Reviews for The Rise of the Roman Empire

The average rating for The Rise of the Roman Empire based on 2 reviews is 3.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2016-10-19 00:00:00 Matthew Valva Polybius' account of the rise of Rome, from city on seven hills to world power, has great vigour, reading book one which deals with the first punic war when Rome leapt out of Italy into conflict with Carthage for control over Scilly I had the sensation that the narrative was pursuing me like an elephant, bearing down on me as I fled before it. Although I remembered the injunction to either come home with my shield or on my shield, I cast it away the better to escape unencumbered, some Carthaginian has it now. Polybius is also one of the hugely unlucky authors of antiquity, as only the first five books of his universal history survive along with fragments of the rest, in this translation we get the remaining bits of book six - discussing constitutions, part of Polybius' thesis is that it was Rome's distinctive mixed constitution that propelled the city state to dominance, and book twelve which deals with how unreasonably stupid other historians are, admittedly in his august opinion. The other part of Polybius's thesis is that the world is so interconnected in the second century BC and experience so globalised that we need a universal history - one can no longer , if one ever could look at a historical event as a discrete, disconnected happening, no, everything is interconnected, the rustling of a foot soldier's wolf skin in Italy has a bearing on events in Egypt. Therefore Polybius' history proceeds in parallel, we must understand Philip V of Macedon's politics to appreciate how and why he got involved in the Hannibalic war, and how Philip V's activities interlinked with those of the other Macedonian dynasties in Asia and Egypt to realise how the Romans were drawn east to become masters of the universe, unfortunately because nobody in the medieval period had the sitzfleisch to copy out the whole of his history, it cuts out awkwardly after the battle of Cannae in Italy, which rather spoils the effect and leaves us with Livy, who saw the war with Hannibal, if not the whole of Roman history, as a great moral drama in which Hannibal wins for a while because of his low tricks, like ambushes and having tactics generally. Polybius by contrast is analytical and thoughtful - his theme was thrust in his face, on the loosing side against Rome, the question of how this mysteriously warlike people came out of nowhere and conquered everywhere and took him as a hostage to an alien country was unavoidable. The reason for this success for Polybius lay in Rome's constitution. Polybius has a Buddenbrooks view of constitutions, Kingship tends towards tyranny, aristocracy to oligarchy, democracy to mob rule, though not like some poncy optimist might think, over three generations, but immediately from one generation to the next. The best constitutions however escape this by being mixed, with each element balancing the other out & preventing, or at least holding off the inevitable decline. In his view the Athenian constitution was ok but like a ship without a captain and so doomed, Plato's constitution had never been tested in practise, Sparta with its equal division of land the best at achieving stability but did not provide the basis for massive expansion, the Roman constitution through trial and error however allowed the achievement of empire and if that is what you want, then it is the model to follow, he doesn't care for the Carthaginian constitution as they practised bribery, not as in promising greatness or tax cuts, but as in literally handing out coins for votes. Polybius's vision of history is cyclical, so everything tends to decay, he came from Acadia and as he says the Arcadian tends to be dour, unless they practise dancing and music (which presumably in exile he didn't, allowing his dourness to flourish and flower like a thistle), still I think there can be no doubt what lies in the future for Rome, When a state has warded off so many serious threats, and has come to attain undisputed supremacy and sovereignty, it is easy to see that, after a long period of settled prosperity, lifestyles become more extravagant and rivalry over political positions and other such projects becomes fiercer than it should be. If these processes continue for very long, society will change for the worse. The causes of the deterioration will be lust for power combined with contempt for political obscurity, and personal ostentation and extravagance. It will be called a democratic revolution, however, because the time will come when the people will feel abused by some politicians' self seeking ambition and will have been flattered into vain hopes by other's lust for power (p412) however just as you think he was bang on the money it turns out he thinks it will all end in mob rule rather than in tyranny and dictatorship and the rule of one man calling himself Augustus. The other factor in Roman success is personal risk, the Carthaginians hire mercenaries and so in Polybius' opinion have no stake in their wars, while the Romans send out their sons and will not ransom them either - you either fight to the death or fight to victory, third ways are not Roman. His account of the First Punic war shows how extreme this was with Rome consecutively constructing three fleets - loosing the first two in storms, while all the rowers had to be trained on land as they had no maritime tradition to draw on. They even invent a boarding plank with a barb to be able to storm enemy ships - this such a good bit of equipment that it has never become an established part of naval architecture. They fight with no sense that compromise might be an option. There is also a discussion of how the Romans constructed their camps, and organised their army, down to the details of the curvature of their shields, although this isn't all positive, Polybius believes that the Roman emphasis on discipline made it difficult for the soldiers to fight back independently when ambushed at Lake Trasmene. Full of insight and vigour, but tragically incomplete.

Review # 2 was written on 2011-09-09 00:00:00 Desprez Frederic I think reading this book by Polybius (c. 200-118 B.C.) is simply fascinating, informative and rewarding since, I think, we can learn and better understand the Roman Empire from the Greek statesman and historian's views as supported by written and oral sources. I think, posting a review for this book needs time and ideas for my Goodreads friends, therefore, its scope will include a few topics worth mentioning and elucidating (probably more details for future inclusion): 1) How Hannibal crossed the Alps, 2) How Archimedes' contribution defended Cyracuse, and 3) How Scipio saved his father's life & his character. Moreover, the section on Roman constitution compared to the others is also interesting. However, before I forget, I'd like to reveal a section that needs improving for its next revised edition (again, if I don't forget I would inform those in charge at Penguin Books soon). I encountered such a problem when I read the footnote on page 527 as follows: I. In Book XVIII. 35. From my note there: I can't find any to read in this Book, i. e. p. 513 (?). In other words, Book XVIII was ended by chapter 32, therefore, I can't find chapter 35 to read as suggested there! It's a bit disappointing for me, would some Penguin Books people in the UK see to the matter, please? In brief, this book by Polybius is highly recommended to any interested reader of ancient history and you can't help admiring his god-like narrative of war engagements here and there.