Histories, The

Rating:
Summary: As a document great! On a literary basis, well...
Review: Here is the history of Rome from Nero onward. The primary focus is the year of the four emporers. Savage times make great reading in and of themselves.

A drawback in the writings of Tacitus however is his manner of stating the facts and people involved without giving background or reminding us of who these people are when they show up again. There are hundreds of people plotting and counterplotting in this tome and it is nearly impossible to keep everyone straight.

One part that interested me was the section on The Jews. As I begin to go into mourning for the destruction of the Temple it is interesting to remember the writings of Tacitus who thought that this was a good idea. THe Hanukkah story is retold from the Hellenistic perspective and comes out "Antiochus IV tried to hellenize them and make them into a civilized race, but he died before he could complete the task and they reverted to their bizarre ways". And other sections proves that anti-semiti! sm was not invented by the Christians (although no one was accusing Jews of killing Mercury or Bacchus).

An invaluable book for Classics junkies.

Rating:
Summary: Considerations
Review: I will agree that this work can often be confusing in Tacitus failure to fully explain new characters as they suddenly appear as if from no where, but the narrative is smooth, never tiresome and it must be considered that it was written more than a thousand years ago and has been left to us in a mutilated form. Despite these small drawbacks Tacitus is still Rome's greatest ancient historian and the greatest stylist in the Latin language.

Rating:
Summary: Considerations
Review: I will agree with some that this work can often be confusing in Tacitus failure to fully explain new characters as they suddenly appear as if from no where, but the narrative is smooth, never tiresome, and it must be considered that it was written more than a thousand years ago and has been left to us in a mutilated form. Despite these small drawbacks Tacitus is still Rome's greatest ancient historian and the greatest stylist in the Latin language.

Rating:
Summary: corrupting effects of power
Review: Reading Tacitus' Annals I oft remembered Thucydides' account of the Peleponnesian wars. An important theme of the latter work was the corrupting effects of prolonged war on the morals and intellect of the Athenian people, who were ultimately degraded so much that they voted the destruction of the people of a small island just because they had chosen to remain neutral. Tacitus, on the other hand, seems to have dedicated himself in this work to examining the corrupting effects of absolutism on the Roman people after the fall of the Republic. He shows how absolute power brought out the worst traits in the character of rulers like Tiberius and Nero, who grew more and more tyrannical with every year on the throne, and how members of the illustruous Roman senate and other sections of the Roman political society turned into a horde of spineless sycophants, informers and debauches. There were still a few honourable individuals, but as Tacitus shows in an endless series of judicial and non-judicial murders, most of these paid the price of sticking to the ancient traditions of liberty and honour with their lives. Tacitus also deals at length with the relations of the Romans with the subject peo-ples. I may be wrong here, but it seems to me that in such passages Tacitus draws a parallels between the fate of these enslaved peoples and that of the enslaved Roman people -the first a slave to the Romans, the second a slave to the emperor and his bureaucracy made up of ex-slaves. Many subject peoples rebelled and some like the Cherusci under Arminius (towards whom he does not seem averse at all) could successfully preserve their liberty against the in-trusion of the Romans. Those Romans who dared defy the tyrant on the other hand, and especially those who could wisely remain independent and yet stay alive, were far fewer, Tacitus seems to imply. Insofar as it demonstrates how closely liberty (including liberty of thought) and morals are intertwined, this work is still relevant today as a central work of liberal humanism.

Rating:
Summary: fascinating reading
Review: Tacitus Histories deals with the turbulent year 69AD the year of four emperors. Tacitus eye for detail which allows us to understand the personalities of Galba, Otho, Vitellius and Vespatian and their motivations and ambitions in this trully chaotic time in Rome's history. The sinister role of the Praetorians in these events is faithfully accounted. I found I could not put it down! Very readable compared to the Annals. The translation is first rate. The work is also supported by numerous foot notes and maps. Anyone interested in this period of Roman history must read this book.

Rating:
Summary: A great book bringing the time alive
Review: Tacitus the great Roman historian, although this means somewhat different things from what it does now, wrote during the eventful years of the first and second century straddling the changes in Roman society that took place over this time and the first inklings of the vast population movements which were still to come.

In these books he chronicles the events taking place in the year AD 69 during the civil war which followed the death of Nero and the power vacuum left in his wake. The machinations of Otho, Galba, Vitellius and Vespasian are laid bare in a story told from Tacitus's viewpoint. One gets the feeling that he wrote in times of cynicism and greed, corruption and a degenerate society come to the fore. Tacitus was convinced that Roman society, and I'm sure many thought so as well, had declined in its inherent worth. Tacitus always seems to be looking back to the golden eras of a strong, vital and honest society often represented by the early years of expansion and struggle exemplified by the early Republic with figures such as Cato and later by Marius and even Augustus. He writes I think to both judge his time and leave it open for improvement especially as regards the integrity of the common man. The book is full of treachery and corruption from the lowest ranks such as slaves and freed men right up to the senators themselves. Strangely, although these weaknesses consume him he nonetheless points out the decent core yet still awake in the Roman state. At one point Otho the Emperor, at war with Vitellius over the throne, appears a self indulgent man taking too much pleasure in food and drink, rather against the original stoic mind set of his Roman forebears, but in the next he appears not totally without merit through his inspirational speeches to the troops. The same applies to the entire retinue of the warring parties each of whom are analysed in a manner exposing their weaknesses and strengths, all done mostly through the story itself rather than through an in depth analysis of the individual characters as such. Yet another reason Tacitus was such a skilled writer.

As the year progresses and gradually Vitellius becomes dominant as Emperor and finally Vespasian makes his moves through fascinating political manoeuvres which include a number of personages even including Domitian, we see many aspects of the complex process at work in the eventual rise of Vespasian to the throne.

There are some things which stand out in the narrative, one of which disabuses us of the usual interpretation of the situation as regards the views held by the Roman populace to the external "barbarians", especially in free Germany along the Rhine and Danube frontiers. What becomes clear is that even the seemingly alien Germans become part of the political process, they no longer seem a distant agressor hidden in the depths of the dark trackless forests of Germany but rather become human possessing the same weaknesses and strengths as other men. They are no longer seen as strictly alien to Romans themselves but are now players in the field of Empire. These new views seem at odds with other works even Tacitus's own "Agricola and the Germany" where the differences of these peoples from that of Rome is emphasised.

Although this "new" view is noted, much is made of the ability of the German auxiliaries, their toughness and strength and bold recklessness in war, an aura of eliteness surrounds them and even of fear in the eyes of the legions. Similar note is taken of separate legions themselves such as those of Germany who having fought the Germans themselves many times are also considered almost invincible. The 14th Legion which single handedly defeated the Boudiccan rebellion against enormous odds, being outnumbered at least five to one, also stand out and are taken as elite.

Unfortunately some of the original "Histories" is lost and this is shown by the abrupt end to the book just as Vespasian really starts to enter the picture. Nonetheless this is a fascinating book written with much skill and deft handling although it doesn't possess the same wit as his other "Agricola and the Germany". This tome seems a more serious work and may have been intended as such.

A great book bringing the time alive.

Rating:
Summary: 69 AD: The Year of the Four Emporers
Review: The Histories, an account of the tumultuous year of 69 AD, is a historical tour de force by the Roman senator Cornelius Tacitus. Although part of the original work which was written in 105-108 AD has been lost, that which remains is still one of the better works of an ancient historian. The main strengths of this history lie in good organization and rich detail, combined with an excellent writing style and pithy observations. The main characters are the four men who vied for imperial power in the wake of the emperor Nero's demise: the elderly Galba, the playboy Otho, the porcine Vitellius and the veteran soldier Vespasian. All of these men sought to establish themselves in power and the result was a yearlong civil war that spread across virtually the entire empire.

Organizationally, the book is divided into chapters that cover various events in chronological order. The tension and drama mounts as chapters follow the murder of Galba, Vitellius' march on Rome, the suicide of Otho, Vespasian's bid for power and the revolt of upper Germany under Civilis. Tacitus has organized the work well and the book quickly becomes a page-turner, as the drama and intrigue is interwoven between chapters. There are virtually no diversions from the main themes and little material that is irrelevant. The only problem organizationally, is that Tacitus includes very few time references so it can be difficult to gauge when events are actually occurring (the editor adds some dates in footnotes, but many other dates are vague). He also introduces many characters without providing sufficient background material.

One of the main values of Tacitus' work is the richness of detail. There is considerable information on military order of battle and campaigns, as well as senatorial debates, imperial finances and political intrigues. Militarily, the Roman army does not appear so grand in Tacitus' account of their civil war behavior. Tacitus hates civil war and feels that it erodes the morality and discipline that made Rome great. Indiscipline is rife, with jealous generals competing against each other and troops always on the verge of mutiny or massacring civilians. Tacitus recounts that each of the armies of the imperial aspirants committed atrocities along the way to Rome in order to demonstrate the moral ambivalence of the civil struggle. In combat, the Roman soldier of this period performed poorly, whether against fellow Romans or Germans. Without discipline Tacitus suggests, the Roman army was little more than an armed mob led by criminals. He notes that, "a career of riot and looting was just the thing to acclimatize them to the idea of civil war". Even the famed Praetorian Guard appears ragged, fickle and lazy here; at the Second Battle of Cremona they are told "you are finished as soldiers unless you beat the enemy...Dishonor you have drunk to the dregs." The Second Battle of Cremona, which the forces of Vespasian win, is highly unusual as an example of a night battle in ancient history.

Tacitus is highly readable because his writing style is fluid and vivid. In describing cowardly senators who were quick to switch allegiances he writes that, "they expressed themselves in violent language, and played the hero with their tongue." Galba is undone by "the united chorus of delusion" of his witless advisors. When civil order in Rome begins to break down, Tacitus notes "the willingness of the better men to obey orders had been neutralized by the darkness." Tacitus also provides numerous pithy observations as well for the student of politics. He says that, "since time immemorial, man has had an instinctive love of power." However he has contempt for the masses, writing, "political issues are usually above the heads of the lower classes and the man in the street owing to their complexity." Tacitus views the role of chance as critical in the outcome of events, rather than the relative merits of a cause.

There is a certain bias in this work, as there is in all historical writing. Tacitus denigrates Galba, Otho and Vitellius, but Vespasian is applauded as "a born soldier". Of course, Vespasian was the ultimate victor and the others were losers, so there is no doubt that Tacitus engages in propaganda to embellish the wickedness of those other aspirants to the throne. Tacitus is also biased against the Germans (e.g. "The actions of the Germans were marked by incoherent fury...") and the Jews. He presents interesting but wildly inaccurate opinions on the origin of the Jews and Moses. However it is interesting, in light of the persecution of Christians under Nero, that he makes no mention of Christianity.

Tacitus' account of this critical year in history, when the Roman Empire swung in the balance, is gripping and dramatic. Although biased toward the ultimate victor, this is still an incredibly detailed and rich account of events. Superb writing and organization complete the value of this historical triumph.

Rating:
Summary: 69 AD: The Year of the Four Emporers
Review: The Histories, an account of the tumultuous year of 69 AD, is a historical tour de force by the Roman senator Cornelius Tacitus. Although part of the original work which was written in 105-108 AD has been lost, that which remains is still one of the better works of an ancient historian. The main strengths of this history lie in good organization and rich detail, combined with an excellent writing style and pithy observations. The main characters are the four men who vied for imperial power in the wake of the emperor Nero's demise: the elderly Galba, the playboy Otho, the porcine Vitellius and the veteran soldier Vespasian. All of these men sought to establish themselves in power and the result was a yearlong civil war that spread across virtually the entire empire.

Organizationally, the book is divided into chapters that cover various events in chronological order. The tension and drama mounts as chapters follow the murder of Galba, Vitellius' march on Rome, the suicide of Otho, Vespasian's bid for power and the revolt of upper Germany under Civilis. Tacitus has organized the work well and the book quickly becomes a page-turner, as the drama and intrigue is interwoven between chapters. There are virtually no diversions from the main themes and little material that is irrelevant. The only problem organizationally, is that Tacitus includes very few time references so it can be difficult to gauge when events are actually occurring (the editor adds some dates in footnotes, but many other dates are vague). He also introduces many characters without providing sufficient background material.

One of the main values of Tacitus' work is the richness of detail. There is considerable information on military order of battle and campaigns, as well as senatorial debates, imperial finances and political intrigues. Militarily, the Roman army does not appear so grand in Tacitus' account of their civil war behavior. Tacitus hates civil war and feels that it erodes the morality and discipline that made Rome great. Indiscipline is rife, with jealous generals competing against each other and troops always on the verge of mutiny or massacring civilians. Tacitus recounts that each of the armies of the imperial aspirants committed atrocities along the way to Rome in order to demonstrate the moral ambivalence of the civil struggle. In combat, the Roman soldier of this period performed poorly, whether against fellow Romans or Germans. Without discipline Tacitus suggests, the Roman army was little more than an armed mob led by criminals. He notes that, "a career of riot and looting was just the thing to acclimatize them to the idea of civil war". Even the famed Praetorian Guard appears ragged, fickle and lazy here; at the Second Battle of Cremona they are told "you are finished as soldiers unless you beat the enemy...Dishonor you have drunk to the dregs." The Second Battle of Cremona, which the forces of Vespasian win, is highly unusual as an example of a night battle in ancient history.

Tacitus is highly readable because his writing style is fluid and vivid. In describing cowardly senators who were quick to switch allegiances he writes that, "they expressed themselves in violent language, and played the hero with their tongue." Galba is undone by "the united chorus of delusion" of his witless advisors. When civil order in Rome begins to break down, Tacitus notes "the willingness of the better men to obey orders had been neutralized by the darkness." Tacitus also provides numerous pithy observations as well for the student of politics. He says that, "since time immemorial, man has had an instinctive love of power." However he has contempt for the masses, writing, "political issues are usually above the heads of the lower classes and the man in the street owing to their complexity." Tacitus views the role of chance as critical in the outcome of events, rather than the relative merits of a cause.

There is a certain bias in this work, as there is in all historical writing. Tacitus denigrates Galba, Otho and Vitellius, but Vespasian is applauded as "a born soldier". Of course, Vespasian was the ultimate victor and the others were losers, so there is no doubt that Tacitus engages in propaganda to embellish the wickedness of those other aspirants to the throne. Tacitus is also biased against the Germans (e.g. "The actions of the Germans were marked by incoherent fury...") and the Jews. He presents interesting but wildly inaccurate opinions on the origin of the Jews and Moses. However it is interesting, in light of the persecution of Christians under Nero, that he makes no mention of Christianity.

Tacitus' account of this critical year in history, when the Roman Empire swung in the balance, is gripping and dramatic. Although biased toward the ultimate victor, this is still an incredibly detailed and rich account of events. Superb writing and organization complete the value of this historical triumph.

Rating:
Summary: May You Live in Interesting Times
Review: The year 69 CE, called The Year of the Four Emperors, was awfully busy in the Roman Empire. The Emperor Nero had committed suicide in the previous year, the last ruler to have a family connection to Julius Caesar. His place was taken by Servius Sulpicius Galba, who was murdered early in 69 as part of a revolt by the next emperor, Marcus Salvius Otho. Otho himself committed suicide after being militarily bested by the next emperor, Lucius Vitellius. But by December of 69, Vitellius had been assassinated, and his place taken by Titus Flavius Sabinus Vespasianus, the general who had brutally suppressed the Bar Kochba rebellion in Judea. All this in less than 365 days.

Tacitus was a Roman conservative and, if his spirit could be summoned back from the dead, I would love to see him coming "From the Right" on "Crossfire." He was a tremendous writer, and "The Histories" are full of examples of this. There are his epigrams, such as his observation that Galba would have universally been thought of as worthy to rule had he never, in fact, ruled. There are interesting characters, like the great opportunist Antonius Primus, whose nickname translates roughly as "Beaky" because, well, he had a huge nose. There are a great many people mentioned in this work and therefore it needs to be read carefully, as it's hard to keep track of the Romans without a scorecard.

After the year 69, the Presidential election of 2000 seems pretty tame, doesn't it?