The Odyssey, by Homer and translated by Emily Wilson, is a fantastic classic piece of fable/mythology that should be well known for most avid readers.The Odyssey, by Homer and translated by Emily Wilson, is a fantastic classic piece of fable/mythology that should be well known for most avid readers. This is a classic tale about a king, Odysseus, pushed far away from his home due to the wrath of Poseidon, and itching to return home to fend off his wife's suitors and protect his home. The book also follows Odysseus' son, Telemachus, who is growing into adulthood and sets out to learn more on his fathers fate. Odysseus' wife, Penelope, is also featured prominently, as she tries to fend off suitors, protect her son, and remain a good host - touching on numerous interesting cultural norms and the pressures of society on women in ancient Greece.
This book is fascinating; Gods like Athena, Zeus, Hermes and Poseidon are featured prominently, as they compete to protect their favourite humans, punish their detractors, and influence events to their liking. Telemachus and Odysseus travel widely, being hosted by the likes of King Nestor, and others who rule territory, offer lavish feasts, and talk on philosophy and wisdom. Many concepts are explored in the Odyssey, including ancient customs, colonization, philosophy, PTSD as conceived in the ancient world, developing to adulthood, and so much more. Mythological creatures, like Cyclops, sirens, nymphs, god-like beings and so forth are also present, exploring concepts of people from other lands, xenophobia and xenophilia, and the dichotomy of heroism and piracy. All of these ideas are well presented by the fantastic translation done by Emily Wilson, who brings both an expertise on Homer's tales, the concept of Homer as an author, who may or may not have actually existed, or may be more than one person. Concepts such as women in history are explored in much more depth than older translations, which are often focused on the male-centric tale of heroism and exploration that the tale includes. Wilson has compiled all of this in one fantastic introduction to the tale, which is one big reason why, if you have read this tale in the past, you should explore this version of the tale. It is a fresh and modern introduction which utilizes all of the most modern tools of historiography and a fresh and intellectual approach. Obviously, this classic tale has survived in some form for thousands of years, and as such, it is one of the most influential classics that has come out of the Graeco-Roman world. Seek this one out for a fresh take. ...more
Hadrian's Wall by Adrian Goldsworthy, is a fun little read on the aforementioned Wall that separated Roman Britannia from unincorporated regions in NoHadrian's Wall by Adrian Goldsworthy, is a fun little read on the aforementioned Wall that separated Roman Britannia from unincorporated regions in Northern Britain (modern Scotland). This book is focused solely on the Wall, and its history, composition, interactions with cultural life, the Empire and the wider world. It discusses the construction of the Wall, and its theoretical purpose, although the author skillfully notes that we still do not fully understand the functions and purposes of the Wall and archaeologists and historians continue to glean new information every time a new dig or study is conducted that changes our preconceived notions of this structure.
Even so, this was a very enjoyable and concise read on Hadrian's Wall. Constructed as a garrisoning point to separate recently conquered territories in Britain, the Wall served as a crossing point for trade, a means of customs and border control, a garrison-economy that drove local civic life, and a barracks for soldiers defending, and raiding, into Northern Britain. The Wall was a complex design, not massive by ancient world standards, but quite the feat of engineering. It consisted of long stretches of wall, with a theoretical rampart for patrols, although this is not proven. Throughout its early history, the Wall had a rather standardized construction, that even so was adapted and rebuilt as needed and depending on the fiscal and military situation at hand at the time. Repairs and new construction sometimes followed uniform design, and sometimes evidence of corner-cutting or quick fixes is noted. Milecastles dotted the wall - these were smallish forts that housed a local garrison and its infrastructure, including granaries, barracks, administrative building, and small towns that abutted them. Soldiers would have been stationed here, and sent to patrol the wall, raid north, conduct diplomatic missions, and promote civil order in the region from these nerve points. Civic life was common here as well; leave papers have been dug up, indicating that soldiers would travel to and from. Local towns abutted the Wall and its forts, with all the civic life that would pertain too in a small garrison town - pubs, farms, civic entertainment and the like.
The Wall began to fall into disrepair for numerous reasons. Hadrian's Wall at one time became a secondary line after the Antonine Wall was occupied farther north. Its gates were removed to allow unhindered travel in and out. However, after the Antonine Wall was abandoned, the Hadrian Wall was reactivated as the last line of defence. This remained the case until internal unrest began to rock the Roman Empire, and soldiers were pulled away for conflict elsewhere. Britain often became a seat for unrest as well, and soldiers for the North would be pulled South to fight in civil conflict. Eventually, Rome lost the ability to administer Britain in any capacity, and new kingdoms and warlords arose, making the unified Wall a forgotten encumbrance. Stones for the Wall were often taken as building materials for local construction. Some of the Milecastles and forts remained occupied as local bases of power, but many fell into disuse.
A great little book on the Hadrian Wall through and through. Although this is not an exhaustive text on the Wall by any stretch, this book has enough tidbits on the Wall, its place in the Roman world, its construction and engineering, and the like, to interest this reader greatly. I enjoyed my time with this book, it was concise and informative, and I would certainly recommend it as reading material for those who enjoy learning about the Roman Empire, and are looking for a smaller niche read. ...more
Hannibal by Patrick N. Hunt, is an account of the Second Punic War from the perspective of Hannibal, as well as a brief biography of the great GeneralHannibal by Patrick N. Hunt, is an account of the Second Punic War from the perspective of Hannibal, as well as a brief biography of the great General's early life. Hannibal was born in the Barca family, a clan of Carthaginian military individuals who had experience in the First Punic War. The family was unhappy with losses in the First Punic War, where Carthage was required to relinquish their claims over Sicily, and Rome subsequently aggressively annexed Corsica and Sardinia - both within the Carthaginian trading sphere. In response, Carthage landed an expeditionary force in Spain, under Hannibal's father Hamilcar. His brothers Hasdrubal and Magos were also successful generals that would fight with him in the coming Punic War. In Spain, Hannibal arrived as a young boy in his early teens/ late adolescents and worked closely with his father. The Carthaginian forces in the region settled Punic colonies, subdued and allied with local Iberian tribes, and built up port, silver mining, and trade infrastructure in the region. A treaty with Rome, signed to end the Punic Wars, set a boundary at the Ebro River. However, Rome considered a local City-state south of the Ebro, Saguntum, to be a tributary, and felt this was not in violation of the treaty. Hannibal disagreed, and sparked the Second Punic War by besieging this City.
After its fall, he marched across France and the Alps, subduing allied or hostile Celtic tribes, and allying with Celts opposed to Rome. Although he lost a good chunk of his forces during the crossing, both to hostile action, and to desertion and the elements, he still arrived in Italy with tens of thousands of hardened veteran soldiers, mercenaries, and allied Celts. As the war began, everything was coming up Hannibal. He successfully dodged a Roman Army in Gaul, and crossed the Alps with relatively few casualties (for the time). He arrived in Northern Italy in style - with tribes like the Boii providing his tired forces with food, rest, and reinforcement. He fought three major battles with the Roman's, breaking their aura of invincibility in Italy and shaking the foundations of the Roman system. Multiple military tribunes were defeated in battle, initiating political crisis in Rome, and ushering in an era of military dictatorship (constitutionally). Hannibal's big encounters were at the Trebia, Lake Trasimene, and Cannae as he marched south toward Rome, defeating legion after legion sent against him. All three encounters were incredibly costly to the Roman's in terms of lives and prestige.
Hannibal used innovative tactics at the time to ensure his early successes. He maneuvered tactically, often out running pursuing Roman armies, escaping entrapment, and avoiding costly encounters. Hannibal picked the engagements, or forced his enemy to come to him, and rarely was forced into a direct encounter against his will. He utilized the environment to both gain favourable battleground, surprise enemy armies on the march, and to compliment his battle order. He used trickery to mask the size of his army, or hide various contingents to ensure engagements were favourable, and he had a trump card up his sleeve. His intelligence gathering skills also seemed to be immense, as his armies had an intricate knowledge of Celtic alliance systems and characteristics, as well as the character and temperament of opposing commanders. He was also keenly aware of troop movements, alliance systems, and potential leverage points between alliances. These he used to alter the political landscape of Italy for a decade, as Greek City-states in the south, and allies in Numedia and Macedonia looked to counter Roman dominance by allying with the Carthaginians.
However, Hannibal was not invincible, and he was just one army among many. The Roman's initially were on the back foot, but fought back by cutting off the silver supply in Spain through direct invasion, controlling the naval front, and eventually threatening and destroying Carthage itself. Hannibal was forced for a decade to survive off the land after the silver mines of Spain and the reinforcements of North Africa were cut off from him. This was costly, as he soon began to lose allies and support, and eventually was forced to retreat from the peninsula to protect home waters. Hannibal's days ended in defeat, as he lost political support in Carthage, and eventually lost his life on the run after Carthage's defeat and ruin by the Romans. His exact cause of death is unknown - perhaps he was poisoned, or perhaps he died of a fever from a small wound. Even so, a death in exile for such a magnificent General was unfortunate.
Hannibal was a military genius - akin to Alexander the Great, or Julius Caesar. He conquered large swathes of Italy and Spain for a time, and was close to changing the outcome of history - a victory over Rome, which at times looked very possible, would have changed the course of world history. His tactical and logistical genius is also apparent, as he conquered previously difficult terrain, and engaged in maneuvers and movements that were surprising and innovative at the time. His use of alliances and his ability to leverage himself between allies was also an immense boon to his campaign. And the fact that he fought on for many years after the end seemed nigh showed his resilience in the face of defeat. Regardless, this was an interesting read from an interesting perspective. Much is written on the Punic Wars, but mostly from a Roman perspective. It is refreshing to read new scholarly work from the perspective of Hannibal. Easily recommended for history fans, although there is not much new in this text. If you are intimately familiar with the Punic Wars, you may not find too much refreshing here. ...more
The Archaeology of Sanitation in Roman Italy: Toilets, Sewers and Water Systems, by Ann Olga Koloski-Ostrow, is a survey of Roman sanitary practices, The Archaeology of Sanitation in Roman Italy: Toilets, Sewers and Water Systems, by Ann Olga Koloski-Ostrow, is a survey of Roman sanitary practices, customs and so on, based mostly on archaeological evidence and Roman Literature. The study looks at the design and proliferation of waste water systems in Roman Italy, as well as the socio-cultural implications of the design, placement and usage of toilets and latrines in Ancient Rome.
Koloski-Ostrow has done a good job listing some of the sites of waste systems. She notes the placement of latrines (usually ground level, for sewer access), and compares the design of public and private toilets in different locations in Italy. Generally, public toilets were dark, probably stank, and reserved for the poorer Romans. Private toilets were often out of the way in a household, and disconnected from the sphere of wealthy Romans. Public baths usually had connecting latrines for their clients to use, and some of these public latrines were beautifully decorated, and had access to running water.
The social and cultural aspects of sewage and waste systems in Rome are also examined. Koloski-Ostrow first decries the lack of study on waste water systems in Roman urban environments, and notes it is an important field of study to create a holistic picture of Roman urban planning and municipal administration. The placement of latrines is examined to try and deduce common attributes and glean information on planning guidelines in Rome, but their is scant evidence to indicate any concrete commonalities, which the author notes. The use of latrines as vectors for public health is discussed, but no concrete evidence can be gleaned. It is almost certain that a waste system existed in Roman societies in Italy, but the extent and sophistication of said systems is difficult to determine past the archaeological front. Certainly, Roman society used advanced techniques to transfer, store and utilize water resources, and these systems were almost certainly involved in waste disposal. However, societies did not necessarily connect human waste to disease until more modern times, and Koloski-Ostrow cautions against jumping to conclusions based on modern Western conceptions of waste systems.
All in all, this was a vary niche, but interesting survey of Roman water systems and their use for waste disposal in Roman Italy. Their is interesting points to consider here on urban planning and design, environmental systems, and societal conceptions of waste, cleanliness and disposal. It is interesting to think what it would have been like to be standing in a city like Ostia, or Pompeii or Rome, and the sights and (terrible) smells emanating all around. Koloski-Ostow has certainly done a highly academic job in describing and chronicling all that we know on waste disposal techniques in Roman Italy. A small complaint is the lack of background detail. Koloski-Ostrow does offer some descriptors to the reader to bring them up to speed on locations and such, but certainly a background understanding of Roman Italy is needed to comprehend some of the material in this book, as well as knowledge on public works. However, this is a small concern, and on the whole, Koloski-Ostrow has written an interesting book on Roman water systems and sewage. Can be recommended for those interested deeply in ancient Rome and Roman society, as this is certainly one of the more in-depth sides to examine its history. Who knew that books on ancient sewage could be so interesting?...more
Ghost on the Throne: The Death of Alexander the Great and the War for Crown and Empire, by James Romm, is a quick study of the immediate aftermath of Ghost on the Throne: The Death of Alexander the Great and the War for Crown and Empire, by James Romm, is a quick study of the immediate aftermath of Alexander the Great's death in Persia in 322. His death was so sudden that many did not at first believe it, and many suspected foul play, with a main suspect being Antipater, the staunch Macedonian who had controlled the European homeland while Alexander was on campaign, and resented his attempts to mix Persian and Macedonian culture and royalty.
The book begins with an explanation of Alexander's empire, a massive amalgamation of conquered territories stretching from Egypt in the West, to Macedonia in the North, to modern Pakistan in the East, and through the steppes of northern Iran and Turkmenistan. His empire was massive, and controlled largely through his own personality. This was a man many whispered was a God, who had conquered all before him. His ambitions were reportedly massive. After his campaigns in India, he would tackle the Arabs across the Persian Gulf, and from their conquer Western Europe and Africa. He wished nothing more than total conquest of all lands if it was in his power. The problem with ruling by personality though, is that when the personality dies, so does the rule of law. When Alexander passed, his system of alliances, built through intermarriage with local elites, and a ruling structure of "Bodyguards" (men who had followed Alexander since the beginning and had commanded his armies) fell apart. The Bodyguards soon fell out with each other, and names like Ptolemy, Peithon, Eumenes, Antipater and Antigonus, each controlling provinces called satraps, came to blows through complex alliance systems, backstabbing, and intermarriage.
Ptolemy, probably the most famous, secured his rule in Egypt. He spurned most calls to enter the wider melee, defeated an army sent by Perdiccas, a Bodyguard, and regent to Philip III, Alexanders successor, who was mentally handicapped and thus pliant. Ptolemy went on to found a 300 year dynasty that was brought down only by the Romans. In Macedonia, Antipater struggled first with rebellion in Athens, then with a shifting alliance of Antigonus, who controlled much of Anatolia, Eumenes, a wily Greek who lacked legitimacy but was able to play general against general for a long time, Perdiccas, ruler in Persia, and Peithon, who was Satrap of Babylon.
These complex alliances saw many die, and the cast of tragedies that befell this cast of aristocrats is fascinating. Eventually, the embers of war would die down, but many of the players would be long dead, and the Empire Alexander sought to build was long dead as well. The eventual out come is as we know: Seleucid, Peithon's ally, took control of Persia and much of Syria, Palestine and Anatolia. Antipater's son, Cassander, ruled in Macedonia and Greece. Ptolemy in Egypt. The Maruya in India moved in to take back his Indian conquests. Born in the fires of war in a few decades, this Empire collapsed in war and in a similar period of time.
Romm writes a fascinating and fun narrative history of the brief period after Alexander's death. This chaotic period has a cast of characters straight out of a Game of Thrones book; alliance shift and break, marriages arranged and destroyed, people executed, money stolen and soldiers clashed. It makes for great drama. Romm admits that much of the knowledge we have of this period is filtered through what came after: Rome and what followed surely altered history to suit their purposes, and enjoyed the tale of the rise of an Empire, the tragic heroes and villains of this era, and the philosophic messages of the chaotic events. Even so, we work with what we have, and Romm has done a great job.
The book is interesting as it looks closely at the many characters in this period of history; their motivations, their maneuverings, and the potential thought process behind these moves if it is known, or if the historians of antiquity had mentioned it. Romm has done a good job keeping the speculative from the known as well, and will mention explicitly when something appears fishy or overly dramatic. Romm also lays the story out well, overlapping the narratives in chronological order, as battles take place across Europe and Asia, so that the characters can be followed from beginning to tragic end. The history and the narrative are solid here.
My one complaint with the book is the lack of a "conclusion." Although these are historical events that one can read about on a Wikipedia page or in another book, I still felt the book lacked a solid examination of the legacies of Ptolemy, the rule of Cassander and the rise of Seleucid. These Empires were massive, and had lasting impacts on the regions they controlled. Ptolemy began a 300 year dynasty in Egypt. The Seleucid Empire lasted in one form or another for centuries itself, and Macedonia was hegemonic in Greece in some form until its annexation by Rome.
Even with this lack of information to tie up the story of these interesting characters, Romm has written an interesting and accessible history of the brief period of civil war after the death of Alexander the Great. It is a quick read, and has done an excellent job balancing the many characters, their motivations, and their ultimate fate. This brief experiment in European-Asian Imperium was short lived, but its predecessors in Seleucid and Egypt would create interesting amalgamations themselves, and the story of Alexander's meteoric rise, and equally fast demise, continues to be fascinating history two thousand years later. Romm's book is a very good introductory look at the period, and is easily recommended to those who wish to read about ancient history or an engaging narrative history....more
SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome, written by Mary Beard, is a new revisionist history of a very well explored topic. There are literally thousands of bSPQR: A History of Ancient Rome, written by Mary Beard, is a new revisionist history of a very well explored topic. There are literally thousands of books on Ancient Roman history, so the first question many readers may ask when looking at this book is, Will it offer anything new? I believe it does!
Mary Beard has had a storied history in the UK (or so I hear) but her history of Ancient Rome is anything but controversial. It examines many misconceptions about Rome, the people who lived there, and the way in which the Roman State was run. She begins with Cicero, steps back to the founding story of Romulus and Remus, and then travels through Rome's growing influence and control throughout the Mediterranean world and beyond into Empire. The cast of characters, from Romulus to the Scipios to Cicero and on to the Caesars, are all fascinating. Beard examines them from a different angle however, viewing potential weak spots in there narratives that may have been more politically driven fiction than actual fact.
Beard's history is refreshing in the way it is organised, and the information she offers to the reader. Beard does hit some tangents that may not interest everyone, however. She enjoys the minute details surrounding each character, the organisation of their households, their alliances and enemies and so on. She also enjoys deconstructing myths that have been prevalent since Gibbon's classic history text, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Some readers may enjoy all of these, but I found myself a bit bored with certain subjects, though this is more of a personal preference than actual criticism of the book.
All in all, Beard has written a wonderful Revisionist history of Ancient Rome. I am glad to see that Roman history is still being explored, and Beard's book will surely help stoke a renewed interest for many readers. A great read if you are into Roman history, and I would definitely recommend it....more
Augustus: First Emperor of Rome, by Adrian Goldsworthy, is an excellent biographical account of Caesar Octavian's rise to power and his subsequent creAugustus: First Emperor of Rome, by Adrian Goldsworthy, is an excellent biographical account of Caesar Octavian's rise to power and his subsequent creation of the Roman Empire. The work chronicles his life from his birth to death. He was born Caius Octavian Thurinus of a fairly well off but relatively unknown aristocratic family from an Italian city outside of Rome. His great grandfather had become an important politician in the area, and the subsequent generations were important politicians, bankers etc. Octavian's father was a senator in Rome, and although not a big-wig during the civil war years in the 50 BC era, was an important and crafty senator who often took a neutral path in conflicts such as these. Octavian's father died when he was young, and he went to live with his grand-father, also a Roman politician, and finally was adopted by Julius Caesar - who was related to the boy through marriage.
The book then goes on to look at the civil war between Julius Caesar and Pompey, the Ides of March assassination and subsequently, Octavian Caesar's entry into the political world. As a boy in a patrician family, Octavian grew up attending Senatorial meetings, studying Greek, philosophy, history and the arts of war. When adopted by Julius Caesar, he was given elevated status, and important introductory functions to build his political acumen. After Julius Caesar's assassination, he sought justice against his Republican murderers, and came back to Rome from his place of study in Greece. He petitioned to have money Julius Caesar had promised to the people of Rome paid out by the Senate, and became an interesting political tool by competitors for power, including Mark Antony, the "Liberators" (Brutus, Casseus etc.) and Pompey Magnus' sons. These political squabbles allowed Octavian Caesar an opportunity to explore power himself, and he utilized his given name (Caesar) and the death of his adopted father, as well as political machinations and public appeal, to eventually gain status. He recruited former soldiers from Julius Caesar's veterans, and was able to form enough legions to be a thorn in the side of the various contenders for power, although not yet the main player. He was able to occupy Rome covertly, and allied with Antony and Lepidus to eventually for a Triumvirate of power - turning against the Pompey's and the Republican forces. Once the Republicans were dealt with, Octavian (here on called Caesar) gained immense power and influence, was voted titles by a cowed Senate, and fell out with his fellow rulers, eventually defeating Antony in open combat at Actium.
This marked the beginning of Caesar as "Augustus." Although not voted the title until later on, at this point Augustus Caesar had no equal in power. He took great pains to maintain the appearance of an independent Senate, going so far as to welcome criticism's and gentle rebuking and teasing, but not the outright abuse and mud-slinging that characterized later Republican politics. He frequently rejected politically voted honours in his name, as a sign of humility, and of course as a way of maintaining his appearance to the public. He also avoided the mistakes of his adopted father, avoiding the title "dictator" and abhorring any mention of monarchy. He kept his house near other aristocrats in Rome, and was careful to balance his image with his predecessors, frequently honouring his adopted father, and even Pompey Magnus, Sulla and other great men of Rome's past. He worked to expand the borders of Rome, campaigning (often through subordinates) in Cantabria in Spain, across the Rhine into Germany, in modern Switzerland and in Africa and Asia. He built many public works, repaired important buildings, and frequently gave gifts of games, cash, grain and holidays to the people or Rome. He was also careful to ensure a political outlet for young and ambitious aristocratic men, frequently promoting people to positions of power, forgiving those who questioned his rule (although not to the extent of his adopted father) and building a base of talented subordinates among his family and close comrades.
Augustus' reign was also marked with tragedy. Many of his potential heirs and closest comrades, from Agrippa, to Lucius Caesar, to Drasus, died before their patron. He survived all of his grandchildren, and his only daughter, Julia, was estranged due to her public extravagance and flaunting of her marriage with his close associate and eventual successor, Tiberius. Tiberius himself could not take the stress of his position, and retired to Rhodes for five years, much to Augustus' disappointment. However, as the list of family members grew thin, due to scandal, disease or death in battle, Augustus again turned to Tiberius. Augustus died of illness, aged 75 (an extremely old age at this time).
Goldsworthy has done a fabulous job chronicling the life and times of Augustus Caesar, the first Emperor of Rome. Although Julius Caesar is sometimes given the credit, the dictator did not survive to pass on his lineage, and Augustus was the one who built the legislative and political framework of the early Roman Empire. As a character, Augustus is fascinating. He was a sickly child, and suffered from fits of illness throughout his long life, with death scares multiple times. He was also a fairly mediocre general, losing a handful of the battles he fought, and later delegating campaigns to his subordinates (namely Agrippa and Tiberius, as well as his grandsons). He balanced his quick temper with a thoughtful and wise knowledge of Roman politics, and was often able to achieve public relations coups from many of his mistakes and attacks from political opponents.
Goldsworthy also does a good job highlighting his flaws. He was no legendary general, and often delegated military matters to subordinates. He was sickly, and succumbed to the pressures of this period of time a few times, often falling into depression that he needed to recover from. He engaged in massacres, executing thousands of opponents in the Triumvirate period, and dealt harshly with insurrection in the provinces. He took sole power of a large empire in turmoil, and eliminated his opponents ruthlessly through political, diplomatic and often violent means. He was quick to temper, and saw his own daughter exiled and shunned from public life.
Goldsworthy does an admirable job in this biography. It is highly readable, well sourced, and organized along temporal lines, with sections listed by the name Augustus would have been referred to during that time period. He does fall into a trap that much ancient historical narratives falls into. His work is opinionated in some ways, as he discounts other works of scholarship or other historical theories on slight pretexts or based on his own thought process. This is not a direct criticism, as ancient history is full of gaps, missing records, altered monuments and biased primary sources. One must fill in the gaps to have a compete narrative. Goldsworthy tries to do this. He utilizes multiple source types, from monuments, to archeological evidence, to primary sources, historical records and even biblical sources. Even so, there are many missing pieces to the interesting puzzle of Augustus Caesar. There is also controversy over the reasons why he did what he did, and to how accurate some of the later historical works used as primary sources (some written a century or more after events, some under political pressure from Augustus himself, some with an axe to grind in the contemporary political landscape etc.). These issues may never be resolved satisfactorily. Even so, Goldsworthy has written an engaging, entertaining and enlightening biography on one of Western histories most important historical figures. So much of our institutions and ideals take a page from Rome's historical precedent. Augustus helped build Rome into an Empire that would last another 14 centuries, right up to the fall of Constantinople in 1453. Its trappings continue to this day in our political institutions and even our language. It is immediately recognizable, and yet totally alien all at once. One can mesh with Augustus' decisions in some cases, and see them as enlightening, and at others, recoil at his ferocity. This was a different time, for sure, but the ideals of this Emperor, and the system he set up is recognizable enough to feel familiar and to compare it subconsciously with other Empires and Monarchy's in Western history. Augustus is an all important historical figure, and Goldsworthy's biography is an excellent choice if one wishes to learn more about his life and how he governed. ...more
The Punic Wars by Adrian Goldsworthy, is a fantastic look at the Punic Wars - three wars between the City States turned Empires from the mid 200 BC toThe Punic Wars by Adrian Goldsworthy, is a fantastic look at the Punic Wars - three wars between the City States turned Empires from the mid 200 BC to the mid 100's BC. This conflict was fought between the states of Carthage and Rome, two powerful states in this period. Carthage was a maritime states in modern Tunisia that controlled large portions of the North African coast, and had colonies in Spain, Sicily and Sardinia. Rome was a land based power at the time that had conquered or subordinated most of mainland Italy.
The two powers first clashed over Sicily due to a conflict between mercenary groups in the independent despot of Syracuse. Rome and Carthage sided with opposing groups, although the conflict swiftly became a conflagration of shifting alliances, as Carthage's original ally - Syracuse, switched sides due to long term mutual hostility. Carthage had been extending its control over Sicily's Greek city states, much to the resentment of Syracuse, the local power. Rome, as a new actor on the island, was seen as more trustworthy at the time. This war saw overwhelming Punic naval superiority at the beginning of the conflict, ensuring Rome built up a large navy at great expense, eventually turning the tide. Rome defeated Carthage in this war, seizing Punic possessions in Sicily. Furthermore, after the end of the First Punic War, the Carthaginian state entered a period of internal turmoil due to a rebellion from recently returned mercenary armies. This Mercenary War occupied Carthage, and allowed Rome to take advantage of a similar rebellion in Sardinia to seize the island - breaking the spirit of the peace agreement. The differences between the two sides are marked: Carthage utilized large contingents of mercenaries from Celtic and Gaulic tribes who shared a mutual hostility with Rome. They also made use of soldiers from their colonies and subordinate possessions. Numidian cavalry, Libyan foot soldiers, Balearic slingers, and tribal forces made up the bulk of Carthaginian forces. Carthaginian citizens rarely participated in battle in the first two wars, except as ready soldiers when Carthage or the homeland in North Africa was threatened. The first war was also fought mainly outside both Roman and Carthaginian home territory, except for a brief invasion attempt into North Africa by a consular army from Rome - which was decisively defeated. This war was largely a confrontation between two relatively equal colonial powers looking to expand their dominion over more of the Mediterranean.
The Second Punic war is the most famous of the two. It contains the two legendary generals - Hannibal and Scipio Africanus, who led massive campaigns and innovated warfare in the ancient world. Hannibal was a fantastic general; skilled at logistics, pitched battle maneuvers, crafty strategy, and long campaigns. His victorious army, made up mostly of Spanish, Libyan, Gaul and Numidian soldiers from Carthaginian colonies, was undefeated in Italy. His strategy was bold; raise a large army from his base in Spain, and travel over two mountain ranges to reach the Italian heartland. Hannibal believed that only by defeating Rome at home, and ensuring its alliance system in Italy fell apart, would Carthage be able to force a peace. Hannibal's strategy was largely successful for many years. He defeated multiple armies in pitched battles, depleting the ranks of Roman senators and elites by such a huge margin, that the political traditions of Rome had to be altered to ensure political positions were filled. He sacked many cities, and burned the Italian countryside - especially in the south - embarrassing Rome, and showing her allies that Rome could not always guarantee their protection. Many Roman allies, including Syracuse in Sicily, and Capua in Italy, would defect. Even by remaining undefeated in Italy, and running a campaign that lasted over a decade and created a veteran and skilled fighting force, Hannibal could not succeed. The manpower, determination, and traditions of Rome were successful enough to ensure a war of attrition benefited the Romans.
Rome held its own for a few reasons. The first, Goldsworthy posits, was from its relatively mobile social traditions (for the time). Rome had both powerful aristocrats and novus homo - new men - who often stepped in when the ranks were thinned. In Rome during the war, no faction emerged that pushed for detente or capitulation, as all were invested in the survival of the Roman state. Even Roman allies - although many defected, remained staunchly loyal. Cities like Naples, Marseilles and more never wavered in their alliance. Rome at this time also had naval superiority over Carthage, ensuring that Hannibal's forces in Italy were difficult to resupply, and had to rely on foraging and mobility for survival. Rome's military organization was also superior in a few ways. It used citizen soldiers to fill the ranks, and steadily lowered the requirements to join after the repeated defeats at Cannae and the like. This helped solidify a veteran and professional standing army with common cultural and political identity - something the varying nationalities in the Punic armies lacked. Rome, backed into a corner, kept fighting for a decade and more, even after horrifying losses. Carthage, on the other hand, lacked the solid identity that Rome had, and its citizens did not participate directly in the war until Scipio's soldiers were at the gates of Carthage.
The war ended after Roman forces had taken Carthage's colonies in Spain, and landed soldiers in Africa, defeating Hannibal's hastily returned army - his only loss in the war. Carthage capitulated, and gave up its provinces in Spain. Rome also defeated Carthage's ally of convenience - Macedonia, during this war. Carthage lost its Imperial status, and became a subordinate ally to Rome - a situation that would last in some form for 50 years, until 150 BC when the Roman Senate decided to finish them off in the Third Punic War. Although a tough slog, this war was not the large conflict that the Second had been. Rome ended up defeating Carthage and annexing its remaining African territory. Similar events happened to the Macedonian Kingdom, which after four wars in this period was finally turned into Roman provinces. The Punic Wars were a major event that turned Rome from a regional into a world power, and was the beginning of its eventual conquest of much of Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East. If Rome had lost these wars, much would be different. Many of the worlds languages are Latin based, our Western law codes are based on Roman law, and our philosophy often of the Greco-Roman tradition.
Goldsworthy has written an excellent, bite sized history of the Punic Wars. Well researched and considering multiple sources, as well as discounting bias from both ancient and modern scholars, Goldsworthy maintains as one of my favourite Roman historians of the modern world. This book is interesting, easy to read and comprehend, and contains a wealth of information on the subject, from military formation and strategy, to the politics, historiography, social and economic aspects of the conflict. Goldsworthy does a great job avoiding using modern logic to try and determine the motivations of many of the players in this conflict; even our ancient sources that were more contemporary have clear bias and the logic of why tings were done should be taken with a grain of salt. The important bits are the results of events, and the impact they had on the world at the time. A fascinating book, and very enjoyable read. Easily recommended for those looking for a solid read on the Romans....more
Loading...
