The Roman Revolution Revised Edition

Wow. I have just finished reading this book for a chapter I am writing in my dissertation. May be the most important book I have read on Republican Rome. Three things, in particular, set this book apart: 1) It is meticulously researched, 2) it is written in beautiful prose, so rare in academic writing, and 3) its conclusions are still very relevant, despite its already being nearly 80 years old! I can't recommend this book enough...not just for the scholarship therein, but because it should stand as a paradigm for the quality of writing that all burgeoning historians (like myself) should aspire to. I will likely read this book several more times in the future, if only to enjoy the author's prose. I can only regret that his other book, The Augustan Aristocracy, is currently selling for $155!! I hope that Oxford offers a more affordable edition of that book, as well. Until then, I will make do with my university library's copy of that one.

In this review I contribute three facts that elucidate the origin and approach of The Roman Revolution. The first is the reason why Syme began to question the genuineness of Augustus' constitutional settlements of the 20s BC, which historians since Mommsen had taken seriously as restoring, at least partially, the republic. In the early 1980s, I was a professor of Classics at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa. On two occasions, Sir Ronald visited our university. On one visit, he spent an evening (into the early morning) at my home with two colleagues of mine, one of whom was Professor Frank Goodyear, one of the twentieth century's leading Tacitean scholars. Amidst a haze of cigar smoke, Sir Ronald told us that he began to suspect the fraudulence at Augustus' constitution because of the constitution that Stalin promulgated for the Soviet Union in 1936, which guaranteed freedom of speech and the press, habeas corpus, etc. (Sir Ronald has undoubtedly told other people about the effect of the Soviet constitution on him, but I have never seen it in print.) (The Roman Revolution was first published in 1939, not 1937, as another reviewer asserts.)My second and third facts are from Syme's other masterpiece, his two-volume book on the Roman historian Tacitus. Most of it is devoted to explaining and extolling Tacitus' greatness. However, Syme admits that Tacitus could not escape from a defect that is inherent in writing history: Tacitus "presents characters and arranges events in undue coherence. That is the manner of historians in every age;" "Historians of all ages ... cannot help making persons and events more logical than reality;" "Wisdom after the event bedevils all historical exposition ... in the judgment of Julius Caesar - fortune or accident is dominant in military matters as elsewhere" (volume I, pages 419, 435, 168). As Syme says at the beginning of the Prologue, “Birth or energy, chance or horoscope would declare the ruler of the world.” All readers of The Roman Revolution will immediately realize that in it, Syme was constantly aware of this insidious tendency that is inherent in thinking about history and that he strove continually to combat it. As Syme wrote in its preface, "Power and chance [which Syme wrote in Greek] are the presiding divinities."My third fact: On pages 431-2 of volume I of his book on Tacitus, Syme summarized Book I, chapters 9 and 10 of Tacitus' Annals: "The `prudentes' at the funeral of Caesar Augustus expiate on the career of the revolutionary adventurer and tyrannical Triumvir, violence and deceit from first to last. ... [However] [t]he favorable tribute of Tacitus ... is monumental." Syme quotes Tacitus' monumental tribute in Latin. I will translate: "The Empire was bounded by the ocean and distant rivers; everything - legions, provinces, fleet - had been centralized; citizens had rule of law, allies had respect; Rome itself had been magnificently adorned; very few were the occasions on which Augustus used violence, and his purpose on those occasions was to ensure that peace would usually prevail."Everyone who has read The Roman Revolution will immediately see that this is an excellent summary of its main points. In fact, Syme was so eager for Tacitus to agree with his interpretation of Augustus' career that he seriously distorted what Tacitus wrote. In chapter 9, Tacitus quotes the views of those "prudentes" who defend Augustus' career. Their defense ends with the "monumental" praise the Syme quotes. In chapter 10, Tacitus quotes those "prudentes" who argued that every controversial act that Augustus' political career was shameful, immoral, and/or catastrophic for the Roman state and society.Tacitus made the arguments of the "prudentes" who categorically condemn Augustus' career three times longer than the arguments of his defenders. Syme points out (page 432 of his Tacitus) that their negative portrayal of Augustus agrees with Tacitus' portrayal of Augustus elsewhere in the Annals. It also agrees with Tacitus' overall dismal and cynical view of people who seek and hold power. Clearly, Tacitus intended for his readers to remember and accept the opinion of those "prudentes" whom he quotes in chapter 10; and they say absolutely nothing positive about Augustus.Syme does not include in his paraphrase anything that the "prudentes" in chapter 9 say in defense of August, except their "monumental" praise. Instead, he paraphrases the "prudentes" in chapter 10 and appends the praises of the "prudentes" in chapter 9 to the end of their condemnation. He thus creates the wholly inaccurate impression that Tacitus presented the views of only one group of "prudentes" and that they balanced Augustus' brutal means with the wonderful ends he achieved. Moreover, Syme states that their "monumental" praise expresses what Tacitus himself thought. Thus, Syme resorted to blatant distortions to create the impression that Tacitus had the same view of Augustus as Syme presents in The Roman Revolution.(P.S., I recommend Arnaldo Momigliano's review of The Roman Revolution in Journal of Roman Studies (JRS) 30, 1940, pages 75-80; and Michael Crawford's review (entitled "Hamlet without the Prince") of Erich Gruen's The Last Generation of the Roman Republic in JRS 66, 1976, pages 214-17.)

An immensely scholarly work examining a very specific period of time -- namely the transition from Roman Republic to Roman Empire in the years following the murder of Julius Caesar in 44 BC. The book concludes at around 14 AD with the death of Augustus (known earlier as Octavian) and the accession of Tiberius.For anyone who has studied ancient Rome, this period is both a fascinating and frustrating time. Fascinating because of the immense changes underway and frustrating because it is so poorly documented; particularly as compared to the period just preceding it. This was, of course, by design -- once he came to power Augustus destroyed much of the contemporary documentation if it portrayed him in a negative light.Syme does a masterful job in working with the available sources, basing his conclusions on what is said and also what is missing. What really jumped out for me in reading The Roman Revolution was the sophistication at play in terms of political messaging and Augustus' skill as a propagandist. Particularly in terms of having others sing his praises, which allowed him to maintain a decorous level of modesty. There's a reason so much of Virgil and Livy survive -- they were both on Augustus' payroll.All this being said, the book is extremely dense, with footnotes often in Greek or Latin, and the expectation that the reader already has a strong grasp of Republican Rome and First Triumvirate.Definitely not a beach read, but excellent if you have a decent grounding in ancient Rome are willing to put in the work this book requires.

Although published in 1939, this book stands out as a narration of the end of the Roman republic and the emergence of Augustus as emperor. It is beautifully written in easily flowing prose. A work of great scholarship. It is a must read for anyone interested in Roman history. The political tale it tells is still relevant for our own times when changed circumstances can make an existing political system obsolete.

R. Syme reveals the real power players in ancient Roman society, the backers of the competing generals searching personal domination of the empire.That empire contained two classes of citizens: the patricians and the plebs. Rome was ruled without a real constitution (legality was a casual or partisan question). In fact, an oligarchy of 20 to 30 men detained all power strings. They represented whom? The main factions involved were the optimates (wealthy nobility), the nobiles (consular houses), the equites (provincial aristocracies, captains of industry and finance) and the novi homines (senators for the 1st time). Three other groups as a whole were politically very important: the plebs, the soldiers and the Senate.Ambitious generals tried to cement different factions into a block, a Party as a power base.Julius Caesar was a nobilis, backed by the plebs. By nominating many novi homines he took control of the Senate. He became the first Roman revolutionary by abolishing all political liberties and installing a dictatorship. He was stabbed to death by the defenders of the Republic.Marcus Antonius took the helm at the Caesarean Party, but Caesar also nominated a young nobilis as his heir, Octavianus. Provisory political stability was created through a triumvirate (M. Antonius, Octavianus, Lepidus) which installed a reign of terror, wiping out all political opponents through proscription and abolishing all private rights of citizenship. After the elimination of Lepidus, the two remaining triumvirs fought the battle of Actium: Octavianus became the sole master of the situation. In the choice between political freedom (and a new suicidal civil war?) or a stable government, the power players opted for the latter.The reign of Octavianus (Augustus) was backed by the plebs (panem et circenses), the military, the Senate (purified by nominating many novi homines) and the consuls (designated by the emperor). The power of the nobiles was broken. R. Syme characterizes his reign as plutocratic. Many novi homines were opulent men from the colonies and the municipia (Italy without Rome). In reality, Rome was ruled in secret by members of his family (Livia) and personal adherents (Maecenas, Agrippa).R. Syme's book contains many in depth portraits of major power players. A few examples: Cicero was the head of the optimates who intended to employ Octavianus in order to destroy the Caesarean Party and to restore political liberty. Octavianus was a hypocrite and opportunist chameleon, who seized power through bribery, fraud and bloodshed.This magisterially and clear analysis of a power struggle is a must read for all historians and for all those interested in the history of mankind

Ok. Interesting but a big trite. Still reading it

An excellent book but it does reflect the fact that when it was published in the 1940's most people studying this period would have also studied Latin so that many extracts and quotations are not translated - it being assumed the reader could do this themselves. Still well worth reading

This is a standard and authoritative history of the period from 60BC to AD14. It was first published in 1939, and seems to have been available ever since. Every book on Augustan Rome, the Republic, or any related matter always refers to this book - this book just seems to be a definitive reference to any writer, whether they ultimately agree or disagree with the author's viewpoint. Funnily enough, I've just discovered he was born and raised in New Zealand! Fancy that ...I read the first half of the book when doing a paper on Early Rome (up to the fall of the Republic), and have now read the rest of the book preparatory to doing a paper on Imperial Rome. So it seems a good time to review the book as a whole. Given that the book was first published in 1939, it seems almost inevitable that the author's views were coloured, to an extent, by the rise of fascism in Europe at the time, and the impending threat that hung over Europe. Syme attributes fairly "black and white" pragmatic attitudes to Augustus' methods and plans; and while that may not seem so shocking to us now, it was probably fairly reactive at the time.This is most definitely not an easy read, and not to be attempted by a reader with no prior knowledge - the narrative moves from names to places rapidly, and assumes a familiarity with these which are vital to an understanding of the overall theme of the book. Syme approaches the period in a vaguely chronological order, with wide divergences into thematic topics. The writing style is very scholarly and very "old school", so it's a book to study, to think about and to study while referring to other sources as well, to bolster the opinion and knowledge gained.Highly recommended for anyone seriously looking into the end of the Roman Republic and the birth of the Roman Empire.