Rome

[Rameses the Great]

I was wondering if anyone read the book Rome by M. Rostovtzeff? I have only begun to read the book, but he ties a lot of Rome's beginning to Greek writing of skepticism only believing archeological evidence. Anyways I would like to know if anyone has read it or if anyone is interested in reading it.

 

I will give you a synopsis of the book

 

First published in 1927 as Volume II of A History of the Ancient World, this monumental book has been long out of print. Brilliantly written, it stands on its own merits and has not been outdated by new discoveries or research. Rostovtzeff's narrative begins in the fourth century B.C., 'just when the Greek world...was falling to pieces politically' and while 'political unification (in Italy) was in full swing...' He concludes with 'the social and political catastrophe of the third century.' In between, he examines not only the political and military events of these centuries, but the social and economic milieu, the personalities, and the minutiae of day-to-day existence

 

Edited by Elias J. Bickerman.

[Caesar CXXXVII]

I have read it some 10 years ago . 366 pages for some 800 years . Rostovtzeff is one of the most prestigious scholars for Roman history but for me it was way to short (2 pages for the whole first punic war !!!) . He makes a good narative for the social and economic aspects of Roman expansion after the 2nd Punic war and provides controversial (already in 1927) expelations for major events in Rome's history (the Gracchii , the fall of the republic , the decay of the empire etc') .

[Rameses the Great]

I have read it some 10 years ago . 366 pages for some 800 years . Rostovtzeff is one of the most prestigious scholars for Roman history but for me it was way to short (2 pages for the whole first punic war !!!) . He makes a good narative for the social and economic aspects of Roman expansion after the 2nd Punic war and provides controversial (already in 1927) expelations for major events in Rome's history (the Gracchii , the fall of the republic , the decay of the empire etc') .

 

Finally, thank you for the comment Caesar CXXXVII. I agree he makes several interesting points with all that encompassed Rome and its surroundings. The thing that amazes me is how he can capture the attitude of all of Italy and its correlation to Rome.

 

I do agree he needs more on the Punic Wars, as I find these the most interesting.

[Pantagathus]

he ties a lot of Rome's beginning to Greek writing of skepticism only believing archeological evidence.

What is this statement supposed to mean?