Definitive Roman history books?

[Brain_in_a_vat]

I'm looking to buy a few books on Roman History, preferably covering the late Republic - early Empire period. I'm not looking for anything specific, and I don't have any preferences other than this general period. I'm not too bothered about even that though, so if you want to recommend an extremely good book detailing the early Republic, the Roman Kingdom or the fall of Rome that'd be fine

Just looking to widen my knowledge on Roman history, that's all. If this is the wrong place to post a thread like this then move please.

[MrDogbert]

I have just finished The Ghosts of Cannae by Robert L O`Connell which is good but thats more to do with hannibal in the first parts and Battle of Cannae then about the army Scipo brings to Africa.

I have been told Adrian Goldsworthy has alot of good books on the Romans but thats most likely to do with its Legion.

[Winter]

Anthony Everitt has written some spectacular biographies of Cicero, Augustus, and Hadrian. I've not read the Hadrian book, but if it is anything like the other two then it will be a comprehensive and entertaining journey through the era.

http://www.amazon.com/Cicero-Times-R.../dp/037575895X

If you are more adventurous, you might try some ancient authors. Livy's Ab Urbe Condita provides an interesting perspective on the early Kingdom/Republic, especially through the lens of a staunch Roman conservative. Suetonius's The Twelve Caesars provides some fascinating insight into the lives of Julius Caesar and the first 11 emperors while remaining readable (I would recommend reading this alongside of one or all of Everitt's books, though, since Suetonius has an awkward presentation). If you do buy some books by ancient authors, though, do your research and find the best translations, and take everything you read with a grain of salt.

Let us know what you choose to go with!

[ray243]

I'm looking to buy a few books on Roman History, preferably covering the late Republic - early Empire period. I'm not looking for anything specific, and I don't have any preferences other than this general period. I'm not too bothered about even that though, so if you want to recommend an extremely good book detailing the early Republic, the Roman Kingdom or the fall of Rome that'd be fine

Just looking to widen my knowledge on Roman history, that's all. If this is the wrong place to post a thread like this then move please.

For the late Empire, I strongly recommend AHM Jones's The Later Roman Empire.

[SigniferOne]

As usual I am completely opposed to reading secondary literature, and letting the original history speak for itself, until you strongly have primary literature in your grasp. Thus the truly best books are:

Plutarch's Lives of e.g. Caesar, Sulla, Cato, and Cicero, etc,
Suetonius' Biographies of Caesar and Augustus,
Caesar's Gallic War and Civil War,
All of Cicero,
Much of the poetry of Horace,
Lucan's poem of the Civil War (Pharsalia),
Bellum Actiacum (if you can find it), a fragment of a poem of the Battle of Actium.

[ray243]

As usual I am completely opposed to reading secondary literature, and letting the original history speak for itself, until you strongly have primary literature in your grasp. Thus the truly best books are:

Plutarch's Lives of e.g. Caesar, Sulla, Cato, and Cicero, etc,
Suetonius' Biographies of Caesar and Augustus,
Caesar's Gallic War and Civil War,
All of Cicero,
Much of the poetry of Horace,
Lucan's poem of the Civil War (Pharsalia),
Bellum Actiacum (if you can find it), a fragment of a poem of the Battle of Actium.

It would be hard for a newcomer to detect any sense of bias if he started off reading the primary source.

[Antigenes]

For the late Empire, I strongly recommend AHM Jones's The Later Roman Empire.

Old and superseded (and rather big, innit?), I think. I think the best sample of modern Late Antique books would be Guy Halsall, Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West, 376-568 and Walter Goffart, Barbarian Tides: The Migration Age and the Later Roman Empire. Peter Heather, The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians and Empires and Barbarians: Migration, Development, and the Birth of Europe are decent counterpoints if one simply must have alternative narratives.

I've always thought Jones' Prosopography is incredibly useful even to the non-specialist, though. Assuming, of course, that you can find it.

As usual I am completely opposed to reading secondary literature, and letting the original history speak for itself, until you strongly have primary literature in your grasp. Thus the truly best books are:

Plutarch's Lives of e.g. Caesar, Sulla, Cato, and Cicero, etc,
Suetonius' Biographies of Caesar and Augustus,
Caesar's Gallic War and Civil War,
All of Cicero,
Much of the poetry of Horace,
Lucan's poem of the Civil War (Pharsalia),
Bellum Actiacum (if you can find it), a fragment of a poem of the Battle of Actium.

All well and good for the would-be specialist in the late Republic and early Empire. I for one adhere to the Rankean ideal of how things actually were, and if someone is to get an idea of that, there are better ways to do it than to slog through primary sources that read slightly better if you know the original Latin.

[SigniferOne]

All well and good for the would-be specialist in the late Republic and early Empire.

On the contrary, Plutarch, Livy and Polybius are extremely suitable for the beginner. It's the specialist that will need secondary literature to scrape out the details of what makes a Coolus helmet different from the Gallic one.

I for one adhere to the Rankean ideal of how things actually were, and if someone is to get an idea of that, there are better ways to do it than to slog through primary sources that read slightly better if you know the original Latin.

My translations read perfectly well, and in fact they read much better than the secondary literature, because they were written by translators who attempted to gain even an ounce of the original works' beauty and style of grammar, in contrast to many secondary works which have no pretensions to be literature, and are as dry and stifled as paint on the wall.

Now on the question of 'things as they actually were', you will not be able to acquire even a hint of the Roman civic ideal, if you peruse even a ton of modern secondary books on Rome. That important fact will be completely missing to you, although the months and weeks will be spelled out with pedantic accuracy. You will get the shell of the history, and nothing of the heart and significance. But you can crack open just a single book of Polybius and get all elements of the Roman civic ideal in a fortnight.

[Antigenes]

On the contrary, Plutarch, Livy and Polybius are extremely suitable for the beginner. It's the specialist that will need secondary literature to scrape out the details of what makes a Coolus helmet different from the Gallic one.


My translations read perfectly well, and in fact they read much better than the secondary literature, becuse they were written by translators who attempted to gain even an ounce of the original works' beauty and style of grammar, in contrast to many secondary works which have no pretensions to be literature, and are as dry and stifled as paint on the wall.

Now on the question of 'things as they actually were', you will not be able to acquire even a hint of the Roman civic ideal, if you peruse even a ton of modern secondary books on Rome. That important fact will be completely missing to you, although the months and weeks will be spelled out with pedantic accuracy. You will get the shell of the history, and nothing of the heart and significance. But you can crack open just a single book of Polybius and get all elements of the Roman civic ideal in a fortnight.

I'm not entirely sure what to make of you; it's like you stepped out of a time portal to the 1930s. It's almost beautiful. This is supposed to be a classy subforum, so I'm not going to get into an argument about historiography with you - I've seen these elsewhere, and it seems pointless and involves a lot of mudslinging - but if nothing else, I'm happy that you're passionate about what this.

[SigniferOne]

I'm not entirely sure what to make of you; it's like you stepped out of a time portal to the 1930s 1700s.

I find that the modern Classical education is gone, and corrupt to the core. So I go back to the fount when it worked really well. I defy a typical modern Classics major to convey the heart and sense of the Roman Republic to me. Many of them are so just plain ignorant of sound understanding, that they'll come up here saying that Rome was an 'oligarchy', and so there's nothing to learn from it, nothing at all, people should just be moving right along.

It's an education that teaches the student that what they're learning is utterly worthless. Like I said, corrupt and bankrupt. You will not find me endorsing secondary literature as a beginning step for Classical literature, ever.

[Genius of the Restoration]

Lucan's poem of the Civil War (Pharsalia)

Sorry to distract from the discussion by referencing an earlier post, but could you tell me why you included the Pharsalia? Why include this in a definitive list? It's never struck me as particularly telling of Roman history as a text.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

for the late empire I strongly reccomend Peter Heather's The Fall of the Roman Empire, or Peter Heather's book on the barbarian migrations

[Prince of Essling]

for the late empire I strongly reccomend Peter Heather's The Fall of the Roman Empire, or Peter Heather's book on the barbarian migrations

I fully support this recommendation - Heather's book gives a fresh perspective on the decline of the Western Empire. It is very well written and one that you will want to reread many times (I am on my 6th)!

I wouls also add books by Adrian Goldsworth
The Punic Wars (Cassell Military Trade Books)
Published by: Weidenfeld & Nicolson (September 2000) Phoenix (October 2003)

In the Name of Rome - The Men who Won the Roman Empire
Published by: Weidenfeld & Nicolson (October 2003) Phoenix (August 2004)

Caesar - The Life of a Colossus
Published by: Weidenfeld & Nicolson (May 2006) (UK) Phoenix (May 2007) (UK) Yale University Press (2006, 2008) (US)

The Fall Of The West - The Death Of The Roman Superpower
Published by: Weidenfeld & Nicolson (February 2009) (UK) Yale University Press (May 2009) (US)

[Brain_in_a_vat]

Thanks alot guys! Rep+

[Antigenes]

Actually, Heather's book isn't a fresh perspective - it's essentially a revamped version of the old (1930s-50s) migrationist view, brought better into line with some archaeological evidence and updated with a more trendy version of what migration actually was. He admits to this in his Empires and Barbarians. Heather thinks that the trend away from using migration as the explanation has gone 'too far', and wants to go back to the sources (esp. Ammianus) and take them more at face value. This unfortunately is what a large chunk of his argument consists of. Fresh perspective is something like what you'll find in Walter Goffart's book, or Guy Halsall's. Redefining the terms of the debate, as it were.

As for Goldsworthy, his books on the Later Empire (couldn't say for the Republic and the earlier Empire) read an awful lot like he's a fish out of water. Most of his key points aren't really controversial or contested, and a large part of his thesis - that somehow Later Roman government style was inherently harder to manage than was the government in the earlier period - founders mostly on a lack of actual, ah, evidence, except for the old "Principate-Dominate" trope that's now somewhat discredited. He went after the elite-management problem that some scholars (like Halsall) consider to be a major factor in the collapse of the WRE and turned it into a systemic issue (not necessarily the case), then compared it to the earlier Empire and the Republic because, I think, the early Empire and Republic are his background and it gave him a firmer footing, as it were. This means he ends up employing a revised Gibbonesque fall narrative going back hundreds of years that, among other things, is pretty blatantly teleological, which is generally a Bad Thing.

[Junius]

That's a long post, and it's quite late now, so excuse me if I don't rebut you're entire post. Instead I am going to focus on one aspect of it. You argue that modern students don't understand the 'heart' of the Roman people. This group of people which experienced a great rise and fall and existed over a millennium. You said, in response to my point about the bias of certain authors, that that was a Marxist view to take, a sweeping generalisation to make about a particular class. Now, I assert that same thing. There is no 'heart' of the Roman people. All we have is writings from those same pampered senators who you argue for. Are the values of our leaders in line with those of the population? Do you accept that those in power, with power, whether it be wealth or political, have the same priorities as those without? You can not derive the values of a whole people from the writings of the elite.

Those elites don't even share the same view. They are separated by time, space, ethnicity, up-bringing and other factors. The same is true for the vast bulk of the Roman population. But we don't have their views as sources, for the most part (graffiti aside). To paint a whole people with the same values, the same 'heart' to use your own empty word, is wrong. It's wrong to do it of modern populations, and of previous ones.

Yes, modern students don't have an understanding of the 'heart' of the Roman people for the very simple reason that there was none.

[SigniferOne]

You said, in response to my point about the bias of certain authors, that that was a Marxist view to take, a sweeping generalisation to make about a particular class. Now, I assert that same thing. There is no 'heart' of the Roman people. All we have is writings from those same pampered senators who you argue for.

Of course that's Marxist, it even has a certain in-built inveterate hatred for the rich. What does pamperedness have to do with anything? Does it prevent a person from inventing things, from having the time to maximize and perfect the faculties of the mind; Aristotle even says that you have to have some leisure in order to truly grasp and perfect the liberal arts within yourself. But even with that, how were they exactly pampered? All of the classic figures we learn of from ancient history kept themselves under severest control and mental discipline. Hortensius rose at 5am everyday and practiced memory, delivery and elocution for 6-7 hours straight. Who could sanely call Cato Uticensis pampered? Demosthenes had legendary trials of mind and will that your regular pedantic Classics nerd wouldnt dare to equal - the sword of damocles, the ceaseless trials of will, the marathons with rocks in his mouth, the elocutions before the ocean storms, etc. Where you, with your marxist cynicism see pampered elites, I see giants who achieved complete self mastery, fathered liberal arts, and set the highest pattern of them to follow for the rest of Western civilization.

Yes, modern students don't have an understanding of the 'heart' of the Roman people for the very simple reason that there was none.

And you wonder why people are leaving your classes and majors in droves, why they couldn't care less about what Classics majors have to say, and in truth why a person with a Classics degree has nothing to intelligently to say on any issue.

[ray243]

And you wonder why people are leaving your classes and majors in droves, why they couldn't care less about what Classics majors have to say, and in truth why a person with a Classics degree has nothing to intelligently to say on any issue.

I'm guessing you are forgetting that in today's climate, sticking to the old way would essentially deprive the History department of its funds, given that Universities today is operated as an business.

Moreover, given that students are now studying for the sake of getting a high income job, even less people will be interested in studying classics if they are only going to learn how to act like a gentlemen. Society have moved pass the need to emulate themselves after the Roman Empire, something that you failed to notice.

Tell me, how is a personal that is trained to emulate the classical philosophers able to get a job in the modern world? Who would want to hire him?

Old and superseded (and rather big, innit?), I think.

I feel that the depth of the book is the very reason why it is a good book for a person that is new to late antiquity. If anything, it manage portray an rather clear idea of what the late Empire really is like.

[SigniferOne]

I'm guessing you are forgetting that in today's climate, sticking to the old way would essentially deprive the History department of its funds, given that Universities today is operated as an business.

I don't see how the new way is different from the old in that sense, other than being more cynical, and thus even more antithetical to most students (although being quite compatible with the select cynical students who therefore populate its classrooms). A business-like University in general is not too kind to liberal arts, I agree with you, but I don't think they'd rather fund cynical and nihilistic take on liberal arts as a special preference.

Moreover, given that students are now studying for the sake of getting a high income job, even less people will be interested in studying classics if they are only going to learn how to act like a gentlemen. Society have moved pass the need to emulate themselves after the Roman Empire, something that you failed to notice.

Tell me, how is a personal that is trained to emulate the classical philosophers able to get a job in the modern world? Who would want to hire him?

Well this is again where the Classical education failed you and I, because if I were to just stick to what the University taught me, I would never learn all of the non-effete ways to apply learning in the world. You are giving me a Victorian, dandy, presentation as learning being an effete skill, useful mostly for impressing, and impressing other dandies. But it's not.

I also don't share Louis XI's view, I see Classical learning as eminently practical, because I've seen it be practical in history when there was nothing dandy or effete about it. Study the Renaissance for an example of this; how did it come about that first there was no interest in classical learning, and then it exploded into a huge phenomenon? People found awesome practical uses for it. High-powered merchant princes would seek out masters in classical studies for their ultimate skill in expression, in presentation, who were masters in classical rhetoric and persuasion. All those skills are gone and banished from a Classics classroom now, I know, but whose fault is that.

It also wasn't just the administrators and secretaries who were expert in Classical learning; Classical educators were paid incredibly highly to teach the children of lords and princes, of most royalty and aristocracy, because that education provided the children with unparallelled mental training, discipline, moral training, drive to succeed, etc. None of this has somehow gone out of favor.

On the issue of expression, think, especially, of the low levels of literacy a lot of people have with the advent of the internet, and the general bankruptcy of the native (e.g. English) teaching classrooms who are renegging their responsibilities. An intelligent Classics person who knows how to side-step the landmines placed in his way by his own department, who is largely indifferent to his department's programme, but intensely interested in recovering the Classical skills which are universal, would be irreplaceable and invaluable.

[ray243]

...by the historiography of the 1960s, sure.

I'm not disagreeing with you that the book is dated, and that modern scholarship given us a better picture of late antiquity, but it's not easy to find so much information on the late antiquity in one book.

The other few books that serve as an introduction to the general reader isn't as good as Jones's book, even if they are updated. I would prefer to use Jone's book as a guide to start learning about the late Empire before updating my understanding with more modern monographs.

I don't see how the new way is different from the old in that sense, other than being more cynical, and thus even more antithetical to most students (although being quite compatible with the select cynical students who therefore populate its classrooms). A business-like University in general is not too kind to liberal arts, I agree with you, but I don't think they'd rather fund cynical and nihilistic take on liberal arts as a special preference.

What's wrong with applying critical thinking in order to understand the classical world? Without it, it would prevent us from understand how did the classical culture transformed into the medieval culture, and what factors caused the Romans to adopt Christianity.

Well this is again where the Classical education failed you and I, because if I were to just stick to what the University taught me, I would never learn all of the non-effete ways to apply learning in the world. You are giving me a Victorian, dandy, presentation as learning being an effete skill, useful mostly for impressing, and impressing other dandies. But it's not.

I also don't share Louis XI's view, I see Classical learning as eminently practical, because I've seen it be practical in history when there was nothing dandy or effete about it. Study the Renaissance for an example of this; how did it come about that first there was no interest in classical learning, and then it exploded into a huge phenomenon? People found awesome practical uses for it. High-powered merchant princes would seek out masters in classical studies for their ultimate skill in expression, in presentation, who were masters in classical rhetoric and persuasion. All those skills are gone and banished from a Classics classroom now, I know, but whose fault is that.

With the advent of technological progress, learning about the classical world with the old method simply isn't practical. The need for rhetoric and persuasion in the classical manner is more or less gone as a result of the progress of the media.

Those skills were valuable, to the people living in the victorian era, but not to the people living in the modern world.

It also wasn't just the administrators and secretaries who were expert in Classical learning; Classical educators were paid incredibly highly to teach the children of lords and princes, of most royalty and aristocracy, because that education provided the children with unparallelled mental training, discipline, moral training, drive to succeed, etc. None of this has somehow gone out of favor.

Again, you failed to notice that the biggest group of people who can afford to focus their attention is the aristocrats. Given that the aristocrats are all but gone in the modern world, there is a need to find a different use for learning about the classical world.

On the issue of expression, think, especially, of the low levels of literacy a lot of people have with the advent of the internet, and the general bankruptcy of the native (e.g. English) teaching classrooms who are renegging their responsibilities. An intelligent Classics person who knows how to side-step the landmines placed in his way by his own department, who is largely indifferent to his department's programme, but intensely interested in recovering the Classical skills which are universal, would be irreplaceable and invaluable.

I would agree with you that it would be nice to have a separate department that teaches the classics as an art, but it is just as necessary for us to have an separate department that teaches the classic as a social science.

However, it is not fair for you to blame the historians who teaches the classical world as a social science for the decline of teaching the classics in the traditional manner. It's not like the historians are on some sort of conspiracy to prevent people from teaching the classic as an art.

If you want to find something to blame on, you should blame the fact that the human society had made technological progress since the 20th century, or the cultural factors that is prevalent in the western world. The Eastern world has no problem in ensuring that there are still people interested in enriching themselves by studying the classics of the Eastern world.

Take for example, the parents in South Korea, Taiwan, China, Japan and Hong Kong that still send their children to study Confucianism at a young age, in spite of historians who apply critical thinking to understand ancient China.





Side note: Given that we are moving off-topic, I think we can create another thread to discuss historiography.