Rating: 
Summary: A well-written, well-illustrated survey of Roman history.
Review: Author Michael Grant lives up to his reputation in this narrative chronology of ancient roman history. The book is essentially a detailed survey of the subject, but contains more than enough detail to give the novice student of the Romans an excellent introduction, as well as offering a convenient quick reference for the more advanced. The book covers not only the history of Rome, but provides brief biographical sketches of noteworthy persons, while not ignoring artistic, literary, economic, and political achievements. The book is certainly expensive but, if roman history is your interest, History of Rome will become a permanent part of your library. I've had my copy since it was published over twenty years ago.
Rating:
Summary: A well-written, well-illustrated survey of Roman history.
Review: Author Michael Grant lives up to his reputation in this narrative chronology of ancient roman history. The book is essentially a detailed survey of the subject, but contains more than enough detail to give the novice student of the Romans an excellent introduction, as well as offering a convenient quick reference for the more advanced. The book covers not only the history of Rome, but provides brief biographical sketches of noteworthy persons, while not ignoring artistic, literary, economic, and political achievements. The book is certainly expensive but, if roman history is your interest, History of Rome will become a permanent part of your library. I've had my copy since it was published over twenty years ago.
Rating: 
Summary: An Excellent Overview of Roman History
Review: Before exploring the depths of Roman history it's important to grasp the sheer breadth of it. As one of the few one volume histories of Rome this book is a great starting point for the study of Roman history. Obviously, detail has to be sacrificed in an overview (which is really what this book is). But, Grant sneaks a surprising amount of details into this one. Due to the structure of the book and the reader friendly narrative style he employs it's easy to miss many details. He often mentions a battle in a single sentence (just date, location, victor). But, such a clipped pace is required when writing a history of this magnitude. Of course, I have a few qualms. Like most historians, Grant can't help but pass judgement on the Romans for their brutality. He would have been better off including a few lines describing a particular incident of brutality, instead of moralizing. Also, he falls into another common trap, near the conclusion losing the narrative thread, and focusing more on the reasons for Rome's fall. Lastly, the book includes a mix of narration and analysis. Grant's narration is some of the best writing in a history of Rome. However, his analysis stands in stark contrast. He's at his best when he weaves (social) analysis in with straight narration. Early on he does this. Later, he slips up a bit. While the majority of the book has a definite cinematic feel, the last quarter or so is rather choppy and (on occasion) dry. Despite its faults, this is by far the best book covering the whole of Roman history. Buy this book before you buy any other history of Rome. Then, use it to find the periods you'd like to explore in depth. From there, you can choose from many modern and classical sources. But, without first reading through a history of Rome from founding to fall, it's easy to get overwhelmed by the many histories out there. Grant's book is the perfect introduction to Roman history. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Rating:
Summary: well written
Review: Grant is likely best known to readers as an historical fiction author but he is in fact also a scholar. He turns his writing talents to a basic textbook for undergraduates. It reads well but lacks on a few details that the instructor must be sure to include or explain. Not quite as well organized as other textbooks and thus students might have difficulty reviewing particular events or people. But then they should actually be doing the full assignment to begin with.
Rating:
Summary: well written
Review: Grant is likely best known to readers as an historical fiction author but he is in fact also a scholar. He turns his writing talents to a basic textbook for undergraduates. It reads well but lacks on a few details that the instructor must be sure to include or explain. Not quite as well organized as other textbooks and thus students might have difficulty reviewing particular events or people. But then they should actually be doing the full assignment to begin with.
Rating:
Summary: good book, but too expensive
Review: I bought this book a few years ago when it was published by Macmillan. It was larger, had heavier paper, and larger type. You must decide whether this Prentice Hall edition is worth the money. You can get a large, hardcover, brand new medical physiology textbook for that price. If you cannot find one second-hand, or you must get this edition: it is an excellent read. The text almost flows like a novel. Unlike some books which cover exclusively either republican or imperial Rome, Grant covers both periods. He also briefly covers artistic, literary, and architectural achievements, and covers the role of the rise of Christianity in a historical context. These discussions are necessarily brief and require more research and/or explanation, depending on which side you are on, the teacher or the student. Perhaps someone can convince Prentice Hall that for the price it is charging, we should at least have a hardcover? I suspect many people will be waiting for a Dover edition.
Rating:
Summary: good book, but too expensive
Review: I bought this book a few years ago when it was published by Macmillan. It was larger, had heavier paper, and larger type. You must decide whether this Prentice Hall edition is worth the money. You can get a large, hardcover, brand new medical physiology textbook for that price. If you cannot find one second-hand, or you must get this edition: it is an excellent read. The text almost flows like a novel. Unlike some books which cover exclusively either republican or imperial Rome, Grant covers both periods. He also briefly covers artistic, literary, and architectural achievements, and covers the role of the rise of Christianity in a historical context. These discussions are necessarily brief and require more research and/or explanation, depending on which side you are on, the teacher or the student. Perhaps someone can convince Prentice Hall that for the price it is charging, we should at least have a hardcover? I suspect many people will be waiting for a Dover edition.
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant Telling of Ancient Roman History
Review: I originally read this book for a college class twenty years ago. Upon rereading it recently, I rediscovered why Michael Grant is one of the major historians of ancient history. It is the first of many of his books that I have begun to reread. He writes in a clear and concise manner clearly stating what the facts are and, more importantly, stating what his opinions are. He doesn't do, as most historians today do, state his opinion as being absolute fact and trying to fit the facts to go along with his theories. Grant is undoubtly one of the major historians of this period and you should try to read not only this book, but anything he has written.
Rating:
Summary: A Tour de Force in Roman History
Review: I think this book is brilliant. Michael Grant does not leave the reader wondering "What happened in Rome?" All the basic historical information that a beginner, or even someone more sophisticated, may want to know about Rome is here in this book. This is not as much a textbook, as a sophisticated popular history of Rome, which in my opinion is the strength, and not a weakness, of this volume. It's easy to see throughout the book where the facts are narrated and where their interpretation begins and ends. I do not agree with all of Grant's interpretations. For example, he occasionally induldges in amature psychology, i.e., attributing to the Romans a sadistic side to their national character. I do not think this has anything to do with "national character," but rather it is more likey to be, at least latently, present in the human character in general. I also disagree with his assessment of Cato the Elder and his argument that Carthage was destroyed primarily out of revenge that was fueled by Cato's personal enmity to Carthage and by the scars left by Hannibal in Rome. Overall, the book is an easy and entertaining read, covering military, political, artistic, and religious sides of Rome. Although I have a Ph.D. in a social science, I have refreshed my knowledge about Rome in this book and learned a number of new, interesting facts. Definitely recommednded for anyone who wants to know more about Rome.
Rating:
Summary: Scholarly and capturing
Review: I will not repeat what the reviewers below have already said. I just want to add, that the original edition of this book dates back to 1960; 20 years ago I bought 2nd hand copies of the then two books. I guess that the 1978 edition hardly differs; in view of this, the present edition is indeed expensive.
|
