The book is a compilation of 30 essays on various aspects of Gallic history in the 5th century. The purpose of this compilation is to find out whether 5th Century Gauls felt that they belonged to the Roman Empire, and to what extent ("Crisis of Identity"). In some case, the question is more a rhetorical pretext for an impressive display of scholarship.

The sources are abundantly commented : Salvian of Marseilles, Sidonius Apollinaris, Paulinus of Pella, Hydatius, Gallic Chronicle of 452... There are essays on burial techniques, Visigothic coinage, Bagaudae, Military defense of Gaul, the Visigothic settlement of 418, Gauls visiting the Holy Land, Slavery and much more. The book pre-supposes some knowledge of the period because you will not find a summary of 5th Century history. Some essays are fascinating, some are a bit on the technical side for an amateur like me. Lots and lots of footnotes, extensive bibliography.

This book is absolutely fantastic. For all those university students interested in Late Antiquity, or anyone with a general interest in Gallic History. It provides clear, authoritative articles by the world's most knowledgeable historians on the subject. It is thematic which is fantastic for a period such as this, and refrains from boring facts and figures. Instead it analyzes the ideology present at the time, and more importantly the way in which Gallo-Romans perceive themselves.

Hugh Elton's work dealing with the late imperial army is a thouroughly researched book citing numerous primary and secondary sources. I think the highlight of the book is his treatment of the barbarian army and the effects of barbarization on the late Roman army. His treatment of the roman army while thourougly researched is somewhat dry and not very revealing. Although he mentions a few famous encounters,there is no retelling of the famous battles of this period; namely Strasborg and Adrianople. He does not follow current scholarship in his views of barbarization of the imperial army, which is quite revealing. This book is an improvement on the Oxford classical monogram title; the Roman army at War by Adrian Goldsworthy which was somewhat disorganized and no clear thesis. However, this book is worth having just for its treatment of Rome's barbarian enemies in the late 4th to mid 5th centuries.

This book offers a great insight into the workings and fighting capabilities of the late roman army. It is rigorous, well-argumented and not afraid of taking the academic establishment head on when it comes to dispelling several "myths" about the late roman army and the empire.

For instance, it has become common place to say that the barbarization of the late roman army led to a decline of its effectiveness on the field. Elton correctly poses the question of why, if a "barbarized" army was ineffective, the Romans did not stop recruiting barbarians; indeed, the Eastern Empire, which survived, continued to recruit barbarians well into the 6th century. The rationale for using barbarian troops must be searched beyond the trite arguments that the romans had become "corrupt", and Elton sheds lights on the economics of the choice "make" (ie raise additional roman troops) versus "buy" (ie "rent" barbarians for a specific campaign). On the same topic, Elton also proves that there is no clear trend towards barbarization of the higher ranks. More generally, Elton proves convincingly that there is no evidence that the late roman army was ineffective. In my opinion, arguing that the army's inability to stop the invasions is a proof of its defectiveness would be equivalent to arguing that since the US lost the Vietnam war, then its army must have been weak...

Elton's main thesis is that the crisis of the Empire was not a military one, ie the army did not have structural faults that "explain" the fall of the empire. His arguments are always stimulating and supported by research work which is often startling. Hopefully, after this book historians of the late roman empire will have to look elsewhere for an explanation of its fall. But I am not optimistic. After all, other ridiculous myths on the decline's causes survive to this day: among others, that the fall of the empire was caused by a decline in moral values, or by class struggle, or by a crisis in manpower, or by the use of lead in bowls and the related illnesses...

This book came out the same year as Southern and Dixon's _The Late Roman Army_, covering the same period. Unlike that of S&D, Elton's work is no mere recital of artifacts and programs. It shows how each side was able to employ its manpower, finances, organizational skills, leadership talents and weapons procurement capabilities to defend or expand it's living space against a flesh and blood antagonist.

Dixon and Southern show the evolution of the various factors, but don't really seem to relate them to the heart of the matter: the fighting man at the bloody point of contact. Elton never loses sight of this ultimate rationale for mobilization, recruitment, and strategy-making -- combat. His book is all the better for it. He does for the twilight struggle of the Western Empire what Adrian Goldsworthy did for it's high tide in his equally relevant and absorbing _The Roman Army at War_. I grow tired of books that pretend to explain Rome and her enemies and end up being mere outlines of unconnected factors, replete with organizational charts and nifty drawings of weapons and uniforms. Elton writes for the serious student of warfare in late antiquity, but in a style that will appeal to the military buff as well as the classicist. Highly recommended to afficionados of ancient warfare, classicists,war-gamers, armchair strategists ...or anyone who wants to examine the military side of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

Graham Webster's book is considered to be one of those definitive works on the Roman Army. It is most definitely that, but as previously noted it isn't for the beginner and/or the casual reader. Professor Webster writes the book with the eye of an archeologist. The chapters are very specific and dedicated to such topics as the soldiers clothes, armor, weapons, religious practices, the layout of their camps and forts, their daily rituals, tactics, organization in the field and in garrison. There are other chapters as well but this gives you a clear idea of what the book is about. It isn't an historical account of battles, campaigns, and politics. No this is a book about the institution itself. For those who are truly intruiged by Rome then this is the book for you. I've read it several times over the past five years and I never grow tired of it. For a nice companion book which covers the campaigns and politics read Hugh Elton or Lawrence Keppie.

This book is good reading for someone trying to learn about Roman legions without getting swamped. It's detailed enough but not to much to overwhelm and there is a Latin glossary in the back.

I loved this book!I think this book was great because it had so much information.

In this slim volume, Dr. Elton provides an informative overview of Roman administrative and commercial relations at the extremities of the empire. One of the author's themes concerns the treatment of "frontier" in the literature, particularly its emphasis on fortifications, with which the author takes issue. Dr. Elton contends, quite reasonably, that the frontier was composed, not of well-defined boundaries, but of overlapping zones of influence - some areas under direct Roman control, while other regions serving as conduits for trade. A natural border, such as a river or mountain range might provide a reference for demarcation, but apparently did not prevent exchange of people or material in any substantial manner.

The might of the Roman army encouraged local kings to form alliances with Rome, and gradually these regions would be annexed into provinces. Legions could be concentrated on a region for conquest and later dispersed for engineering public works projects or pursue bandits. In the wake of the soldiers were traders who supplied the army's material needs. According to Dr. Elton, passage across regional borders were readily accessible to traders, who could acquire wealth, and consequently animosity from locals, possibly exacerbated by the economic distortions caused by the influx of large numbers of men not involved in agricultural production. Now and again, a revolt had to be suppressed, and Dr. Elton illustrates the example of Gaul in 69-70 taken from Tacitus' _Histories_.

Roman administration generally concentrated on levying taxes and collecting customs duties, rather than transformation of a local society. This policy may have benefitted from the multi-lingual fluency of the empire's inhabitants, at least in urban regions. Alexander's empire had spread the Greek language in the west (augmented by Latin), while Aramaic and Syriac were understood in the east, all serving as multiple forms of lingua franca in their respective areas.

_Frontiers_ challenges the narrow focus on many classical studies devoted to either political intrigues among the ruling classes in the capitals. By rendering an economic dimension to the relationships between Romans and the barbarians with whom they had contact, Dr. Elton provides a better understanding on the world in which people lived outside of Rome during the early centuries of imperial rule. A commendable work.