Customer Reviews

69 AD: The Year of Four Emperors

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

69 A.D.: The Year of Four Emperors is a very interesting book on a topic I knew very little about, though I've read books on other periods in Roman history. Professor Morgan's book is strong on analysis as he compares and contrasts the ancient sources, i.e. Tacitus, Plutarch, Dio, Seutonious, Josephus and the so called Common Source. Morgan also begins by mentioning the other books written on this period and what their strengths and weaknesses were.

The historical period in question begins with the reign of Nero and his suicide in 68 A.D. Nero's death marked the end of the Julio-Claudian dynasty and ushered in a brief period of usurpations starting with Galba, followed by Otho, then Vitellius and finally Vespasian who ushered in the Flavian dysnasty that would rule for over 25 years. We get glimpses of these four individuals, how they achieved the highest office in Rome, and what roles their supporters and opponents played, including the legions, various generals and other members of Roman society.

This was a very unsettled time in Rome's history (to say the least), but Morgan doesn't give it the impression of threatening the empire's survival. There are many brutal acts committed including those against some of the usurpers, one emperor's supporters against another would-be emperor's supporters, and Roman citizens in various locations, including Cremona and Rome itself. No one really comes off looking that good throughout this period of instability. I still felt the information was too sketchy on many points, which I guess shouldn't be surprising considering how long ago this was and the limited historical evidence.

Morgan is good in pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of the ancient sources for this period, especially concerning Tacitus. As any student of history mustn't forget, those who write history often have their own agendas or biases, as Morgan discusses. The methods for writing and stylistic approaches were often very important for these early writers as well. The appendices at the end are very helpful. There are a few maps in this book, though I would have liked a few more.

Overall, this is an informative book written by an expert who knows his subject matter. I wish I could comment more intelligently on some of his interpretations, which could be open for debate I feel. This of course has a lot to do with the ancient sources and figuring out whose versions are more accurate. The views on Galba and Otho for example are discussed in one of the appendices to show some of these conflicting opinions. In terms of readability, I had to slow down more often for this book, partly due to my own lack of knowledge of this particular period in Rome's history. A good book.

This is a well-written book that details the important year of 69 A.D., when the Roman Empire was ruled by four different men. It combines several of the ancient sources, particularly that of Tacitus, but does not accept them blindly. The author points out where the sources disagree, and even shows where what the sources wrote could not be necessarily correct. It is an exciting tale, and one that will keep the pages turning for the reader, even though he knows the ultimate outcome.

I thoroughly enjoyed 69 AD, just as I enjoyed Professor Morgan's Roman history courses at the University of Texas. As in his class, Professor Morgan looks critically at all the sources, applies a vast knowledge of the period and his own common sense, and makes a sound judgment of the people and events. The book is detailed, well-written, and a welcome analysis of this little-understood period in the Roman Empire.

This is an excellent and very well written description and analysis of the tumultuous events of 69 AD. Morgan gives life to the personages and events of that year, and is so familiar with the actors on this stage that his strong likes and dislikes are evident. In the appendix is an outstanding essay of the Roman sources. Morgan relies almost exclusively on literary evidence and seems to feel that coins are not very significant as a source. He neglects the fact that while we do not know if the reverses are descriptive or prescriptive, they do tell us what the Romans thought was significant. Morgan also seems to hold the previous studies,such as the excellent "The Long Year 69 AD" by Kenneth Wellesley in contempt; dismissing much of what he says of the battles of Cremona because of Wellesley's military background!

This raises the first of my two stong objections to this book. Morgan's understanding, appreciation and analysis of military affairs is wanting. "Strategy as we understand it had not been invented." Morgan says on page 81; asserting that the Romans had no concept of strategy. He discusses the dual column Vitellian assault on Italy without explaining the obvious reason why they used two columns or the Vespesianic strategy in Northern Italy, and the Othonian naval strategy. Morgan also argues that ancient battles were "formulaic"; and ignored terrain considerations! In addition he argues that the legions were already "Germanized" in dress and armament by 69 AD; other authorities place this 300 years later!

Finally, he is disengenuous on what he calls "the secret of the empire" issue (Tacitus History I,4). This is the "discovery" by the armies that emperors could be made outside of Rome. He rebutes this by arguing that for the following century the succession was peaceful. Yet, this begs the issue. Tacitus and his contemporaries certainly believed that field armies could and would raise up candidates for the purple; and this would be the pattern for much of the period 180 t0 476 AD.

I recommend strongly that students of the civil war of 69 AD consult the superb militay analysis: "The Roman Empire Order of Battle for the Civil Wars 68-70 AD by Michael Lane published by the Society of Ancients.

69 A.D. is a narrative of violent deeds -- murders, betrayals, warfare, decadence, all the stuff of the Roman Empire on the silver screen -- as the suicide of Nero was followed by the rise and fall of three remarkably unattractive Emperors, Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, all in the space of less than a year. The narrative concludes with the advent of Vespasian, essentially the second founder of imperial stability. If you are reading this book for gory diversion, however, you will be mildly disappointed. Gwyn Morgan is not a breath-taking stylist but rather an earnest academic historian. The real interest in this book is historiographical, that is, the important question of what uses to make of historical sources, especially synchronic literary accounts of events, and how to confirm or contradict such sources. In this case, the chief source is the Roman historian Tacitus; 69 A.D. is centrally a study of the reliability of Tacitus for understanding events that shaped the whole future of the Roman Empire and thus the modern world. A serious book for serious thinkers about history!

69 A.D. was not the happiest year for the Roman Empire. Nero had committed suicide the previous June, and was succeeded by Galba. But Galba was assassinated on the fifteenth of January. Then came Otho, and Vitellius at the same time, and once Otho had killed himself, Vitellius alone from April on. But from May or June, Vitellius was opposed by Vespasian, who became the fourth emperor that year in December, when Vitellius was captured and murdered on December 20. The principal evidence for these events is the histories of Tacitus, and Morgan, professor of Classics and History at the University of Texas in Austin, is an acknowledged expert on Tacitus. The result is a detailed and complicated ride through the contradictory and often tantalizingly incomplete pages of the commentaries of Tacitus, Suetonius, Dio, and Josephus, among others. It's not an easy ride but it's worth it to get an understanding of a crucial period of the Roman Empire's long history. It is hard to fault Morgan's judgment that the events of 69 A.D. did not show that subsequent emperors feared the legions' disloyalty nor paved the way for the breakdown of government and civil order signaled by the assassination of Commodus in 192 and the nearly fifty years of civil war that began with the assassination of Severus Alexander 43 years later. Morgan argues for the reign of Galba as "the last gasp of the republican aristocracy" (a judgment on Ronald Syme?) and doesn't much mourn its passing. And Vespasian? "He became emperor because he was the last man standing, and he was the last man standing because so few took him seriously beforehand." Though not an easy book to follow, this is very good history, and the period it describes is one few people know enough about.

69 AD by Gwyn Morgan proves to be a well written book during the period where the Roman Empire went through a succession of emperors before the final victor stood tall. The story starts off with the suicide of Emperor Nero and goes through Galba, Otho, Vitellius and finally ends up with Vespasian who started the short lived Flavian dynasty. The book proves to be informative in how, why and what of the each emperor that wore the purple during this period. I was bit surprised how well Otho was regarded even although his death appears to be maniac depressive type after his defeat. The most pitiful was Vitellus whose end was sad as it was mean.

I would have to say that the author did her research, using all the major ancient sources and putting it together nicely. The book clearly point out the areas where some sources differed and other areas where everyone agreed. Of course, certain intelligent insights were needed as well to understand the situation more clearly.

If there was any real knock against this book, I thought although it was well written and well searched as I wrote before, I found the book bit on the dry side. Book read too much like an academic work when it really need is an arousing story teller.

But overall, this book come highly recommended to anyone interested in Roman history.

Wonderful and excellently written book. Heavy on detailed troop movements which makes maps almost an essential. At times the dearth of maps became aggravating and I felt the need to sketch some out myself to better follow the course of armies and key figures and to keep tabs on their placements in relation to other forces. This made reading a laborious task. It would certainly be worth rereading with a Barrington's Atlas as a companion.

Mr. Morgan delivers a stellar account of a unique year in the Roman Empire, 69 AD. Not merely relying on a single source, Mr. Morgan conflates a plethora of sources, Tacitus, Suetonius, Plutarch, Josephus, among others. Mr. Morgan does his best to give an unbiased account of all the principle actors. However, Mr. Morgan tends to rely a good amount on Tacitus (not a bad thing though). One point that I found impressive about the book is the detail Mr. Morgan goes into recounting the battles. For example, Mr. Morgan recounts an interesting story; "...they (Vitellian's forces) hauled a gigantic rock-throwing ballista onto the causeway, and began leveling the Flavian line. The results would have been catastrophic, had not two Flavian soliders picked up Vitellian shields, slipped in unnoticed among the enemy artillerymen, and managed somehow to put the ballista out of action," pg. 207. Such detail is indeed worthy of praise. Furthermore, this is just one of several fascinating little stories that Mr. Morgan relates in his book. Also, in appendix one, Mr. Morgan gives short biographies about the men whose works he used to write his book; Tacitus and Plutarch, for example. Another interesting part is in appendix three, in which Mr. Morgan gives short biographies of the legions of that time. In conclusion, I would highly recommend this book to anyone who has any interest in the Roman Empire. It is superbly written, very well researched and very interesting. If Mr. Morgan ever does a book on the year of the five emperors (193 AD) or year of the six emperors (238 AD), I shall be first in line to purchase it.

In "69 A.D.,the year of the four emperors" Professor Morgan gives a comprehensive, detailed narrative of a year which in most histories of the period is usually treated briefly, as a confused and confusing interlude between the extravagances of Nero and the stability of Vespasian. His book combines clarity and readability with interesting and convincing analyses of many disputed questions,all based on a deep knowledge of his subject. Anyone interested in Roman history will enjoy this book.