Rating: 
Summary: A magnificent call to arms
Review: Despite of intensive study and thorough research, the book was written with a view on the situation in 1939. Fascist dictatorships then seemed to hold a franchise on the future. StalinÕs purges and the Spanish civil war appeared to reenact the drama which had seen a first performance at the end of the Roman republic, when a party-politician and republican General committed high treason and suspended the constitution, which opened unheard of opportunities and eventually swept the son of a small town banker to the highest office and absolute power. I said swept, but SymeÕs monumental study shows that dumb luck and blind opportunity played only a small part in the ascend of one of the coolest, most ruthless, and most calculating minds who ever aspired political power. However considering the youth and inexperience of Augustus at the beginning of his career, and with a look at the staff of first class advisers that surrounded the young man from the very beginning, one wonders whether it was just AugustusÕ calculation or whether history witnessed to the execution of a master plan by the same man who had had adopted the young Augustus (gossip says, for sexual favours) and who had set him up with means and advisory brainpower. After the dictatorÕs assassination the young fellow acted without hesitation, and succeeded against enormous odds. But the man who despite of his frail physique should become one of the longest ruling heads of state in history, had remarkably few lucky breaks. In 31 BC. he again had reached a point where he completely lacked constitutional legality. In order to consolidate his position, Augustus became the first dictator in history to call for a nationwide plebiscite. With due respect to Mommsen it must be said that Sir RonaldÕs study helps to straighten out MommsenÕs rather curious adulations on Julius Caesar. Yet both historians based their views on the same premise: that democracy inevitably leads to dictatorship, if the conservative forces turn out to be too stubborn and retrograde in terms of social and economical progress, or if they create a situation in which such progress disenfranchises societyÕs weakest without compensating for the pain inflicted. Strange as this may sound: Caesar, Augustus, Musolini, Hitler, Stalin, Peron, or chairman Mao at some point had all started their career as a spokesperson for the people against the pillars of conservatism. When I look at the present scene in America, I wonder whether this lesson is going to be lost again. Who might it be, who is going to hold the peopleÕs mandate without an election? I am afraid he is already walking among us. Legally, as the peopleÕs tribune, a Roman emperor depended on his legislative veto-power. It was Augustus who first realized its importance. Of course the commander in chief of the armed forces could ask for whatever he fancied, yet Augustus had enough acumen not to depend on the loyalty of troops if he could help it. He was a Roman, and like the aqueducts his empire was built for posterity. When it suited them Roman emperors could even present themselves as the antique equivalent to the leader of a modern labor union: Domitian, Òthe most careful administrator of the empireÓ (Mommsen,) is known for his interventionist economics and he had an inventor of a new material executed because such innovation could have put people out of work. The senatorial gossip surrounding Nero has clouded the fact that his policies were immensely popular with the masses, even after his ignominious death. Ancient Rome had succumbed to military despotism, yet we should keep in mind that the same man who had done most to bring down republican liberty, had also left as his legacy the egalitarian rule of law, which remained to be surprisingly functional until DiocletianÕs reforms. Many emperors thought it good PR to show themselves below the law like everybody else, and public welfare enjoyed the benefit. What impresses most in Sir RonaldÕs study is the way this historian manages to unravel the entangled messiness of cross-purpose policies, blind chance, and calculated action. Syme successfully avoids to create a picture of ironclad necessity, which so often mars the perspective of historical writing, but it also becomes quite clear, that in the end timely and better informed decisions succeeded over poorer judgement. Augustus was in no way ÒdestinedÓ to come out victorious, but he did because his opponents missed their chances. Eventually this supreme pragmatist became not only the richest man of his era but also the most opulent benefactor who funneled back most of his billions into the community. Augustus is one of the enigmas of history: an absolutely ruthless politician, completely untrammeled by even the remotest sign of a conscience, and yet at the same time a genuine benefactor, fond of mingling with lower classes at the dog-races; a man who preferred to live, away from his palaces and villas, in a small, rented apartment. Go figure. Not your everyday friendly mobster from the neighborhood. And this is the other great quality of SymeÕs study. He clearly advances on MommsenÕs anachronistic imposition of latter-day party politics on the Roman political scene. With Sir Ronald we come much closer to the often purely dynastic competition in the Roman senate. However it would oversimplify the situation to dismiss this institution merely as a clearinghouse for perks and prestige without any conflict between principles and policies. The legislation of the Gracci had had introduced issues that really mattered and moved the urban masses to support populist dynasts, like Catilina and Caesar, against provincial upstarts on the conservative ticket, like Cicero, and even made them vote for military junta chiefs of dubious legitimacy like Augustus himself. Sir RonaldÕs book, meant as a warning to politicians of his own time, never compromises on scholarship and profound analysis. Historiography at its very best; an outstanding achievement.
Rating:
Summary: A magnificent call to arms
Review: Despite of intensive study and thorough research, the book was written with a view on the situation in 1939. Fascist dictatorships then seemed to hold a franchise on the future. StalinÕs purges and the Spanish civil war appeared to reenact the drama which had seen a first performance at the end of the Roman republic, when a party-politician and republican General committed high treason and suspended the constitution, which opened unheard of opportunities and eventually swept the son of a small town banker to the highest office and absolute power. I said swept, but SymeÕs monumental study shows that dumb luck and blind opportunity played only a small part in the ascend of one of the coolest, most ruthless, and most calculating minds who ever aspired political power. However considering the youth and inexperience of Augustus at the beginning of his career, and with a look at the staff of first class advisers that surrounded the young man from the very beginning, one wonders whether it was just AugustusÕ calculation or whether history witnessed to the execution of a master plan by the same man who had had adopted the young Augustus (gossip says, for sexual favours) and who had set him up with means and advisory brainpower. After the dictatorÕs assassination the young fellow acted without hesitation, and succeeded against enormous odds. But the man who despite of his frail physique should become one of the longest ruling heads of state in history, had remarkably few lucky breaks. In 31 BC. he again had reached a point where he completely lacked constitutional legality. In order to consolidate his position, Augustus became the first dictator in history to call for a nationwide plebiscite. With due respect to Mommsen it must be said that Sir RonaldÕs study helps to straighten out MommsenÕs rather curious adulations on Julius Caesar. Yet both historians based their views on the same premise: that democracy inevitably leads to dictatorship, if the conservative forces turn out to be too stubborn and retrograde in terms of social and economical progress, or if they create a situation in which such progress disenfranchises societyÕs weakest without compensating for the pain inflicted. Strange as this may sound: Caesar, Augustus, Musolini, Hitler, Stalin, Peron, or chairman Mao at some point had all started their career as a spokesperson for the people against the pillars of conservatism. When I look at the present scene in America, I wonder whether this lesson is going to be lost again. Who might it be, who is going to hold the peopleÕs mandate without an election? I am afraid he is already walking among us. Legally, as the peopleÕs tribune, a Roman emperor depended on his legislative veto-power. It was Augustus who first realized its importance. Of course the commander in chief of the armed forces could ask for whatever he fancied, yet Augustus had enough acumen not to depend on the loyalty of troops if he could help it. He was a Roman, and like the aqueducts his empire was built for posterity. When it suited them Roman emperors could even present themselves as the antique equivalent to the leader of a modern labor union: Domitian, Òthe most careful administrator of the empireÓ (Mommsen,) is known for his interventionist economics and he had an inventor of a new material executed because such innovation could have put people out of work. The senatorial gossip surrounding Nero has clouded the fact that his policies were immensely popular with the masses, even after his ignominious death. Ancient Rome had succumbed to military despotism, yet we should keep in mind that the same man who had done most to bring down republican liberty, had also left as his legacy the egalitarian rule of law, which remained to be surprisingly functional until DiocletianÕs reforms. Many emperors thought it good PR to show themselves below the law like everybody else, and public welfare enjoyed the benefit. What impresses most in Sir RonaldÕs study is the way this historian manages to unravel the entangled messiness of cross-purpose policies, blind chance, and calculated action. Syme successfully avoids to create a picture of ironclad necessity, which so often mars the perspective of historical writing, but it also becomes quite clear, that in the end timely and better informed decisions succeeded over poorer judgement. Augustus was in no way ÒdestinedÓ to come out victorious, but he did because his opponents missed their chances. Eventually this supreme pragmatist became not only the richest man of his era but also the most opulent benefactor who funneled back most of his billions into the community. Augustus is one of the enigmas of history: an absolutely ruthless politician, completely untrammeled by even the remotest sign of a conscience, and yet at the same time a genuine benefactor, fond of mingling with lower classes at the dog-races; a man who preferred to live, away from his palaces and villas, in a small, rented apartment. Go figure. Not your everyday friendly mobster from the neighborhood. And this is the other great quality of SymeÕs study. He clearly advances on MommsenÕs anachronistic imposition of latter-day party politics on the Roman political scene. With Sir Ronald we come much closer to the often purely dynastic competition in the Roman senate. However it would oversimplify the situation to dismiss this institution merely as a clearinghouse for perks and prestige without any conflict between principles and policies. The legislation of the Gracci had had introduced issues that really mattered and moved the urban masses to support populist dynasts, like Catilina and Caesar, against provincial upstarts on the conservative ticket, like Cicero, and even made them vote for military junta chiefs of dubious legitimacy like Augustus himself. Sir RonaldÕs book, meant as a warning to politicians of his own time, never compromises on scholarship and profound analysis. Historiography at its very best; an outstanding achievement.
Rating: 
Summary: heavy but not convincing
Review: Heavy on the prosopagraphy, this book requires strength just to get through it. For the layperson, the evidence may be overwhelming, but for the ancient historian the immediate question is: "how do these family connections prove his theory". The answer leads one to other questions as certain parts of the book enlighten and inform while others merely build up impression collections of names and familiar ties. In the end, a scholar must ask: "Was there a revolution at all?"
Rating:
Summary: heavy but not convincing
Review: Heavy on the prosopagraphy, this book requires strength just to get through it. For the layperson, the evidence may be overwhelming, but for the ancient historian the immediate question is: "how do these family connections prove his theory". The answer leads one to other questions as certain parts of the book enlighten and inform while others merely build up impression collections of names and familiar ties. In the end, a scholar must ask: "Was there a revolution at all?"
Rating:
Summary: An Anatomy of a Murder
Review: How did the world's most powerful, free republic fall into dictatorship? This pressing question animates two classics of classical history--H. H. Scullard's "From the Gracchi to Nero" and Sir Ronald Syme's "The Roman Revolution."Syme's analysis of the end of the Free State is as authoritative as it is magisterial. Written in the terse, energetic style of Tacitus, RR shares Tacitus' verdict on the falling Republic--that a princeps, however horrible, was the only "solution" for a state ruled by warring, short-sighted, power-lusting factions. But what a marvel those factions were to behold! For the patient reader, there is a gripping story herein--as intricate as Puzo's "The Godfather," as high-stakes as Hugo's "Ninety-Three," as vibrant as Shakespeare. I think this is historiography at its best.
Rating:
Summary: An Anatomy of a Murder
Review: How did the world's most powerful, free republic fall into dictatorship? This pressing question animates two classics of classical history--H. H. Scullard's "From the Gracchi to Nero" and Sir Ronald Syme's "The Roman Revolution." Syme's analysis of the end of the Free State is as authoritative as it is magisterial. Written in the terse, energetic style of Tacitus, RR shares Tacitus' verdict on the falling Republic--that a princeps, however horrible, was the only "solution" for a state ruled by warring, short-sighted, power-lusting factions. But what a marvel those factions were to behold! For the patient reader, there is a gripping story herein--as intricate as Puzo's "The Godfather," as high-stakes as Hugo's "Ninety-Three," as vibrant as Shakespeare. I think this is historiography at its best.
Rating:
Summary: a brilliant history book on the end of the roman republic
Review: if you are looking for a challenging history book on the roman repuplic and its decline, this is the book to have. extremly interesting, and it gives new look to current politics in many corners of the world (note that this book was first published on 1939).
Rating:
Summary: One of the greatest works of history of the 20th century
Review: Syme wrote this, his first work, in 1939. He both challenged prevailing views of Augustus and demonstrated how family ties and allegiances affected the politics of the late republic. Above all, however, "The Roman Revolution" is a study in politics and power and the story of an adventurer subverting a declining system and seizing control. The sequel, The Augustan Aristocray, was published nearly 50 years later. Syme's style deliberately echoes that of his hero, Tacitus, and he is a difficult but rewarding read.
Rating:
Summary: One of the greatest works of history of the 20th century
Review: Syme wrote this, his first work, in 1939. He both challenged prevailing views of Augustus and demonstrated how family ties and allegiances affected the politics of the late republic. Above all, however, "The Roman Revolution" is a study in politics and power and the story of an adventurer subverting a declining system and seizing control. The sequel, The Augustan Aristocray, was published nearly 50 years later. Syme's style deliberately echoes that of his hero, Tacitus, and he is a difficult but rewarding read.
Rating:
Summary: Gutter Dictatorships Yesterday and Today
Review: This book and its supporting player, the brilliant "The Augustan Aristocracy," by the same author, depicts the rise of Augustus Caesar as a brilliant opportunist exploiting a Republic that was not socially or philosophically equipped to manage what had become an empire. Sound familiar? Like Americans today have flocked to their own gutter rabble dictator, "Dubya Caesar", Romans of their time, a decadent society with many parallels to our own, were inexorably drawn to the rule of one, militaristic, fascist leader.
This book, which was written in 1939, presciently anticipates the rise of rabble dictators in Europe, and it's companion volume, "The Augustan Aristocracy" supplies us with an overview of the kind of milieu that allows the rise of such aberrant dictatorships.
We all should read this book AND "The Augustan Aristocracy" today, read them with close attention; because there are many parallels to be drawn between the conditions outlined in these books and those in contemporary American society.
It is unfortunate that the American government has been similarly usurped by a gutter rabble dictatorship that replaces democratic rule with election theft, amply supported by their own, moneyed, Augustan Aristocracy.
|
