Five Books to Understand the Fall of the Republic

[M. Porcius Cato]

Top 5 Books to Understand the Fall of the Republic:

 

(1) The Last Generation of the Roman Republic by Erich Gruen

(2) Caesar: A Biography by Christian Meier

(3) The Fall of the Republic and Related Essays by P. A. Brunt

(4) The Roman Revolution by Ronald Syme

(5) The Crowd in Rome in the Late Republic by Fergus Millar

Edited May 24, 2010 by Viggen

[Publius Nonius Severus]

Excellent recommendations Cato. I would like to add a couple to read after your list if I could:

• Plebs and Politics in the Late Roman Republic by Henrik Mouritsen
  
• The Fall of the Roman Republic by David Shotter (This is a different work than the one if Cato's list)
  
• The Failure of the Roman Republic by R.E. Smith
  

I have only referenced these works, I haven't read them in their entirety yet but from what I have seen they are very good.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Excellent recommendations Cato. I would like to add a couple to read after your list if I could:

[*]Plebs and Politics in the Late Roman Republic by Henrik Mouritsen

 

Mouritsen takes an extremely cynical, post-modern (a la Foucault) position on the contiones (and really all politics) that I find very hard to take seriously. Covering the exact same ground, but taking a middle-position between Mouritsen's nihilism and Millar's optimism, is another very good book: Mass Oratory and Political Power in the Late Roman Republic, by Robert Morstein-Marx. I'm currently about 1/3 of the way through, and I'm finding its approach quite refreshing.

 

BTW, you'd like Gruen PNS.

Edited April 5, 2007 by M. Porcius Cato

[Publius Nonius Severus]

Good to know about Mouritsen. Indeed Gruen is on my to read list, thanks! I'll also look for Morstein-Marx

[The Augusta]

I have not yet begun my Gruen, but I have digested Millar's The Crowd in Rome in the Late Republic. Whilst I enjoyed this very much, ironically, Millar's fresh take on things only seemed to reinforce a somewhat traditional belief about the populares - i.e. he who could control and pander to the mob could gain untold power for himself! The book was fascinating, and certainly did bring home the fact that the comitia tributa in particular had a large say in the making of policy. I also thought that Millar vividly recreated the 'outdoor' nature of Roman politics, and while his work is undoubtedly scholarly, his prose is effortless and evocative. I really did enjoy this book and it will certainly stand a second reading.

 

However, like all good treatments of a subject, the book left me with even more questions than it answered. I would want to know just how active the crowd could be. While they could heckle and even at times descend into violent protest, did they have the right of reply, for example? Nowhere in Millar's well-researched book are we given an example of, say, an inn-keeper from the Subura being heard at a public assembly. Could they contribute to a debate beyond the vociferous clamour of assent or dissent? Obviously, the crowd gathered to hear the contiones and voiced their opinion on the same and cast their votes on laws etc., but is there not still a case for saying that they could be swayed by a very good speaker, or a man with more charisma than the rest? Do we have any evidence of just how politically astute the crowd were? Or were they the plaything of the demagogues, as we have always suspected?

[M. Porcius Cato]

Or were they the plaything of the demagogues, as we have always suspected?

Given acclamation of the speakers, the crowds who attended contiones were either (1) attracted to speakers' messages beforehand, much like any modern audience of those with a political viewpoint (e.g., faithful readers of the Guardian vs Telegraph), or (2) swayed by speakers' messages. My guess is that both are partly true.

[theilian]

Thank you for recommendataions.