Rating: 
Summary: A really good read
Review: I found the book to be a good read that helped to make clearer to me a number of the key elements in the history of the Roman republic. That said, I did find a few of the references unhelpful and anachronistic, such as Holland's puzzling references to "Big Business" in Rome, as if the Romans had invented the modern business corporation, to which Holland is evidently hostile. Nonetheless, I enjoyed the book thoroughly. One bit of advice: I recommend that readers who want the facts and the narrative to stick go through the timeline of historical events at the end first and then make a simple list of the names and important characteristics of historical persons as they go through the book.
Rating:
Summary: Roman Soap Opera
Review: I have to admit that I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book, despite what serious historians might consider fatal flaws. Perhaps the reason it is so enjoyable is because it is more like a fictional potboiler than the typical dry historical tome.
Holland chronicles the last days of the Roman Empire and the lives of its principal players. The facts are all there, but so are many passages that purport to tell us what people were thinking, and what their inner motivations were. This is where serious students of history may have problems. However, for those of us simply looking for a good read, this presents few difficulties, and Holland's interpretations are certainly plausible.
There is a lot of hype in the preface about parallels between the Roman Empire and today's United States, and what lessons can be learned from the comparison. The book simply doesn't deliver on these promises, however, and one wonders why they were made in the first place. All in all, though, this book is well worth reading.
Rating: 
Summary: Insomniac's Dream
Review: I should have heeded the reader from San Diego. Although Tom Holland seems to be quite knowledgeable on the ancient history, he seems to enjoy adding his own philosophy on the "then and now" which distracts the reader from the content of the chapter or paragragh being read. I started reading this book with a vengeance eager to see what would happen next. Then I found myself re-reading pages to remember where I was. Finally, I used it to fall asleep with instead of my usual dose of melatonin. I have highlighted some favorite quotes from the greats....Cicero, Virgil, Horace. That's at least something to reference later.
Rating: 
Summary: Great Historical Narrative
Review: I was skeptical about the value of this book because it is on the slim side for its ambition. However, I was very pleasantly surprised, and I would recommend this book to anyone looking for a well-executed historical narrative of the fall of the republic. Not a book full of esoteric facts for serious historians, but a great telling of the story in concise and coherent language and structure that really enhanced my understanding of the forces and players in the era.
Should be noted that this book ends before the fall of the *empire*. This book is about the death of the republic, and everything is seen through that lens. The dust jacket has warnings to modern America, and while that at once repulsed and itrigued me, the book in no way becomes about modern America or even the modern era. Nevertheless, the lessons of the fall of the Roman republic really resonate, and though the author never spends a word on how the history relates to America, it is all laid out before you.
Really fascinating, well-written, and cohesive narrative that really brings the time alive.
Rating:
Summary: The Decline and Fall of the Roman Republic
Review: It is easier to pin point the ending of Tom Holland's book then its beginning - it ends with the death of Augustus in 14 BC, years after the Roman Republic has ceased to exist in anything but its name.The beginning of Holland's book, like the beginning of the end of the Roman Republic, is harder to spot. Does it start with the fall of Carthage? With the murder of reformer tribunes Tiberius Gracchus and Gaius Gracchus? Or with the first clashes between Marius and Sulla? Holland tells it all, in a spellbinding narrative that is hard to put down. In just under four hundred pages, we get a short overview of the early republic, and then a focused narrative its final century. This is the story of some of history's greatest men and women, from Sulla to Cato, Pompey and Cicero and Cleopatra, and of course, Julius Caesar. It is a tale of murders and political maneuvering, honor and greed and lust. And, complicated as it all is, Holland serves as a fine guide through the intricate web of the dying republic. I think it's the power of the prose, above anything, that makes Holland's book so fascinating. It reads like a novel, probably the best written account of the Roman World I've read since Robert Graves's I, Claudius. At times, he may use anachronistic terms for the narrative ('location, location, location', or 'Mutually Assured Destruction') - but that's a misdemeanor that is easily forgivable, and some may find it charming. In the blow by blow account of the political struggles, it is sometimes hard to see a larger scheme or thesis. In as far as there is one, it is probably that the decline of the Roman Republic came through the rise of the Roman Empire. As the Romans expanded, out of Italy and into the entire Hellenistic world and beyond, its generals became increasingly rich and powerful. The armies they have raised stopped being faithful to the Republic, and shifted their loyalties to their leaders. The republic became an arena for a small number of powerful men, reducing the rest of the aristocracy to the role of near-spectators, when the best they could do was pick sides. In the introduction, Holland says that most events in the History are amenable to different interpretation, but in the text itself, there are precious few references to such instances. Holland, I think, generalizes much too much about the way 'Romans' in abstract thought, felt, or acted. His footnotes, referring exclusively to ancient sources (although his bibliography does contain much modern work) is virtually useless for anyone unless they're willing to dig into the primary sources. But at the end, that's just not that kind of a book. Holland weaves a breathtaking tapestry of characters, events, and touches of mysticism. Any flaws in the historiography are overshadowed by the triumph of storytelling.
Rating:
Summary: Wonderfully interesting, and so very readable.
Review: It's rare that I've read a work of non-fiction (I read extensively and eclectically) that has had me so captivated; I (literally) couldn't put it down. The events detailed in the book would have done justice to a Dumas novel; except they are history. The parallels to the pre-eminent Democracy of today, in it's overseas ambitions and resulting stresses, surface clearly. However, that's just an added bonus. Holland writes in such a clear, captivating and eloquent way that a period of history (for which we have all heard the important names, but would be hard-put to say exactly why they were so important) comes alive; it's as if we were reading about contemporary events and people, not those of 2,000 years ago. Not being a classics scholar, I can't comment on the academic quality of the history; no doubt, in the interest of a wide audience, some of the more academic nit-picking as to facts and interpretations has been finessed. However, if this book is widely enough known and read, it will give readers a solid foundation, and interest, in one of the most significant 100 years, or so, of World history - recall that the Founding Fathers of the U.S. modeled much of the Constitutional deliberations on precisely these events. I recommend this book, wholeheartedly, to anyone who is interested in classical history and/or politics. Having read it, if you agree with me, please do spread the word. This would be an outstanding recommendation for High School and College students in Classics, History and Politics.
Rating:
Summary: Masterpiece
Review: The amazingly complex and dramatic political machinations of the later Roman Republic are so difficult to transmit to even well educated readers. That said, any extreme simplification of the events that led up to the rise of Julius Caesar and the death of the glorious republic does a disservice to those who truly want to learn about the epic time period. Author Tom Holland steps into that gap and delivers an absolute masterpiece of modern historical masterpiece. His line of reasoning is well founded and brilliantly conceived. The reader can follow the threads through centuries of conflict with nary a problem, for Holland is a wonderful story teller. He brings a novelists sense to the dramatic, coloring this critical time period with a honest but entertaining brush. Rome was unlike anything the world has ever seen before. By the beginning of the first century BC, it was an empire in everything but name. That name though, republic, was the characterization that set it apart from the rest of the world, dominated by monarchies. Romans were citizens, they had rights, they could vote. Of course, it was far from inclusive, but it was better than anything else as yet devised. Still, in that time, and even earlier as Holland interestingly points out, the signs of fracture and decline were evident. They were cloaked though, hidden behind the amazing wealth and power that the Roman state was amassing. Without serious rivals, the republic was expanding at an epic rate, giving her total control of the riches of the Mediterranean and the East. Roman economics soon brought massive amounts of worldly wealth into the peninsula, and the other Italian states were quickly fusing into the pan Roman sphere of influence. On that measure, Rome was anything but sick. Holland foreshadows the eventual decline with observations on the nature of the expansion, which give a very complete picture of the republic's last century. By the time we reach the real turning points mid century, the reader is well versed in the lead up to the noteworthy tones of fate. There was something intrinsic in the Roman attitude that led to the death of the state itself. It was a nature of proud wealth, of arrogant advancement and worship of success. These traits, somewhat uniquely Roman, mixed into a witches brew that would spell disaster for Rome in the long run. Great men rose, men such as Marius and Sulla, who were willing to break convention and pursue their own interests, at the expense of the state's welfare. Social stratification also gave rise to increasingly chaotic and unhealthy political showdowns, slowly degrading the once steadfast traditions of good republican governance. The march of conquest also brought unheard of wealth and power to the conquerors, men like Pompey, Crassus, and, most importantly, Caesar. These giants of Rome soon became so all powerful that they could hold sway in almost any situation, until they challenged each other. The victor would be the most cunning, the bravest, and history has shown that once the Rubicon was crossed, western civilization would never be the same. All of these events are wonderfully delivered in a very accessible way. It is just an amazing book, and it should really enrich anyone interested in the foundations of the West. Sadly, because of the political climate, these happenings are rarely taught in the schools anymore, so a whole generation is produced with little understanding of this seminal issues. A more modern political debate has arisen between classical scholars over the relevance of these stories. Recent books by conservatives like Victor Davis Hansen lend credence to the Athens-America model, that America is a powerful democracy with designs more economic than territorial. I think that Holland lines his ancient history with modern left thinking on America, but it is staid and hardly convincing, in my mind. While one can find numerous parallels between 21st century America and the later Roman Republic, one can also point to numerous differences. This argument does not take away from the effectiveness of this book, and it should be enjoyed by any reader.
Rating:
Summary: Roman history is very relevent today
Review: The idea that average people need to know history, especially ancient Roman history, has fallen by the wayside in the last several decades. The problem this leads too, naturally enough, is that the people in a democracy loose site when their elected leaders start to repeat the mistakes of the past. Roman history is filled with people who made mistakes, often times for all the right reasons. Caesar is such a personality. Caesar would contend that he was simply moving to protect the people of the Republic from what was extensive corruption in the systems that governed Rome. Tyrants rarely come to power saying they are going to enslave the masses and restrict the rights of the average citizen. They always claim, and in many cases truly believe, that they are moving to protect the average men and women of the time. However, in attacking the rights of the powerful, they often end up also restricting the rights of everybody. -- Restriction of civil rights in order to protect and preserve them... this appears to lead to parallels with out own times. To put to this another way, "meet the new boss, same as the old boss". Even after the Republic had passed and the Empire was in full swing, there was still much to admire in the Romans. "To protect the weak and make humble the proud". Not a bad motto, and they even lived up to it from time to time. Julius Caesar, in "crossing the Rubicon" didn't know that he was changing everything. The problem is that everything didn't happen on that day. Most events that lead to the Empire had already passed: Sulla's dictatorship had been a defacto empire; the Gracchus brothers had tried reform before and been slapped down -- hard and dead. It is possible that any large scale nation state, given sufficient size and power, becomes an empire at some point. After all, if Rome, Britain, revolutionary France and other great nations couldn't avoid it that may mean that the only real hope is to embrace the beast and do it well while possibly making some good come from it. This fine book provides a very good discussion of the transition period from the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire.
Rating: 
Summary: Well-Written, But Not Groundbreaking
Review: The principal title gives one the false impression that Julius Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon, and the resulting civil war among the members of the first Triumvirate (Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus) are the central events of the book. Instead, Holland provides an account of the decline and fall of the Roman Republic, from the time of the murderous dictatorships of Marius and Cinna, and especially that of Marius's archrival Lucius Cornelius Sulla "Felix" (138-78 BC), under which Caesar matured to manhood.
By bringing his legions into the sacred "pomerium" (boundaries) of Rome, which was against the law, and by ruthlessly exterminating all potential rivals after the Senate appointed him dictator, Sulla did great violence both to the forms and the spirit of the old Republic. The Republic never really recovered, and the Marius-Sulla rivalry set the stage for Caesar's civil war with Pompey.
Besides Sulla, other figures of the period loom larger than Caesar in this book. In fact, Holland gives Caesar's governorship in Spain and his exploits in Gaul and Britain less extensive treatment than he does the Gracci and the Samnite wars, the conquests of rivals like Pompey and Crassus, the speeches and prosecutions of ardent Republicans such as Cato and Cicero, and the second triumvirate and civil war that resulted in the elevation of Caesar's adopted son Octavian to "Augustus Caesar."
Holland gives us an enjoyable and very readable introduction to the period for the non-specialist. On the negative side, Holland covers a lot of old ground, perhaps too much, and doesn't seem to break any new ground at all.
Rating:
Summary: A penetrating analysis of a compelling subject.
Review: The Roman Republic is a subject that anyone with an interest in history finds compelling, because of both the differences and similarities between Rome and modern-day democratic states. I have read a number of books and novels that dealt with late-Republican Rome (including the entire "Masters of Rome" series by Colleen McCullough) but I never found a book that really explained to my satisfaction how and why the Roman Republic finally failed. Until this one. Author Tom Holland writes with a clear, penetrating style that immediately captured my attention and held it throughout. This is not a dry summary of history. It is an analytical tracing and analysis of key events in late Roman Republican history that explain why Rome was able to expand its power so dramatically and how the power that this expansion brought ultimately contained the seeds of the Republic's demise. Holland explains Republican Rome as it apparently was: a contradiction in which democratic institutions were cherished within a society that was characterized with a ruling aristocracy and a severe, almost inescapable class structure. Although Roman society produced the occasional Cicero as an example of a non-upper class boy making good, most of its leaders came from the great aristocratic families of Rome--a sure sign that a man's class imposed huge barriers or advantages. And women? They had influence but were not permitted to hold any office in the Republic other than certain religious posts. Holland shows us that Republican Rome was simply too aggressive, avaracious, and warlike to live in peace with its neighbors, and because of its phenomenal military competence eventually it came to dominate most of the (Roman) known world. This enabled Rome's great leaders such as Sulla, Pompey, and eventually Caesar, to amass sufficient power such that these men literally could overpower the rest of the Roman state. The fears of the early leaders of Republican Rome, that amassing an empire would endanger Rome's ancient liberties, were finally seen to have been well-founded. Holland explains this and much more brilliantly. In fact, Holland succeeds in explaining the causes of the demise of the Republic to my satisfaction, at least. Holland does not attempt to "politicize" Roman history by seeking to draw analogies between Rome and modern-day political issues. By leaving this exercise to each of his readers, Holland succeeds in producing a wonderful, thoughtful, and penetrating look at the Roman Republic and the reasons for its descent into tyranny.
|
