Reviews for The Annals of Imperial Rome

The average rating for The Annals of Imperial Rome based on 2 reviews is 3.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2012-02-20 00:00:00 Rick Mayer [ although one of the Roman innovations in colonialism was the introduction of a standard of not completely looting the newly acquired bit of empire (hide spoiler)]

Review # 2 was written on 2013-11-17 00:00:00 Peter Wood Posterity grants everybody the glory he is due. In preparation for my trip to Rome, I decided that it was finally time to read Tacitus. I had been meaning to for a long while. Edward Gibbon, my favorite historian, always spoke of Tacitus in terms of deep reverence; and when your idols have idols, you had better see why. The Annals is Tacitus's last major historical work, considered by many to be his masterpiece. In it, he covers the reigns of Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero'though the books covering Caligula's reign have been lost to time. As the title suggests, Tacitus takes an annalistic approach to his history, keeping the narrative in strict chronological order. With such a style, it is difficult to pull away from the trees and see the forest; rather, the reader often feels lost in the thickets of battles, intrigues, and executions. The final effect is that of being pulled into the history, absorbed in its dramas and scandals, too engrossed for analysis. Tacitus's proclaimed motive for writing his history is the defects of his predecessors: "The histories of Tiberius, Gaius, Claudius, and Nero were distorted because of fear while they reigned, and, when they were gone, were composed with animosities still fresh." This leads to Tacitus's famous promise to write his record "without rancour or bias" since he was "far removed" from the events recorded therein. This is, of course, a dubious claim, especially once you peruse his book. The Annals is often little more than a catalogue of crimes committed by the emperors, related in merciless succession by Tacitus. Hardly a day went by, it seems, without a poisoning, a false conviction, a forced suicide, the torture of slaves, the murder of relatives, or a mass execution. The lucky ones got off with an exile, though half the time a centurion was later sent to finish the job. All of this is related succinctly, dispassionately, but no less vividly by Tacitus; and the cumulative effect is overpowering. The book is absolutely riveting; so often I could not put it down, even as I felt my stomach tightening from the stream of tragedy. The only thing that breaks this chain of woe are forays into the provinces'the north and the east, to be precise'wherein certain kings and tribes occasionally rouse up trouble, until the Roman legions come in to 'pacify' the region. These episodes of provincial warfare are often a great relief from corrupt scenes of Rome, not to mention excellent examples of military history, with rousing depictions of battles, stratagems, and the horrors of war. The best of these sections come near the beginning, when Tacitus relates the career of Germanicus, the Roman Alexander, whose military victories were a cause of constant jealousy on Tiberius's part. It is difficult to evaluate Tacitus as a historian, since he came from such a different time, and wrote with different aims and motives. Lamentably, but not surprisingly, he most often does not disclose his sources, which makes it nearly impossible to evaluate the veracity of most of his claims. Tacitus's aim is relatively narrow, confining himself to political and military history, with no concern for economic, social, artistic, or religious history. He is generally not concerned with seeking causes or analyzing patterns. Rather, Tacitus sees history as a moral and a practical exercise, recording evil deeds so they can be avoided, and good deeds so they can be imitated. Where Tacitus excels is not as a historian as such, but an author. His famously terse prose doubtless loses most of its tang through translation. Even with this loss, however, Tacitus is a writer of the highest caliber. He is capable of evoking scenes, portraying personalities, depicting battles in just a few lines, which nonetheless can knock the reader over with their dramatic power. The combination of Tacitus's own political experience with his keen literary talent serves to make him a rival of the best novelists as a storyteller. It is difficult to exaggerate how exciting this book can be. I feel very happy now, for I'm sure that I made an excellent choice. No other book could have given me such a vivid portrait of Ancient Rome. Now I can join Gibbon as an admirer of Tacitus, and will soon join Gibbon as another pilgrim to that ancient city.