Review: A Concise History of Republican Rome, by Georgina Masson

I actually finished this a couple of weeks ago but between F1 and having the short term memory of a boiled cabbage I, er, only got around to reviewing it now.

Despite the name the book actually covers the royal period too, making it just about seven centuries of history contained within fewer than 200 pages, so the concise part of the title is entirely accurate. As might be expected, there are some periods that receive significantly more attention than others, as differing historical periods vary not only according to how interesting they are but also the availability of sources.

Although I like reading of the Punic Wars I know relatively little of the latter 2^nd century BC through to Caesar’s time and the sections covering the Gracchi, Marius, Sulla, and the triumvirates were very engaging indeed, and showed a surprisingly rapid transformation of the Roman political structure (which had been absolutely rock solid during the Second Punic War). This was fascinating stuff, and I raced through it.

Probably because I was more familiar with much of the rest, I read it at a slower pace. The book’s well-suited, given its nature, to newcomers either to history or this particular (lengthy) period. Maps do not feature but there are many black and white photographs throughout. Also worth noting it’s an older book so if you go for it then second hand may be the optimal route.

This was one of many still on a literal to-read pile and I was a bit unsure how I’d like it. After a slightly slow start, the decline and fall of the republican era was very engaging indeed.

Thaddeus

Ancient Rome on Five Denarii a Day, by Philip Matyszak

This is a short book, about 140 pages, set in 200 AD and covering what a visitor to Rome might see and do. Beginning with arrival nearby and travelling into the city itself, there’s a wealth of practical advice, from where to stay to how dinner parties work, as well as religion and shopping.

It’s an engaging book, with interesting snippets of information and the sort of approach to history that makes it very easy to imagine what it would’ve been like to visit Rome, climbing its hills and descending into its valleys. Details such as how much wine might cost, or the widespread dislike of the Praetorian Guard, add to the immersion.

The writing style is light-hearted, occasionally humorous, and easy to read.

I’ve read quite a lot of Thames and Hudson books of this nature, but all my previous ones were hardback. I must say I prefer those to the paperback. However, if your shelf space is limited the thickness is about halved by going for the paperback.

Weirdly, there’s a page numbering error, for maybe a dozen pages preceding the first set of plates. The standard numbering is fine, but the Latin numbering (which is correct both earlier and later) starts showing the incorrect numbers. Not a huge thing, but clearly wrong.

The plates are entirely CGI. A spot of real world photography for still extant architecture would’ve been nice (the Egyptian edition in this series had some creative modern drawings, but also ancient Egyptian artwork too). The map at the back is a double page spread, with some detail swallowed by the spine (bit of a pet hate).

Overall, a good book, with one or two minor things that could’ve been done a bit better, none of which relate to the actual text itself.

Thaddeus

Review: Complete Works of Tacitus

The edition I got is by The Modern Library, 1942.

The vast majority of the book is the Annals (which covers almost all of the reigns of Tiberius, Claudius and Nero) and the History (which covers 69-70AD, a very tumultuous time). At the back there are shorter sections, namely a biography of Gnaeus Julius Agricola (Tacitus’ father-in-law), a summary of Germanic tribes, and a discussion about oratory.

This is my second reading of the book. I was a little less than enthused by the first. I didn’t dislike it, just felt a bit apathetic.

Upon a second reading, I did enjoy it. That’s not to say it rivals my favourites. Tacitus, a little like Thucydides, is unafraid of an eight clause sentence and sometimes this can lead to the meaning being difficult to grasp at first glance. However, he does his best to be objective, sometimes relating two varying accounts of the same event when he’s heard both and doesn’t know which to be true. The author also often indicates what he believes and if he has a firm reason for believing a certain account to be true.

The period of which Tacitus writes is almost entirely one of bad emperors. The exceptions would be the misled and personally naive Claudius, and Vespasian, whose rise to power came amid much bloodshed in the Year of the Four Emperors (69AD). Accordingly, the Complete Works is brimming with tyranny, treachery and civil war.

It’s also very interesting for watching how the remaining vestiges of republican authority (Tiberius being only the second emperor, after Augustus) faded. Amidst the dark days there are also examples of nobility (one man accused by Tiberius of being a friend of a fallen associate of the emperor replied that he could hardly be expected to be a better judge of character than the emperor himself, an unusual stroke of boldness that saw him go unpunished, a rarity for the time).

The period covered is similar to much of Suetonius’ Twelve Caesars, but is written in greater depth, and with more accuracy. A broadsheet to the Suetonian tabloid, if you like. Sadly, time has robbed us of certain portions (such as the final years of Nero’s reign) but it is mostly intact.

The Agricola biography is perhaps rather less objective, but nevertheless of interest as it covers campaigning in Britain. I enjoyed the discussion of Germanic tribes, particularly the praise Tacitus had for their monogamy. The final section, on oratory, was my least favourite, it must be said.

For early imperial Rome, this is a good set of works, particularly for the Year of the Four Emperors which is covered in some detail. Perhaps not the best book for an introduction to classical history, but for those who have read a bit already, it’s a worthwhile addition.

Thaddeus

Review: The Jewish War, by Josephus

This had been on my to-read list for years, and I finally finished it this month. The Jewish War covers the build-up and events of the war that occurred when Judea was a Roman province and rebelled in the middle of the 1^st century AD.

Josephus is a Jewish historian who also played a part in the war. You may think this made him a little biased, but actually he’s very biased. Fortunately, it’s usually quite obvious (his own role is secondary most of the time, and his dislike of John, son of Levi, eminently deserved).

The background that leads up to the war itself is extensive, and includes a fascinating depiction of Herod (he comes across rather better than he does in the New Testament) in his earlier years. Fighting alongside his brothers as a loyal, bold, brave and intelligent man, it’s intriguing to see his conduct in war (generally noble and wise), his relationships with Roman leaders (diplomatically malleable) and his kingship (quite good, if you leave aside heavy taxation and child killing…).

By the time we reach the preamble to the war itself, the scene is very much set. An unsuitably small garrison coupled with a greedy and malevolent Roman governor (not to mention persistent tension between Roman and Jewish Law) led to the rebellion of the Jews coming about. At first, there was some success for the Jews, but a combination of the competence of Vespasian and Titus (both of whom have their characters portrayed well, although Josephus was on good terms with them) and incessant, brutal Jewish infighting delivered Rome victory.

The description of the factionalism and cruelty is very well-done, and the latter days of Jerusalem (before its destruction) are very sad reading indeed.

In addition to the events in Judea, there are occasional diversions elsewhere, most notably when Vespasian contested mastery of the Empire in 69 AD (this happened in Italy). Comments on external events (Herod’s friendship with Mark Anthony, Cleopatra’s attempts to persuade Mark Anthony to give her Judea as a gift) tend to be made only when they had a clear impact on Judea.

Although Josephus is sometimes blatantly biased (not least about his own brilliance) he puts across the suffering and tragedy of the Jews, most of whom would have sued for peace had the Zealots not been oppressing the masses, very well indeed. The writing style is easy to read. Slight digressions (on terrain or the differing nature of Jewish sects) are usually interesting, but drag every now and then.

I would criticise, as always, the use of endnotes over footnotes. And there are many endnotes.

At the back of the book are the usual maps and six appendices, including (and I appreciate most people won’t be as interested in this as me) a Macedonian calendar, which was still used in that particular time/place (a hangover from Alexander’s empire).

Overall, a good book, an interesting history, and a vivid portrayal of the bitterness of factional infighting and the sorrow it caused.

Thaddeus

Benevolent Dictators

Dictators have a bad name, but it was not always so. The word originally referred to a specific political office of the Roman Republic, which involved absolute power being invested in an individual (assisted by a deputy, called the Master of Horse/Magister Equitum) for a time-limited period.

This was done at moments of national crisis, and the holder of the office handed back the power and resigned when his task was done. (The major exception would be Julius Caesar who was appointed, perhaps not without his approving consent, dictator for life. However, Brutus et al. did manage to exploit the slight flaw in the plan by curtailing the lifespan of Caesar. It’s hard to be dictator when you’ve embarked upon an exciting new career as a human pincushion).

So, here are a few of the splendid dictators, whose excellence benefited Rome to a huge degree.

Marcus Furius Camillus

You have to be a pretty cool cat to get the nickname Second Founder of Rome, and so Marcus Furius Camillus was. He was made dictator a grand number of five times. His first stint was in a closely contested war with Veii, which was going quite badly. Camillus turned the situation around and utterly annihilated the adult male population of the city.

But, after another war (successful but with little plunder), Camillus was exiled from Rome by his political opponents.

Unfortunately for Rome, the Gauls then invaded, and crushed the Roman army before capturing Rome itself. It turns out exiling your greatest general just before your worst enemy invades isn’t terribly clever. Camillus organised his local militia and attacked the Gauls, who were drunkenly celebrating in their camp. As might be expected, he won a great victory, and was appointed dictator to give him full authority to ensure the Gauls were properly defeated. He then fought the Gauls besieging Rome, and rescued the city, earning himself the moniker Second Founder.

Titus Manlius Torquatus

Titus Manlius Torquatus was a very interesting chap. His father was an utter imbecile, and, because the young Titus had a speech impediment and was looked down on, sent him away to live almost as a servant. The same father then managed to piss off most of Rome when he held authority and was halfway through a trial when Titus returned to Rome, visited the prosecuting official, put a blade to his throat and made him swear to drop the case.

Whilst this is a questionable act of justice, it did earn Titus some credit for his filial loyalty, especially to a man who didn’t deserve it. Later, as a soldier, Titus fought a massive Gaul in single combat, slew him and claimed the torque from the corpse, earning him his new name.

Titus was a formidable general, as well as a soldier, commanding armies sometimes as a consul, and sometimes as a dictator. He was also extremely strict, and when it was agreed no man should leave his post on penalty of death, Titus was forced to execute his own son, whose youthful exuberance had outweighed his discipline.

Quintus Fabius Maximus

Rome had a problem in the Second Punic War. Its only battle tactic was to line up a lot of men, charge the enemy, and stab until the battle was won. Unfortunately, Hannibal Barca had repeatedly kicked their arse, most notably at Lake Trasimene. Tens of thousands of Romans were dead, hundreds of senior military and political officials were no more, and there were fears for Rome itself.

A dictator was called for. Quintus Fabius Maximus was the man selected, although his magister equitum, Marcus Minucius Rufus, was chosen for him, rather than by him. Maximus decided to adopt tactics that seemed strange, even cowardly, to Roman eyes. He didn’t try to fight Hannibal. Instead, he delayed, giving Rome time to build up his strength, harrying foragers sent by Hannibal (who was, after all, marauding in enemy territory). Moreover, his adversary was no fool. Although Hannibal was unable to ambush Maximus (and lost prisoners to the dictator), he left Maximus’ own estates untouched, creating feelings of resentment and even suspicion towards the dictator.

When prisoners were swapped (with the Carthaginians returning more Romans than vice versa), Maximus sold his estates to fund the extra compensation necessary to make up for the disparity in numbers.

Hannibal sought fresh foraging ground to the south, but Maximus realised this and recognised he could trap the Carthaginian in the mountains, fighting him where the excellent Numidian cavalry would be worth far less than on the plains of Italy. Hannibal escaped the noose by ‘attacking’ at night, using cattle with torches tied to their horns which sentinels mistook for an army, enabling the Carthaginians to slip away.

Maximus, who had acquired the not necessarily complimentary nickname Cunctator (Delayer), was annoying the Romans by his tactics. New consuls, Varro and Paullus were elected.

These two men brought (on a day of Varro’s command) matters to a head with a decisive attack on Hannibal, using a force four times the size of a regular consular army. The lessons of Maximus were thrown away, and perhaps the highest casualties recorded in Europe until the advent of machine-gun warfare in World War One was the result. The Battle of Cannae was a perfect military victory for Hannibal, and tens of thousands more Romans (including Paullus) were dead.

Later Roman generals took on the concepts of logistics and strategy emphasised by Maximus, notably Nero, Marcellus and, of course, Scipio Africanus.

If you want to read more on these fellows, and more besides, I can strongly recommend Livy’s Early History of Rome, Rome and Italy, and The Hannibalic War, as well as Polybius’ work on the Second Punic War.

Thaddeus