Customer Reviews

The Roman Republic: Second Edition

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

 

 

I was extremely disappointed with this book. It might just be useful as a supplemental college text, in a class in which multiple primary materials are read along with additional secondary material and which has a fine professor. Otherwise, its gaps, disjointed organization, and assumptions can be quite irritating for the reader. Don't even bother if you are not acquainted with ancient history. If you are, this book is more likely to leave you frustrated than informed. The author makes an implicit assumption that the reader is familiar with Latin (I am, but he didn't know that), and organizes the material neither chronologically nor thematically but a hybrid of each in which thematic chapters alternate with chronological ones. This would work except that the themes refer partly to the chapter before and partly to the chapter following which I found cumbersome. Major events such as the Punic Wars are handled in a cursory fashion, and little to no attention is paid to the acquisition and government of the provinces. Rome is repeatedly refered to as an oligarchy without once examining what that means. Lastly, the author covers much of the omissions with flat statements about the unreliability of existing sources (e.g. Plutarch) without discussing why, or to what extent. Instead, the reader is treated to the author's unexplained theories, and much rectitude concerning their superiority over others. Avoid this book unless you have literally read eveything else on the subject and still haven't had enough.

Michael Crawford's book is not for the novice. Those unfamiliar with the chronology of the Roman Republic will find his analysis confusing, as Crawford assumes his reader has considerable background in Republican Roman history and culture. For those with a decent hold on the events of the Republic, Crawford's keen analytical text to highly worthwhile. He examines the relationship between members of the Roman oligarchy, discusses the successful consolidation of Italy, examines the conquest of the provinces and its effect on Roman politics, and finally deals with the political destabilization that led to the rise of warlords such as Marius, Pompey, and Caesar. His book is part of an essential bibliography for any Classics major or Roman history buff.

I read this book for a course in Roman History, and found it more confusing than useful. Crawford assumed too much foreknowledge for the text to serve as a primer, but his analyses might prove more comprehensible to the non-beginner. It would take a fine professor, indeed, to overcome the pitfalls of this text in an introductory class.

At 200 short pages I thought this would be a nice introduction to the history of the Roman Republic. An introduction it was not. I am sure it is well-written for its audience, but the author assumes his reader already possesses an extensive knowledge of the republic, which makes me wonder why you would then want to read it. It is too subtle even for the thoroughly educated literati (did I use that word correctly?). Anyway, I bought the book, so by gosh, I read it! More seriously, the title and notes on the back are terribly misleading. Somewhere the notes need to convey that the book is intended only for specialists.
A new title is in order: "Scholarly Reflections on the Roman Republic," perhaps?

I just finished this book earlier today and I don't understand why there are so many haters out there when it comes to this remarkable book! It must be taken for what it is, and that is a great introduction to Roman Republican history. I see no reason why one would want to denigrate this book. The author cites many of his sources, even going so far as to deify PA Brunt, a phenomenal scholar in his own right. Nevertheless, this book does stand on its own. Read it and you won't (Shouldn't Be Dissapointed).

I highly reccomend it for its authientic and precise looks at Roman history pre-imperial Rome. To me there are few books that are on its level. Indeed, I plan to buy the sister book The Roman Empire, ASAP.

My only complaint/quibble is the omission of Crassus's fate. Crawford mentions the Triumvirate, but does not go into too much detail on how they ruled day to day in Rome (Pompeius, Caesar, Crassus). Crassus was in fact slain in a campaign against the Parthians (A Campaign He Was Not Authorized To Engage In By The Senate). But this is not mentioned in the book. Nevertheless, it is ironic that all three men would be dead within a decade of one another. Thus Rome lost three of its greatest statesmen at a time when they were sorely needed.

I highly reccomend this work. A true historian with an open mind will not be disappointed.

A. Nathaniel Wallace, Jr.

I have read many books on the Roman civilization and sorry to say when I was reading this book the information was too condense and I could not get involved in the book as I should.The reason being he the author condensed the material and he occassionally would jump from one historian to another throwing my though process out of focus. In some regards,I tried to find what the book was really all about.

Though not perhaps ideal for the student market at which it was aimed, this book offers a complex, original and brilliant interpretation of the Roman Republic.

A beginner or university student encountering this book would come away merely confirmed in the idea--though probably not converted to it--that the Roman Republic and Empire emerged not from a superior genius for civilization but as a miraculous by-product of the avarice of its leadership. Or is miraculous the right word? Absent throughout is any of the wonder or awe that have inspired interest in this subject since its first historians, and without which any history of the civilization is not only flawed, but false, and, at this late date, dishonest. Military campaigns, whether the most ancient or more modern, are often characterized as exercises in brutality; the governing classes are generally treated as no more than class-war caricatures--an impression as often as not insinuated by rather sneering asides and related effects. Etc. A depressing book.