At the end of the nineteenth century, historian Thomas Hodgkin famously described Theoderic the Great as ‘the barbarian champion of civilization’ who, despite his Gothic (i.e. barbarian) origins, none the less governed Italy ‘in accordance to the traditions of the Empire’. This positive assessment is generally shared by recent historians, although studies by Moorhead (1993), Amory (1997), Lafferty (2013) and Heather (2014) have all presented somewhat different interpretations of Ostrogothic Italy and its first ruler. One important question which continues to be debated is whether Theoderic's Italy is best understood as an early medieval or as a late Roman state. This perspective matters, for the former position suggests that, notwithstanding the important ways Theoderic preserved Roman traditions and administration, the advent of Ostrogothic Italy marked a significant departure from the classical world. A.'s thoughtful study firmly rejects this contention, arguing instead that Theoderic's Italy was not a barbarian kingdom at all; rather, Theoderic thought of himself – and crucially, was thought of by his Italian contemporaries and subjects – as a Roman Emperor. The Ostrogothic state, then, was not a successor to the Western Roman Empire; it was the Western Roman Empire, or at least this was the way Theoderic and his supporters tried to present it. In A.'s words, Italy under Theoderic was ‘profoundly Roman in its self-identification, regardless of external perceptions … it was a true Roman Empire that presented itself as such and exceeded the expectations of many of its Roman inhabitants; and it would have persisted in its Roman identity, had it not been for the unforeseeable intervention of the east Roman state’ (p. 7).

At the root of A.'s argument is his contention that ‘Roman’ and ‘barbarian’ were flexible and situational constructs made and remade depending on circumstances. Thus, the oft-imagined dichotomy between Roman and barbarian was not as stable as it might appear on the surface. This instability allowed Theoderic to redefine Romanness and thus reinvent an understanding of the Empire for a new age. To illustrate his point, the book begins with a detailed analysis of the two best-known Italo-Roman authors from this period, the senator and propagandist Cassiodorus, and the churchman (and propagandist) Ennodius (Chapters 1–2). What emerges from this analysis is that in Late Antiquity, emperors could be barbarous, while barbarians could be described as the protectors of the Italo-Roman people. Consequently, the break with the Roman past, which is sometimes thought to have occurred with the deposition of Romulus Augustulus in 476 by the barbarian Odovacer, was in fact inconsequential. Indeed, according to A., if Cassiodorus and Ennodius made a distinction between the reigns of Glycerius, Olybrius Julius Nepos, Romulus and Odovacer on the one hand, and that of Theoderic on the other, it was that Theoderic's administration was superior, restoring confidence, stability and victory to the west. A. next considers Theoderic and his position in Italian society (Chapters 3–4). That Theoderic was often described using imperial imagery, at least in contemporary literary sources, is clear enough; A.'s arguments regarding Theoderic's use of the ornaments of empire such as the diadem and purple dress, are necessarily more circumstantial. Turning to Theoderic's followers, A. argues that the Goths, far from the uncivilised barbarians of traditional ethnographic assumptions, were depicted as victorious Roman soldiers who defended the imperial heartland (Chapters 5–6). In contrast to the decadent world of the later fifth century, Italy under Theoderic was victorious in war, safe from external foes and the beneficiary of Theoderic's euergetism which, in the manner of previous imperial patrons, led to the renewal of the fortunes of the city of Rome (Chapters 7–8). Military victory outside of Italy and the establishment (re-establishment?) of the province of southern Gaul seemed to confirm that the Western Roman Empire had been reborn (Chapters 9–10).

A.'s analysis deftly navigates the complexities of the period and the peculiarities of the Latin style of his sources, presenting the reader with a clear impression of Theoderic's Italian regime. Particularly persuasive is his analysis of the vocabulary used to describe Italy and the men who ruled it. Procopius, for instance, stated that Theoderic did not ‘assume the garb or the name of Emperor of the Romans, but was called “rex” to the end of his life, for thus the barbarians are accustomed to call their leaders’ (Wars 5.1.26). Modern readers have generally accepted Procopius' implied distinction between a barbarian rex and a Roman imperator. But as A.'s close reading of Ennodius and Cassiodorus suggests, Augustus, imperator, princeps and even rex did not signal a shift in the political organisation of Italy from Empire to kingdom. Rather, these words, along with imperium and regnum, were used interchangeably to describe Italy, its rulers and emperors in Constantinople before and after 476. Thus, Theoderic the rex cannot be disqualified as a Roman imperator even if he never directly styled himself as one. Indeed, as A. shows, Theoderic's preferred title seems to have been princeps, which evoked the Principate of Augustus rather than the increasingly autocratic eastern court. Theoderic's titles, his dress and his behaviour as leader of Italy represent a reimagining of Romanness and of Empire; Gothic rule was legitimised by placing it firmly within a traditional, if somewhat antiquarian, Roman context. Theoderic's Italy could be referred to as res publica Romana, the imperium Romanum and even the regnum Romanum – all of which, according to A., were different ways to refer to the Roman Empire (pp. 72–6).

A. convincingly argues that Theoderic was no mere barbarian rex; nor did Gothicness preclude Theoderic from restoring Italy to its former glory in the minds of Italo-Romans like Ennodius and Cassiodorus. And if, as A. suggests, rex could mean imperator or princeps, and regnum could signify imperium and vice versa, then the division between these concepts must have been much more fluid than is typically imagined, both before and after Theoderic's assent to power. But the very fact that authors of this period failed to distinguish between these terms makes A.'s subsequent contention that Theoderic was in fact an emperor problematic, at least based on language alone. If we must reject the barbarian implications of a title such as rex, how can we straightforwardly accept the imperial meaning of princeps? Perhaps, like the terminology used to describe it, Theoderic's regime was fluid and evolving, defying easy classification as either Roman or barbarian. This leads to a second tension. The insistence upon Theoderic's romanitas above all else suggests a model of the late-antique world that A. would seem to reject: namely that Rome was in some sense objectively superior to the barbarians. At times, it appears as if it is only Theoderic's Roman virtues that make him a successful leader, his supposedly barbarian characteristics minimised or explained away. And although dealt with tangentially throughout the work, Theoderic's contentious last years (which included anti-Jewish riots, a succession crisis, treason accusations and death sentences against former supporters such as Boethius and Symmachus, and the suspicious death of a Roman bishop in Gothic custody) are addressed only in a short epilogue. Of course, no single book can cover every topic with equal consideration, and I look forward to A.'s future work on this controversial period in Theoderic's reign.

This volume is a valuable contribution to our understanding of Ostrogothic Italy and its place in the historiography of the Roman and post-Roman west. Thoughtful and engaging, A. presents the history of Ostrogothic Italy as it was understood in the fifth and early sixth centuries rather than through categories and assumptions imposed upon the period by modern historians. Indeed, it does not matter if we think Theoderic was a Roman Emperor; what is important is if Theoderic and his contemporaries did.