Customer Reviews

A Brief History of the Romans

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

 

 

I read this book for a graduate course in Roman history. This is a good book surveying Roman history, an easy read

One of the most important relationships is that of the Roman family and household. The state structure is based on this. Senate is head of Patrician families and act as fathers of Rome, in charge of morality, etc, especially in the Republican era. The basic units of Roman society were households and families. Households included the head (usually the father) of the household, paterfamilias (father of the family), his wife, children, and other relatives. In the upper classes, slaves and servants were also part of the household. The head of the household had great power (patria potestas, "father's power") over those living with him: He could force marriage and divorce, sell his children into slavery, claim his dependents' property as his own, and even had the right to kill family members (though this last right apparently ceased to be exercised after the first century B.C.).

Patria potestas even extended over adult sons with their own households: A man was not considered a paterfamilias, nor could he truly hold property, while his own father lived. Only exception was if father relinquished it or son took a political or military office.

During the early period of Rome's history, a daughter, when she married, fell under the control (manus) of the paterfamilias of her husband's household, although by the late Republic this fell out of fashion, as a woman could choose to continue recognizing her father's family as her true family. However, as Romans reckoned descent through the male line, any children she had would belong to her husband's family.

The term "patrician" originally referred to a group of elite families in ancient Rome, including both their natural and adopted members. In the late Roman empire, the class was broadened to include high court officials. Nobles and landowners.

The word "patrician" is derived from the Latin word patricius (plural patricii), which comes from patrēs, the plural of pater ("father"). Pater was the term applied to the original members of the Roman Senate. The word comes down in English as "patrician" from the Middle English patricion, from the Old French patrician. In modern English, the word patrician is generally used to denote a member of the upper class, often with connotations of inherited wealth, elitism, and a sense of noblesse oblige.

Patricians enjoyed special status as Roman citizens. They were better represented in the assemblies. The comitia centuriata, the main legislative body, was divided into 193 voting centuries. The first two classes (which contained largely the patricians) were divided into 98 centuries, a number which was enough to obtain a majority, despite the fact that they were fewer in number. That meant that if the patricians acted in concord, they could always determine the result of the voting of the peoples assembly. So, although it was not forbidden for plebeians to hold magistracies, the patricians dominated the political scene for centuries. Strangely, the founding father of the Roman Republic, Junius Brutus (ancestor of Julius Caesar's assassin) was a plebeian, and the four kings who had Roman gentilic names also came from plebeian families (Numa Pompilius; Tullus Hostilius; Ancus Marcius; and Servius Tullius - i.e., all the kings except Romulus and the foreign Tarquins).

In the beginning of the Republic all priesthoods were closed to non-patricians. There was a belief that patricians communicated better with the Roman gods, so they alone could perform the sacred rites and take the auspices. This view had political consequences, since in the beginning of the year or before a military campaign, Roman magistrates used to consult the gods. Livy reports that the first admission of plebeians into a priestly college happened in 300 B.C. (Liv. X.7.9) when the college of Augurs raised their number from four to nine. After that, plebeians were accepted into the other religious colleges, and by the end of the republic, only minor priesthoods with little political importance like the Salii, the Flamens and the Rex Sacrorum were exclusively filled by patricians.

In the list of the names of the Romans who held magistracies (the Fasti), very few plebeian names appear before the 2nd century B.C. The turning point were two laws, the Licinian - Sextian law of 367 B.C. that ascertained the right of plebeians to hold the consulship, and the Genucian law of 342 B.C. that made it compulsory that one at least of the consuls be a plebeian.

Patrician gentes that were ancient and their members were part of the founding legends of Rome, disappeared as Rome started becoming an empire and new (plebeian) families rose to prominence, like the Decii and the Sempronii. Families such as the Horatii, Lucretii, Verginii and Menenii seem to vanish after the 2nd century B.C. Others, such as the Julii reappear only at the end of the Republic. There are some cases where the same gens name was shared by patrician and plebeian clans (for example the Appii Claudii were patricians and the Claudii Marcelli were plebeians).

Noble families determined the history of the Republic. Thus, the true history of Rome could not be understood without knowledge of the noble families and clans, who provided the men that comprised the oligarchy. Men from the noble families comprised the different competing political factions in Rome. The machinations of Rome's political factions, coupled with the inefficiency of the oligarchy to rule a large empire and the rise of a professional army, all contributed to the fall of the Republic. Through the book's investigation of the oligarchy he revealed the shifting alliances among the noble elites, and the rise and fall of various noble houses, which culminated with the great change that took place during the revolution and afterwards with the Prinicpate of Augustus.

The book's description of Julius Caesar's victory over Pompey the Great and his allies, as well as the intrigue leading up to The Ides of March, are most illuminating. "Caesar's Dictatorship meant the curbing of the oligarchy, promotion for merit." Thus, Syme believed that the assassination of Caesar by Brutus and Cassius was not the work of patriots defending Rome's republican form of government, but was the work of men protecting the vested interests of the ruling elites. Assessment of Caesar's dictatorship and the actions of the assassins certainly provides food for thought. "The tragedies of history do not arise from the conflict of conventional right and wrong. They are more august and complex. Caesar and Brutus each had right on his side." The book followed The Ides of March with an excellent analysis of the Caesarian party, the rise to power of Caesar's heir Octavianus known later as Augustus, and the political machinations of both Octavianus and Antonius, commonly known as Mark Anthony during their Triumverate with Lepidus. The Triumvirate not only began a political revolution, but a social revolution with their proscription on their political enemies of between 100 to 300 senators and thousands of knights. The Triumvirate's revenge through proscription culminated in a vast redistribution of wealth through the confiscation of property and a harsh imposition of taxes.

An important aspect of the book is the description of Augustus. "His sense for realities was unerring, his ambition implacable he was resolute. He had a cause to champion, the avenging of Caesar and was ready to exploit every advantage." The book delved into the machinery of the new government, including Augutus' use of patronage as well as his many thwarted attempts at planning for his own succession. What the editors found was a man that grew very adept politically; from the boy of eighteen when he was named as the heir to Julius Caesar in his will, into the greatest of the Roman princeps, spanning fifty-six years until his death. Augustus became the "leader of a large and well organized political party as the source and fount of patronage and advancement." Augustus knew that to retain power he had to maintain the general consent of the governed, which he did, not by following the constitution or past precedent, but by using the tremendous resources at his disposal. Augustus kept the plebeians in check; making sure they were fed, kept them amused with games, and constantly reminded them that he was protecting them from the oppression of the nobiles. Augustus controlled all of the armies of the Roman Empire by providing their retirement severance pay out of his own pocket. In addition, as his legionaries conquered new territory, he gave them large tracts of land when they retired; thus, founding several new towns in Italy and the provinces. His patronage to the army insured that he controlled a network of armed and devoted garrisons throughout the Empire. Augustus could do all this because he had become the richest man in the Empire. He ruled Egypt, which was the breadbasket of the Empire, and as its king he did not have to give account to any person or governing body. Thus, Augustus is described as "A citizen and magistrate to the senators, he was imperator to the legions, a king and god to the subject populations." In essence, Augustus dealt the mortal blow to the Republic and set himself up to be the savior of Rome and the founder of the Pax Augusta, which "saved and regenerated the Roman People."

I highly recommend this book to any serious student of Roman history.

I had to use this book for a course and both the book and the course were incredibly boring. I don't know why anyone would buy this out of their own free will.

I love my order! The item shipped very quickly. I'm happy with this product and will definitely order from them again.

I am over half way through a detailed reading of this book as part of a course assignment. So far the governmental/political aspects are covered in minute detail; not so other ones. For someone wanting to know how Roman governance evolved, it is extremely thorough. However, there has been almost no mention of the languages used and their development; same for the arts. Perhaps these are presented later in the book.
I recommend the book, especially for those studying government or political science. It reads fairly well as textbooks go.

I read this book for a graduate course in Roman history. This is a good book surveying Roman history, an easy read

One of the most important relationships is that of the Roman family and household. The state structure is based on this. Senate is head of Patrician families and act as fathers of Rome, in charge of morality, etc, especially in the Republican era. The basic units of Roman society were households and families. Households included the head (usually the father) of the household, paterfamilias (father of the family), his wife, children, and other relatives. In the upper classes, slaves and servants were also part of the household. The head of the household had great power (patria potestas, "father's power") over those living with him: He could force marriage and divorce, sell his children into slavery, claim his dependents' property as his own, and even had the right to kill family members (though this last right apparently ceased to be exercised after the first century B.C.).

Patria potestas even extended over adult sons with their own households: A man was not considered a paterfamilias, nor could he truly hold property, while his own father lived. Only exception was if father relinquished it or son took a political or military office.

During the early period of Rome's history, a daughter, when she married, fell under the control (manus) of the paterfamilias of her husband's household, although by the late Republic this fell out of fashion, as a woman could choose to continue recognizing her father's family as her true family. However, as Romans reckoned descent through the male line, any children she had would belong to her husband's family.

The term "patrician" originally referred to a group of elite families in ancient Rome, including both their natural and adopted members. In the late Roman empire, the class was broadened to include high court officials. Nobles and landowners.

The word "patrician" is derived from the Latin word patricius (plural patricii), which comes from patrēs, the plural of pater ("father"). Pater was the term applied to the original members of the Roman Senate. The word comes down in English as "patrician" from the Middle English patricion, from the Old French patrician. In modern English, the word patrician is generally used to denote a member of the upper class, often with connotations of inherited wealth, elitism, and a sense of noblesse oblige.

Patricians enjoyed special status as Roman citizens. They were better represented in the assemblies. The comitia centuriata, the main legislative body, was divided into 193 voting centuries. The first two classes (which contained largely the patricians) were divided into 98 centuries, a number which was enough to obtain a majority, despite the fact that they were fewer in number. That meant that if the patricians acted in concord, they could always determine the result of the voting of the peoples assembly. So, although it was not forbidden for plebeians to hold magistracies, the patricians dominated the political scene for centuries. Strangely, the founding father of the Roman Republic, Junius Brutus (ancestor of Julius Caesar's assassin) was a plebeian, and the four kings who had Roman gentilic names also came from plebeian families (Numa Pompilius; Tullus Hostilius; Ancus Marcius; and Servius Tullius - i.e., all the kings except Romulus and the foreign Tarquins).

In the beginning of the Republic all priesthoods were closed to non-patricians. There was a belief that patricians communicated better with the Roman gods, so they alone could perform the sacred rites and take the auspices. This view had political consequences, since in the beginning of the year or before a military campaign, Roman magistrates used to consult the gods. Livy reports that the first admission of plebeians into a priestly college happened in 300 B.C. (Liv. X.7.9) when the college of Augurs raised their number from four to nine. After that, plebeians were accepted into the other religious colleges, and by the end of the republic, only minor priesthoods with little political importance like the Salii, the Flamens and the Rex Sacrorum were exclusively filled by patricians.

In the list of the names of the Romans who held magistracies (the Fasti), very few plebeian names appear before the 2nd century B.C. The turning point were two laws, the Licinian - Sextian law of 367 B.C. that ascertained the right of plebeians to hold the consulship, and the Genucian law of 342 B.C. that made it compulsory that one at least of the consuls be a plebeian.

Patrician gentes that were ancient and their members were part of the founding legends of Rome, disappeared as Rome started becoming an empire and new (plebeian) families rose to prominence, like the Decii and the Sempronii. Families such as the Horatii, Lucretii, Verginii and Menenii seem to vanish after the 2nd century B.C. Others, such as the Julii reappear only at the end of the Republic. There are some cases where the same gens name was shared by patrician and plebeian clans (for example the Appii Claudii were patricians and the Claudii Marcelli were plebeians).

Noble families determined the history of the Republic. Thus, the true history of Rome could not be understood without knowledge of the noble families and clans, who provided the men that comprised the oligarchy. Men from the noble families comprised the different competing political factions in Rome. The machinations of Rome's political factions, coupled with the inefficiency of the oligarchy to rule a large empire and the rise of a professional army, all contributed to the fall of the Republic. Through the book's investigation of the oligarchy he revealed the shifting alliances among the noble elites, and the rise and fall of various noble houses, which culminated with the great change that took place during the revolution and afterwards with the Prinicpate of Augustus.

The book's description of Julius Caesar's victory over Pompey the Great and his allies, as well as the intrigue leading up to The Ides of March, are most illuminating. "Caesar's Dictatorship meant the curbing of the oligarchy, promotion for merit." Thus, Syme believed that the assassination of Caesar by Brutus and Cassius was not the work of patriots defending Rome's republican form of government, but was the work of men protecting the vested interests of the ruling elites. Assessment of Caesar's dictatorship and the actions of the assassins certainly provides food for thought. "The tragedies of history do not arise from the conflict of conventional right and wrong. They are more august and complex. Caesar and Brutus each had right on his side." The book followed The Ides of March with an excellent analysis of the Caesarian party, the rise to power of Caesar's heir Octavianus known later as Augustus, and the political machinations of both Octavianus and Antonius, commonly known as Mark Anthony during their Triumverate with Lepidus. The Triumvirate not only began a political revolution, but a social revolution with their proscription on their political enemies of between 100 to 300 senators and thousands of knights. The Triumvirate's revenge through proscription culminated in a vast redistribution of wealth through the confiscation of property and a harsh imposition of taxes.

An important aspect of the book is the description of Augustus. "His sense for realities was unerring, his ambition implacable he was resolute. He had a cause to champion, the avenging of Caesar and was ready to exploit every advantage." The book delved into the machinery of the new government, including Augutus' use of patronage as well as his many thwarted attempts at planning for his own succession. What the editors found was a man that grew very adept politically; from the boy of eighteen when he was named as the heir to Julius Caesar in his will, into the greatest of the Roman princeps, spanning fifty-six years until his death. Augustus became the "leader of a large and well organized political party as the source and fount of patronage and advancement." Augustus knew that to retain power he had to maintain the general consent of the governed, which he did, not by following the constitution or past precedent, but by using the tremendous resources at his disposal. Augustus kept the plebeians in check; making sure they were fed, kept them amused with games, and constantly reminded them that he was protecting them from the oppression of the nobiles. Augustus controlled all of the armies of the Roman Empire by providing their retirement severance pay out of his own pocket. In addition, as his legionaries conquered new territory, he gave them large tracts of land when they retired; thus, founding several new towns in Italy and the provinces. His patronage to the army insured that he controlled a network of armed and devoted garrisons throughout the Empire. Augustus could do all this because he had become the richest man in the Empire. He ruled Egypt, which was the breadbasket of the Empire, and as its king he did not have to give account to any person or governing body. Thus, Augustus is described as "A citizen and magistrate to the senators, he was imperator to the legions, a king and god to the subject populations." In essence, Augustus dealt the mortal blow to the Republic and set himself up to be the savior of Rome and the founder of the Pax Augusta, which "saved and regenerated the Roman People."

I highly recommend this book to any serious student of Roman history.

The way this book is written makes it very difficult to pay attention to important key points and is not well organized. The groupings of sections tend to be very obscure and jump around in dates and events and make it difficult to remember where and why things occurred. It often follows a laundry listing pattern (e.g. "After being incorporated into the Roman state Latin communities did xxxx. They did xxxx. They did xxxx, xxxxx, and xxx, and they did xxxxx") creating run-on sentences that are hard to pull apart and comprehend the whole importance of.