Rating: 
Summary: As The Civil War Turns: Roman Republic & Triumvirate 90210!!
Review:
Holland triumphs in his retelling and reinterpretation of Rome's Republic's death because he makes the extra effort to offer the lesson from a different and unconventional angle: the viewpoint of storyteller. This way, the history lesson becomes more engrossing and sheds the at-times unfriendly veneer that textbook-like examination would confront with. Instead, reading like a mystery/suspense/thriller novel, Holland's able to increase the captivation of the reader because Rubicon appears as a page-turner which multiplies its shockingly unbelievable developments instead of more dry, formal presentations that straightforward history books would have. Therefore, Holland was shrewd to take advantage of this reader-friendly format because the Republic's players and storminess offered verifiably many, shocking progressions an author could well exploit.
Holland begins with civil war 1, which resulted from power struggle between Gaius Marius and Lucius Cornelius Sulla, Rome's first dictator, over war command against Eastern king Mithridates. Sulla committed sacrilege: marching his legions into Rome instead of serving the Republic's war plans, where he posted his foes' death warrants. With Sulla suppressing in Greece, the Marians regrouped and coordinated an alliance, but Sulla constituted a greater following than in his first march on Rome, notably comprised of Pompey the Great--future conqueror of the East. When Sulla defeated the Marians, both consuls were dead so Sulla took over as dictator, purging Rome of his enemies through death squads. Because Sulla was conservative despite usurpation, he connived to project himself as the Republic's restorer, stooping so low to use antiquated Roman provisions to legalize his oppressiveness and impose legislation which outlawed the same tyranny he'd done of seizing control of Rome. He endorsed importance on middle age's virtue and enlarged the Senate unconventionally, even forfeiting his totalitarianism in 81 B.C., but Sulla's terrorism foreboded other would-be imposers because of temptations of possibilities of absolute power he inflicted.
In the last decades before Empire, there's an intersecting of high-profile Romans' interests. Julius Caesar, when a young man, was driven out of Rome by Sulla for insubordination and didn't return immediately. Only when Sulla died in 78 B.C. did Caesar return, after honing his developing skills in Asia by studying provincial administration and army service. In 65 B.C., he became aedile, answerable for the public games, then continued rising by eying the election of pontifex maximus (high priest), which he won.
Cicero would gloat he saved Rome from its first revolution while being consul. Cicero's career path was oratory, where he idealized to become Rome's greatest by surpassing Hortensius, Rome's leading orator in the decade after Sulla. Ascending the Cursus, Cicero finally confronted Hortensius in prosecuting the case of Verres, a Sulla administrator. Though Roman trials were immoral because of bribery, Cicero supplanted Hortensius since he presented his evidence instantly. Cicero unmasked one Catiline's schemes in 63 B.C. before a packed Senate through implicating letters enigmatically delivered to his house. Despite Catiline's fleeing Rome, his coconspirators were captured and garroted due to the state of emergency.
Caesar eschewed to Spain for governorship when Clodius--youngest of the high-achieving but tainted Claudii family--was rumored to have violated his wife, because as pontifex, he was suspected for bedding men and women, not to mention risking angering Clodius' supporters, his own, too. He returned in 60 B.C. for consul elections, which traditionalists like Cato opposed, securing Senate majority and 2nd consul on their side. This simmering standoff between Caesar and Cato founded the beginning of the Republic's values' decay. Soon after elections, Caesar, Pompey and Crassus connived to lawlessly rule as a triumvirate, overruling SPQR. Crassus was a shyster who always shifted to competing sides for single-minded power, his latest alliance betraying Cato.
Clodius, in 59 B.C., plotted his way to power by ensnaring the poor since his acceptability was cold-shouldered by the Senate, being declared plebian to facilitate his tribunate. In no time, Clodius marshaled the slums behind him, raising gangs from collegia--trade associations--and aligning with Caesar. Meanwhile, Caesar was massacring German Barbarians and Gauls in the North, viewed by invader-weary Romans as defensive aggression. Clodius plotted Senatorial approval by defaming Pompey whose legions of conquest provoked distrust from the Senate of conservative Republicanism. Forecasting imminent civil war, Pompey retaliated by enlisting Titus Annius Milo to form gangs himself to counter Clodius.
Triumvirate discord caused its split with chasms between Pompey and Crassus, but they connived with Clodius' older brother--Appius--to delay consular elections in 55 B.C. so they could obtain consular, Syrian and Spanish commands. Caesar continued to build prestige with Roman citizens by slaughtering Gallic barbarians, including his famous, inward-outward, fortifications-siege of Alesia. Rome slid into anarchy when consuls Appius and Domitius were accused of rigging elections, working to Pompey's favor as an order-imposing general. In 52 B.C., Pompey was voted near-tyrannical authority to crumble said anarchy, uniting even critics like Cato.
Because of Caesar's unprecedented Gallic successes, there was a senatorial proposal to permit him successive consulship--allowing him circumvention of citizenry limitations, but Cato wanted to try Caesar's usurpation. However, although Pompey, Cato and a majority were planning to curb Caesar's ambitions, his old adversary, the tribune Curio, supported Caesar, laying civil war's foundations: Cato, Pompey, the constitutionalists against Caesar's seeming increment in absolute power. Caesar's loyalist Antony won the augurate over his co-consul Domitius Ahenobarbus, widening the Senatorial and Caesarian factions' schism until Gaius Marcellus, an anti-Caesarian, openly accosted Pompey to rescue the Republic from Caesar. In January 49 B.C., state of emergency was proclaimed by the Senate to enable Pompey's legions into Rome with Antony fleeing north. We know Caesar crumbled Pompey, was massacred because of Cleopatra's association and Senatorial overruling, and his son, Octavian, won the ensuing power struggle with Antony and Marcus Lepidus to become emperor.
Holland's derogation is his laxity to conjecture what historical characters are THINKING or assume to know details about unnaturally precise situations--like "slums erupted in cheering", "flowers appeared on Catiline's grave" when Antonius Hybrida was convicted of helping Catiline's Republic subversion--but, otherwise, Rubicon's a fine change of presentation.
Rating:
Summary: The Fall of the Republic
Review: On a dark January morning of 49 BC, Julius Caesar, the governor of Gaul caught up with his troops on the banks of the Rubicon River, which marked the border between Gaul and Italy. To lead his troops cross this river meant the violation of one of the sternest laws of the Republic. The memories of Sulla marching on Rome 39 years ago lurked in the shadows haunting Caesar and his battle hardened legions. Caesar made a gamble. It was perhaps the biggest gamble of his life. The result of his gamble was a civil war, one that would destroy Rome's traditional freedoms and establishing a permanent dictatorship. "There was a moment's dreadful hesitation, and then he was crossing its swollen waters into Italy, toward Rome," the author described the scene of the ominous crossing.
Cambridge and Oxford educated historian and novelist Tom Holland gives an exciting account of the fall of the Roman Republic. Holland delivers suspense and drama between Rome's famous rivalries of the last century of the Republic. That of Pompey and Caesar was the most interesting. The two men were allies, but unexpected turn of events has driven the two men against each other. "For a precarious few months he had succeeded in balancing the interests of his old ally and a host of Caesar's opponents, Cato not the least," Holland captures the intensity of the power struggles and delivered them with interesting perspectives and suspense. He occasionally raises the story to certain climaxes. "he kissed Aurelia goodbye, then told her, `Mother, today you will either see me as high priest or I will be heading into exile,'" Holland utilizes Caesar's fateful gamble for the position of high priest to bring the story to a new level. The book also featured some of the most celebrated figures in history - Julius Caesar, Cicero, Pompey, Cleopatra, Augustus and Brutus. Each of these characters is well described with their unique abilities and influences upon the Roman world. "Her sex appeal, together with her charm of her conversation, and the charisma evident in everything she said or did, made her, quite simply, irresistible," Holland described Cleopatra, with an account from Plutarch.
For people who are interested in the military aspects of the Roman arts, they might find the lack of battle descriptions a disappointment of the Rubicon. Holland partially ignored the actions of the disciplined legions and the brilliance of their generals on the battlefield. Many decisive battles that took place are only described with a few sentences. The battle of Pharsalus where the showdown between Pompey and Caesar took place, Holland describes "despite outnumbering the enemy more than two to one, it was Pompey's army that was shattered and rolled back." The description is vague and leaves the reader wondering how exactly the battle took place and how was Caesar able to reverse odds.
The Rubicon is a splendid account of the fall of the Roman Republic. The author Tom Holland retold the stories of the men and women who led to its transformation from a free republic to an empire. His writing casts a warning at the present era of American global domination. The Rubicon is a must read for those who take interest in Roman history. It is also highly recommendable for those who are interested in politics.
Rating: 
Summary: A Masterpiece of History, Storytelling, and Style.
Review: A remarkable acheivement. It has been a long time since a book captivated me as much this one did. Mr. Holland is a gifted writer. It is my sincere hope he continues to write histories like "Rubicon". This is truly one of the best books to come along in a long time. The book is a pure inspiration to anyone interested in History, Rome, or just superb English prose.Tom, the writing of this book was a "Discrimen" for you. Publish your Novels. But, please, give the world your Histories. Follow the bent of your genius: Potentissimus est qui se habet in potestate.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent and Relevant
Review: A very well written, fast moving history of the late Roman Republic and it's transformation into an Empire. The author is very good at explaining the motivations and goals of all the major players in the fall of the Republic in a way that is entertaining and effortless to absord. And, without explicitly drawing parallels to current history, Holland allows us to see our current global situation in the mirror of late Roman Republic politics. It is all there, the venal, but publicly virtuous politicians and business leaders, the suborning of foreign policy to economic gain, the military adventures to cement political and business goals. The de-facto disenfranchisment of the citizenery while the real decision makers make and break leaders. Highly recomended, especially if you enjoy Robert Kaplan, Robert Kagan or Victor Hanson.
Rating: 
Summary: Silly, tabloid version of the Republic
Review: Although I'm a big fan of Roman history and the Latin language in particular, I was disappointed by this book. Tom Holland, a British novelist and radio personality, apparently thinks its important to put together a "narrative history" (his words - p. xxi in the Preface) and emphasize character development and personalities. So, eg, he speaks of Cicero not being "one of life's natural party animals" (p. 188), tells us Pompey had a "swagger" (p. 88) and reveals that Clodia had a "taste for gangster chic" (p. 226). Who cares and what's the relevance to the history?
If you're looking for the last decades of the Roman republic as it would have been covered by Star Magazine, this book is for you. If you're looking for a thoughtful, detailed account of the rise and fall of the republic, look elsewhere.
Rating: 
Summary: Conquests, glories, triumphs, spoils --- shrunk to mush
Review: As is recently too often the case in publishing, you must look beyond the title of this book and to its subtitle - "The Last Years of the Roman Republic" -- to know the author's intended subject. The crossing of the Rubicon may be attractively symbolic, but even here it holds only a few pages of attention. Instead, author Tom Holland covers Roman history from around 146 BC through the reign of Augustus with a decidedly eccentric approach. The story of the Roman Republic maintains such inherent power, resonance, and drama that almost any book on the subject will hold our attention. This proves true here, but Holland seems determined to test that thesis. First, there's a muddled Preface, in which the author states that "many statements of fact in this book could plausibly be contradicted by an opposite interpretation." While this proves to be a more than justified warning, it seems to serve primarily as carte blanche for the author to read into his subjects' actions any motivation which appeals to his soap opera mentality. Determined readers might well just skip this part in order to maintain their spirits. We expect historians, even of the non-professional kind, to have objectivity and accuracy as goals. We don't expect them to give up on these ideals before they even begin. This is followed by an introductory chapter entitled "The Paradoxical Republic". Here Holland interprets every complexity as a "paradox." (Too bad for us that societies don't construct themselves in neater, less intellectually-challenging structures.) Thereafter Holland makes no real attempt to develop this idea of paradox. While covering the main events of the Republic's deterioration, he seems to have no real thesis about its causes. Instead he comes across as preoccupied with belittling the main actors' motivations. He attributes to them - Sulla, Pompey, Caesar - a consistency of purpose and rationale that allows for unintended consequences only from the longest of perspectives. In so doing, Holland provides little depth of character. Ironically, only Cato, who is depicted in most other accounts as a model of rigidity, is shown as thoughtfully responsive to events. The author's depiction of Cicero sounds a particularly odd chord. In the space of just a few pages, Holland characterizes Cicero as "shrill", "purring", "maudlin", and "gloating". Such subtly judgmental word choices are in plentiful supply in the book, but Cicero gets a bigger share than most. There are a few random areas in which Holland's writing achieves enough concreteness as to add to our understanding. One of these is his discussion of the economic ties between Mediterranean piracy and Rome. Another is the weight he gives to the pressure felt by young Roman noblemen to surpass their ancestors' achievements. The Endnotes are about as terse as possible, and applied almost exclusively to direct quotations from primary sources. Having written himself that blank check mentioned above, Holland feels no need to justify his characterizations. There are a few footnotes in the text, almost all of which serve to point out the unreliability of Holland's speculative assertions. There is a decent Bibliography, the nine maps are serviceable, and there are many well-rendered photographs of Roman sculptures, drawings, and ruins. Overall, I finished "Rubicon" with the sense that it had no real solidity, no core ideas. Among the various recent books on the Roman Republic, this one will appeal primarily to those whose tastes also run to Romance novels.
Rating:
Summary: Solid but a little slow
Review: From the published reviews I read I expected the narrative-style to be more brisk, almost novelistic. Instead it's basically a well-written textbook. (I was a history major in college and still read a lot of history and biography). Many familiar and perhaps not so familiar characters are part of this history: Cicero, Cato, Crassus, Clodius, Sulla, Spartacus, General Pompey, Julius Caesar, Cleopatra, Brutus, Mark Antony, Octavian (later Caesar Augustus). In his introduction the author touches on the idea of parallels between Rome and modern America: "The Roman people in the end grew tired of antique virtues, preferring the comforts of easy slavery and peace...bread and circuses." But the author doesn't pursue this analysis at all in the rest of the book. Certainly America is more like Rome with our interest in law, engineering and war, than like ancient Greece with its keen development of philosophy, literature and the arts. Like Rome, America is also a republic that became a world power, increasingly dependent on a professional, all-volunteer military. Other parallels the reader will have to discover for himself, even as he learns again about Cicero's vanity, Cato's rectitude, the Ides of March and why Caesar's wife had to be above reproach.
Rating:
Summary: Great Look at Roman History
Review: Grat Look at Roman history by a fine practicioner of the genre.
Rating:
Summary: A Very Readable Survey
Review: Having read Colleen MaCullouch's fascinating series, I have tried to find what was truth and fiction. With Rubicon, I found what I was looking for. Other accounts I found tended to be very dry and brief. Rubicon, on the other hand, is a well-written popular history (in the best sense). The author converys the competitive nature of Roman society which worked well for a city state, but not an expanding empire, thus bringing about the end of the Roman republic.
Rating:
Summary: Weaving together a coherent history
Review: Holland takes many strands of the history we have of the late Roman republic, and weaves together a coherent cloth of the story of its demise. Some may complain that this story differs somewhat from some of the historic documents we do have. But, the author correctly points out that none of these documents are both contemporary (as Plutarch wasn't), nor unbiased (Caesar's writings). By tugging a bit on these historic strings, we have a more complete story of how traditional Roman mores lead to the greatness and weakness of the Roman republic, and how it was unsustainable by the time of Caesar.
As the late years of the Republic mirrors the life of Cicero, another book to read covering this span is Anthony Everitt's recent biography of Cicero.
|
