, the greatest general of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Emperor Justinian. He twice defeated the Persians and reconquered North Africa from the Vandals in a single year at the age of 29, before going on to regain Spain and Italy, including Rome (briefly), from the barbarians. It discusses the evolution from classical Roman to Byzantine armies and systems of warfare, as well as those of their chief enemies, the Persians, Goths and Vandals. It reassesses Belisarius' generalship and compares him with the likes of Caesar, Alexander and Hannibal. It will be illustrated with line drawings and battle plans as well as photographs.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #131955 in Books
• Published on: 2009-01-15
• Original language: English
• Binding: Hardcover
• 224 pages

Customer Reviews

A worthy introduction of Belisarius as a general!
Well, I finished the book three days ago ...

It is a good narrative / chronological history of this enigmatic figure Belisarius with an emphasis on analyzing the battles from a strategic / tactical point of view: in short a picture of Belisarius as a general. It gives a good account of the problems the byzantine empire had to face in the east with the persians, in the south with the vandals and in Italy with the goths. The authors interpretation that Justinian didn`t have any "masterplan" about regaining the lost west is also plausible. Justinian more or less just reacted to the opportunities opened due to the internal weakness of his enemies and serving his domestic politics at the same time.

One thing I noticed that the roman arms & armour depicted on the book are a bit "4th centurish" but then again we unfortunately don`t have very clear evidence of the arms and armament of the army of Belisarius at that time. Anyway in my opinion his army could have looked more or less like the armies of his enemies rather than wearing Intercisa / Burgh Castle-type helmets etc. The evidence on arms / armour of the byzantine army of this period is unfortunately sparse.

Anyway a good read, recommended to anyone interested in Belisarius especially as a general and strategist of a late roman / byzantine army.

Recommended!

Not Perfect, But the Best Biography Available on a Great Man
First off, this book is a military history. Viewing it as anything else is going to be counterproductive. If you want a straight biography then you're just going to have to wait, or else you can read Lord Mahon's biography from the 1820s.

So, the good points first. As a military biography it works. It works quite well in fact. Thanks to Procopius we have a great deal more information on Belisarius' career than on anyone else in that century. Certainly more than we have for any non-Emperor. And Hughes understanding of the military aspect of his career is almost flawless. The book progresses in chronological order starting with a chapter on the political situation in Western Europe at the time. It details what little is known about Belisarius' past and private life as well as the lives of the other major players in the book. Some of this information is really thrust at you. A rather longer introduction would probably have been advisable. This section is definitely the weakest in the book. Once it gets onto his battles though, things start to pick up. Each battle has a diagram of the troop formations which is immensely helpful in following what happens during battles. The battle descriptions are easy to understand and the author makes clear their context in the whole war. Throughout Belisarius comes across as an inspired military leader and an expert strategist, although Hughes believes that his tactical ability was not as great as some of Rome's early generals. There are a number of rather nice illustrations, but several of them are reconstructions and several more are taken from other books. It gives the book a hastily thrown together look and I wonder if there was a deadline involved.

The weaknesses of this book come about where it tries to be anything other than a military history. The political situation is rather rushed through (Although he does have interesting thoughts about Belisarius' wife Antonia and where she fit in) and the economic and social conditions are barely mentioned. This is the only reason I rate this book as less than five stars. If it had billed itself as a purely military biography I'd have given it that extra one. The other issue in terms of the Italian war is that it only covers the section where Belisarius is directly involved. There is an obvious reason for that, but it does make it confusing when he goes back. I'd recommend this book be read in conjunction with The Gothic War to get the full picture.

One of Rome's greatest generals - or was he?
A very different beast to Lord Mahon's biography of Belisarius, this is a work very much for the military history enthusiast concentrating on the battles and campaigns of Belisarius with appropriate maps and battle plans. Everything else of the period is surplus to requirements unless it impinges directly on the campaigns.

The level of scholarship is variable. Often quite detailed, Hughes will gives references to Procopius by book and chapter (though by the time he is covering the latter stages of the Gothic wars, you get the feeling that he has perhaps given up a little and is simply rewording Procopius rather than giving his copy too much thought).

Sometimes he can be a bit contrary with his regard to requirements for accuracy. In the introduction he declines to use Greek transliterations of proper names but insists on continuation of use of the Latin forms because they regarded themselves as Roman (an argument somewhat undermined by many of the Latin forms being Anglicised); but conversely he insists on updating Persian names to more modern transliterations on grounds of accuracy, sniffily remarking with a politically correct flourish - which he denies - that using the inaccurate Latin forms shows disrespect for Persian culture (he further undermines his own argument here in that very paragraph by incorrectly saying that the Eastern Romans/Byzantines of the period called themselves "Romanoi" when in fact they called themselves "Rhomaioi").

At times there is pure speculation though. He tries to get away with statements along the lines of "Vandals would have used the traditional large circular shield" without adducing any evidence in support of this, though to be fair there are other times when he will admit that there is no evidence one way or another and present the alternative suggestions made by other military historians.

Overall you wonder whether Hughes really does regard Belisarius as a great general. He seems to regard his record against Persia as one which would get a Premiership football manager summarily sacked, views his victorious campaign in Africa as being frankly downright lucky, and concedes that he probably showed more skill against the Goths whilst still requiring a considerable amount of good fortune. This approach, whilst undoubtedly being closer to the truth than the standard analysis of Belisarius, doesn't really fit in with the dust jacket blurb.

A decent book for the military enthusiast, but beware the occasional deviation from rigorous analysis on arms, armour & tactics.