History Books.

[Acaddon]

I've read the Twelve Caesars and Augustus's autobiography and I'm extremely interested in the end of the Republic/start of Empire period. I'm wondering if anyone can recommend any good books which detail that period. I'd have to say I start to lose interest after AD 14 so I'd prefer books about Caesar coming to prominence to AD 14.

[Primus Pilus]

An excellent source for the late Republic...

 

Rubicon by Tom Holland

[Guest Scanderbeg]

I just ordered it right now. I might aswell I just finished Fall ofCarthage by Adrian Goldsworthy. I need something to read.

[Hamilcar Barca]

Haven't red Rubicon yet, need to though. Still getting through Gibbon with "The Byzantine Wars" by John Haldon on the side for a more leisurely read.

[Guest Scanderbeg]

I always wondered. it is worth going through Gibbon? I heard many of his theories on the fall were pretty dated. Would a abridged version due good or would it cut out too much?

[Hamilcar Barca]

I'm mainly reading it for its scholartistic value and, just to say I've read it. In any case it is very interesting and no detail on anything is spared but his therories regarding the Byzantines are definitley dated, he shows very little respect and seems to think of them as a desolate, stagnant sideshow.

[Germanicus]

"Would a abridged version due good or would it cut out too much?"

 

Couldn't get the quote to work, anyway - I have an abridged version, and it's pretty frustrating, with what I think could be the some of the best chapters missing.

 

What is included is really enjoyable anyway, not as heavy going as I'd been lead to believe either, and I'd now include it on a "must read" list. Some of the theories Gibbon puts forward are pretty dated in my opinion, and as one would expect, his views on women, the ethics of slavery and monarchy reflect his society and position in it. On the whole though it's just plain fascinating, and as Hamilcar said - no detail on anything is spared.

[Augur]

Beyond the dozen traditionally dominant literary sources of Roman history (Gibbon, Seutonius, Livy, etc., etc.), I sometimes find welcome relief in reading Rome-based historical novels. There are many to choose from and most are trash, but some are beautfully written and a delightful read for the dedicated Romanophile. At least one of these, Graves' "I Claudius" duo, has even been quoted and strongly argued as actual history in these strings.

 

The most recent fictional offering of this quality is a six-book series entitled "Masters of Rome," researched and written over fifteen years by novelist Colleen MCCullough. The series covers the critical period from the rise of Marius to the Battle of Philippi, and provides an earthy, "real world" sense of the people and events that dominated the final struggles of the Republic.

 

Yes, we all know the events and chronologies surrounding the historical individuals named Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Caesar, Octavian and the rest, but to read them in a well crafted human context, with meat on the bones, is a delightful experience I recommend to all. But be prepared, McCullough is clearly pro-Caesar, anti-Boni from the get-go, and with a six-book total of nearly 5,000 pages, she does a good job of convincing anyone to join Caesar in his trip accross the Rubicon. Alas, if only we had that option.

 

The books, in the order they were written and should be read, include:

 

First Man in Rome (1990)

The Grass Crown (1991)

Fortune's fovorite (1993)

Caesar's Women (1995)

Caesar (1997-99?)

The October Horse (2003)

 

An excellent read.

[Augur]

One additional though or rather a question. To my thinking one of the most insightful historical authors of this century was Arnold Toynbee (1889-1975), a Brit who's most famous work was his 10 volume "A Study of History" -- a good part of which was based on his study of Roman and Greek history. I have been surprised that Toynbee's name has not appeared in any of the strings I have read.

 

My question: Is there any one out there who has read Mr. Toynbee or even heard of him?

[Germanicus]

My question: Is there any one out there who has read Mr. Toynbee or even heard of him?

 

 

I've heard the name, and guess it would be the same person, but didn't know who he was or why he was known.

 

I loved the Masters of Rome series too, I doubt there's a regular to UNRV that hasn't read them. I was already a Caesarean, but yes, Colleen certainly help to cement that position, to an extent.

 

I'm curious to know if others were at all effected in their leanings between Optimate----Populare persuasion by these books ?

[black angel]

in my class we are still talking about the fall of the roman empire

[Augur]

Germanicus,

 

Yes, I also find myself wondering how much of our subjective views of Roman events and politics are effected by the comtemporary Roman historical novels and films we are exposed to. I was moved to raise the issue, first, upon reading one of our fellow contributor's who sited as a "historical source" the on-screen portrayal of one of the characters in the I Claudius series. Then, more recently, the same issue came up in the quite heated debate within the "Who Killed Germanicus?" string -- in which Tiberius is both praised and villified by our small group heatedly cross-quoting an even smaller number of ancient sources. Fortunately we all seem to agree on at least a few things: First, that most ancients are more authoritive than most contemporaries (unless, of course, the contemporary is ones self). Second, that the more Roman sources we've read the more we know (or should know) about things Roman. And, finally, that none of the ancients were totally objective, and some were blatantly biased for and/or against key Roman about whom we want draw conclusions.

 

I myself am a strong anti-Boni man, but I have lost track of why that is so. Was it Tacitus or Livy, or Seutonius or Gibbon -- who done it? Or, could it have been Graves' and McCullough's lively pros read while lying on a beach somewhere? What the hell, we are all getting the same basic facts. How we use them to draw different conclusions which we will argue and fight to defend is a delightful and sometimes frustrating mystery. The winner in all such "credability arguments" will always be the one who tells the most convincing and entertaining story.

[Primus Pilus]

Or is it even more simple in human rationalization... Caesar conquered... therefore Caesar is better/worse, depending upons the era, the social environment of the time, etc.

[Augur]

Quote: "Or is it even more simple in human rationalization... Caesar conquered... therefore Caesar is better/worse, depending upons the era, the social environment of the time, etc. "

 

Yes PP, so true, so true. BUT I think you will agree that the nature of our oh so human cyanicism -- ie, that only might is right and that victory and "winning" defines who is judged good and/or virtuous -- is far less true in our narrow Romanophilic field of study than in others. Does any serious student believe that Sulla or, say, the elder Marius, who both died on top and in bed (or at least of natual causes -- Marius even got his 7th consulship), were the "good guys"? Contrarywise, does anyone seriously suggest that Caesar or, say, the brothers Gracchi, were the villians/bad guys because they were all struck down (ie, defeated) prematurely?

 

Nay, nay. The curiously narrow but remarkably well documented ancient Roman world upon which we have chosen to focus our attentions provides a striking, quite unique clarity about what happened historically and the consequences of what was caused by each of the historic Roman personalities upon whom we focus so much of our attentions. Objectively, the bottom line is that Caesar "lost" and both Marius and Sulla "won" which, as you've noticed, has almost nothing to do with how we evaluate and argue so virgorously about who were the good and who the bad guys in Rome's continuing drama.

[Germanicus]

the elder Pompey, who both died on top and in bed (or at least of natual causes -- Pompey even got his 7th consulship)

 

 

Which Pompey are you referring to here Augur ? Strabo or his son Magnus ?