4 ms·

I've seen some interest on HN for the Roman Kingdom, Republic and Empire. For a very interesting history of Rome, from the 2 foundation myths (Romulus vs Aenea

I've seen some interest on HN for the Roman Kingdom, Republic and Empire. For a very interesting history of Rome, from the 2 foundation myths (Romulus vs Aeneas) until the end of the "Pax Romana", I strongly suggest the book "SPQR", by Mary Beard. She is a very respected scholar on Ancient Rome and she has a lot of documentaries on Youtube. I just started the famous "Decline and fall of the Roman Empire", by Edward Gibbons, covering the period after the SPQR book. Still in the beginning, to early for conclusions.

doctorwho42 3y ago
Dropping my own favorite review of the contributing factors that led to the downfall of the republic and rise of empire: "Storm before the storm".
- philipov 3y ago
  That's the book that Mike Duncan wrote following up his work on the History of Rome podcast. The first of the two books he wrote while running the Revolutions podcast, with the second being a biography of Lafayette.
  - placesalt 3y ago
    The basic premise I got from Mike Duncan's podcast was that: when Rome ran out of dangerous external enemies to fight (ie Carthage), people in Rome found internal enemies to fight. That was fine for a few centuries, until external enemies re-emerged, and then it really fell apart.
    - arrosenberg 3y ago
      Eh, kinda. It was more that they overextended themselves and could no longer defend their borders with their citizen-soldiery that expected to be home in time for harvest. Multiyear campaigns and distant conquest required a professional army. Because of that, Marius reformed the army to allow the proletarii in, pay them from the treasury and outfit them from state arsenals and armories. Prior to the reforms, soldiers were patricians and wealthy plebeians who could afford to outfit themselves with equipment and supplies. The wealthy of Rome were not willing to pay for all of this, so the practice was for generals to pay their soldiers out of taxes and loot. Thus the legions became loyal to their generals instead of to the Republic, which essentially made them warlords. There were plenty of places left to conquer - Augustus would somewhat famously and disastrously try to conquer Germania east of the Rhine, Egypt was assimilated after Pompey's defeat, etc.
      - philipov 3y ago
        Both you and the person you're replying to are correct. These are not mutually exclusive factors. (Well, except the part about egypt: that was assimilated after Anthony and Cleopatra's defeat, not after Pompey's defeat. Caesar allowed Cleopatra to remain a client monarch.) Interestingly, that disasterous campaign you mentioned by Augustus to try to conquer up to the Rhine was done exactly to address the difficulty of defending Rome's extended borders. He felt that it was important for the empire to achieve its natural borders, just the same as France sought to do after the revolution. However, even had those natural borders been secured, it would have done nothing to address the internecine strife that was was instrumental to the decline and final collapse of the western empire. It is necessary to look at a combination of both internal and external pressures to explain what happened.
- diego_moita 3y ago
  According to Ms Beard the most basic cause for the Roman republic downfall was the establishment of private armies. Julius Caesar amassed an enormous military power with his private army on his military campaigns on Gaul and used it to just grab the power in Rome. Truth, it was his nephew Octavian/Augustus that finished and buried the Republic, but he wouldn't be able to do so unless Caesar hadn't given the mortal blow before. No wonder Putin tried to put a leash on Prigozhyn before it would be too late. Also, Imran Khan must understand very well what happens when the military isn't under the government control.
  - mmanfrin 3y ago
    You're replying to a comment about a book that details the events prior to Julius Caesar, who was at the very end of the republic, not its cause.
    - philipov 3y ago
      The cause of what? We don't know much about the cause of the republic because any records of that were lost in the first sack of Rome. As for the cause of the fall of the republic, Julius Caesar did not cause those factors to exist, but in him we see the culmination of a hundred years of learning how to abuse the flaws in their civic constitution. He wasn't the first, but he put all the pieces together. In fact, I think he's quite similar to Philip II, who put all the pieces together in Macedon. Alexander the Great was able to reach such heights because he had the way paved for him, the same way Julius Caesar paved the way for Octavian.
  - thom 3y ago
    I don't disagree with the central thesis, and you can argue all sorts of moments for the fall of the Republic, but the establishment of client armies started with Marius, not Caesar. Even then, it was in response to political, economic and military issues which predated even Tiberius Gracchus whose tribunate many use to mark the beginning of the end. Rome's constitution was a marvel, as noted by Polybius, and it granted stability for a long time. But by the time of Sulla (who marched an army into Rome decades before Caesar), all pretence of a government that intended to give equal voice to all factions had disappeared. The idea that Ceasar or Octavian dismantled a functioning or even salvageable republic seems fanciful to me.
philipov 3y ago
Check out the History of Rome podcast by Mike Duncan if you haven't already. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History_of_Rome_(podcast) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History_of_Rome_(podcast)
Simon_O_Rourke 3y ago
I've got total respect for the scholarship of Mary Beard. She got into a recent online argument with one of my other intellectual heroes Nassim Taleb about the genetic makeup of Roman Britain.
cdcarter 3y ago
I have to shout out the “Masters of Rome” series by Colleen Mccullough. It starts with “The First Man in Rome” covering Gaius Marius’ rise to power, and proceeds through the fall of the Republic and the establishing of the Empire. These books are incredibly well researched and informative, but also have SUCH a compelling narrative style and characterizations. It’s very immersive.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  And the Historia Civilis series on YouTube.
User23 3y ago
[flagged]
- ggm 3y ago
  That's a very pejorative way of saying "I don't agree" and unfortunate in the context of her specifically, since she's been the recipient of foul sexist abuse from her media presence, and even from some of her peers. There's room for scholarly disagreement. There's no need to be nasty. She's not a racist revisionist. Ethnicity across roman times, and the degree of ethnicity in the forces stationed in the british islands is complicated. There is some reason to believe there had been trade links into the islands of greater britain from distant economies long before the Roman invasion, and there were Romans, Auxilliaries, traders and slaves from across the Roman empire into North Africa and the middle east who would have found themselves in the margins, by virtue of the economics and politics of the time: you don't leave conquered peoples in-place if you want to ensure there's no slave revolt, you deploy them elsewhere.
  - lmm 3y ago
    > There is some reason to believe there had been trade links into the islands of greater britain from distant economies long before the Roman invasion, and there were Romans, Auxilliaries, traders and slaves from across the Roman empire into North Africa and the middle east who would have found themselves in the margins, by virtue of the economics and politics of the time All true, and all irrelevant; Middle-Eastern and North African people do not (and did not) have the skin tones that were being depicted in the cartoons in question. > There's room for scholarly disagreement. There's no need to be nasty. She's not a racist revisionist. It wasn't scholarly disagreement, it was deception. She used her erudition and her position to wilfully mislead the less sophisticated; she said things that while literally true were intended to create a false impression in the minds of those reading. That is absolutely something to be condemned in the strongest possible terms; it's very much akin to when a physically strong person uses that strength to bully those weaker than them.
    - ggm 3y ago

doctorwho42 3y ago

Dropping my own favorite review of the contributing factors that led to the downfall of the republic and rise of empire: "Storm before the storm".

philipov 3y ago
That's the book that Mike Duncan wrote following up his work on the History of Rome podcast. The first of the two books he wrote while running the Revolutions podcast, with the second being a biography of Lafayette.
- placesalt 3y ago
  The basic premise I got from Mike Duncan's podcast was that: when Rome ran out of dangerous external enemies to fight (ie Carthage), people in Rome found internal enemies to fight. That was fine for a few centuries, until external enemies re-emerged, and then it really fell apart.
  - arrosenberg 3y ago
    Eh, kinda. It was more that they overextended themselves and could no longer defend their borders with their citizen-soldiery that expected to be home in time for harvest. Multiyear campaigns and distant conquest required a professional army. Because of that, Marius reformed the army to allow the proletarii in, pay them from the treasury and outfit them from state arsenals and armories. Prior to the reforms, soldiers were patricians and wealthy plebeians who could afford to outfit themselves with equipment and supplies. The wealthy of Rome were not willing to pay for all of this, so the practice was for generals to pay their soldiers out of taxes and loot. Thus the legions became loyal to their generals instead of to the Republic, which essentially made them warlords. There were plenty of places left to conquer - Augustus would somewhat famously and disastrously try to conquer Germania east of the Rhine, Egypt was assimilated after Pompey's defeat, etc.
    - philipov 3y ago
      Both you and the person you're replying to are correct. These are not mutually exclusive factors. (Well, except the part about egypt: that was assimilated after Anthony and Cleopatra's defeat, not after Pompey's defeat. Caesar allowed Cleopatra to remain a client monarch.) Interestingly, that disasterous campaign you mentioned by Augustus to try to conquer up to the Rhine was done exactly to address the difficulty of defending Rome's extended borders. He felt that it was important for the empire to achieve its natural borders, just the same as France sought to do after the revolution. However, even had those natural borders been secured, it would have done nothing to address the internecine strife that was was instrumental to the decline and final collapse of the western empire. It is necessary to look at a combination of both internal and external pressures to explain what happened.
diego_moita 3y ago
According to Ms Beard the most basic cause for the Roman republic downfall was the establishment of private armies. Julius Caesar amassed an enormous military power with his private army on his military campaigns on Gaul and used it to just grab the power in Rome. Truth, it was his nephew Octavian/Augustus that finished and buried the Republic, but he wouldn't be able to do so unless Caesar hadn't given the mortal blow before. No wonder Putin tried to put a leash on Prigozhyn before it would be too late. Also, Imran Khan must understand very well what happens when the military isn't under the government control.
- mmanfrin 3y ago
  You're replying to a comment about a book that details the events prior to Julius Caesar, who was at the very end of the republic, not its cause.
  - philipov 3y ago
    The cause of what? We don't know much about the cause of the republic because any records of that were lost in the first sack of Rome. As for the cause of the fall of the republic, Julius Caesar did not cause those factors to exist, but in him we see the culmination of a hundred years of learning how to abuse the flaws in their civic constitution. He wasn't the first, but he put all the pieces together. In fact, I think he's quite similar to Philip II, who put all the pieces together in Macedon. Alexander the Great was able to reach such heights because he had the way paved for him, the same way Julius Caesar paved the way for Octavian.
- thom 3y ago
  I don't disagree with the central thesis, and you can argue all sorts of moments for the fall of the Republic, but the establishment of client armies started with Marius, not Caesar. Even then, it was in response to political, economic and military issues which predated even Tiberius Gracchus whose tribunate many use to mark the beginning of the end. Rome's constitution was a marvel, as noted by Polybius, and it granted stability for a long time. But by the time of Sulla (who marched an army into Rome decades before Caesar), all pretence of a government that intended to give equal voice to all factions had disappeared. The idea that Ceasar or Octavian dismantled a functioning or even salvageable republic seems fanciful to me.

philipov 3y ago

Check out the History of Rome podcast by Mike Duncan if you haven't already. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History_of_Rome_(podcast) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History_of_Rome_(podcast)

Simon_O_Rourke 3y ago

I've got total respect for the scholarship of Mary Beard. She got into a recent online argument with one of my other intellectual heroes Nassim Taleb about the genetic makeup of Roman Britain.

cdcarter 3y ago

I have to shout out the “Masters of Rome” series by Colleen Mccullough. It starts with “The First Man in Rome” covering Gaius Marius’ rise to power, and proceeds through the fall of the Republic and the establishing of the Empire. These books are incredibly well researched and informative, but also have SUCH a compelling narrative style and characterizations. It’s very immersive.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
And the Historia Civilis series on YouTube.

User23 3y ago

[flagged]

ggm 3y ago
That's a very pejorative way of saying "I don't agree" and unfortunate in the context of her specifically, since she's been the recipient of foul sexist abuse from her media presence, and even from some of her peers. There's room for scholarly disagreement. There's no need to be nasty. She's not a racist revisionist. Ethnicity across roman times, and the degree of ethnicity in the forces stationed in the british islands is complicated. There is some reason to believe there had been trade links into the islands of greater britain from distant economies long before the Roman invasion, and there were Romans, Auxilliaries, traders and slaves from across the Roman empire into North Africa and the middle east who would have found themselves in the margins, by virtue of the economics and politics of the time: you don't leave conquered peoples in-place if you want to ensure there's no slave revolt, you deploy them elsewhere.
- lmm 3y ago
  > There is some reason to believe there had been trade links into the islands of greater britain from distant economies long before the Roman invasion, and there were Romans, Auxilliaries, traders and slaves from across the Roman empire into North Africa and the middle east who would have found themselves in the margins, by virtue of the economics and politics of the time All true, and all irrelevant; Middle-Eastern and North African people do not (and did not) have the skin tones that were being depicted in the cartoons in question. > There's room for scholarly disagreement. There's no need to be nasty. She's not a racist revisionist. It wasn't scholarly disagreement, it was deception. She used her erudition and her position to wilfully mislead the less sophisticated; she said things that while literally true were intended to create a false impression in the minds of those reading. That is absolutely something to be condemned in the strongest possible terms; it's very much akin to when a physically strong person uses that strength to bully those weaker than them.
  - ggm 3y ago