---
product_id: 66679726
title: "Rome Resurgent: War and Empire in the Age of Justinian (Ancient Warfare and Civilization)"
brand: "peter heather"
price: "VT13083"
currency: VUV
in_stock: true
reviews_count: 8
url: https://www.desertcart.vu/products/66679726-rome-resurgent-war-and-empire-in-the-age-of-justinian
store_origin: VU
region: Vanuatu
---

# Rome Resurgent: War and Empire in the Age of Justinian (Ancient Warfare and Civilization)

**Brand:** peter heather
**Price:** VT13083
**Availability:** ✅ In Stock

## Quick Answers

- **What is this?** Rome Resurgent: War and Empire in the Age of Justinian (Ancient Warfare and Civilization) by peter heather
- **How much does it cost?** VT13083 with free shipping
- **Is it available?** Yes, in stock and ready to ship
- **Where can I buy it?** [www.desertcart.vu](https://www.desertcart.vu/products/66679726-rome-resurgent-war-and-empire-in-the-age-of-justinian)

## Best For

- peter heather enthusiasts

## Why This Product

- Trusted peter heather brand quality
- Free international shipping included
- Worldwide delivery with tracking
- 15-day hassle-free returns

## Description

Full description not available

## Images

![Rome Resurgent: War and Empire in the Age of Justinian (Ancient Warfare and Civilization) - Image 1](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/514F6BMYkNL.jpg)

## Customer Reviews

### ⭐⭐⭐⭐ 







  
  
    Half-engaged, half-disappointed
  

*by D***O on Reviewed in the United States on October 17, 2018*

Half of this book showcases Peter Heather's strengths, which were abundant in his previous work "Empires and Barbarians" and make up the beginning and end of this work. He does an exceptional job analyzing the geopolitics and broader patterns within the Eastern Roman Empire. Critically, he spends several pages discussing how emperors earn authority, given that they were subject to frequent usurpation. Besides exploring a fascinating if understudied subject, this analysis forms the backbone of the thesis of this work: Justinian's wars of conquest in the central and Western Mediterranean were not nearly as planned as have previously been suggested, and were instead a last-ditch gambit to cement his authority after a series of disasters in the Middle East. At the end of this book he then discusses the implications of these wars and the effect they had on reshaping the Mediterranean world - eg, the depopulation of Rome and the Italian peninsula. However, neither topic comes remotely close to the kind of detail we as readers were spoiled with in "Empires and Barbarians", and I personally would have loved to read ~400 pages of analysis on the broader geopolitical and cultural forces that shaped Justinian's reign, as well as the implications of his reign.Instead the middle 200 or so pages detail the wars that define that time period, namely against the Persians, the Vandals, and the Goths. Heather focuses on the actual military actions that define these wars, focusing on troop deployment, maneuvering, casualties, etc. Unfortunately, true to his background as a historian, he cannot provide too many details on these battles, because most of what we know from them comes from a single source (credit where credit is due: Heather does qualify many of his commentaries by suggesting where this source was during a particular battle, or how his opinion may have changed over the course of his lifetime). While reading this I often lost track of how many years had passed between certain events, since battles and sieges are rattled off in rapid succession. The most disappointing bit, though: the fascinating characters that define this period, Justinian and his wife Theodora, are virtually absent throughout this portion of the book. In fact the very idea of specific characters, with personalities and idiosyncrasies that influence events around them, seems to have been deprioritized (I will say that this was also the case in "Empires and Barbarians", but those shortcomings were more than compensated by his comprehensive analysis of the trends defining that time and place). Characters like Solomon, Chosroes, and Totila appear suddenly and cease to be mentioned when they exit the world stage, with limited examinations of why they may have taken certain courses of action or preferred certain strategies.In short, it seems that this is trying to be two books at once: a serious review of the geopolitical and cultural trends leading up to and following Justinian's thirty-year reign, as well as a short review of the wars throughout that reign. In my mind, Heather excels at the first and does a decent job of the second. With the exception at the occasional potshots toward contemporary politicians, it is very well written and engaging. However, in juggling these two roles, it does not provide the details on either subject that members of a target audience might crave.

### ⭐⭐⭐⭐ 







  
  
    A good review of Justinian's efforts to rebuild the Roman Empire
  

*by B***R on Reviewed in the United States on November 28, 2018*

The topic of this book has attracted a lot of interest: to what extent, if at all, were the extensive foreign campaigns of Justinian (reigned 527-565 CE) counterproductive in causing the Roman Empire long-term weaknesses, especially in the realm of military defense? This is a difficult question that requires a differentiated answer. The conquest by Belisarius of North Africa, for instance, was almost painless against the Vandal occupiers; but the Gothic wars in Italy were devastating. As Heather correctly describes it, Constantinople was faced by enemies on three fronts: the Persians to the East, the Vandals and Goths to the West, and the various tribes in the Balkans; and the capital city was not always successful in managing all three simultaneously. Heather's arguments, which are based not only on literary sources but also on the increasing body of archaeological evidence, do not point conclusively in one direction or another, but do suggest that Justinian set a very high bar that, at the least, his successors were far short of reaching. I thought the first chapter, on the role of military victory in legitimizing central authority, was especially helpful in thinking about the reasons for Justinian's aggressive policies.

### ⭐⭐⭐⭐ 







  
  
    A neo-realist analysis of the Wars of Justinian
  

*by M***M on Reviewed in the United States on July 6, 2018*

Rome Resurgent, Peter Heather's fourth book on the Roman Empire, may perhaps be legitimately characterized as a conversation between the author and Procopius of Caesarea mediated through Kenneth Waltz's ideas put forth in Man, the State and War. Even at a remove of a millenium and a half, Procopius looms large in this book and hence, any review must necessarily give a context to him and his works which form the basis on which this book (and really, any book that deals with the topic) is written.Procopius of Caesarea was jurist educated and trained in the classical Roman mould who served as legal advisor to Belisarius, Justinian's brilliant general who led the extraordinary campaigns that dominated the emperor's reign. He wrote a chronicle of the various wars of the regime across multiple fronts (North Africa and Italy as part of the 'reconquest' and Persia as part of super-power rivalry) that lasted the best part of two decades and generated significant upheaval in the Empire. More intriguingly, he also wrote one of the most striking books of antiquity, the so-called Secret History that was an unbelievably subversive account of the imperial regime in Constantinople (I have also written a review of the Secret History). If the Wars saw Procopius as an official chronicler, straying between being laudatory to sometimes neutral in his narration of the various campaigns, in the Secret History (SH), Procopius produces a no-holds barred polemic that is clearly the work of a man thoroughly disillusioned with the misery and suffering engendered by the wars of  callous regime. In the SH, Procopius' protagonists are incompetent, greedy, vicious, vile and debauched and the human suffering caused by their actions is put down to their inherent evil - a 'classical realist' explanation in the sense that the actions and injustices of a state were seen as the reflection of the flawed and sinful nature of their rulers. Even allowing for the exaggeration that ancient authors were known for and which was why some of their more sensational claims were discounted, it must be acknowledged that the Secret History has weighed heavily on all subsequent evaluations of Justinian - the shadow of the SH has always followed the impressive accomplishments that the regime claimed for itself - Justinian may have authorised the most influential legal codebooks in history, established one of the most impressive architectural monuments in the form of the Hagia Sofia, briefly reconquered both North Africa and Italy for the Roman Empire and fought the Persians to draw, yet the lasting legacy of the SH has always ensured that even the most committed Romano-philes hesitate before addressing him as Justinian the 'great'.Coming to Rome Resurgent itself, Peter Heather attempts to re-evaluate the reign of Justinian and his actions through a lens of the political system in which he operated rather than through the prism of his character. In that sense, his overall thesis is that Justinian's actions were a natural and ultimately rational outcome of the 'state system' facing any emperor of the time - this thesis borrows heavily from Kenneth Waltz's 'three image' system of analysing war - the first image being the nature of an individual, the second image being the internal structure of a state and the third image being the anarchical state system. Heather's analysis emphasises the second image in analysing Justinian's policies and minimizes, almost to the point of discarding, the first image - in other words, Justinian's actions can only be understood by analysing the internal political structure of the Roman Empire, the paradoxically precarious position of the autocratic emperor and the inherent instability of regimes which were always vulnerable to overthrow. Most importantly, in keeping with Waltz's neo-realist principles, the nature of the individual in charge is almost irrelevant to the actions of the state and the author keeps this as the central principle of his thesis, applying a 'second-image' realist analysis to the actions of Justinian, without ever explicitly referring to neo-realism by name.The author's line of analysis commences by characterising the inherent instability of the Roman imperial system itself, where the emperor was unquestioned autocrat and was legitimized by the claim of divine favour that was the foundation of all good that happened to the Empire, primarily manifesting itself as victory in war and prosperity. As a logical converse, failure in war served to thoroughly delegitimize imperial regimes and would spark off plots of assassination and usurpation. The political system of the Roman Empire invested the emperor with 'imperium' and 'maiestas' - the authority to wage war and extend the borders of empire - hence war making, albeit successful war-making, was perhaps the most critical role of an emperor.Viewed in such light, Justinian's bellicosity can be understood in terms of his experience of the instability that accompanied the series of successions before he came on the throne and his extremely shaky position after the Nika riots where his own troops slaughtered the residents of Constantinople. To highlight to his subjects that he was a legitimate ruler, he sought war with the Persians soon after coming on the throne and then sought a small victory in the West to quell unrest in the wake of the Nika riots. Thus, far removed from having any natural predilection for war or a grand strategy aiming to reconquer the 'West', Peter Heather makes a very convincing argument that his military strategy in North Africa and Italy was gradualist and opportunistic. Initially seeking a quick victory in a limited conflict for domestic propaganda, a run of luck combined with the skills of Belisarius and the structural weaknesses of his opponents soon morphed into a commitment to total war and reconquest for prestige purposes.If matters had ended here, there would be no equivocation - Justinian would be hailed as a genius, Procopius would have remained laudatory and he might have ended the Wars with a celebration of the triumph of Rome and the Secret History would never have been written. What complicated matters was the reaction engineered by the wars of Justinian - winning territory was far easier than retaining it and North Africa quickly degenerated into rebellions and raids by Berbers, a new generation of Gothic leaders in Italy fought back extremely strongly and the Persians decided to take advantage of Roman preoccupation in the West to start another series of destructive wars that impacted urban communities in the Near East. Justinian's wars now generated reactions out of proportion to the original intent of strengthening an emperor's standing at home - it was this cycle of violence that took decades to control, generated unimaginable misery, led to the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives and turned Procopius decisively against the regime - if the Wars was born from the initial triumph of Justinian's conquests, the Secret History was born from the misery and despondency that accompanied the seemingly never-ending cycle of secondary violence that was precipitated by Justinian's wars.In a surprising turn for a military historian, the actual campaigns are narrated in a straightforward manner, almost a simple retelling of the Wars (one can see this on the Notes pages where entire pages refer simply to various chapters from Procopius' book) - but it is clear that the intent is not to give a thorough battlefield account. The book is an evaluation of Justinian as he fits in the political tradition of the Roman Empire, hence, the initial third of the book is not even concerned with Justinian but touches upon the very important points of the political system of Rome and the role of the Emperor and the instability preceding the accession of Justinian. The middle of the book is a broadly chronological retelling of the campaigns where Justinian is surprisingly absent or merely an ephemeral presence in the background for large parts of the narration - the protagonist here is Belisarius the general, Justinian is mentioned almost only in passing when he takes a major decision or sends instructions to Belisarius. In some ways, it is quite appropriate for the tone of the book wherein Justinian is often portrayed as acting within the constraints of a system imposed on him rather than possessing overwhelming agency himself.In the final few chapters of the book, the author attempts to summarize his evaluation and concedes upfront that in terms of human misery and the avoidable loss of lives, Justinian's wars were indefensible. However, from the point of what being an emperor entailed, they were understandable and he diverges most sharply from Procopius in the economic assessment - whereas for Procopius, Justinian's wars were not just a waste of money but they also created unbearable tax burdens, in the author's assessment, prosperity probably returned soon to the war devastated provinces after an admittedly long period of structural adjustment and over the century or so where these territories were held by Rome, the conquests paid themselves off. I am a lot less convinced of the economic argument because a state fiscus can be made to look good by taxing the populace to death - and Justinian's successor immediately brought down taxes upon accession, possibly an admission that taxes were very high - however, I do agree with the author that the recaptured territories were probably not a desolate landscape of misery, death and resentment as depicted by Procopious (though within the lifetime of Procopius that was probably closer to the truth - even Peter Heather acknowledges that the territories paid for themselves in the 'long run' - Procopius probably died within a decade of the final pacification of Italy so from his perspective he saw the ruin of these provinces and not their revival). In the author's assessment, the actions of Justinian probably didn't undermine the empire fatally either economically or militarily to explain its eventual capitulation to the Arabs - here I am not so convinced. I agree that positing long chains of causation across centuries is problematic - in that line of reasoning it is sometimes possible to make absurd assertions such as ultimate responsibility of the Holocaust lying with Napoleon because without his campaigns a unified German state may never have emerged. However, I think Peter Heather understates the extent to which destabilizing events in the Balkans were engineered by Justinian's moves - in the author's assessment, the rise of the Avar Empire and the Slavification of the Balkans cannot be blamed on Justinian's policies whereas I am not so sure - I do think that Justinian's games of chess with various steppe nomads eventually did engineer the geopolitical currents that changed the situation in the Balkans and Danubian plains that came to a denouement in the reign of his successors. However, in perhaps an abrupt volte-face in literally the last paragraph of the book, after spending a whole chapter seemingly exculpating Justinian, Peter Heather states that Justinian's policies made bellicosity towards Persia and the nomadic tribes a sin-qua-non for any emperor that followed - Justinian's successors had a legacy of war to live upto and they couldn't afford to cool down temperatures for fear of appearing weak for their domestic constituency - this sparked off the nearly fifty year cycle of war between Rome and Persia that ultimately brought down both Empires and hence, in the final final summary, the author does hold Justinian responsible for the fall - or at least demotion to regional power status - of the Eastern Roman Empire - an assessment that brings Peter Heather unexpectedly closer to my - and possibly Procopius' - assessment of Justinian.I began this review with a discussion about Procopius and I cannot end it without him. While Peter Heather comes across as a very fine and thoughtful writer, Procopius really shines through. If the author does a good job of explaining Justinian's actions through a realist paradigm, one most also concede that in writing the SH, Procopius in his own way questioned autocracy and despotism in a way that almost pre-figures John Locke and his social contract theory. It must be remembered that Procopius was writing in a time when the Emperor was almost unquestionable on account of his divine sanction - Procopius in his SH challenges people to imagine how could a person who brought about so much misery for his own ambition and lust for power be divinely appointed? I believe that it is in this vein one must read the SH - as a challenge to the divine claims that served to legitimize unchecked and absolute power. There is much debate about Procopius' motives in writing the SH, with Anthony Kaldellis stating the maximalist position that his aim was to engineer an overthrow - Peter Heather is rightly skeptical of such claims but doesn't really advance an alternative. In my mind, I think the SH needs to be read as a counter to imperial propaganda - Procopius was well aware that imperial self-promotion would emphasize Justinian's success in War and his grand buildings and he wasn't going to allow posterity to forget the human misery that were lay on the obverse. Procopius wrote the book - literally - on the regimes Wars and Buildings - in my view, the SH was his aim to balance the balance sheet on Justinian; in emphasising that a regime be measured by the totality of its actions, in particular as they impacted people who had otherwise no outlet to make their misery known, Procopius was remarkably sensitive to the idea of telling 'history from below'. Plenty of ancient historians condemned unsuccessful emperors or condemned emperors who were safely enconsced in their graves - Procopius is the only writer who wrote a blistering critique of a successful emperor while he was alive. In my mind, for his fearlessness in even putting down such incendiary thoughts to paper in an age of imperial absolutism, it is Procopius who deserves the sobriquet of 'Great' - far more than a Justinian could.

---

## Why Shop on Desertcart?

- 🛒 **Trusted by 1.3+ Million Shoppers** — Serving international shoppers since 2016
- 🌍 **Shop Globally** — Access 737+ million products across 21 categories
- 💰 **No Hidden Fees** — All customs, duties, and taxes included in the price
- 🔄 **15-Day Free Returns** — Hassle-free returns (30 days for PRO members)
- 🔒 **Secure Payments** — Trusted payment options with buyer protection
- ⭐ **TrustPilot Rated 4.5/5** — Based on 8,000+ happy customer reviews

**Shop now:** [https://www.desertcart.vu/products/66679726-rome-resurgent-war-and-empire-in-the-age-of-justinian](https://www.desertcart.vu/products/66679726-rome-resurgent-war-and-empire-in-the-age-of-justinian)

---

*Product available on Desertcart Vanuatu*
*Store origin: VU*
*Last updated: 2026-03-08*