Rubicon, The Last Years of the Roman Republic by Tom Holland

[Pertinax]

Ursus has already written a perceptive review on this book, but I felt compelled to add some comments..

 

The narrative style is excellent ,your attention is held and you will find that you have progressed deeply into the text with little mental effort. The style makes the story unfold like a thriller with good historical detail, I think that the written word in this form achieves via the imagination what only the cleverest of films or theatre can do. Despite the fact that I was aware of a great deal of the "storyline" I found that I was drawn to the protaganists and found them to be conjured before me with vivd phrases and descriptive technique...

 

...read the full review of Rubicon by Tom Holland

[Ursus]

I'm glad someone else liked it as well. I hope to see more Roman history books from him. I just hope he can shed his obvious pro-Republican bias.

[Virgil61]

My reaction to Rubicon was much less positive than either Ursus or yourself. I'm especially sensitive to a well-rounded and analytical portrayal of the last years of the Republic since so much as been written comparing contemporary America to that era (It's been a few months since I've read it).

 

My position on the end of the Republic's been stated before and some of my arguments might sound like a broken record but at the risk of repeating some of my themes I thought it was a fairly conservative portrayal more akin to an 18th century view of the Republic than a modern analytical study although it was as well written as any history I've read this year. As Ursus had noted (although we might be on different sides of the divide on this), the Republic had some serious issues. Politically, as you probably already know, it was more an oligarchy of families endlessly fighting each other and more so the enfranchisement of the populares than anything else. His charicature of Cato, who it can be argued is as responsible as anyone for the end of the Republic, was far to sympathetic in my opinion. Holland didn't seem to give much sympathy to the masses. This mild distrust of the lower classes coupled with an dislike for the despotism of empire struck me as the sort of position held by so many 18th century gentlemen in the enlightenment, the era that held Cato in such high regard.

 

His portrait of Caesar didn't strike me as very positive and he was distrustful of his capacity for mercy. Certainly he was ambitious, but Holland seemed to cast him as an opportunist rather than a proponent of the populares or at least greater inclusion of economic and social benefits for them. He was an opportunist, but he'd also spent his life giving them the benefit of his sympathies. In my pro-populares stance I've been accused of viewing the Republic with contemporary eyes, something I strongly disagree with. The Gracchi and many others before and after them knew there was disenfranchisement, understood the nature of the struggle and fought against it.

 

In the end I think it's the issue that I started with that bothers me the most. There's a lot of "the end of the Roman Republic and it's relationship to contemporary America" talk making the rounds and an honest portrayal of that era complete with a modern analysis would go far to set things right. Holland doesn't do that, and more importantly, with a Phd in classics I hold him to a higher standard in historical analysis. Maybe I'm being to hard on the author, but that's my take on Rubicon.

[Viggen]

Thanks Pertinax for the review, it is now in our featured review section and elevated you into Equestrian status... well done!

 

cheers

viggen

[Pertinax]

Thank you. I will be away from the Forums for a little while -mainly because of my protracted birthday celebrations, I have just called in to try my hand at posting a few "downsized" pictures in the gallery area (with mixed luck).Audrey Cruse on Roman Medicine will be my next and much fuller review.

[Viggen]

...this review has now been updated to the new layout!