The Mediterranean World in Late Antiquity: AD 395-700 (The Routledge History of the Ancient World)

This is a well written and engaging history which makes excellent use of a variety of sources, including archaeological finds. It is a second edition and has been extensively revised and expanded to reflect the wealth of new material available. Published 2012.My only criticism is that I found the maps unclear and not as informative as they could be. Nevertheless I recommend this book as a fine introduction to the history of late antiquity,

The book was required by a professor as a textbook for a class on late antiquity. It's served as a good source of information and knowedlge for class discussion and papers.

Along with Late Antiquity by Perter brown, the stands as one of the most important books on the era.

Necessary text to begin to understand and appreciate the 3rdto4th century AD. Well written so an easy read for beginners.

This is a revised edition of a (relatively) old book, first printed in 1993 but which ends in AD 600 only. The revised edition goes on for another century in order to include the Arab Conquests which spelt the real “End of Antiquity” according to the author, and to the school of thought to which she belongs and of which she is one of the main representatives. As another reviewer mentioned, if you are looking for the up to date and more complete treatment, then you should go for this one, as opposed to the older version.Even if, at times, the author may not be entirely convincing, she does make a number of key points in this book which have become fairly standard about what is now called “Late Antiquity”, even if authors do not necessarily agree on the dates of this period (some make it begin in AD 284 with Diocletian, others with the reign of Constantine or even with the end of the reign of Marcus-Aurelius in AD 180).The first, of course, is that Antiquity and Roman culture, influence and civilisation did not abruptly end in AD 476. The Eastern half of the Roman Empire survived and would even attempt to reconquer the western half. The Western half, even if split into Germanic “Successor Kingdoms” was still very much subject to Roman influences and culture, especially around the Mediterranean.The second fact is that there were evolutions and adaptations to changing circumstances, with these containing both elements of continuity and elements of change, although the author does not seem to be quite able to make up her mind as to whether these were long-term trends, what they meant and how they came about. While these evolutions are well illustrated and are part of the “longue durée” analysis dear to Fernand Braudel and others, events should not totally be neglected either, and such neglect was the impression I got at times.The third element is this book is not really a narrative history covering the period but a thematic history. This has both advantages and limitations. Among the latter is the fact that to follow the author in her discussion, you would do better to have prior knowledge of the period. This knowledge will be particularly useful when reading through the thematic chapters on the city of Constantinople, the late Roman army, the Church, social structures and the economy, culture and mentality and urban change Only the latter chapters on the Persian Wars and the Arab Conquests and the chapter on Justinian come close to narrative history. An advantage, and probably the main reason for having chosen it, is that a thematic structure allows for each aspect to be analysed throughout the period and for elements of continuity and change to be more easily identified.While this is, as other reviewers have mentioned, a very good and at times an excellent thematic study of the Late Roman Empire during the 5th and 6th centuries AD, I could not raise much enthusiasm for it somehow. One reason might be that some topics, particular those related to religion, the Church, culture and mentality, were treated better, and perhaps even much better, than others. I was not, for instance, by the author’s treatment of the evolving institutions, starting with the army, while her treatment of Constantinople was no more than average. Although the author’s scholarship is undeniable, I could not help having a slight preference for “The Roman Empire Divided” by John Moorhead, which covers the same period (AD 400-700) in a somewhat similar way. Four stars.

The 7th-century Arab conquest of large chunks of the old Roman empire happened more quickly and easily than historians can explain with any confidence. Cities, garrisons surrendered without a fight; the process was relatively bloodless.The eastern Romans, or Byzantines, shouldn't have been such pushovers: A century earlier, they had become masters of North Africa, and only 10 years before Muhammad's death, they had scored an impressive, crippling victory over the Sasanids of Persia.In Cameron's view, the reasons for the speed and ease of the Arab conquest lie not in the traditional "Gibbon" argument of an empire in decline, or in religious differences between rulers and subject peoples. She focuses instead on the complex changes on the ground, affecting inhabitants of lands through which the Arabs moved.Before Muhammad, the Roman east was already experiencing profound cultural change, was becoming "Arabized." Having expended much blood and treasure on distant wars, the Romans hired Arab forces (often Ghassanid nomads) to patrol the empire's eastern frontiers. Financial crisis in Constantinople meant military payrolls weren't being met, so it's not surprising that Byzantine garrisons laid down their arms and Ghassanid troops changed sides.As Cameron notes, Arab victory came at "a time of rapid change," posing problems with which "we might identify in our own post-modern world."{A version of this review appeared in Saudi Aramco World, Mar/Apr 2004.]

This is a revised edition of a (relatively) old book, first printed in 1993 but which ends in AD 600 only. The revised edition goes on for another century in order to include the Arab Conquests which spelt the real “End of Antiquity” according to the author, and to the school of thought to which she belongs and of which she is one of the main representatives. As another reviewer mentioned, if you are looking for the up to date and more complete treatment, then you should go for this one, as opposed to the older version.Even if, at times, the author may not be entirely convincing, she does make a number of key points in this book which have become fairly standard about what is now called “Late Antiquity”, even if authors do not necessarily agree on the dates of this period (some make it begin in AD 284 with Diocletian, others with the reign of Constantine or even with the end of the reign of Marcus-Aurelius in AD 180).The first, of course, is that Antiquity and Roman culture, influence and civilisation did not abruptly end in AD 476. The Eastern half of the Roman Empire survived and would even attempt to reconquer the western half. The Western half, even if split into Germanic “Successor Kingdoms” was still very much subject to Roman influences and culture, especially around the Mediterranean.The second fact is that there were evolutions and adaptations to changing circumstances, with these containing both elements of continuity and elements of change, although the author does not seem to be quite able to make up her mind as to whether these were long-term trends, what they meant and how they came about. While these evolutions are well illustrated and are part of the “longue durée” analysis dear to Fernand Braudel and others, events should not totally be neglected either, and such neglect was the impression I got at times.The third element is this book is not really a narrative history covering the period but a thematic history. This has both advantages and limitations. Among the latter is the fact that to follow the author in her discussion, you would do better to have prior knowledge of the period. This knowledge will be particularly useful when reading through the thematic chapters on the city of Constantinople, the late Roman army, the Church, social structures and the economy, culture and mentality and urban change Only the latter chapters on the Persian Wars and the Arab Conquests and the chapter on Justinian come close to narrative history. An advantage, and probably the main reason for having chosen it, is that a thematic structure allows for each aspect to be analysed throughout the period and for elements of continuity and change to be more easily identified.While this is, as other reviewers have mentioned, a very good and at times an excellent thematic study of the Late Roman Empire during the 5th and 6th centuries AD, I could not raise much enthusiasm for it somehow. One reason might be that some topics, particular those related to religion, the Church, culture and mentality, were treated better, and perhaps even much better, than others. I was not, for instance, by the author’s treatment of the evolving institutions, starting with the army, while her treatment of Constantinople was no more than average. Although the author’s scholarship is undeniable, I could not help having a slight preference for “The Roman Empire Divided” by John Moorhead, which covers the same period (AD 400-700) in a somewhat similar way. Four stars.

Typical Cameron - excellent. Good service from the seller.

A good and detailed account . A bit academic but useful when I doing a course on Late Antiquity.