The End of Empire: Attila the Hun & the Fall of Rome

Although I ordered this book with misgivings about someone building a portrait of Attila from the two dozen or so ancient sources even mentioning Attila, I was enormously pleased with the author's scholarship. The reader must remember that the Huns left no written accounts of their own, essentially no archaeological evidence, and everything written about them came strictly from their enemies. So accounts like Ammianus Marcellinus' (who never saw a Hun) describing them with flattened skulls, misshapen bodies, evil appearances, etc., etc., must be taken with very large grains of salt. Even their horses were supposedly ugly. The author strives mightly to present the probable truth, and is probably as successful as a researcher at this distance can be. The litmus test for me came early with the author's treatment of cranial deformations to identify the Huns. Although this was a practice of certain steppe dwellers and has been associated with the Alans, whether of not the Huns practiced this is questionable. Amazingly (to me), the author addresses this issue, and in his end notes actually points out that if the process was to beautify, then high ranking Huns like Attila and his wives would have undergone this practice. But no eyewitness description of Attila mentions such a deformation! The author therefore mentions this practice as occurring among the Huns, but carefully retreats from using it as a means of identifying them. Frankly, this is scholarship at its best, and not just because the author agrees with me. Although the author's careful use and non-use of certain sources might put off some readers, this work is probably as accurate as possible for a modern researcher. Only a couple of other writers have performed anywhere nearly as well, most notable Otto Maenchen-Helfen. The end notes must be read along with the text, and my only criticism of this work is that they should have been placed at the end of each chapter for the reader's convenience. In some places the author was forced to explain why he didn't use certain information a given ancient source, or how he came to certain conclusions based of several contradictory sources and convient end notes would have been helpful. The author is a modern-day detective analyzing the evidence, carefully qualifying his conclusions, and then writing a narrative that is understandable by all. For this he is to be greatly commended. As an example of the author's analysis, please note that he finds that the Huns fared rather poorly in battle with the main Roman armies although they could and did destroy cities protected by static garrisons while the tactical Roman armies were otherwise occupied. The Goths did better, as at Adrianopole. This is certainly not what is ususally conveyed or understood by conventional wisdom, but is true nevertheless. As a result, it is hardly the case that Attila brought an end to the Western Roman Empire, but he did give it a shove toward its ultimate demise. At the end of the book the author lists twenty-two ancient sources and their modern editions and translations. The reader is invited to check these sources as I did in several instances to test the author's thoroughness and accuracy. This work passed all tests for accuracy and analysis with flying colors, something almost incredible for a modern book. I don't mean to gush over this book like a schoolgirl reading her first Gothic romance, but I can't praise this work too highly. I recommend it to all readers interested in the late Roman Empire, the rise of the Byzantine Empire, and the invasions of the Barbarians into Western Europe. It is wonderfully written, clear, and conveys a portrait of the times that is easily understandable. It also should give American readers pause in considering a political option like buying off threatening powers (such as North Korea.) It didn't work with the Huns, and frankly I can't offer a single incidence in Western History where buying off one's enemies worked. Even the Danes ultimately wanted more than their "Danegelt" from England. All in all, this is a very fine work, worthy of five stars plus.

I found this to be a very fascinating and well-researched book covering the final years of the Western Roman Empire. Christopher Kelly was very even-handed in his presentation of both the Romans and the "Barbarians". The narrative of how the Huns, Goths, Vandals and Romans played-off and paid-off one another would make for a great political novel. Attila and the Huns accomplished more with the sacking of a few cities and towns than they ever did in open battle against the Romans. Attila was capable of reading his enemies and knowing when to attack and when to demand tribute. A very good overview of the personalitites and the time period.Why did this book only receive four stars? I read the Kindle edition and unfortunately it does not contain the figures that are referenced throughout the text. This is no fault of the author but I can't give the Kindle edition five stars for this oversight.

Given the ubiquity of references to Attila and the Huns as the scourge of the west and a primary cause of the fall of the Roman empire - and the subtitle of this book itself - I had expected something like a biography of Attila. Interestingly, Attila himself doesn't even appear until about 1/3 of the way into this book. I hadn't realized that so little is known about either Attila or the Huns, and that little is almost exclusively from Roman writings. Given that lack, this author did an excellent job of piecing together the few 'knowns' in readable form without dumbing down. He does occasionally resort to the speculative 'certainly...', and 'surely...', and 'we can imagine...' constructions but these lapses are minimal. And, greatly appreciated by this highly skeptical reader, his speculations are generally supported in the end notes by cited evidence. I agree with another reviewer that the end notes really should have appeared at the end of each chapter, or even, despite the annoyance, as footnotes, because they are so indispensable to the narrative itself. Discussions of the activities of the Goths and Vandals in the same time frame - and the Persians in the east - whetted my appetite for more reading in this quite complex era. Not having ever paid much attention to this historical period, I was particularly impressed by the 'modernity' of the politics and subtlety of the actors. Also, the book does shed light on the great importance of the Goth and Vandal movements relative to the short-lived impact of the Hun activities. All in all, a riveting read.

I knew I needed to know more about just what brought Rome down. This is a well-researched and nicely written book that delivers. It is more of an academic tract but it stays right with the facts. You cannot help but see the constant way humans acted then and still do act. So glad I found it!

A surprisingly easy read. This book is a must-buy.

Christopher Kelly's book entitled 'The End of Empire: Attila the Hun & the Fall of Rome'(2009) is well written with an excellent section for Notes & Further Reading at the back. I couldn't decide whether it would provide an excellent introduction or was better suited to the more knowledgeable reader. I would place myself in the latter category and could easily follow the shifts in perspective and date which confronts the reader. It's all there - assessment of evidence, lengthy quotations from sources, worthwhile maps - but you need a firm grip on the saddle before you mount this pony.Kelly dissects the traditional view of the Huns. He quotes Ammianus' description at length (PP 23-25) before demolishing whole sections of it, excusing it partly as the normal distortions produced by 'civilised' writers when describing 'barbarians' outside their control. He could have added the European Imperialist commentaries on the peoples of Africa etc. He rejects the identification of the Huns with the Xiongnu who plagued China in the 1st century CE - he doesn't mention 'White Huns' who are sometimes muddled into that mix of central Asian peoples whose activities brought such headaches to their neighbours over millenia. He rejects the classification of Huns as purely nomadic, arguing they established themselves on the Hungarian Plain in the 4th century CE. He insists that small groups of Huns were actively involved in the affairs of the Roman Empire during the century preceding the rise of Attila, producing authoritative references to support his argument.What singles out Attila is his unification of Hunnish effort, just as Genghis Khan united the Mongol clans c. 1200 into a fearsome military force. Unlike the Mongols the Huns retained their empire for not much more than a generation - although the rapid decay of the Ilkhans compared to the Yuen Dynasty in China might suggest a similar reason for failure, the existence of effective competition.The centre-piece of the book is the embassy sent in 449 to Attila, of which an extensive (but savagely doctored) account by Priscus, planning to produce a 'History of Attila', survives .I have long known about the embassy but I never knew that it was a mask for a plot to secure Attila's assassination. From the start, the plot was betrayed and Attila played with the embassy for his own benefit. Kelly uses what survives to stress how much the Huns were not the barbarian monsters described by Ammianus but had a degree of civilisation and, in some ways, a higher ethical standard than the Romans. What Kelly overlooks is that Ammianus Marcellinus (c. 325- c.390) was writing at least fifty years before the events described here. The Huns had been in close contact with Rome for almost three generations and there must have been considerable changes in the way of life. Even so, the account of the embassy is tense and highly descriptive and by itself would recommend the work. Of course, many details, especially much of the outcome, is unknown due to lack of resources and open to speculation. Kelly is well prepared to offer such, usually with sound reasoning and exploitation of what sources do remain. It is clear that, throughout the book, Kelly would line up with Jordanes in stating: 'Beneath his great savagery Attila was a subtle man, and fought with diplomacy before he went to war' (quoted P. 237). This may be true as Attila was a great opportunist, with the ability to apply pressure as and when he wished. Consequently, one might ask how would he have dealt with Rome under a ruler like Trajan and not one mired in muddle and decay, beset by the threat formerly called the Volkerwanderung - note Kelly's thesis of GRADUAL Hun intervention undermines that traditional picture? For Kelly Attila is the hero (and Aetius the villain) and one senses his disappointment that: 'Attila the Hun, one of the most enemies in the history of the Roman empire, collapsed drunk in bed and died of a nosebleed.'Of course, some critics might question the space given to Roman struggles vs. the Vandals (Africa) or the Parthians in the East but, as Kelly insists, these distractions added to the impact of the Huns. Similarly Gibbon put down a major cause of Rome's ruin as Christianity and reading about the influence of monks, 'perpetual virgins' and other hangers-on in the fifth century, one can see his point. Centuries of luxury, corruption and internecine strife had changed Rome from the society that had successfully defied Hannibal six hundred years before.What criticisms reduce this excellent book to 4 stars? Kelly doesn't give sufficient attention to Attila's last years.Minor irritations are the anachronisms of 'France' and 'England' instead of Gaul and Britannia. Also Kelly occasionally enjoys sentences like, "In the golden throne room of the Great Palace in Constantinople, Theodosius sat in sullen silence' (P. 127). Those are the words of the novelist not the historian. Some might object to an intrusion of speculation rather than fact on some occasions. A chart of Emperors, certain family trees and a glossary of specialist terms would have been useful. Perhaps more direct references to the Notes so they become End Notes would have helped. I missed a review of some of stories appearing in past accounts - Aetius's period as a hostage of the Huns, Attila's friendship with Aetius for many years and St. Leo's meeting with Attila gets short shrift. These tales may border on the ridiculous but why do they appear in older accounts? Even so all these criticisms are but pin-pricks in an excellent view of the 'Scourge of God'.Kelly states that 'history should continually seek to challenge our assumptions. It should prompt us to look differently at the world and make us less self-assured about our own ideals and belief." He certainly does that in this book. He describes the collapse of Hunnish power as so rapid that the reader wonders whether it really was just a question of smoke and mirrors. To underline that impression Kelly describes how Attila, wrongly in his opinion, has been used as the barbaric image to civilisation throughout the centuries. He questions how far Roman and barbarian really were divided in the fifth century. Perhaps, in the end, his picture of Attila is that produced for everyman by a mirror - with suitable distortion of course!

great piece of history

Having set out to learn more about Attila the Hun and how he fits into the disintegration of the Roman Empire, I picked up this book and, in the great gambling game of books, came out winning with this brilliant work. The End of Empire provides a narrative sweep from the entrance of the Huns onto the European stage to the death of Attila and the fragmentation of the Hunnic kingdom.Aside from telling the main story with a remarkably light and entertaining touch, Kelly brings out the lesser known realm-building side of Attila's reign. His colourful presentation can, however, also sometimes blur the lines between information gleaned from primary sources and his own glosses and interpretative dramatizations. His epilogue, entitled Reputations, is an incredibly interesting and thought provoking look at the use of the Hun legacy and the lessons of Attila's story for the modern day.The work is mercifully concise, at 292 pages of text, and provides an extensive 37 pages of further reading and primary sources. These two factors, sometimes forgotten, are sure to be appreciated by armchair historians everywhere.

Bought this item as a present for my dad, very pleased with the book.deliverd on time and easy to order.