Christopher Kelly (1) (1964–)

The opening chapter is good, as is the one about Christians being thrown to the lions: "Treating Christians like criminals missed the central point of Christianity. It obscured its fundamental reliance on language, on the scriptures, on the Word" (94). But the other discussions are either too tangential or esoteric in subject matter. This really isn't an introduction to the Roman Empire as much as seven topics that the author finds interesting. Out of the seven, I enjoyed three.

There's no real narrative of how the empire became as such or how it fell (or survived in the east).

By the way, this series from Oxford UP is a great idea but the writing always seems a shade too academic.… (mer)

As other reviewers have noted, this is not a chronological overview of Roman imperial history--in fact, a basic background knowledge of Roman history is prerequisite to approaching this text. It is, however, an excellent concise treatment of some of the most important themes of Roman history and historiogaphy: the Romans' sense of their own imperial mission; the economic structure of the empire; the influence of Christianity; the way "Rome" has been reinvented throughout history to serve the needs of the moment (Kelly looks in particular at Mussolini's Italy and various cinematic Romes). It might not be Roman History 101, but this is an excellent resource for understanding why and not just how and when.… (mer)

In writing about Attila The Hun the popular historian is faced with one major problem; there just isn't much source material to work with. The battles are known, but the motivations and personality of a leader who managed to rule most of Northern Europe albeit for a brief period, are not. The vast majority of contemporary accounts are lost to us - and how frustrating it is that no eyewitness accounts of , for example, the meeting of Attila and Pope Leo, survive. Never the less, Kelly does an excellent job in bringing Attila, and the short lived Hun Empire, to life. He draws heavily on the work of Priscus, a Roman scholar who was part of an embassy to Attila's court. Although little of Priscus' 8 volume History of Attila survives, the little that does is illuminating as Priscus clearly had no interest in demonising Attila as the half human barbarian most classical writers depicted him as. Attila comes across as sophisticated and a master tactician; well aware of the weakness of the Western Roman Empire he alternately allies with them, extorts them, traps them and attacks them. Kelly presents Attila as cruel when he needed to be, a master in holding his warlike nation together, but ultimately a "Prince" of whom Machiavelli would have approved

In fact the title of the book is something of a misnomer. The Huns did not cause the end of the Empire; the Vandals, the Goths and the decision of Constantine to split the Empire between East and West (with the East having greater income and less threat) did that. But they certainly rapidly accelerated its demise. In less than a generation from the death of Attila , the last Roman Emperor was peacefully deposed; much like the last Emperor of China he just wasn't important enough to bother assassinating.

This is an excellent read; if at times Kelly goes down some interesting, but not especially relevant byways, such as about Gothic and Hunnic jewellery making skills, we know this is to make up for the lack of direct source material. He's painting a picture of a time and place that have long been hidden. He does it very well indeed… (mer)