What do you think?
Rate this book
Ten Caesars: Roman Emperors from Augustus to Constantine
Bestselling classical historian Barry Strauss delivers “an exceptionally accessible history of the Roman Empire…much of Ten Caesars reads like a script for Game of Thrones” (The Wall Street Journal)—a summation of three and a half centuries of the Roman Empire as seen through the lives of ten of the most important emperors, from Augustus to Constantine.
In this essential and “enlightening” (The New York Times Book Review) work, Barry Strauss tells the story of the Roman Empire from rise to reinvention, from Augustus, who founded the empire, to Constantine, who made it Christian and moved the capital east to Constantinople.
During these centuries Rome gained in splendor and territory, then lost both. By the fourth century, the time of Constantine, the Roman Empire had changed so dramatically in geography, ethnicity, religion, and culture that it would have been virtually unrecognizable to Augustus. Rome’s legacy remains today in so many ways, from language, law, and architecture to the seat of the Roman Catholic Church. Strauss examines this enduring heritage through the lives of the men who shaped it: Augustus, Tiberius, Nero, Vespasian, Trajan, Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius, Septimius Severus, Diocletian and Constantine. Over the ages, they learned to maintain the family business—the government of an empire—by adapting when necessary and always persevering no matter the cost.
Ten Caesars is a “captivating narrative that breathes new life into a host of transformative figures” (Publishers Weekly). This “superb summation of four centuries of Roman history, a masterpiece of compression, confirms Barry Strauss as the foremost academic classicist writing for the general reader today” (The Wall Street Journal).
In this essential and “enlightening” (The New York Times Book Review) work, Barry Strauss tells the story of the Roman Empire from rise to reinvention, from Augustus, who founded the empire, to Constantine, who made it Christian and moved the capital east to Constantinople.
During these centuries Rome gained in splendor and territory, then lost both. By the fourth century, the time of Constantine, the Roman Empire had changed so dramatically in geography, ethnicity, religion, and culture that it would have been virtually unrecognizable to Augustus. Rome’s legacy remains today in so many ways, from language, law, and architecture to the seat of the Roman Catholic Church. Strauss examines this enduring heritage through the lives of the men who shaped it: Augustus, Tiberius, Nero, Vespasian, Trajan, Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius, Septimius Severus, Diocletian and Constantine. Over the ages, they learned to maintain the family business—the government of an empire—by adapting when necessary and always persevering no matter the cost.
Ten Caesars is a “captivating narrative that breathes new life into a host of transformative figures” (Publishers Weekly). This “superb summation of four centuries of Roman history, a masterpiece of compression, confirms Barry Strauss as the foremost academic classicist writing for the general reader today” (The Wall Street Journal).
520 pages, Kindle Edition
First published March 5, 2019
About the author
Barry S. Strauss
41 books298 followersBarry Strauss, professor of history and classics at Cornell University, is a leading expert on ancient military history. He has written or edited several books, including The Battle of Salamis, The Trojan War, The Spartacus War, Masters of Command, The Death of Caesar, and Ten Caesars.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 272 reviews
December 21, 2018
I wish I could be kinder, but I am so disappointed. I would recommend this book only to those who are not very familiar with this part of history and who look for an interesting guide. Other than that, I would recommend reading The Twelve Caesars.
All went downhill when I read this line in Trajan’s chapter: “We don’t know when Plotina was born, but, since wives in the Roman elite were typically about ten years younger than their husbands, we might estimate her birth year as 65”. No, please don’t estimate anything! As a historian who lacks enough information you just stay away from giving general assessments! Why would you assume anything? And this is even more absurd, because in the previous chapter, he wrote about Vespasian’s much older companion. I am really shocked that this was written by a history teacher at Cornell university. I mean, this is the most basic thing that you learn when you start History studies.
Let me start on the selection of emperors. This is completely up to the author and it shouldn’t really bother me at all. Yet, I am bothered. So these ten main emperors were chosen. Author Barry S. Strauss skips some of those emperors who are in between, but he still mentions them. These honorable mentions are so confusing and shift focus from the emperor in question. For example, I was reading Trajan’s biography, and I already said how troublesome that was for me. Anyway, author says that there aren’t many sources that can testify about Trajan’s character, because the majority of sources are focused on his military success. That’s fine. And then, in the middle of Trajan’s story, there is Domitian, his pre-predecessor and there is Nerva, his predecessor. What?
Also, Nero’s chapter was mostly negative and focused solely on the great fire in Rome. As far as I know, there are no sources that confirm his involvement and by now, historians are denying that he had part in this. Still, author presented an outdated image of Nero ominously laughing and almost cheering because he will now be able to rebuild new city. By using these ancient gossip, Nero’s chapter lost all credibility for me. Strauss often mentions that some of the stories can’t be verified by sources, and still, he offers his own opinion on whether or not the story is true. True historians would never do this, so this bothered me a lot.
Finally,these biographies also lack character. If you read them all in one day, you will see, for example, that there is almost no distinction between Augustus, Tiberius and Nero. Author often included famous quotes that have never been backed up by the sources and these quotes were the only things that gave some personal touch to the story. Other than that, it is just a list of crimes, legislation and building of buildings. The selection of most important historical events is good, I couldn’t find anything major that was missing. Anyhow, the writing doesn’t have a nice flow, it feels like reading annals or a bulletin list. I feel that author couldn’t really decide if this would be a set of biographies or a compressed history guide.
All went downhill when I read this line in Trajan’s chapter: “We don’t know when Plotina was born, but, since wives in the Roman elite were typically about ten years younger than their husbands, we might estimate her birth year as 65”. No, please don’t estimate anything! As a historian who lacks enough information you just stay away from giving general assessments! Why would you assume anything? And this is even more absurd, because in the previous chapter, he wrote about Vespasian’s much older companion. I am really shocked that this was written by a history teacher at Cornell university. I mean, this is the most basic thing that you learn when you start History studies.
Let me start on the selection of emperors. This is completely up to the author and it shouldn’t really bother me at all. Yet, I am bothered. So these ten main emperors were chosen. Author Barry S. Strauss skips some of those emperors who are in between, but he still mentions them. These honorable mentions are so confusing and shift focus from the emperor in question. For example, I was reading Trajan’s biography, and I already said how troublesome that was for me. Anyway, author says that there aren’t many sources that can testify about Trajan’s character, because the majority of sources are focused on his military success. That’s fine. And then, in the middle of Trajan’s story, there is Domitian, his pre-predecessor and there is Nerva, his predecessor. What?
Also, Nero’s chapter was mostly negative and focused solely on the great fire in Rome. As far as I know, there are no sources that confirm his involvement and by now, historians are denying that he had part in this. Still, author presented an outdated image of Nero ominously laughing and almost cheering because he will now be able to rebuild new city. By using these ancient gossip, Nero’s chapter lost all credibility for me. Strauss often mentions that some of the stories can’t be verified by sources, and still, he offers his own opinion on whether or not the story is true. True historians would never do this, so this bothered me a lot.
Finally,these biographies also lack character. If you read them all in one day, you will see, for example, that there is almost no distinction between Augustus, Tiberius and Nero. Author often included famous quotes that have never been backed up by the sources and these quotes were the only things that gave some personal touch to the story. Other than that, it is just a list of crimes, legislation and building of buildings. The selection of most important historical events is good, I couldn’t find anything major that was missing. Anyhow, the writing doesn’t have a nice flow, it feels like reading annals or a bulletin list. I feel that author couldn’t really decide if this would be a set of biographies or a compressed history guide.
March 4, 2019
Ten Caesars is renowned historian Barry Strauss's condensed version of the Roman Empires Ten Greatest Emperors and hats off to him for making an often dry, tedious topic seem exciting and accessible. It allows the reader to learn about the ten most prominent Roman figures and seamlessly scroll through 300 years in time without the need to pick up a separate book to learn about each individual or different epochs.
I must admit, I used to despise history, primarily due to a teacher at school with a lacklustre approach, but since then I have thoroughly enjoyed educating myself on the myriad of topics history encompasses. Strauss is one of the very best for providing sound content in a manner which is eminently readable, regardless of your level of prior knowledge. The prose is crisp, engaging and easy to follow and the narrative full of intrigue.
You'd be unlikely to find a more trustworthy, captivating account of the empire than what Mr Strauss provides us with here; you can tell that it's all meticulously researched to ensure a solid basis and underpinning. The only reason for withholding a star is that in certain parts it did drag a little, but it was incredibly minor. Each account covers both the favourable and unfavourable aspects of the featured emperor's leading to what feels like a balanced, nuanced work of excellent quality and reliability. Highly recommended.
Many thanks to Simon & Schuster for an ARC.
I must admit, I used to despise history, primarily due to a teacher at school with a lacklustre approach, but since then I have thoroughly enjoyed educating myself on the myriad of topics history encompasses. Strauss is one of the very best for providing sound content in a manner which is eminently readable, regardless of your level of prior knowledge. The prose is crisp, engaging and easy to follow and the narrative full of intrigue.
You'd be unlikely to find a more trustworthy, captivating account of the empire than what Mr Strauss provides us with here; you can tell that it's all meticulously researched to ensure a solid basis and underpinning. The only reason for withholding a star is that in certain parts it did drag a little, but it was incredibly minor. Each account covers both the favourable and unfavourable aspects of the featured emperor's leading to what feels like a balanced, nuanced work of excellent quality and reliability. Highly recommended.
Many thanks to Simon & Schuster for an ARC.
August 20, 2019
This book covers the lives of 10 Roman emperors between 27 BC and 337 AD, from Augustus to Constantine. There were a lot of additional emperors during this period, but they are not treated to their own chapters but are discussed only briefly. In most cases, I understand that decision since those emperors did not rule for very long and/or seemed to have uneventful careers. However, I was disappointed to see that Claudius and Caligula were given this treatment. I think they are two of the more interesting emperors, but they were both rolled into the chapter on Nero. I’ve also read “The Twelve Caesars” by Suetonius. This book is quite detailed and written in an entertaining manner, but it should not be viewed as a replacement for the older book, but as a supplement to it.
My idea of a good history book is one that makes me want to learn more about the topics discussed and this book accomplished that. I now want to read more about Hadrian and Constantine.
I received a free copy of this book from the publisher.
My idea of a good history book is one that makes me want to learn more about the topics discussed and this book accomplished that. I now want to read more about Hadrian and Constantine.
I received a free copy of this book from the publisher.
December 28, 2020
A very interesting concept and most of what Barry S Strauss is writing is entertaining to read about. But this was not a new favorite, wasn't as drawn into the text as much as I wanted to and I had to take a few breaks to combat information overload, which I'm fine with. But it didn't really compelled me to keep reading, and ended up just reading it to get it done. As an historical nob fiction it's a good book but I didn't find much enjoyment in it
March 12, 2019
I'm gonna jump right in and say that I highly enjoyed Ten Caesars: Roman Emperors from Augustus to Constantine by Barry S. Strauss. I randomly decided to read it when I saw it available to read on NetGalley because I craved some ancient history nonfiction. And I'm really glad that I did because I almost couldn't stop reading it. I'll even go as far to say that it's one of my favorite books of 2019 so far, especially in the nonfiction genre.
I do have to admit that before starting to read the book I was a tiny bit apprehensive about it because in each chapter one of the ten Roman emperors that are featured in this book is highlighted and the reason why that worried me a little is that most books like this (at least the ones I've read) don't go as deeply into the people or topics as much as I like. But I was actually pleasantly surprised with how the author tackled each emperor and I wasn't left disappointed in that way at all.
As the synopsis says, the emperors featured in the book are: Augustus, Tiberius, Nero, Vespasian, Trajan, Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius, Septimius Severus, Diocletian and Constantine. As a huge ancient history fan I knew a little about most of these men but after reading this book I feel like my knowledge of them and the ancient world in general has grown so much more and that's exactly why I enjoy reading this kind of nonfiction. I just can't seem to learn enough about ancient history and the ancient Romans were so very fascinating.
My favorite chapters probably were the ones about Augustus, Tiberius, Nero, Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius. Why? I'm not entirely sure. I've always been pretty fascinated by these particular emperors and reading this book only made my interest in them grow. I also liked that, even though Caligula didn't get a chapter dedicated to him, the author did mention and talked a little about him in another chapter.
This review is getting quite long by now so I'm gonna round it up now but I also really wanted to say that at 432 pages this isn't a particularly short book but even so it didn't take me that long to read it and I found most of the chapters going by really fast because the way Barry S. Strauss wrote the book made it pretty easy to read and honestly it was just a great book that was really enjoyable. I definitely want to check out his other books as well. Also, I really want to buy a physical copy of Ten Caesars now. I need it on my nonfiction shelf!
I do have to admit that before starting to read the book I was a tiny bit apprehensive about it because in each chapter one of the ten Roman emperors that are featured in this book is highlighted and the reason why that worried me a little is that most books like this (at least the ones I've read) don't go as deeply into the people or topics as much as I like. But I was actually pleasantly surprised with how the author tackled each emperor and I wasn't left disappointed in that way at all.
As the synopsis says, the emperors featured in the book are: Augustus, Tiberius, Nero, Vespasian, Trajan, Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius, Septimius Severus, Diocletian and Constantine. As a huge ancient history fan I knew a little about most of these men but after reading this book I feel like my knowledge of them and the ancient world in general has grown so much more and that's exactly why I enjoy reading this kind of nonfiction. I just can't seem to learn enough about ancient history and the ancient Romans were so very fascinating.
My favorite chapters probably were the ones about Augustus, Tiberius, Nero, Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius. Why? I'm not entirely sure. I've always been pretty fascinated by these particular emperors and reading this book only made my interest in them grow. I also liked that, even though Caligula didn't get a chapter dedicated to him, the author did mention and talked a little about him in another chapter.
This review is getting quite long by now so I'm gonna round it up now but I also really wanted to say that at 432 pages this isn't a particularly short book but even so it didn't take me that long to read it and I found most of the chapters going by really fast because the way Barry S. Strauss wrote the book made it pretty easy to read and honestly it was just a great book that was really enjoyable. I definitely want to check out his other books as well. Also, I really want to buy a physical copy of Ten Caesars now. I need it on my nonfiction shelf!
May 22, 2023
Accesible selection of biographies of ten Roman emperors who, each for his own reasons, defined social, economic or military changes that transformed the Roman empire. A few of this emperors were already known to me, but a few of them I've never heard of. I liked the stories and learned a few things here and there. Do not expect an in-depth story like Adrian Goldsworthy, but if you're interested in picking up a few new things this is the book for you.
Read more of my reviews here
Read more of my reviews here
May 26, 2019
Barry S. Strauss reminded me how fascinating Ancient Rome was!
I have always been interested in the history of Ancient Rome. Even as a child I enjoyed reading Greek and Roman Mythology with constant bickering between gods and goddesses, with heroes performing impossible deeds and with mythological creatures like centaurs and nymphs. When I got older I read with equal fascination about Julius Caesar, Cleopatra, Mark Anthony and their adventures, I read about Nero burning people alive and feeding them to wild animals in the arena. I read about Claudius and his disastrous marriage to Messalina.
Anyway, "Ten Caesars" by Barry S. Strauss is written without too many details and gives a coherent picture of the most important characteristics and fates of ten Caesars that shaped the Roman Empire. The book is written on an entry level, so readers don't need any previous knowledge of history. The author writes about real people and what we know about them, how they lived and died, who they loved and who they hated. It is easy to immense yourself in the story of people that ruled the vast empire and needed to fear constantly for their lives. One mistake could mean the end of their rule and death of all their loved ones. The author treats historical sources with healthy scepticism. He presents difficult times and choices that these people faced, bloody conflicts and deadly intrigues that ended with assassination. The book presents the real "Game of Thrones" that took place thousands years ago.
To sum up, I very much enjoyed reading "Ten Caesars" by Barry S. Strauss. It is a great book, well-written and full of fascinating details. I recommend it to all fans of history and Ancient Rome.
I received "Ten Caesars" from the publisher via NetGalley. I would like to thank the author and the publisher for providing me with the advance reader copy of the book.
I have always been interested in the history of Ancient Rome. Even as a child I enjoyed reading Greek and Roman Mythology with constant bickering between gods and goddesses, with heroes performing impossible deeds and with mythological creatures like centaurs and nymphs. When I got older I read with equal fascination about Julius Caesar, Cleopatra, Mark Anthony and their adventures, I read about Nero burning people alive and feeding them to wild animals in the arena. I read about Claudius and his disastrous marriage to Messalina.
Anyway, "Ten Caesars" by Barry S. Strauss is written without too many details and gives a coherent picture of the most important characteristics and fates of ten Caesars that shaped the Roman Empire. The book is written on an entry level, so readers don't need any previous knowledge of history. The author writes about real people and what we know about them, how they lived and died, who they loved and who they hated. It is easy to immense yourself in the story of people that ruled the vast empire and needed to fear constantly for their lives. One mistake could mean the end of their rule and death of all their loved ones. The author treats historical sources with healthy scepticism. He presents difficult times and choices that these people faced, bloody conflicts and deadly intrigues that ended with assassination. The book presents the real "Game of Thrones" that took place thousands years ago.
To sum up, I very much enjoyed reading "Ten Caesars" by Barry S. Strauss. It is a great book, well-written and full of fascinating details. I recommend it to all fans of history and Ancient Rome.
I received "Ten Caesars" from the publisher via NetGalley. I would like to thank the author and the publisher for providing me with the advance reader copy of the book.
July 4, 2021
По-скоро 2.5*, стори ми се доста повърхностно.
January 30, 2019
This is the fifth book of ancient history that I’ve read by Barry Strauss, and I have enjoyed all of them. He has an ability to find the drama in history and to tell his stories with insight and clarity. In The Ten Caesars, (the title is a nod to the ancient classic by Suetonius, “The Twelve Caesars”) Strauss provides fascinating biographical sketches of ten of Rome’s emperors. Unlike Suetonius, he doesn’t go in straight chronological order from Julius to Domitian; instead he begins with Augustus and picks out interesting emperors over a much broader time period, ending with Constantine. I enjoyed this book very much.
Just before writing this I glanced at the only other review posted here (as of today) and was surprised by its negativity. I’m not certain that this other reviewer read the same book that I did. For example, she says that Strauss’s treatment of Nero is mostly negative, but I can’t imagine that awful man getting kinder treatment from a biographer. She also says that the Nero section “focused solely” on the great fire. This isn’t even remotely true. The fire is given a few paragraphs out of many pages of text. She then says that Strauss presents the outdated image of Nero cheering the destruction of Rome, which is also not true. He quotes Tacitus who reported the rumor that Nero sang while Rome burned, but then he throws cold water on the image and says that it is “plausible if not proven.” To me, this shows restraint and sound judgement. Strauss also mentions the fact that Nero did some good things in response to the fire (opening public buildings to the homeless, slashing grain prices). The hilarious thing is that this other reviewer tells us to read The Twelve Caesars by Suetonius instead, but Suetonius, as much as I love him, is far less evenhanded than Strauss. Suetonius, for example, claims that Nero deliberately started the fire and also retells the story of the emperor singing as Rome burned.
Anyway. I could go on and on but I won’t. Let me just say that The Ten Caesars is a very good work of popular history and you should absolutely read it if you are interested in the Roman emperors. (FYI I read a free Net Galley version of this book, not that it influenced my opinion.)
Just before writing this I glanced at the only other review posted here (as of today) and was surprised by its negativity. I’m not certain that this other reviewer read the same book that I did. For example, she says that Strauss’s treatment of Nero is mostly negative, but I can’t imagine that awful man getting kinder treatment from a biographer. She also says that the Nero section “focused solely” on the great fire. This isn’t even remotely true. The fire is given a few paragraphs out of many pages of text. She then says that Strauss presents the outdated image of Nero cheering the destruction of Rome, which is also not true. He quotes Tacitus who reported the rumor that Nero sang while Rome burned, but then he throws cold water on the image and says that it is “plausible if not proven.” To me, this shows restraint and sound judgement. Strauss also mentions the fact that Nero did some good things in response to the fire (opening public buildings to the homeless, slashing grain prices). The hilarious thing is that this other reviewer tells us to read The Twelve Caesars by Suetonius instead, but Suetonius, as much as I love him, is far less evenhanded than Strauss. Suetonius, for example, claims that Nero deliberately started the fire and also retells the story of the emperor singing as Rome burned.
Anyway. I could go on and on but I won’t. Let me just say that The Ten Caesars is a very good work of popular history and you should absolutely read it if you are interested in the Roman emperors. (FYI I read a free Net Galley version of this book, not that it influenced my opinion.)
May 31, 2019
excellent books about the ten emperors of the title - a modern version of the classics (Suetonius etc) in the sense that it is engaging, full of anecdotes and very personal, but also contains a modern approach to history (trends, economy, the role of imperial women etc); it is not a book to really learn about the emperors (there are lots of good biographies that are more detailed plus unrivaled fiction of which some is alluded to here for that matter), more of a vignette like view of each but it is so engaging that I barely could put it down until i finished it
highly recommended
highly recommended
December 7, 2020
I get the feeling that this author, a noted midbrow classicist whose works I am generally fond of and familiar with [1], could have written this book in his sleep or as way of getting a book to press while researching a more ambitious project in ancient history. At any rate, a reader looking at this book who is familiar with Roman history is going to recognize this book as a "good parts" history of the Roman Empire as the title states, between the age of Augustus and Constantine. It is not surprising, therefore, that the author sticks generally to the high points of Rome, such that seven of the ten Caesars that the author focuses on are in the Julio-Claudian, Flavian, and Adoptive Emperor period, with only the two most obvious choices that take place after the Third Century Crisis, which the author passes over completely, as well as the period of the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Again, as I commented earlier, this is a high points study of the Roman Empire, and it is different from most accounts in that it is more obvious about which emperors the author considers to be important and in its treatment of the Severan Dynasty, which is usually ignored in this sort of account, and that alone makes it worthy of reading, even if much of the ground covered is familiar to someone who reads a lot about Roman imperial history.
This book is more than 300 pages long and it begins with an author's notes, chronology, and maps. After that the author divides his area of study into the reigns of ten emperors. The author begins with Augustus, and then moves on to his adopted son Tiberius, then skips over Caligula and Claudius to talk about Nero and the end of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. After that comes Vespasian, giving the author the chance to talk about the Flavian dynasty. A discussion of Trajan, Hadrian, and Marcus Aurelius gives the author the chance to talk about the greatness of Rome during most of the second century, when it was generally viewed as being at its peak. After this the book is mostly done, which gives the author the chance to talk about the Severan dynasty, which reigned during the last part of the second century AD to the first two-fifths or so of the third century, after which Rome had a major crisis which was only brought to a temporary close by the greatness of Diocletian and Constantine, where the book ends with a discussion of Constantine that is generally positive. After this it includes notes, an index, and also, rather helpfully, a family tree for the dynasties it talks about, which is useful when you're trying to differentiate between your various Germanicuses and Apollionas.
It is clear that this book is not being written for someone who already knows a lot about the period between 45BC and 360AD or so, but rather for someone whose knowledge of the Roman empire is not particularly great and who is in need of a brief refresher course about the most popular and noted Roman emperors during the higher periods of that empire. The author leaves the discussion of the decline and fall of Rome to other writers, and focuses on what was going on when Rome was great. It is unclear what sort of lessons that the author is trying to draw, but he does mention the personal lives of emperors as it relates to marriage, children, and relationships, as well as the relationship of many emperors with the military, economic matters, and Christianity. The end result is a book that is a compelling read if a somewhat basic one in many respects, and one whose evaluation will depend in large part on how the reader feels about the author's moralizing and his critical view of the writing of ancient historians whose source material he simultaneously uses and also mistrusts.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2019...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2019...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2019...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2018...
This book is more than 300 pages long and it begins with an author's notes, chronology, and maps. After that the author divides his area of study into the reigns of ten emperors. The author begins with Augustus, and then moves on to his adopted son Tiberius, then skips over Caligula and Claudius to talk about Nero and the end of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. After that comes Vespasian, giving the author the chance to talk about the Flavian dynasty. A discussion of Trajan, Hadrian, and Marcus Aurelius gives the author the chance to talk about the greatness of Rome during most of the second century, when it was generally viewed as being at its peak. After this the book is mostly done, which gives the author the chance to talk about the Severan dynasty, which reigned during the last part of the second century AD to the first two-fifths or so of the third century, after which Rome had a major crisis which was only brought to a temporary close by the greatness of Diocletian and Constantine, where the book ends with a discussion of Constantine that is generally positive. After this it includes notes, an index, and also, rather helpfully, a family tree for the dynasties it talks about, which is useful when you're trying to differentiate between your various Germanicuses and Apollionas.
It is clear that this book is not being written for someone who already knows a lot about the period between 45BC and 360AD or so, but rather for someone whose knowledge of the Roman empire is not particularly great and who is in need of a brief refresher course about the most popular and noted Roman emperors during the higher periods of that empire. The author leaves the discussion of the decline and fall of Rome to other writers, and focuses on what was going on when Rome was great. It is unclear what sort of lessons that the author is trying to draw, but he does mention the personal lives of emperors as it relates to marriage, children, and relationships, as well as the relationship of many emperors with the military, economic matters, and Christianity. The end result is a book that is a compelling read if a somewhat basic one in many respects, and one whose evaluation will depend in large part on how the reader feels about the author's moralizing and his critical view of the writing of ancient historians whose source material he simultaneously uses and also mistrusts.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2019...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2019...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2019...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2018...
March 18, 2019
This is moderately better than The Death of Caesar, but ultimately, I'm giving it the same 3-star rating.
As one other reviewer noted (and other examples could be offered) Strauss tends to a high level of assumptions. A little of that comes with the territory, but he pushes the envelope.
Second, Strauss's book is heavy on imperial reputation rehabilitation with some of his 10 featured candidates, above all with Nero. And, in Nero's case at least, methinks he doth protest too much.
Related, why these 10? And, with Nero in particular, with the transitions Strauss has, why does he still write so little about Claudius. (More on Nero below.)
Third? This is relatively lightweight. Just 300 pages, with fairly large type, for 10 emperors? It's like a Suetonius Starter Kit or Taciturn Tacitus or something.
And, speaking of him as well as Nero?
Strauss does little critical wrestling with Tacitus' statement about Nero persecuting Christians for the fire of Rome. No other Roman historian mentions it for another century afterward. (There were other Romans who likely wrote about the fire at the time, but their materials are not extant, so we don't know the Xn angle if it was written by them or not.) No pre-200 Christian mentions it.
Next, the Christians/Chrestians issue. Given that Tacitus wrote in Latin, may not have known Greek well and likely was born in Gaul and may not have known Judaism well, his comments about Nero, Christians and the fire must be handled carefully.
1. It's possible he's speaking of "Messianic Jews" in general; after all, he records this as why Claudius gave Jews the boot from Rome.
2. He may, per Acts saying "they were first called Christians in Antioch" (without Acts telling us WHEN), be using secondhand sources of some sort.
And, while most scholars accept the passage as genuine, it could be like Josephus and have a genuine core but some extrapolations around that.
And, that, in turn, is the problem with the lightness of this book.
(My inclination is that it is at a minimum, "not proven" that Tacitus is talking about Christians rather than Messianic Jews —or that he's not relying on secondary sources besides the Romans like Pliny the Elder who may have written at the time. Or that he's not relying on something Christian.)
There's other reasons for this. A good estimate is that Rome probably had no more than 1,000 Christians in 64CE. That's out of a total population that was probably approaching 1 million by then. (The city's population didn't peak, in all likelihood, until the 2nd century, and at more than 1 million.)
That's 1/10th of 1 percent. Hardly enough to even be on Nero's radar screen, one would think. Imagine an American president going nuts about Bahais in Washington DC, for example. The Jewish population, even focusing on those prodding Messianic issues? Probably 5,000 or more. And, a Jewish Messianist persecution by Nero would have been lost in the Jewish revolt.
Next? An over the top claim about languages that were "as likely" (quote) to be spoken in Trajanic Rome as Latin. Greek? Sure. Lumping different languages of Western Europe as "Celtic"? Likely. Aramaic? Not so likely. Hebrew? Not at all as likely to be spoken in Rome as Latin.
Oh, and "German," to riff on "Celtic"? There was no such language 2,000 years ago. There was "Gothic," we could say, and there was "proto-Germanic." Nope, no "German," though.
And, an academic professor of ancient European history should know that. And also not to claim Hebrew was as common in Rome as Latin.
That dropped it to a sure three stars. If I were really generous and we were offered them, maybe a 3.5. But likely not.
As one other reviewer noted (and other examples could be offered) Strauss tends to a high level of assumptions. A little of that comes with the territory, but he pushes the envelope.
Second, Strauss's book is heavy on imperial reputation rehabilitation with some of his 10 featured candidates, above all with Nero. And, in Nero's case at least, methinks he doth protest too much.
Related, why these 10? And, with Nero in particular, with the transitions Strauss has, why does he still write so little about Claudius. (More on Nero below.)
Third? This is relatively lightweight. Just 300 pages, with fairly large type, for 10 emperors? It's like a Suetonius Starter Kit or Taciturn Tacitus or something.
And, speaking of him as well as Nero?
Strauss does little critical wrestling with Tacitus' statement about Nero persecuting Christians for the fire of Rome. No other Roman historian mentions it for another century afterward. (There were other Romans who likely wrote about the fire at the time, but their materials are not extant, so we don't know the Xn angle if it was written by them or not.) No pre-200 Christian mentions it.
Next, the Christians/Chrestians issue. Given that Tacitus wrote in Latin, may not have known Greek well and likely was born in Gaul and may not have known Judaism well, his comments about Nero, Christians and the fire must be handled carefully.
1. It's possible he's speaking of "Messianic Jews" in general; after all, he records this as why Claudius gave Jews the boot from Rome.
2. He may, per Acts saying "they were first called Christians in Antioch" (without Acts telling us WHEN), be using secondhand sources of some sort.
And, while most scholars accept the passage as genuine, it could be like Josephus and have a genuine core but some extrapolations around that.
And, that, in turn, is the problem with the lightness of this book.
(My inclination is that it is at a minimum, "not proven" that Tacitus is talking about Christians rather than Messianic Jews —or that he's not relying on secondary sources besides the Romans like Pliny the Elder who may have written at the time. Or that he's not relying on something Christian.)
There's other reasons for this. A good estimate is that Rome probably had no more than 1,000 Christians in 64CE. That's out of a total population that was probably approaching 1 million by then. (The city's population didn't peak, in all likelihood, until the 2nd century, and at more than 1 million.)
That's 1/10th of 1 percent. Hardly enough to even be on Nero's radar screen, one would think. Imagine an American president going nuts about Bahais in Washington DC, for example. The Jewish population, even focusing on those prodding Messianic issues? Probably 5,000 or more. And, a Jewish Messianist persecution by Nero would have been lost in the Jewish revolt.
Next? An over the top claim about languages that were "as likely" (quote) to be spoken in Trajanic Rome as Latin. Greek? Sure. Lumping different languages of Western Europe as "Celtic"? Likely. Aramaic? Not so likely. Hebrew? Not at all as likely to be spoken in Rome as Latin.
Oh, and "German," to riff on "Celtic"? There was no such language 2,000 years ago. There was "Gothic," we could say, and there was "proto-Germanic." Nope, no "German," though.
And, an academic professor of ancient European history should know that. And also not to claim Hebrew was as common in Rome as Latin.
That dropped it to a sure three stars. If I were really generous and we were offered them, maybe a 3.5. But likely not.
April 26, 2019
While I did learn a bit from this, and reinforced some things I already knew, the history was overall fairly disappointing. It is very shallow, and focused entirely on the emperors and only minimally covering anything broader going on in the Roman Empire. Well, not focused entirely on the emperors; strangely, every chapter also has sections on the emperor's wife and mother, sometimes completely speculative sections in the cases where nothing about them is known. Too much is scratched out and not backed up. How many times can Strauss write, "Emperor X was a good administrator, and divided his attention between the military and politics, but not failing to promote Roman art and culture"? Utterly generic, unsupported and therefore vacuous, sentences like this are repeated for most of the emperors.
August 8, 2020
The Roman Empire, or at least the western Roman Empire, is a history of decline, as we all know. But not linear decline, and that matters. "Ten Caesars," the latest offering from the always-excellent Barry Strauss, profiles the ten most consequential Roman emperors, narrating the ups and downs of the empire they ruled. Strauss’s book is capsule history, a chapter-by-chapter summary of the profiled emperors, offering facts without many larger explicit conclusions, so there is little new here for anyone with even passing knowledge of the Empire. Think of it, then, as a refresher course.
By coincidence, just recently one Daniel Voshart created, using a machine-learning tool fed portraits and sculptures of the emperors, what he believes to be photorealistic pictures of them, up to A.D. 285. It’s impressive, and well worth your time to check out his article (on Medium), and to look at the photos themselves—it helps bring them even more to life when you are reading this book, or, for that matter, this review.
Strauss begins with Augustus, naturally enough. “Few historical figures show better what it takes to win at everything.” We live in times that seem they are of consequence, but so far are really pernicious farce. Augustus lived in, and created, times of actual consequence, managing by force of will and luck to turn the decayed Republic into a successful Empire. He even managed his succession effectively, meaning peacefully, despite having no son of his own. No emperor was ever again as successful or beloved; really, the entire history of the Empire from there was downhill.
One key problem facing even the most competent emperors was that changing the form of government didn’t change the excessive corruption of the Roman elites, which was irreversible given the impracticality of wholesale replacement (as it is may be irreversible for today’s America, which has a far more corrupt ruling class, but wholesale reworking is perhaps more feasible for us). As a result, the main task of an emperor was to handle and balance competing groups of elites, all out for their own interests, few out for the interests of Rome except secondarily. (The plebeians became irrelevant to the political system, which they were not under the Republic, becoming merely pacified with the famous bread and circuses—also a bad change, since every society should have every level of society invested in it.) Tiberius, far less of a natural politician than Augustus, found keeping this balance harder, yet still managed to keep the empire stable and the military strong, while dialing back Roman expansionism. Even so, the seeds of later fractures were already obvious in his time, in retrospect, and Tiberius came to be viewed as a tyrant—not because he was Emperor, but because of how he ruled.
We get some lurid bad behavior in this book. However, that’s not the main focus, so Strauss skips Caligula (with some mention of him to complete the picture, a pattern he repeats for most of the emperors who don’t get their own chapters), and moves to Nero, who also behaved badly, but had more consequence. I’ve always found Nero, the last member of Augustus’s family to rule, boring, and Strauss doesn’t change my mind, though the presence of some other men in his time, such as Seneca, makes his reign a bit more interesting. Nero rightly gets the blame for beginning the major persecutions of Christians (something not downplayed by Strauss, as it is often downplayed by modern historians); that and his other bad behavior make him remembered. Ultimately, his character simply made him not up for the task of ruling, and so he got what he deserved—and this only in A.D. 68, when Augustus died in A.D. 14. The Empire seemed to be showing instability early.
Or was it? The instability of Nero’s time was different in kind from that of the late Republic, which involved near-continuous civil war and great questions of state that required a permanent resolution. The new instability was instead micro-targeted, consisting primarily in erosion of the rule of law as applied to the ruling class. In its operations as an empire, the Empire seemed, and continued for a long time to seem, like a success. The average Roman probably was almost completely unaffected by what happened among the ruling classes, and he was vastly better off than under the late Republic. So, if the rule of law is absent among the ruling class, yet present among the rest of the populace, does that necessarily harm a society? In essence, such a ruling class exchanges the application of the rule of law to itself for the opportunity to participate actively in supreme, arbitrary, power. High risk, high reward. (No society can survive without the rule of law being generally applicable outside the ruling class; movies that show medieval Europe, or Japan, as a place where nobles regularly went around raping and killing commoners with impunity, or where general anarchy was common, are silly. Medieval England, for example, was a notably peaceful and lawful place, much more so than parts of modern England, and the same has been true for most, or all, successful civilizations. That the Thirty Years War was terrible is not to the contrary.) However, I suspect lack of rule of law among the ruling class does harm a society in the long run. It creates disunity, and ruling class disunity diverts energy that could be used for accomplishment, resulting in members of the ruling class instead focusing on extraction of value, while destroying long-term trust—and as we see around us in America today, a low-trust society cannot ever be successful. Nonetheless, the Romans managed this form of instability longer than might seem probable.
The single biggest problem facing any monarchical system is succession. Without clear succession, not only was power up for grabs upon an emperor’s death, but an emperor always had to watch out for those looking to hurry along his death. Thus, weak or fearful emperors got rid of potential threats, which mostly meant successful military commanders. The Romans tried to address this in various ways, early on by adoption and setting up clear succession during the prime of an emperor, and later by divided and tiered power, as in Diocletian’s Tetrarchy. Adoption could work, but then the adoptee had to outlive his adoptive father, which often did not happen. And since having a right-hand man on whom he could depend was crucial for most emperors, such as Agrippa for Augustus, but the right-hand man was rarely chosen as the adoptee, not infrequently the right-hand man decided to try to seize power. That’s not to mention the frequent poisonings—or perhaps infrequent, since poisoning was often blamed for natural deaths, but that allegations of poison automatically were credible itself says much about the imperial ruling class atmosphere.
The next emperor covered (after three others within a year), Vespasian, was a commoner, a general who came to power by violence, setting the tone for many later successions. He was gruff, competent, and practical, and took measures to expand the ruling class to provincials, as well as stabilize the finances of the Roman state. Only briefly touching on Titus, Domitian, and Nerva, Trajan gets the next chapter. He, in A.D. 98, began a long turn back to longer, more successful reigns, the “Five Good Emperors.” (Actually, Nerva did, but he only reigned for two years.) Trajan was a good politician, balancing among the ruling classes and showing a welcome touch to the masses, while still keeping the army happy. It was Trajan with whom Pliny the Younger, then governor of Bithynia, famously corresponded about how he should treat Christians. It was also under Trajan that Rome finally conquered Dacia; that doesn’t matter much to most people, but I have a particular interest in the Danube Basin, and it is interesting to me that echoes of Trajan’s conquest persist down to the present day, with Rumanians deciding with the rise of modern nationalism that they were descended from the Roman conquerors, in order to have a prior claim to Transylvania, which the Hungarians had held merely since the ninth century (and which the Rumanians were given by the Allies in 1919).
Next is Hadrian, philo-Hellene and man of culture combined with action, who travelled all over the Empire and had Hadrian’s Wall built. He presided over the brutal suppression of the last Jewish revolt (the Bar Kokhba revolt, ending in A.D. 136), and what can variously be interpreted as a cultural revival or the erosion of strong Roman culture by the introduction of alien elements. We then skip to Marcus Aurelius, beloved by moderns for his Stoic writings, which they don’t understand or apply, but it feels good to have what feels like a moral framework. Marcus Aurelius was the first emperor to pick a co-emperor, Verus, to help with the burdens of rule, and also the first emperor to face significant military challenges from both the east (Parthia) and the west (German tribes pushing against the Danube)—along with the Antonine Plague, which killed Verus. His reign was thus very challenging, and his son was Commodus (made famous to moderns by the movie Gladiator), so he had a lot to be stoic about.
Moving on, into the third century A.D., we have Septimius Severus, the first African (that is, North African) emperor, not surprising given that the Roman ruling class was now spread out over the empire. It was not a diverse ruling class, of course—that would have resulted in the immediate collapse of the Empire. Rather, it was a ruling class that all held to the official Roman ideology of empire, in which incidents such as birth location and background culture were subordinated as irrelevant. It is hard for us, bombarded with identity politics propaganda, to understand, and perhaps it will be until the modern poisoned gift of leftist ideology is (if it can be ever) exterminated from the world, but it is entirely possible to weld together those of different characteristics if their worldview is informed by reality and coherent goals. Even though that welding will never be as strong as the bond among a smaller, more homogenous society, it can be strong enough to accomplish much. Severus came to power after a brief but intense civil war, a marker on the downward trend of the Empire, though his reign itself was fairly stable.
Things then really went downhill for a while, with twenty emperors in fifty years, turbulent and violent successions and rising external challenges, until limited stability was restored under Diocletian, in 284. Although he has a reputation as violent, which he was, both in his rise and in his attacks on Christians, he was also a first-order politician, in some ways like Augustus, in very different, and declining, times. He extended the co-ruling concept earlier introduced (and then abandoned), creating the Tetrarchy—two emperors, each with a junior counterpart who was slated to succeed him, although, no surprise, Diocletian was the man in charge. He is remembered for this, for his persecution of Christians (who by this time were perhaps ten percent of the Empire, and much more in cities), and for surrendering power voluntarily, choosing to go raise cabbages. Although that’s misleading—he retired to his home, Dalmatia, to a grand fortified palace, and if he raised cabbages, he also kept his hand in with Roman politics, which immediately went to pieces again.
Not for long, though—once the other members of the Tetrarchy got done killing each other, Constantine emerged triumphant. Strauss sees Constantine as a sincere Christian convert, although also very much a man of the temporal sphere and of his world. He stabilized the Empire, once again, but modified it almost beyond recognition, most notably by the creation of the once-and-future city of Constantinople. This is not the place for a long disquisition, but it strikes me that what we could use today is a new Constantine. Certainly, we could use a good deal more today of in hoc signo vinces. I will get back to you on that.
And that’s where Strauss leaves it. Looking backwards, the Roman imperium seems like an obvious institution and the logical continuation of the Republic, but that’s just hindsight. At the beginning, they made it up as they went along. My interest, however, is not just the history, but its application. Given that I reject democracy, and instead favor a mixed form of government, and that getting to a mixed form of government from democracy inevitably requires going through a period of authoritarianism, which in any case might itself be preferable to democracy, was the Roman imperium a success?
This is a very hard question to answer, since it is difficult to separate problems inherent to the system of governance from problems inherent to running an empire. Montesquieu, for example, in his Considerations on the Greatness of the Romans and their Decline, saw the Empire itself as a decline. But nothing lasts forever, so that it ultimately failed does not prove it was not a success. I suspect every empire has a shelf life; there is much truth to Arnold Toynbee’s view of the “universal state” as a stage toward the end of a civilizational cycle. The Roman switch to imperium did not solve the problems that led to the end of the Republic—diminished virtue most of all, the result of vastly increased wealth and the reality that diversity is the opposite of strength. The more lurid tales of Roman imperial misbehavior, mostly missing from this volume, tend to give a distasteful edge to our view of the imperium, but really those distract from, and are merely a symptom of, deeper problems.
All true. However, I think the Empire, viewed for itself and not in comparison to abstract possible alternatives, knowing that the Republic had reached its end under any possible scenario, should be viewed as a success, spreading what were mostly benefits to the people under its rule, and obviously preferable to what came after in the West, for several hundred years. It’s not clear what an American, or post-American, equivalent would look like, but there is a reasonable chance that it’d be a substantial improvement over what we have now, even though pure monarchy is not much better, typically, than pure democracy. But a mixed government only works with a strong society, so our choices are likely to be a renewal of our society through some unknown and unprecedented mechanism, or authoritarianism followed by ultimate collapse, the usual path, and the one Rome took.
My only complaint about this book . . . [Review completes as first comment.]
By coincidence, just recently one Daniel Voshart created, using a machine-learning tool fed portraits and sculptures of the emperors, what he believes to be photorealistic pictures of them, up to A.D. 285. It’s impressive, and well worth your time to check out his article (on Medium), and to look at the photos themselves—it helps bring them even more to life when you are reading this book, or, for that matter, this review.
Strauss begins with Augustus, naturally enough. “Few historical figures show better what it takes to win at everything.” We live in times that seem they are of consequence, but so far are really pernicious farce. Augustus lived in, and created, times of actual consequence, managing by force of will and luck to turn the decayed Republic into a successful Empire. He even managed his succession effectively, meaning peacefully, despite having no son of his own. No emperor was ever again as successful or beloved; really, the entire history of the Empire from there was downhill.
One key problem facing even the most competent emperors was that changing the form of government didn’t change the excessive corruption of the Roman elites, which was irreversible given the impracticality of wholesale replacement (as it is may be irreversible for today’s America, which has a far more corrupt ruling class, but wholesale reworking is perhaps more feasible for us). As a result, the main task of an emperor was to handle and balance competing groups of elites, all out for their own interests, few out for the interests of Rome except secondarily. (The plebeians became irrelevant to the political system, which they were not under the Republic, becoming merely pacified with the famous bread and circuses—also a bad change, since every society should have every level of society invested in it.) Tiberius, far less of a natural politician than Augustus, found keeping this balance harder, yet still managed to keep the empire stable and the military strong, while dialing back Roman expansionism. Even so, the seeds of later fractures were already obvious in his time, in retrospect, and Tiberius came to be viewed as a tyrant—not because he was Emperor, but because of how he ruled.
We get some lurid bad behavior in this book. However, that’s not the main focus, so Strauss skips Caligula (with some mention of him to complete the picture, a pattern he repeats for most of the emperors who don’t get their own chapters), and moves to Nero, who also behaved badly, but had more consequence. I’ve always found Nero, the last member of Augustus’s family to rule, boring, and Strauss doesn’t change my mind, though the presence of some other men in his time, such as Seneca, makes his reign a bit more interesting. Nero rightly gets the blame for beginning the major persecutions of Christians (something not downplayed by Strauss, as it is often downplayed by modern historians); that and his other bad behavior make him remembered. Ultimately, his character simply made him not up for the task of ruling, and so he got what he deserved—and this only in A.D. 68, when Augustus died in A.D. 14. The Empire seemed to be showing instability early.
Or was it? The instability of Nero’s time was different in kind from that of the late Republic, which involved near-continuous civil war and great questions of state that required a permanent resolution. The new instability was instead micro-targeted, consisting primarily in erosion of the rule of law as applied to the ruling class. In its operations as an empire, the Empire seemed, and continued for a long time to seem, like a success. The average Roman probably was almost completely unaffected by what happened among the ruling classes, and he was vastly better off than under the late Republic. So, if the rule of law is absent among the ruling class, yet present among the rest of the populace, does that necessarily harm a society? In essence, such a ruling class exchanges the application of the rule of law to itself for the opportunity to participate actively in supreme, arbitrary, power. High risk, high reward. (No society can survive without the rule of law being generally applicable outside the ruling class; movies that show medieval Europe, or Japan, as a place where nobles regularly went around raping and killing commoners with impunity, or where general anarchy was common, are silly. Medieval England, for example, was a notably peaceful and lawful place, much more so than parts of modern England, and the same has been true for most, or all, successful civilizations. That the Thirty Years War was terrible is not to the contrary.) However, I suspect lack of rule of law among the ruling class does harm a society in the long run. It creates disunity, and ruling class disunity diverts energy that could be used for accomplishment, resulting in members of the ruling class instead focusing on extraction of value, while destroying long-term trust—and as we see around us in America today, a low-trust society cannot ever be successful. Nonetheless, the Romans managed this form of instability longer than might seem probable.
The single biggest problem facing any monarchical system is succession. Without clear succession, not only was power up for grabs upon an emperor’s death, but an emperor always had to watch out for those looking to hurry along his death. Thus, weak or fearful emperors got rid of potential threats, which mostly meant successful military commanders. The Romans tried to address this in various ways, early on by adoption and setting up clear succession during the prime of an emperor, and later by divided and tiered power, as in Diocletian’s Tetrarchy. Adoption could work, but then the adoptee had to outlive his adoptive father, which often did not happen. And since having a right-hand man on whom he could depend was crucial for most emperors, such as Agrippa for Augustus, but the right-hand man was rarely chosen as the adoptee, not infrequently the right-hand man decided to try to seize power. That’s not to mention the frequent poisonings—or perhaps infrequent, since poisoning was often blamed for natural deaths, but that allegations of poison automatically were credible itself says much about the imperial ruling class atmosphere.
The next emperor covered (after three others within a year), Vespasian, was a commoner, a general who came to power by violence, setting the tone for many later successions. He was gruff, competent, and practical, and took measures to expand the ruling class to provincials, as well as stabilize the finances of the Roman state. Only briefly touching on Titus, Domitian, and Nerva, Trajan gets the next chapter. He, in A.D. 98, began a long turn back to longer, more successful reigns, the “Five Good Emperors.” (Actually, Nerva did, but he only reigned for two years.) Trajan was a good politician, balancing among the ruling classes and showing a welcome touch to the masses, while still keeping the army happy. It was Trajan with whom Pliny the Younger, then governor of Bithynia, famously corresponded about how he should treat Christians. It was also under Trajan that Rome finally conquered Dacia; that doesn’t matter much to most people, but I have a particular interest in the Danube Basin, and it is interesting to me that echoes of Trajan’s conquest persist down to the present day, with Rumanians deciding with the rise of modern nationalism that they were descended from the Roman conquerors, in order to have a prior claim to Transylvania, which the Hungarians had held merely since the ninth century (and which the Rumanians were given by the Allies in 1919).
Next is Hadrian, philo-Hellene and man of culture combined with action, who travelled all over the Empire and had Hadrian’s Wall built. He presided over the brutal suppression of the last Jewish revolt (the Bar Kokhba revolt, ending in A.D. 136), and what can variously be interpreted as a cultural revival or the erosion of strong Roman culture by the introduction of alien elements. We then skip to Marcus Aurelius, beloved by moderns for his Stoic writings, which they don’t understand or apply, but it feels good to have what feels like a moral framework. Marcus Aurelius was the first emperor to pick a co-emperor, Verus, to help with the burdens of rule, and also the first emperor to face significant military challenges from both the east (Parthia) and the west (German tribes pushing against the Danube)—along with the Antonine Plague, which killed Verus. His reign was thus very challenging, and his son was Commodus (made famous to moderns by the movie Gladiator), so he had a lot to be stoic about.
Moving on, into the third century A.D., we have Septimius Severus, the first African (that is, North African) emperor, not surprising given that the Roman ruling class was now spread out over the empire. It was not a diverse ruling class, of course—that would have resulted in the immediate collapse of the Empire. Rather, it was a ruling class that all held to the official Roman ideology of empire, in which incidents such as birth location and background culture were subordinated as irrelevant. It is hard for us, bombarded with identity politics propaganda, to understand, and perhaps it will be until the modern poisoned gift of leftist ideology is (if it can be ever) exterminated from the world, but it is entirely possible to weld together those of different characteristics if their worldview is informed by reality and coherent goals. Even though that welding will never be as strong as the bond among a smaller, more homogenous society, it can be strong enough to accomplish much. Severus came to power after a brief but intense civil war, a marker on the downward trend of the Empire, though his reign itself was fairly stable.
Things then really went downhill for a while, with twenty emperors in fifty years, turbulent and violent successions and rising external challenges, until limited stability was restored under Diocletian, in 284. Although he has a reputation as violent, which he was, both in his rise and in his attacks on Christians, he was also a first-order politician, in some ways like Augustus, in very different, and declining, times. He extended the co-ruling concept earlier introduced (and then abandoned), creating the Tetrarchy—two emperors, each with a junior counterpart who was slated to succeed him, although, no surprise, Diocletian was the man in charge. He is remembered for this, for his persecution of Christians (who by this time were perhaps ten percent of the Empire, and much more in cities), and for surrendering power voluntarily, choosing to go raise cabbages. Although that’s misleading—he retired to his home, Dalmatia, to a grand fortified palace, and if he raised cabbages, he also kept his hand in with Roman politics, which immediately went to pieces again.
Not for long, though—once the other members of the Tetrarchy got done killing each other, Constantine emerged triumphant. Strauss sees Constantine as a sincere Christian convert, although also very much a man of the temporal sphere and of his world. He stabilized the Empire, once again, but modified it almost beyond recognition, most notably by the creation of the once-and-future city of Constantinople. This is not the place for a long disquisition, but it strikes me that what we could use today is a new Constantine. Certainly, we could use a good deal more today of in hoc signo vinces. I will get back to you on that.
And that’s where Strauss leaves it. Looking backwards, the Roman imperium seems like an obvious institution and the logical continuation of the Republic, but that’s just hindsight. At the beginning, they made it up as they went along. My interest, however, is not just the history, but its application. Given that I reject democracy, and instead favor a mixed form of government, and that getting to a mixed form of government from democracy inevitably requires going through a period of authoritarianism, which in any case might itself be preferable to democracy, was the Roman imperium a success?
This is a very hard question to answer, since it is difficult to separate problems inherent to the system of governance from problems inherent to running an empire. Montesquieu, for example, in his Considerations on the Greatness of the Romans and their Decline, saw the Empire itself as a decline. But nothing lasts forever, so that it ultimately failed does not prove it was not a success. I suspect every empire has a shelf life; there is much truth to Arnold Toynbee’s view of the “universal state” as a stage toward the end of a civilizational cycle. The Roman switch to imperium did not solve the problems that led to the end of the Republic—diminished virtue most of all, the result of vastly increased wealth and the reality that diversity is the opposite of strength. The more lurid tales of Roman imperial misbehavior, mostly missing from this volume, tend to give a distasteful edge to our view of the imperium, but really those distract from, and are merely a symptom of, deeper problems.
All true. However, I think the Empire, viewed for itself and not in comparison to abstract possible alternatives, knowing that the Republic had reached its end under any possible scenario, should be viewed as a success, spreading what were mostly benefits to the people under its rule, and obviously preferable to what came after in the West, for several hundred years. It’s not clear what an American, or post-American, equivalent would look like, but there is a reasonable chance that it’d be a substantial improvement over what we have now, even though pure monarchy is not much better, typically, than pure democracy. But a mixed government only works with a strong society, so our choices are likely to be a renewal of our society through some unknown and unprecedented mechanism, or authoritarianism followed by ultimate collapse, the usual path, and the one Rome took.
My only complaint about this book . . . [Review completes as first comment.]
September 2, 2021
29/05/2020 (*****)
Avevo già letto quest'altro libro dell'autore (L'arte del comando: Alessandro, Annibale, Cesare), che mi aveva favorevolmente colpito per chiarezza di esposizione e leggibilità, senza che questi aspetti intaccassero il rigore della trattazione e dell'analisi storica.
Da ottimo narratore e storico competente, Strauss si riconferma con quest'altro saggio, sorta di compendio della storia imperiale romana, da Augusto a Costantino, strutturato su 10 biografie di altrettanti imperatori, quelli che più di tutti hanno lasciato tracce durature di sé, nel bene e nel male.
Le biografie raccolte sono essenziali, ma lasciano fuori ben poco per capire i tempi e, soprattutto, la personalità di questo pugno di uomini che si trovarono a governare il mondo. Strauss si sofferma in modo particolare su un aspetto sempre negletto o trattato in maniera caricaturale da storici antichi e moderni, ossia l'analisi di come il vissuto e la psicologia di questi uomini, per come le si può ricavare dalle fonti disponibili, abbiano impattato sulle loro scelte politiche e strategiche.
La cosa non è affatto banale, poiché - dopotutto - sempre di uomini si sta parlando e i lasciti pregiudizievoli della storiografia sette-ottocentesca sono ancora duri a morire quando si inquadrano personaggi tanto importanti e dei quali le uniche fonti disponibili sono spesso tremendamente di parte (in quasi tutti i casi, di parte senatoria). Districare il vero dal plausibile e dal falso è impresa complessa, soprattutto quando si ha a che fare con politici (perché questo furono alla fin fine questi uomini, e furono le scelte politiche che essi fecero nel goverare l'impero, riuscite o meno, a segnarne il successo nella loro epoca e la fama o l'ignominia verso i posteri, quasi sempre mediata dal giudizio che le elite senatorie del tempo diedero dell'operato - in funzione, ovviamente, di quanto i loro interessi vennero più o meno toccati).
L'ambiente culturale di provenienza e la famiglia (soprattutto, le donne della famiglia) hanno spesso avuto ripercussioni su scelte politiche il cui impatto si riverbera ancora oggi: se Augusto non avesse avuto Livia come moglie e consigliera o Costantino Elena come madre, le cose sarebbero andate in maniera probabilmente molto diversa.
La carrellata racconta nel dettaglio dieci biografie (Augusto, Tiberio, Nerone, Vespasiano, Traiano, Adriano, Marco Aurelio, Settimio Severo, Diocleziano, Costantino), ma ripercorre anche gli eventi succedutisi fra un regno e l'altro, fondamentali per capire le sequenze dei fatti e le dinamiche del potere.
Saggio molto godibile, completo e non banale nella trattazione, come l'argomento abusatissimo lascerebbe pensare. Consigliato.
Avevo già letto quest'altro libro dell'autore (L'arte del comando: Alessandro, Annibale, Cesare), che mi aveva favorevolmente colpito per chiarezza di esposizione e leggibilità, senza che questi aspetti intaccassero il rigore della trattazione e dell'analisi storica.
Da ottimo narratore e storico competente, Strauss si riconferma con quest'altro saggio, sorta di compendio della storia imperiale romana, da Augusto a Costantino, strutturato su 10 biografie di altrettanti imperatori, quelli che più di tutti hanno lasciato tracce durature di sé, nel bene e nel male.
Le biografie raccolte sono essenziali, ma lasciano fuori ben poco per capire i tempi e, soprattutto, la personalità di questo pugno di uomini che si trovarono a governare il mondo. Strauss si sofferma in modo particolare su un aspetto sempre negletto o trattato in maniera caricaturale da storici antichi e moderni, ossia l'analisi di come il vissuto e la psicologia di questi uomini, per come le si può ricavare dalle fonti disponibili, abbiano impattato sulle loro scelte politiche e strategiche.
La cosa non è affatto banale, poiché - dopotutto - sempre di uomini si sta parlando e i lasciti pregiudizievoli della storiografia sette-ottocentesca sono ancora duri a morire quando si inquadrano personaggi tanto importanti e dei quali le uniche fonti disponibili sono spesso tremendamente di parte (in quasi tutti i casi, di parte senatoria). Districare il vero dal plausibile e dal falso è impresa complessa, soprattutto quando si ha a che fare con politici (perché questo furono alla fin fine questi uomini, e furono le scelte politiche che essi fecero nel goverare l'impero, riuscite o meno, a segnarne il successo nella loro epoca e la fama o l'ignominia verso i posteri, quasi sempre mediata dal giudizio che le elite senatorie del tempo diedero dell'operato - in funzione, ovviamente, di quanto i loro interessi vennero più o meno toccati).
L'ambiente culturale di provenienza e la famiglia (soprattutto, le donne della famiglia) hanno spesso avuto ripercussioni su scelte politiche il cui impatto si riverbera ancora oggi: se Augusto non avesse avuto Livia come moglie e consigliera o Costantino Elena come madre, le cose sarebbero andate in maniera probabilmente molto diversa.
La carrellata racconta nel dettaglio dieci biografie (Augusto, Tiberio, Nerone, Vespasiano, Traiano, Adriano, Marco Aurelio, Settimio Severo, Diocleziano, Costantino), ma ripercorre anche gli eventi succedutisi fra un regno e l'altro, fondamentali per capire le sequenze dei fatti e le dinamiche del potere.
Saggio molto godibile, completo e non banale nella trattazione, come l'argomento abusatissimo lascerebbe pensare. Consigliato.
December 31, 2021
Decent if you're looking for a cursory overview of some of Rome's more famous emperors and probably best experienced as an audio book. Definitely could have benefited from a better editing job - several times I became more focused on how Strauss was writing a sentence or paragraph than what he was writing. And of course, the shoehorned feminist takes on Roman history were distracting, speculative, and at times downright silly, such as this gem: "Assertive manliness, supported by women on the home front, won Rome its empire. Yet now the point was to defend the empire, not to expand it. Strength and prowess were less important than intelligence and calculation. Only societal prejudice and the rigors of childbirth kept women from competing on an equal footing." Sure the Roman army was responsible for the existence and glory of the empire, but you know what really would have made Rome great? Feminism! No, the actual story Strauss tells when he's not preaching belies the narrative he is trying to promote, and it would be quite funny if it wasn't so indicative of why our own civilization is falling into ruin.
February 13, 2020
History is punctuated with ambitious leaders of men who aspired to conquer the world. Alexander the Great was the first ruler who could successfully carry his banner to three continents. However, his empire began to crumble at the very moment he breathed his last at the very young age of thirty-two. It was the Roman Empire that deserved the epithet of a lasting superpower from contemporary historians. It grew out of the ancient city of Rome, spread quickly around the Mediterranean littoral, challenged the highly cultured kingdoms of Persia and conquered the barbarians of northern Europe and Britain. Rather than falling back on the talent and resources of the city to administer the far-flung empire, it permitted first the elites in the provinces and then the reformed barbarians to enter its services and finally to reign as monarchs. The empire then turned into a true universal state by having emperors who had never visited Rome and the capital itself was shifted many times before finally settling on the distant eastern city of Constantinople. The Roman emperors were also colourful figures who lighted up the imagination of others and still continue to be celebrities in the true sense of the word. Epics, poems, plays and movies have all appeared that featured their deeds and fascinated the masses. This book features ten Caesars – the legendary title of Roman kings – from Augustus who assumed power in 27 BCE to Constantine who demitted the throne in 337 CE. Julius Caesar is kept out of the narrative as he is thought to be a politician of the Republican period of Rome. Barry Strauss is a professor of history and classics at Cornell University and has already authored seven books on ancient history.
Rome’s fabulous capacity to integrate people from diverse regions and races deserve unstinted respect. Strauss provides enough hints to reach this conclusion. The army was the most powerful Roman institution and even that was laid open to people from outside Italy. Legionaries were Roman citizens, but they rarely came from Rome or even Italy. Increasingly, Italians lost interest in military service as a direct corollary to the long periods of uninterrupted calm realised by the Pax Romana. They turned into successful farmers enjoying peace and prosperity. Recruits came from other areas such as southern France, Spain and the outer provinces. In 212 CE, Emperor Caracalla extended Roman citizenship to all free people in the empire. To ensure a mix of the populace, later emperors after Marcus Aurelius prohibited a person from becoming the governor of his own native province. Rome’s greatness lay in its readiness to offer even the throne to people from outside the inner circle of power. Vespasian was the first ruler to ascend the throne who came from outside the nobility. Being the son of a tax collector, he was the first commoner on the Palatine Hill. Trajan was the first man from the provinces to become emperor. One of the empire’s strengths was its ability to co-opt the wealthy elite of the provinces. First, it offered them citizenship, then a seat in the Senate, and finally made them emperor.
Europe’s destiny undoubtedly changed its course when the Roman emperor Constantine converted to Christianity which was made the state religion about eight decades later. The author describes the interaction between Christianity and paganism which was the majority religion in the empire. Here, Strauss deviates from a fundamental aspect of analysing ancient religions. Paganism is not a religion per se; it is simply the absence of one or more organised religions. It could easily accommodate an additional Christian god, but not vice versa. Semitic religions denied any legroom for other gods and religions. Pagans were not against Christians preaching or practising their religion but only demanded that they acknowledge and show respect to some pagan rituals which were recognized as part of their urban etiquette. Strauss acknowledges the strain of toleration running through the Roman society. However, simply adoring their own god was only a necessary condition for monotheism. Negating the existence of other divinities was the sufficient condition. Romans considered their own religion time-honoured, state-sponsored and carried out in public. It was the very foundation of civilization as far as they were concerned. Christians not only did not worship the gods but also did not offer sacrifices for the emperor. This was taken as a threat to the very fabric of society. Moreover, Christianity was relatively new and Rome was suspicious of novelty. Judaism was also considered superstitious, but it was tolerated because of its antiquity. Early Christians were tortured with macabre games of death. According to Christian tradition, two of the apostles or early missionaries of the church, saints Peter and Paul, were among the victims of Nero in the purge that followed the Great Fire. However, this is not proven.
The interaction between the Roman Empire and Christianity was not a one way street. Readers are amazed at the level of fluidity displayed by the supposedly rock-solid religious system of Christianity in assimilating the rituals and customs of the nation which they inhabited. This creeped in even into the most fundamental structure of Christian worship. The Roman father was a priest as well as the head of his household. He was responsible for the family maintaining a proper relationship with the gods. This structure was then extrapolated to political leaders as well. As chief priest, or Pontifex Maximus, the emperor did the same for all of Rome. We find the Christian clergy and Pope or Patriarch as its homologues in Christian ecclesiastical hierarchy. Even the nomenclature is borrowed from Roman administration. Emperor Diocletian grouped the provinces into regions called dioceses, each with its own administrator. This is now the jurisdictional area of a Christian bishop. The term ‘Holy City’ began to be used for Rome in the early 200s during the reign of Septimius Severus. This was on account of the presence of some of the holiest shrines of paganism. Catholicism swallowed this as a whole. Till the time of Constantine, the first emperor who converted to Christianity, Christ was portrayed as an ordinary person or a simple shepherd. After Constantine, Jesus began to be depicted as sitting on a throne in a fine toga, like the emperor himself, surrounded by disciples who look like senators.
This book faithfully portrays the shifting focus of the empire away from Rome. Constantine established a second seat in Constantinople in the East, but Rome could not hold on to the seat of power for long. With increasing influence of naturalised military men from the Balkans and also due to the need for intercepting the onslaught of barbarians from Germany, the capital was shifted a number of times to Trier, Ravenna and other towns in Gaul. The home ground of the Roman Empire had one consolation amidst all these travails. Italy was exempt from taxes and was subsidized by revenue from elsewhere. Diocletian put an end to this practice and treated the peninsula like any other province. City of Rome and senators also had had to pay taxes thereafter.
Strauss does not expect a scholarly audience for this book. He treats Rome’s adoption of Christianity as the best thing that could come out of Rome and a most natural phenomenon like the blooming of a flower from its bud. He characterizes Constantine’s conversion as the noble act which ‘gave us Christ as our Lord’ (p.287). Edward Gibbon, in his magnum opus ‘The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire’ had pointed out that Christianity played a big role in the fall of Rome because it sapped the fighting spirit of its people. This so enrages our author that he calls this hypothesis ‘nonsense’ (p.317). You can criticize an argument, but ridiculing it is foolhardy, especially such a celebrated scholar as Gibbon. Strauss then discloses his owns reasons for the empire’s downfall as bad leadership, poorly deployed military resources, internal division, strong enemies, unfavourable geography and a decline of resources.
This book discusses about ten Roman emperors – Augustus, Tiberius, Nero, Vespasian, Trajan, Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius, Septimius Severus, Diocletian and Constantine. However, he also narrates the story of the other emperors who ruled in between, so that the thread of continuity is not broken. This book reproduces several famous quotes such as ‘Rome is where the emperor is’, ‘make haste slowly’, ‘too many Caesars is not a good thing’ or ‘money has no smell’ in their proper context. It is also a pleasure to read as it is written for a typical Sunday school-going American with average intellect.
The book is highly recommended.
Rome’s fabulous capacity to integrate people from diverse regions and races deserve unstinted respect. Strauss provides enough hints to reach this conclusion. The army was the most powerful Roman institution and even that was laid open to people from outside Italy. Legionaries were Roman citizens, but they rarely came from Rome or even Italy. Increasingly, Italians lost interest in military service as a direct corollary to the long periods of uninterrupted calm realised by the Pax Romana. They turned into successful farmers enjoying peace and prosperity. Recruits came from other areas such as southern France, Spain and the outer provinces. In 212 CE, Emperor Caracalla extended Roman citizenship to all free people in the empire. To ensure a mix of the populace, later emperors after Marcus Aurelius prohibited a person from becoming the governor of his own native province. Rome’s greatness lay in its readiness to offer even the throne to people from outside the inner circle of power. Vespasian was the first ruler to ascend the throne who came from outside the nobility. Being the son of a tax collector, he was the first commoner on the Palatine Hill. Trajan was the first man from the provinces to become emperor. One of the empire’s strengths was its ability to co-opt the wealthy elite of the provinces. First, it offered them citizenship, then a seat in the Senate, and finally made them emperor.
Europe’s destiny undoubtedly changed its course when the Roman emperor Constantine converted to Christianity which was made the state religion about eight decades later. The author describes the interaction between Christianity and paganism which was the majority religion in the empire. Here, Strauss deviates from a fundamental aspect of analysing ancient religions. Paganism is not a religion per se; it is simply the absence of one or more organised religions. It could easily accommodate an additional Christian god, but not vice versa. Semitic religions denied any legroom for other gods and religions. Pagans were not against Christians preaching or practising their religion but only demanded that they acknowledge and show respect to some pagan rituals which were recognized as part of their urban etiquette. Strauss acknowledges the strain of toleration running through the Roman society. However, simply adoring their own god was only a necessary condition for monotheism. Negating the existence of other divinities was the sufficient condition. Romans considered their own religion time-honoured, state-sponsored and carried out in public. It was the very foundation of civilization as far as they were concerned. Christians not only did not worship the gods but also did not offer sacrifices for the emperor. This was taken as a threat to the very fabric of society. Moreover, Christianity was relatively new and Rome was suspicious of novelty. Judaism was also considered superstitious, but it was tolerated because of its antiquity. Early Christians were tortured with macabre games of death. According to Christian tradition, two of the apostles or early missionaries of the church, saints Peter and Paul, were among the victims of Nero in the purge that followed the Great Fire. However, this is not proven.
The interaction between the Roman Empire and Christianity was not a one way street. Readers are amazed at the level of fluidity displayed by the supposedly rock-solid religious system of Christianity in assimilating the rituals and customs of the nation which they inhabited. This creeped in even into the most fundamental structure of Christian worship. The Roman father was a priest as well as the head of his household. He was responsible for the family maintaining a proper relationship with the gods. This structure was then extrapolated to political leaders as well. As chief priest, or Pontifex Maximus, the emperor did the same for all of Rome. We find the Christian clergy and Pope or Patriarch as its homologues in Christian ecclesiastical hierarchy. Even the nomenclature is borrowed from Roman administration. Emperor Diocletian grouped the provinces into regions called dioceses, each with its own administrator. This is now the jurisdictional area of a Christian bishop. The term ‘Holy City’ began to be used for Rome in the early 200s during the reign of Septimius Severus. This was on account of the presence of some of the holiest shrines of paganism. Catholicism swallowed this as a whole. Till the time of Constantine, the first emperor who converted to Christianity, Christ was portrayed as an ordinary person or a simple shepherd. After Constantine, Jesus began to be depicted as sitting on a throne in a fine toga, like the emperor himself, surrounded by disciples who look like senators.
This book faithfully portrays the shifting focus of the empire away from Rome. Constantine established a second seat in Constantinople in the East, but Rome could not hold on to the seat of power for long. With increasing influence of naturalised military men from the Balkans and also due to the need for intercepting the onslaught of barbarians from Germany, the capital was shifted a number of times to Trier, Ravenna and other towns in Gaul. The home ground of the Roman Empire had one consolation amidst all these travails. Italy was exempt from taxes and was subsidized by revenue from elsewhere. Diocletian put an end to this practice and treated the peninsula like any other province. City of Rome and senators also had had to pay taxes thereafter.
Strauss does not expect a scholarly audience for this book. He treats Rome’s adoption of Christianity as the best thing that could come out of Rome and a most natural phenomenon like the blooming of a flower from its bud. He characterizes Constantine’s conversion as the noble act which ‘gave us Christ as our Lord’ (p.287). Edward Gibbon, in his magnum opus ‘The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire’ had pointed out that Christianity played a big role in the fall of Rome because it sapped the fighting spirit of its people. This so enrages our author that he calls this hypothesis ‘nonsense’ (p.317). You can criticize an argument, but ridiculing it is foolhardy, especially such a celebrated scholar as Gibbon. Strauss then discloses his owns reasons for the empire’s downfall as bad leadership, poorly deployed military resources, internal division, strong enemies, unfavourable geography and a decline of resources.
This book discusses about ten Roman emperors – Augustus, Tiberius, Nero, Vespasian, Trajan, Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius, Septimius Severus, Diocletian and Constantine. However, he also narrates the story of the other emperors who ruled in between, so that the thread of continuity is not broken. This book reproduces several famous quotes such as ‘Rome is where the emperor is’, ‘make haste slowly’, ‘too many Caesars is not a good thing’ or ‘money has no smell’ in their proper context. It is also a pleasure to read as it is written for a typical Sunday school-going American with average intellect.
The book is highly recommended.
May 10, 2022
Barry Strauss tells the story of the Roman Empire from rise to reinvention, from Augustus, who founded the empire, to Constantine, who made it Christian and moved the capital east to Constantinople.
During these centuries Rome gained in splendor and territory, then lost both. By the fourth century, the time of Constantine, the Roman Empire had changed so dramatically in geography, ethnicity, religion, and culture that it would have been virtually unrecognizable to Augustus. Rome’s legacy remains today in so many ways, from language, law, and architecture to the seat of the Roman Catholic Church. Strauss examines this enduring heritage through the lives of the men who shaped it: Augustus, Tiberius, Nero, Vespasian, Trajan, Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius, Septimius Severus, Diocletian and Constantine. Over the ages, they learned to maintain the family business—the government of an empire—by adapting when necessary and always persevering no matter the cost.
Full disclosure, most of my knowledge pertaining to Ancient Rome is specific to the Roman Republic. Particularly the Punic Wars against Carthage and the Civil Wars which the concluded with the death of Caesar and the end of the Republic.
When I saw this book at the library, it appealed to me because it appeared to be a very short and concise biography of Imperial Rome's 10 most consequential emperors (in Barry Strauss' opinion at least). As a introduction to the Roman Empire, I would say that this book succeeded. I now know where to start and which Emperor's I want to read more about. I am especially looking forward to reading proper full-length biographies of Augustus, Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius and Constantine.
I would rate this book 3.5, rounded up to 4. I would also recommend this title to anyone looking for an introduction to the Roman Emperors. However, I would not recommend this to anyone who already read full-length biographies of these men. You will feel left wanting.
During these centuries Rome gained in splendor and territory, then lost both. By the fourth century, the time of Constantine, the Roman Empire had changed so dramatically in geography, ethnicity, religion, and culture that it would have been virtually unrecognizable to Augustus. Rome’s legacy remains today in so many ways, from language, law, and architecture to the seat of the Roman Catholic Church. Strauss examines this enduring heritage through the lives of the men who shaped it: Augustus, Tiberius, Nero, Vespasian, Trajan, Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius, Septimius Severus, Diocletian and Constantine. Over the ages, they learned to maintain the family business—the government of an empire—by adapting when necessary and always persevering no matter the cost.
Full disclosure, most of my knowledge pertaining to Ancient Rome is specific to the Roman Republic. Particularly the Punic Wars against Carthage and the Civil Wars which the concluded with the death of Caesar and the end of the Republic.
When I saw this book at the library, it appealed to me because it appeared to be a very short and concise biography of Imperial Rome's 10 most consequential emperors (in Barry Strauss' opinion at least). As a introduction to the Roman Empire, I would say that this book succeeded. I now know where to start and which Emperor's I want to read more about. I am especially looking forward to reading proper full-length biographies of Augustus, Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius and Constantine.
I would rate this book 3.5, rounded up to 4. I would also recommend this title to anyone looking for an introduction to the Roman Emperors. However, I would not recommend this to anyone who already read full-length biographies of these men. You will feel left wanting.
April 28, 2023
Wonderful storytelling. Strauss makes those 500 confusing years between the original Caesar and the last Roman emperor sound easy.
I especially loved the chapter about Augustus and his problems finding a successor.
I especially loved the chapter about Augustus and his problems finding a successor.
October 1, 2024
Author was annoying and gave his opinion too much. Author went into a ton of detail about the earlier emperors but by the end it was like a quick summary of the emperors. Could’ve just read the wiki for the 10 emperors instead smh.
April 9, 2019
Thanks to NetGalley for a Kindle ARC of
Ten Caesars.
I requested Ten Caesars because I love Roman history and visited the Eternal City a little over four years ago.
Also, Rome, the 2005 HBO show is one of my favorites.
Ten Caesars is the biographical account of the ten prominent emperors that ruled Rome and shaped its infrastructure, politics and future.
Thanks to my interest in Roman history, nearly all of the emperors were familiar to me, as well as some of their achievements.
I very much enjoyed the brief historical accounts of the brilliant and ambitious women that worked behind the scenes of the emperors; the mothers and wives who greased the cogs of politics, sometimes sight unseen, sometimes not.
Most of them did not rest on their laurels; they encouraged, supported and aided their sons and husbands on their rise to power and provided advice and wisdom the men could not receive anywhere else.
Unless they were plotting to overthrow them.
The author has done meticulous research and it shows; after awhile, it all got confusing; the complicated names, the intermarrying of one royal son to a royal daughter, the names of all the families that ruled.
Ruling the Roman Empire was the original Game of Thrones.
One detail I did not know; lots of suicides. I guess that's what you do when your back is up against the wall and you do not want to be taken by the enemy.
I don't know what the hardcover edition of the book will look like but I would have loved to see what a map of the Roman Empire, at the time of Augustus and at the end of Constantine's rule, looked like, for comparison.
Also, a family tree would have been super helpful! I know it would have taken up several pages but it would have been good to see how the family lines grew and evolved through intermarriage and children.
This was a pretty good read but some visuals would have helped enormously.
I requested Ten Caesars because I love Roman history and visited the Eternal City a little over four years ago.
Also, Rome, the 2005 HBO show is one of my favorites.
Ten Caesars is the biographical account of the ten prominent emperors that ruled Rome and shaped its infrastructure, politics and future.
Thanks to my interest in Roman history, nearly all of the emperors were familiar to me, as well as some of their achievements.
I very much enjoyed the brief historical accounts of the brilliant and ambitious women that worked behind the scenes of the emperors; the mothers and wives who greased the cogs of politics, sometimes sight unseen, sometimes not.
Most of them did not rest on their laurels; they encouraged, supported and aided their sons and husbands on their rise to power and provided advice and wisdom the men could not receive anywhere else.
Unless they were plotting to overthrow them.
The author has done meticulous research and it shows; after awhile, it all got confusing; the complicated names, the intermarrying of one royal son to a royal daughter, the names of all the families that ruled.
Ruling the Roman Empire was the original Game of Thrones.
One detail I did not know; lots of suicides. I guess that's what you do when your back is up against the wall and you do not want to be taken by the enemy.
I don't know what the hardcover edition of the book will look like but I would have loved to see what a map of the Roman Empire, at the time of Augustus and at the end of Constantine's rule, looked like, for comparison.
Also, a family tree would have been super helpful! I know it would have taken up several pages but it would have been good to see how the family lines grew and evolved through intermarriage and children.
This was a pretty good read but some visuals would have helped enormously.
February 14, 2019
A great layman's guide to the important Emperors who shaped the Roman Empire. As such, it's easy to flick to a particular emperor to learn about him, those around him, his influencers and what he did.
This non-fiction book is a modern take on Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus' Twelve Caesars, which was written in A.D. 121. Unlike Tranquillus, Strauss opts to focus on the most significant of the Roman Emperors instead of chronological biographies. He leaves out those Emperors who had short or insignificant reigns, although he does refer to them. Two of the most colourful Caesars - Claudius and Caligula - didn't make the list.
Ten Caesars is not an academic book so it is very accessible to the history buff who is interested in this period and the author is clear about where sources exist and where assumptions are made. Each emperor is fleshed out with depictions of his physical appearance, characteristics and achievements so that we are not faced with a series of facts and unpronounceable names that leave us with a mingled mass of information. Individual and distinct people are what we discover. Astounding to think that these are real people: you couldn't make up these characters.
One book manages to give an overview of more than three hundred years of one of the most successful and important empires the world has ever known. Read this and feel like a Roman expert. Highly recommended.
#TenCaesars #NetGalley
This non-fiction book is a modern take on Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus' Twelve Caesars, which was written in A.D. 121. Unlike Tranquillus, Strauss opts to focus on the most significant of the Roman Emperors instead of chronological biographies. He leaves out those Emperors who had short or insignificant reigns, although he does refer to them. Two of the most colourful Caesars - Claudius and Caligula - didn't make the list.
Ten Caesars is not an academic book so it is very accessible to the history buff who is interested in this period and the author is clear about where sources exist and where assumptions are made. Each emperor is fleshed out with depictions of his physical appearance, characteristics and achievements so that we are not faced with a series of facts and unpronounceable names that leave us with a mingled mass of information. Individual and distinct people are what we discover. Astounding to think that these are real people: you couldn't make up these characters.
One book manages to give an overview of more than three hundred years of one of the most successful and important empires the world has ever known. Read this and feel like a Roman expert. Highly recommended.
#TenCaesars #NetGalley
May 17, 2020
An apologist account, and not for readers who are already familiar with the western Roman empire because it is such a wide overview. Strauss automatically rejects any reports about the actions of the corrupt protagonists that he considers to be extreme. In my opinion, Strauss has no sense of what an absolute ruler can feel himself (or herself) entitled to do. We have only to look at Caligula and Messalina from within the time period of this book. (Strauss brushes briefly past them.)
The author occasionally shows an ironic sense of humor. During the reign of Marcus Aurelius, “a weary legion found itself surrounded by the enemy and almost had to surrender because it had no water. Suddenly the skies opened, and the rain saved the Romans. Pagans and Christians immediately engaged in a polemic about whose prayers had won the favor of heaven.”
The author occasionally shows an ironic sense of humor. During the reign of Marcus Aurelius, “a weary legion found itself surrounded by the enemy and almost had to surrender because it had no water. Suddenly the skies opened, and the rain saved the Romans. Pagans and Christians immediately engaged in a polemic about whose prayers had won the favor of heaven.”
April 4, 2019
I had minimal knowledge of Roman emperors so this was a great introduction text. The format worked for me: short family bio on each figure, followed by concise timeline of events, notable contributions, and reflections on character. I especially liked that the author added other notable historical developments to provide a good frame of historical reference. Lastly, I’m keen to learn more about Constantine’s adoption of Christianity and its greater impact. Would definitely recommend! The audio was fantastic.
February 21, 2019
An interesting and engaging history book, informative and well written.
It's always great to read about the Ancient Rome emperors and the women that surrounded and/or influenced them.
The style of writing is clear, it can be read as a historical novel and it's entertaining.
I really liked it and I think it's a must read for whoever wants to learn about the most famous Roman emperors.
Highly recommended!
Many thanks to Simon & Schuster and Netgalley for this ARC
It's always great to read about the Ancient Rome emperors and the women that surrounded and/or influenced them.
The style of writing is clear, it can be read as a historical novel and it's entertaining.
I really liked it and I think it's a must read for whoever wants to learn about the most famous Roman emperors.
Highly recommended!
Many thanks to Simon & Schuster and Netgalley for this ARC
July 18, 2023
This is a phenomenal book for a beginner looking to explore the history of the Roman Empire, as well as someone more knowledgeable looking for a new take on Emperors they're already familiar with.
It has some minor inaccuracies but they're extremely minor and not worth belittling the book about.
This also does a deep dive into the powerful, intelligent, and impactful women surrounding the men we hear so often about. I appreciate the author making an effort to do so.
It has some minor inaccuracies but they're extremely minor and not worth belittling the book about.
This also does a deep dive into the powerful, intelligent, and impactful women surrounding the men we hear so often about. I appreciate the author making an effort to do so.
January 24, 2020
Un buon compendio storico, succinto ma non superficiale.
Dieci personalità che giganteggiano nella storia.
Sono ben differenziate le notizie certe dalla ipotesi.
Certo, ciascuno di loro merita un tomo a parte, ma qui si trova tutto ciò che è indispensabile sapere su di loro e anche qualcosina in più.
Dieci personalità che giganteggiano nella storia.
Sono ben differenziate le notizie certe dalla ipotesi.
Certo, ciascuno di loro merita un tomo a parte, ma qui si trova tutto ciò che è indispensabile sapere su di loro e anche qualcosina in più.
April 30, 2020
This is one of those books that I probably wouldn’t have read because I typically have a rather “meh” interest in all things Roman. However, I was browsing through Kindle books and saw that it was on sale and thought, why not.
So, going into this, you need to understand that I am very uh… ignorant of most of Roman history, except for the bullet points that just about everyone knows. I do think that impacts my reading. I think if you are really into Roman history, and this is your bread and butter, you’ll likely find this book to be an overview of information you already know. However, if you’re like me and you don’t know a whole lot about anything, then you’ll probably think this book is really interesting and incredibly engrossing. In fact, I liked it so much, it’s actually put me on a bit of a Roman Empire bender, which is something I never really thought I would say.
So yeah, be aware of that going into it. If you really enjoy this topic and you’ve already read a lot about it, you might want to skip this book because it’s not incredibly in depth, and I don’t think you’ll find much new information here.
This book tells the story of ten caesars, some of them are covered with more detail than others. What I probably noticed and enjoyed the most right off the bat, was how accessible this book was, as a whole. Each life story is succinct and cleanly written in a style that is easy to sink into, and the timeline is crystal clear (though I did sometimes have a hard time understanding who was tangentially related to who and oh my god a lot of women have the same name, which is zero help but that’s not the author’s fault.)
Understanding that I knew nothing much about any of these dudes except the facts like, Nero sang while Rome burned, for example, there was a whole lot in each story that really intrigued me, and Strauss does a really good job of showing popular lore, historical evidence, and what probably happened when you balance those two things. There were also a lot of cultural nuggets that I didn’t know before. While it is not covered in the book, one thing that I perhaps took away from this (which I’m not exactly sure I should have because again, it’s not covered) was how so many of the women attached to these men were extremely powerful, both politically and socially, though they had to sort of weld their power and manipulate in far more subtle ways. For example, Nero’s mother, who was extremely adept at manipulating public opinion, and truly became a threat to those ruling during her time.
In a lot of ways, this book reminded me of The Romanovs by Simon Sebag Montefiore, not because of the topic, but because it’s a broad overview, much like The Romanovs, and some characters and historical time periods are covered more in depth than others. This book also very much feels like a jumping-off point for further research rather than a comprehensive book you read to fully understand a topic. Each of the ten caesars, starting with Agustus, are covered more like stepping stones than anything else, and while I did enjoy that treatment of them, I felt more like I was dipping my toe in the water rather than getting my whole foot wet. Since then, I have been tracking down books that cover specific time periods in more detail, and I will be honest, I do think the author could have spent a bit more time on some caesars.
However, despite the vignette nature of the lives of these people, the writing is so engrossing and engaging, I could hardly put it down, and maybe that’s what I appreciated the most about the book. This author took a period of history that doesn’t particularly do much for me, and managed to write it in such a way that now I’m just obsessed with not only learning more about the Roman Empire, but the larger world around the Roman Empire during that time. I think that’s the mark of a truly good nonfiction book, it doesn’t just inform and educate, but it makes you want to learn more and expand your horizons.
So, would I recommend this book to everyone? No. I think, by and large, having someone read this book who is already very well informed in these figures, their life and times, etc. would probably be a frustrating exercise rather than illuminating. It is so captivating, engrossing, and interesting because
Read my review: http://www.bookwormblues.net/2020/04/...
I don’t know much about it. The first time I read The Romanovs, I couldn’t put it down. I was so interested in it, I couldn’t pull myself out of it. However, since then, I have read a whole lot more about the Romanovs and Russian history as a whole. I tried to re-read that book, and it was interesting but it didn’t do much for me because I already knew all this stuff. An overview wasn’t really engaging anymore.
I think of Ten Caesars like that. It’s interesting, because I don’t know anything about it, and maybe if you do know something about this stuff, you’ll enjoy the writing and maybe glean some new information, but I feel like this is more of an introduction, more of a book you read when you want to dip your toe in. It’s full of great information, accessible and entertaining writing, and a whole bunch of jumping-off points for further research. For the tried-and-true Roman Empire fan, they likely won’t find much here that they didn’t already know.
So, going into this, you need to understand that I am very uh… ignorant of most of Roman history, except for the bullet points that just about everyone knows. I do think that impacts my reading. I think if you are really into Roman history, and this is your bread and butter, you’ll likely find this book to be an overview of information you already know. However, if you’re like me and you don’t know a whole lot about anything, then you’ll probably think this book is really interesting and incredibly engrossing. In fact, I liked it so much, it’s actually put me on a bit of a Roman Empire bender, which is something I never really thought I would say.
So yeah, be aware of that going into it. If you really enjoy this topic and you’ve already read a lot about it, you might want to skip this book because it’s not incredibly in depth, and I don’t think you’ll find much new information here.
This book tells the story of ten caesars, some of them are covered with more detail than others. What I probably noticed and enjoyed the most right off the bat, was how accessible this book was, as a whole. Each life story is succinct and cleanly written in a style that is easy to sink into, and the timeline is crystal clear (though I did sometimes have a hard time understanding who was tangentially related to who and oh my god a lot of women have the same name, which is zero help but that’s not the author’s fault.)
Understanding that I knew nothing much about any of these dudes except the facts like, Nero sang while Rome burned, for example, there was a whole lot in each story that really intrigued me, and Strauss does a really good job of showing popular lore, historical evidence, and what probably happened when you balance those two things. There were also a lot of cultural nuggets that I didn’t know before. While it is not covered in the book, one thing that I perhaps took away from this (which I’m not exactly sure I should have because again, it’s not covered) was how so many of the women attached to these men were extremely powerful, both politically and socially, though they had to sort of weld their power and manipulate in far more subtle ways. For example, Nero’s mother, who was extremely adept at manipulating public opinion, and truly became a threat to those ruling during her time.
In a lot of ways, this book reminded me of The Romanovs by Simon Sebag Montefiore, not because of the topic, but because it’s a broad overview, much like The Romanovs, and some characters and historical time periods are covered more in depth than others. This book also very much feels like a jumping-off point for further research rather than a comprehensive book you read to fully understand a topic. Each of the ten caesars, starting with Agustus, are covered more like stepping stones than anything else, and while I did enjoy that treatment of them, I felt more like I was dipping my toe in the water rather than getting my whole foot wet. Since then, I have been tracking down books that cover specific time periods in more detail, and I will be honest, I do think the author could have spent a bit more time on some caesars.
However, despite the vignette nature of the lives of these people, the writing is so engrossing and engaging, I could hardly put it down, and maybe that’s what I appreciated the most about the book. This author took a period of history that doesn’t particularly do much for me, and managed to write it in such a way that now I’m just obsessed with not only learning more about the Roman Empire, but the larger world around the Roman Empire during that time. I think that’s the mark of a truly good nonfiction book, it doesn’t just inform and educate, but it makes you want to learn more and expand your horizons.
So, would I recommend this book to everyone? No. I think, by and large, having someone read this book who is already very well informed in these figures, their life and times, etc. would probably be a frustrating exercise rather than illuminating. It is so captivating, engrossing, and interesting because
Read my review: http://www.bookwormblues.net/2020/04/...
I don’t know much about it. The first time I read The Romanovs, I couldn’t put it down. I was so interested in it, I couldn’t pull myself out of it. However, since then, I have read a whole lot more about the Romanovs and Russian history as a whole. I tried to re-read that book, and it was interesting but it didn’t do much for me because I already knew all this stuff. An overview wasn’t really engaging anymore.
I think of Ten Caesars like that. It’s interesting, because I don’t know anything about it, and maybe if you do know something about this stuff, you’ll enjoy the writing and maybe glean some new information, but I feel like this is more of an introduction, more of a book you read when you want to dip your toe in. It’s full of great information, accessible and entertaining writing, and a whole bunch of jumping-off points for further research. For the tried-and-true Roman Empire fan, they likely won’t find much here that they didn’t already know.
April 1, 2019
Ten Caesars: Roman Emperors from Augustus to Constantine to be a fascinating read. I give it five stars and recommend it for readers who are interested in Roman history.
July 13, 2020
The Ten caesars is a great introduction into ancient Roman history gives you brief to the points about ten Roman emperors and there mark on the Roman world!
It doesn’t bog you down with to much information and I felt the flow was enjoyable and entertaining.
However as a Roman history buff I do feel the author could have went deeper on a few key moments on each emperor but having said that I did learn some new facts so not all bad!
Overall great book and a good edition to my history library!
It doesn’t bog you down with to much information and I felt the flow was enjoyable and entertaining.
However as a Roman history buff I do feel the author could have went deeper on a few key moments on each emperor but having said that I did learn some new facts so not all bad!
Overall great book and a good edition to my history library!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 272 reviews