Anchor Books Rubicon: The Last Years of the Roman Republic

Uno de los mejores libros sobre Roma que he leido. Ha llegado rapido y en perfecto condicion.

I say layman and beginner only because the obvious texts for those serious about Roman history are the likes of Plutarch, Livy, etc. I just don't understand why there are people on here holding Tom Holland to that standard. there are reviewers here complaining about a lack of detail or depth, or his touristy language of Roman history that reads more like a novel than history. those reviewers should stick to Plutarch and leave T.H. alone. he never proposes that his work is a textbook. it's stylized ancient history, and in writing it so well he proves that ancient history doesn't always have to come from a textbook and taste like an old graham cracker. This book would have no merit if it were in any way embellished, but it isn't. The facts he provides are well-researched and demonstrate his impressive command of the history. Each chapter is an unfolding of decades of important Roman history delicately tied together to seem like one great big narrative. I can see where historians would have a problem with this aspect of the book, however. he does tend to connect events and figures loosely at times, but look at what we're working with. I say WE because the nature of Roman history is stunted by what little facts we have that have survived and so it is always a daunting task to hook together events that happened 30 or 40 years apart by what little we know. Tom Holland deserves accolades for how he managed to do this by using slight elements of suspense and other novelist's tools to make the reader very willing to suspend chronology in favor of a broad understanding. He shines when he muses about the personal lives and emotional makeups of his characters, whom he treats like real people, because they were. He avoids sounding like a novelist here only because the personal inclinations of his characters are only offered as a means for understanding their actions and trends within the times. For instance, he goes on about the villas of Sulla, Marius, etc., and their various interests in oyster farming, for instance, not because he thinks that by understanding Gaius Marius as an oyster farmer we will sympathize with his character interpretation, but because it was a crucial fact worth pointing out that wealth and power were displayed in this way and that Marius, though history remembers him as a blood-spattered golden boy of Rome, was also a political entity with public relations and images to uphold. It makes his rivalry with Sulla seem more like a modern jockeying for power that we can wrap our minds around, and less like a Charlton Heston movie. I think it speaks to the quality of this work that I, a seasoned veteran of Roman history with years of study under my belt, still found this book utterly enchanting, despite knowing almost every story before he got to it. If you love it as much as I, you should by all means read his second book, Persian Fire. It's almost just as good.

Tom Holland needs no introduction. One of the most versatile writers on antiquity out there. His grasp of historical events and their interpretation across the Eastern and Western halves of the Roman Empire are enjoyable to read and impressive in their coverage of the issues.

This very good "narrative history" tells the story of the last hundred years or so of the Roman Republic, from the rabble-rousing of the Gracchi in the 120s BC to the return of Octavian from the East after crushing Mark Antony and Cleopatra in 29 BC, at which point the Republic, while still existing in name, had been effectively destroyed and replaced with Augustus's new empire. In just under 400 pages it covers all the major convulsions that shook the Republic in that time, and paints a clear picture of the ultimate causes of its fall - vanity, decadence, pride, ambition, and greed: the vanity of those who couldn't stand to be anything other than the centre of attention and so made corruption and bribery, which were already bubbling along at a low level in Roman elections and justice, acceptable, or if not acceptable then at least expected, to a much higher degree; the decadence of vast slave-worked estates supporting a tiny aristocracy in splendour while depriving hard-working commoners and retired soldiers of the opportunity to work their own land, thus driving them to the cities and ultimately to The City where their favour could be bought and sold by powerful mob leaders; the pride of powerful men who bore grudges unto the death, making politics ever more factional as family feuds took precedence over good governance, and who looked down on honest toil and commerce; the unchecked ambition that rose from that vanity and pride; and the greed that it fuelled and that was required so that the lavish bribes needed to win elections could be paid. It has clearly been thoroughly researched, with a substantial number of quotations from and references to contemporary or near-contemporary authors, although I make my usual complaint that these would be better provided as footnotes at the bottom of the page in which they appear, rather than directing the reader to a ghetto of references at the back of the book. This weakness is made more obvious by those few places where there are footnotes - there's not many of them, but they generally serve to point out either an authorial opinion acknowledged to be not fully supported by classical sources or where, in one particular case, the author makes it clear where he's making stuff up to fill in a trivial gap in the sources. It is perhaps an unavoidable consequence of being so thorough that it can sometimes be hard to keep track of which magistrates and senators hated each other and who was plotting and scheming and back-stabbing and double-crossing whom. There are so many of them, some of them household names to us but many not, and the alliances shift so often, that you almost feel that you need a diagram. I leave implementing such a complex diagram in print to others :-) but animation would be the ideal tool for this job. I do hope that the electronic edition has just such a beastie embedded in it! By concentrating on politics to the exclusion of just about everything else - whenever any other aspects of peoples' lives are touched upon, it's always in the context of their political aims and positions - there is a danger that the reader will get a dangerously one-sided view of some of the players. Cicero in particular falls victim to this. His political vaccilation and flip-flopping makes him seem weak. I suppose that if you were to only consider his political life (which Cicero himself would probably have thought to be the most important part of his career) then this is true. However, in other matters he truly was a great man. His philosophical works, in particular On The Nature Of The Gods, are important, playing a significant role in the Enlightenment of the 18th century - Voltaire was a particular fan. However, I can't fairly fault a book about the fall of a form of government for concentrating on politics! One final niggle is that so much of the story relies on peoples' shifting and conflicting emotions and loyalties, yet in the introduction the author tells us of the grave difficulty in accurately pinning those down and rendering them in English. In particular he talks about the difficulty in translating honestas - it means both "moral excellence" and "reputation", and that confusion, perhaps, is an excellent summary of why the Republic crumbled. I strongly recommend reading this book. It's not only good for those with an interest in the classics per se, but like so many of the best writings of antiquity will be useful for any student of our own society, literature and history, which is very much built on Greek and Roman foundations.

Tom Holland does it again. First, he sets the stage that leads to the main historical events to bring his readers up to date on the late Roman republic, then he expands on the main events with a writing style more akin to a novelist than to a historian. I was left remembering every main detail of the final phase of this extremely important period of both Europe's and Roman histories that led to the end of the republic and the beginning of empire. Tom Holland brings the characters to life without extrapolating beyond the historical facts. He describes the events while discussing the how and why that put everything into perspective. Highly recommended not only to students of late Roman Republic, but to anyone interested in how modern-day democracies that adopt increasingly divisive politics could devolve into tyrannies.