I actually bought this book a long time ago (Amazon
indicates it was 2004), but for one reason or another I only rediscovered it
recently.
Septimius Severus was a Roman emperor who ruled shortly
after Commodus and the two very short-lived emperors who succeeded him. His
reign predated the crisis of the third century, and some blame him for
contributing to that and the strategic weakening of the empire.
The biography is full of information, but I've got to say
that I sometimes found it slightly hard going. It seems a very academic book,
and for that reason I would not recommend it to someone who hasn't read a bit
of classical history already. The author does a good job of critiquing the
available sources and doesn't hesitate to say when he suspects the ancient
historians of being mistaken or just making stuff up.
The importance of Septimius' African background and the
shifting approach of Rome away from
an Italian-dominated Senate to one where men from the provinces held more sway
is well-described.
There's quite a lot written about the period preceding his
rule, from both the perspective of Lepcis Magna, his home, and the emperors of Rome.
Commodus' misrule gets quite a lot of coverage, and it's interesting to see how
Septimius repeated Marcus Aurelius' mistake when it came to letting a violent
son take over.
The subject and characters are interesting but the writing
style could be a bit easier to read. I was slightly disappointed that after a
quite lengthy treatment of the period prior to Septimius' rule there was not
more written about the immediate and long-term consequences for Rome.
This period was covered, but a little briefly, I felt. That said, the reigns of
Caracalla, Elagabalus and Alexander Severus are concisely covered.
Now I come to think of it, it reminds me a bit of Philippe Contamine's War in the Middle Ages. Oodles of information, could've been easier
to read.
On the whole, I enjoyed the book. It illustrates in (occasionally a bit too much)
detail the critical shift in the imperial destiny of Rome
from the tail end of the Golden Age under Marcus Aurelius through the
bloodletting of Commodus and the increasing belligerence of the army. Imperial
strength was being spent more and more in internal fighting, and greater pay
(bribes) for the army stoked inflation, making life harder for most people.
Septimius comes across as a competent man who was, although
not especially morally virtuous, not prone to the savagery and widespread
slaughter of Commodus or earlier emperors such as Nero (and certainly a better
man than his immediate successors). His major weakness was the same as
Aurelius, and had he returned the purple to the adoptive principle of the
Golden Age, Rome might have lasted
a lot longer.
If you enjoy this book, you might also enjoy the biographyof Aurelian, who was emperor several decades later at the peak of the crisis of
the third century.
Thaddeus
No comments:
Post a Comment