The Roman Revolution

by Ronald Syme

The Roman Revolution is a profound and unconventional treatment of a great theme - the fall of the Republic and the decline of freedom in Rome between 60 BC and AD 14, and the rise to power of the greatest of the Roman Emperors, Augustus. The transformation of state and society, the violent transference of power and property, and the establishment of Augustus' rule are presented in an unconventional narrative, which quotes from ancient evidence, refers seldomly to modern authorities, and states controversial opinions quite openly. The result is a book which is both fresh and compelling.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Ancient History, Classics, Politics, Roman, European History

579 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1939

About the author

Sir Ronald Syme, OM, FBA (11 March 1903 – 4 September 1989) was a New Zealand-born historian and classicist. Long associated with Oxford University, he is widely regarded as the 20th century's greatest historian of ancient Rome. His great work was The Roman Revolution (1939), a masterly and controversial analysis of Roman political life in the period following the assassination of Julius Caesar.

Reviews

[Jan-Maat]

General non-introduction
I will begin this review with a warning, a little while ago someone informed me that they had their reading experience of a book spoiled by one of my reviews because they felt I had revealed information about the ending, about which comment much can be said and it is unkind of me to be making a little fun of of their compliant in this way, but just in case if you are still on tenterhooks and waiting for news of the outcome of Actium, or do not want to know precisely which iconic part of the male anatomy that Octavian(Augustus) was invited to suckle upon or indeed was said to be a suckler of not that I will be revealing that because it would be lewd which certainly won't prevent me from alluding to it several times because it amuses me greatly, although as I hope to reveal, entirely it was fair political comment, or indeed if you don't want to know yet what Julius Caesar did after he finished conquering Gaul apart of course for one village then please read no further...

Digressive demi-introduction with autobiographical asides and Playmobil
I recently read Joachim Radkau's biography of Max Weber: Des Leidenschaft des Denkens in which Weber's opinion was cited that political power is always exercised through oligarchies, my guilty pre-reading of Syme made it clear that Syme's The Roman Revolution was a natural and proper desert after Max Weber, which now by a slightly more convoluted path Syme now gives way to And Quiet Flows the Don (And Quiet Flows the Don #1) . Anyway I recently received an email indicating that Playmobil are tapping into my consciousness this is commercially unwise of them I feel as they attempted to seduce me into the perfect accompaniment to Syme - read the book and play out the action, refight or even fight, if one is feeling catty Actium in the bath, does though Cleopatra come with attachable Asp I wonder pity they did Caesar without his famous comb forward ? One ought not play too much attention to email, maybe, particularly since I received another one telling me that a grow your own oyster mushroom kit is the perfect Valentine's day present, I feel that one ought satisfy oneself that your heart's delight is sufficiently keen on mushrooms first though before sending her or him or them a mass of manure covered in mushroom spoors through the post what indeed says true love more than manure, for in that rich and dirty stuff any seed will germinate and grow well into a mighty tree of affection upon whose branches birds sweetly sing, this I knew without the help of Ovid of whom more below. Syme's The Roman Revolution had been on my mental mind map for a long time and coming up the track towards it I felt a curious relief and satisfaction like a long distance runner turning a corner and finding them-self on a familiar stretch of the course. I recalled as a child being taken to the British museum to an exhibition about Augustus in which his public image was contrasted with written descriptions to make a point about publicity and propaganda I suppose. Though I imagine that my early earnest worship in the cathedrals of knowledge made greater impact on my thighs stairs build strength and museums have many stairs than on my brain.

IInd Introduction, earnest with argument and some unparliamentary language
Ronald Syme's The Roman Revolution is a work of passion, written with a degree of conviction and ferocity that it doesn't, I feel, quite deliver upon. In fact the two distinctive features of this work cause him problems that I don't think he ever comes to terms with, still less resolves.

First point: this is a work published in 1939. What Syme does is look at the end of the Roman Republic and the beginning of empire from the perspective of recent world history. This is a brilliant, yet troubling conception, and under executed. The Bolshevik revolution gives us the Roman Army as the proletariat of Italy, motivated by a Leninist call for Land and Peace. The army had to be paid off and demobilised soldiers rewarded with land grants. This required land seizures from the rich and taxes on the rich. Problem is, beyond the broad outlines and echoes in Virgil one can say nothing in detail about this process nor its outcomes and no hint of revolutionary feeling or class consciousness has come down to us. Next Augustus is a terrorist, more he is a Mussolini, raising an army and marching on Rome, further yet he is a Hitler, developing a new power power structure and crushing those uncertain elements that brought him to power and developing in a conservative direction. There is a complication here immediately ,in that Fascism was consciously modelling itself on ancient Rome, but taking in Augustus's use of private morality and family life as the centre of a programme of Roman renewal, we can see his regime as the forerunner and exemplar of a range of authoritarian through to Fascist movements. The big problem is that this argument is really very disturbing, because it cuts both ways, as Syme's end point is essentially: yes Augustus was a bloody handed bastard, but a necessary one who brought about a real and historically meaningful renewal of Rome:"he had saved and regenerated the Roman People"(p524). 'Roman people' blends into Syme's second distinctive feature, on which point more below. How comfortable are we with the implication that many European countries had run into political dead ends by the 1920s and 30s and had to go through periods of 'national' regeneration, in other words there is an implicit problem,which admittedly the first edition never had to face of looking at the ancient world in a post 1945 world from the perspective of 1939, after yet another round of the all-European championships in the military arts makes all the difference. The second distinctive feature of this book is that Syme was from New Zealand, from the Imperial periphery, and he feels himself analogous to people from the Roman periphery, like Tacitus his favourite historian and Trajan and Co. For Syme at most Empire is a necessary evil, with the emphasis on necessary, again in a world which has seen a degree of decolonisation this puts some of his basic and fundamental beliefs at odds with a more contemporary view point, for Syme a real division of humanity into intrinsically martial (Macedonians, Galatians not only were they the recipients of a letter from St.Paul but also the descendants of wild touring Gauls who settled in the area of modern Turkey 'Romans')and less martial peoples exists, the 'Roman People' is for Syme an unproblematic concept, they are derived from an actual human stock that for him is transforming from a narrowly Roman to a more broadly Italian one, for him these are fundamentally tough peasants, idealised in poetry, though he admits probably not so nice to find rampaging through your native village one day. This for me is a view of race and nation, widespread in the world before 1945, now distasteful in certain swathes of the world and deeply problematic in any case, I call upon my learned friend Ovid, to explain why with reference to his book The Art of Love not suitable for very young persons ahem in short - what were those Romans ? The descendants of a rag-tag bunch of brigands and the Sabine women, the ultimate horror of modern populist politicians: an entire population made up of immigrants hell bent on conquering everybody else for sexual ends and if we add our friend Virgil, who has so far been quiet , waiting his turn to speak, into the mix, a people with a genius for governing others though possibly not themselves. So Syme, poor fellow, ends up seriously worried about the detrimental effect of too many slaves entering the Roman blood stock, personally I feel that the Romans were as healthy as mongrels, rather than as prone to health problems as pure bred inbreds.

His argument is brilliant, inciting and icky. What can one say? People like Hitler, Mussolini and Augustus ultimately just spoil everything, and on completion I couldn't join with Syme in his assessment of Augustus - a knowing salute from the edge of one Empire to the heart of another I know, that you know, that we know, what empire and dominion is all about, he seems to say - What I wanted to say was felas Octavi! I did say there would be unparliamentary language with apologies to men who find it pleasant and desirable to fellate other men, my only defence is that in the context of early Imperial/late republican Rome such a phrase would unambiguously have been intended as, and interpreted as being insulting

Cynicism
A cursory glance over other reviews shows that the word cynical crops up often. Personally I would not describe Syme as cynical in any way, indeed at several points he is in need of a generous transfusion of cynicism from a donor cynic. The issue is that he isn't idealistic or inclined to accept the propaganda or marketing at face value. For Syme politics is about power, I don't know if he read Weber, but the bibliography is fairly evenly divided between English, French and German language scholarship, he might have picked up that idea of power exercised through oligarchies at second hand. Syme's views are stark, but not cynical, indeed he is fanciful in places. One example I'll return to below, another is he regurgitates that the 'mob' 'spontaneously' cremated Julius Caesar's body and erected an altar in his memory which is just crazy fantasy. For things like that to happen , particularly with the appearance of spontaneity, takes organisation. It takes without an accelerant like petrol a fair deal of seasoned wood to burn a body and the kinds of people who might happen to have masonry or wood working tools on them while crossing the forum one morning, are the kinds of people who've got paying jobs they need to get to in order to put bread and cheese on the table that evening, not the kinds of people who can afford to stand about listening to the reading of wills and then spend time putting up an altar (a task which in another context takes the Senate four years to get completed so spontaneous my arse. But in terms of considerations of power Syme is relatively undeluded (which again may be a feature of being from the colonies).

Paradise Lost
One of the delightful curiosities of Syme's text is that people are invariably sovran rather than sovereign, which gave me the impression that he'd learnt his book English from a copy of Paradise Lost. And I did wonder if Milton had determined his view of Politics - that maybe for him all politicians are little Satans in pain/ Vaunting aloud, but rackt with deep despare (book I 125-6) who through their guile and wiles can only ever manage to bring sin and Death into the world? Certainly this is what we see at the close of the Roman Republic particularly in the person of Augustus who virtually single handedly dragged the Mediterranean world into multiple rounds of civil war until he alone was undisputed ruler of the world apart from China, and India, and other places important unto themselves like Hibernia or Arabia Felix. Several times the Mediterranean world appeared to be on the brink of peace before Octavian/Augustus resumed warfare. Ironically the consummate warmonger was a poor general and admiral, he avoided capture and execution on several occasions but that was the limit of his skill. His skill was in political gambling in which he conducted a master class.

Felas Octavi
During the civil wars Octavian /Augustus and his soldiers pin Marcus Antonius' wife and brother in the town of Perusia, this is less of a coup than it might seem. While M. Antonius was a great admirer and lover of women he wasn't the type to limit his affections to only one, and as for brothers... A number of lead bullets fired from slings have been found round the town, some plain others bearing some kind of sharp message to add insult to injury. I assume these bullets were cast and so presumably somebody decided what message to add to the mould, I wonder whether this was L. Antonius himself or the blacksmith attached to a particular legion, one such bullet has the inscription Felas Octavi.

Power, Oligarchy to party to court factionalism
At the centre of Syme's argument is a hole. We're not interested purely in a Sulla, Pompeii, Caesar or Octavian he says but in the people around them, they form , determine and execute the policies carried out in their interests. Fine, problem being that what we know about such people is the result of several generations of careful study of inscriptions and named individuals, trying to build up family trees and a picture of networks and interests when it comes down to it Syme names three key individuals around Augustu,s but Syme only has the not quite purple but certainly mauve idea of falling back on their statute portraits to reach conclusions about the nature of their influence ,these three people were Livia, Agrippa, and Maecenas. This reminds me of this review of which book the reviewer says that the author has the breasts of his female characters do the work of characterisation (so presumably firm, unyielding, generous, ripe etc), second there's an awful lot of arselick in portraiture, perhaps as much as 100%, I heard that the late Princess of Wales asked her portraitist to make her look strong so he slapped extra paint on her shoulders to make her look more muscly. We don't know if Livia or Agrippa really looked like those statues, we only know that they presumably authorised and approved those images, indeed in the case of Augustus we know that he looked more like this: it will be observed that the Princeps was by no means was by no means as majestic & martial in appearance as his effigies show him forth. His limbs were well proportioned, but his stature was short, a defect which he sought to repair by wearing high heels. Nor were all his features prepossessing - he had bad teeth & sandy hair (p480) after the civil war he gave up exercise & only bathed rarely, avoided the sun and couldn't stand the cold wearing four under-shirts and puttees rather than like this, so a short podgy smelly man with bad breath (admittedly sculpture is not a good medium for suggesting smell to the viewer). From the evidence it is hard to link more than a few people with distinct interests, either political or economic which I feel sinks the endeavour of looking at the oligarchies which exercised power, however that for all Pompey's clients he could not stand against Caesar in Italy and that he didn't fall back on Hispania, or indeed the curious longevity over generations of apparent feeling of obligation to one party or family invites further investigation. Another problem is that during this period we are seeing a transition from politics of oligarchy to party to factions at royal court and I don't find Syme convincing here, although he does see the banishment of daughter Julia and the punishment of five highly placed men as likely to be political with the formal accusation of immorality as a cover. The political dynamic around a person who has monopolised power is different to oligarchic factions or even a party ans Syme's method doesn't really capture that. Syme also has a 'must have' opinion on financial experts in Augustus' service, about which I would say more, but I've run out of space.

Octavian's political programme
Octavian initial proclaimed his goal, as the heir to Julius Caesar to be the extermination of his assassins, this was seen as an Act of Piety remember Virgil's Pius Aeneas this he broadened out to destroying all potential rivals and claimants to the legacy of Julius Caesar. This meant that Cleopatra has to be persuaded to die, her suicide is not a final cry of felas Octavi, you'll never take me alive!, but the action of someone persuaded to reign from high office because apparently they suddenly really want to spend more time with this family thing that everybody says they have out there beyond the corridors of power, and her children have to die too many caesars obviously are no good thing. And then lots of other people also have to die or helpfully commit suicide something of a Roman trait. His politics goes through a revolutionary phase before settling down, the centre piece of Octavian/Augustus' reform policy is a series of laws on family morality, against divorce, against adultery and to encourage child birth. Syme again lacks cynicism and reads these at face value. What I read, post 1945, was in a society whose atomic unit was the family, and whose politics was built through marriage and family connections was that this was a massively ambitious power grab. From this point of view friend Ovid's cynical, yet amusing work The Art of Love becomes a political statement of resistance, a literary felas Octavi to counter Virgil's Aeneid ( which courtesy of Syme looks increasingly propagandistic). No wonder he was exiled, arguing that Roman Imperium had always been about sexual domination, while setting himself in Eros's camp, going on a mission to the theatre to see and be seen, that the true Roman is the sexual adventurer was a little too close to the mark for his times.

Syme fades out with a black arm band on, ripping open the box of tissues as he laments the end of the traditional Roman aristocracy. Do we mourn for them - didn't their unmanageable rivalry bring about their own destruction?


Salve Syme
A great and worth while book that I fear, doesn't and couldn't deliver as much as it promises. However it has vigour and a neat turn of phrase that I've tried to capture in my updates. A rather bracing view of a complex period of transition, yes most of the footnotes are in either Latin or Greek, yes he does stick to the Latin form of names, no there are no maps, nor detailed descriptions of battles nor of the suicide of Cassius. But a pretty powerful historic conception, it could be a self standing read if you down mind jumping in the deep end.

Still ultimately my take is felas Octavi. One can view the Roman republic from a structural point of view as intrinsically headed for disaster the combination of clintentalism, militarism, and honour culture were powerful drivers for ever more violent conflict, but it is not quite Syme's argument that the route to Empire was inevitable, still if omelettes can only be made by breaking eggs then perhaps some political veganism is overdue.

[Szplug · Rating 5 out of 5]

Syme's The Roman Revolution is absolutely first rate interpretive history: exhaustive in its detail, but in the best of ways, particularly in that the learned and opinionated author serves as the filter through which all of the surviving histories of the Latin and Greek primary sources from antiquity are combed and then combined—in beautifully composed, dynamic language timbered with a very Tacitean cynicism, pessimism and severity—to present his encompassing theme: that the turn from what he calls a Free State to Monarchic Despotism was the trade-off between liberty and stability that the Republic demanded, based upon its structural inability to adequately handle the vast geographical expansion of the final century BC and the scheming, avaricious, and increasingly unruly political factionalism that growth engendered; was, in fact, a purposive Revolutionary movement that found its origin in populist and plebeian conflict with the oligarchic and conservative alliance of patrician families and equestrian financiers; novi homines vs. the old guard aristocracy and money. It's an extraordinary achievement: quite simply the best book I have read in a very long time. Gibbon would not merely be proud—he'd be impressed.

There is a plethora of personalities involved within, although the names that dominate the period generally held to have precipitated and advanced the decline of the Republic—Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Crassus, Cato, Cicero, Caesar, Antonius (like Syme, I refuse to call the man Mark Anthony, as if, at any moment, he'd be prepared to shed his cuirass and robes that he might shake and groove and flash his pearly whites to the rhythm of a funky Latin beat), Lepidus, and Octavian—are perforce called upon to receive a significant share of the page count. Still, Syme made exemplary use of the prosopography undertaken by German scholars like Münzer and Gelzer, to sort and array the omnibus of praenomen, nomen, and cognomen that comprised the body of historically relevant Roman citizens who formed the second and third ranks of important actors, collated from those primary and secondary sources ranging across decades of the period in question, that they could be slotted into the proper ordering and their positional relevance to Syme's great theme made that much clearer in its exposition.

The final despotic structure that emerged was headed and guided by Gaius Octavianus cum Caesar Augustus, and from the outset the author declares that the latter will receive a harsher treatment than his predecessors or peers; however, he also makes clear, in the same passage, that it is not a moral condemnation, but rather a check upon the panegyrics the imperial founder had received in a bevy of modern evaluations that a more sere and unvarnished truth reveal itself beneath a scrubbed veneer:

Whether the Princeps made atonement for the crime and violence of his earlier career is a question vain and irrelevant, cheerfully to be abandoned to the moralist or the casuist. The present inquiry will attempt to discover the resources and devices by which a revolutionary leader arose in civil strife, usurped the power for himself and his faction, transformed a faction into a national party, and a torn and distracted land into a nation, with a stable and enduring government.

As Syme sees it, the core and perduring element of the power structure in the Roman Republic was an oligarchy, comprised of the nobiles, Patrician and Plebeian consulars who jealousy guarded access to the consulate and, hence, to their ruling Senatorial clique. While the Patriciate dominated the ranks of the nobiles, those elevated from the Plebs had forged powerful lineages of their own—and such was the state at the time of the reorganization of Sulla, Roman Dictator in 81 BC and the paradigm of the ruthless political adventurer for those who competed for supremacy in the decades following his abdication from power; especially in his usage of Novi Homines, New Men, upstarts and non-entities whom he rewarded for service by admission to the Senate. However, Sulla, of the aristocratic Cornelii, also strived to strengthen the Senate by diminishing the power of the tribunes and legislating constitutional changes. The following decades would see a fierce competition between this Sullan aristocratic element, the Optimates, and those who, in emulation of Marius, played to the emotions and for the support of the masses, the Populares. Indeed, as Syme views it, this conflict, with its burgeoning factionalism, corruption, manipulation, and violence, progressively undermined the stability and structure of the Roman Republic as powerful and charismatic individuals vied to become the First Man (Princeps) in Rome, with its attendant enhancement of their dignitas and auctoritas. A part of the conflict lay in what constituted a citizen's modus operandi: the old nobility maintained a tradition of service to the state, transcending material interests and containing high ideals—a concept wholly absent from that of the equite financiers.

Pompey was the next innovator, using military victories and acclaim—and the continuous threat of the legions he could raise from his vast number of supporters, in Italy and abroad—as means to securing overseas proconsular provinces, by which he built a web of clientela dependent upon his rewards, ranging from Roman Citizens to foreign kings and their entire subject population. The Optimates, perceiving the threat of Pompey and his boundless ambitions, were forced to maneuver with other political aspirants, which led to the accession of Crassus, the wealthiest man in the Republic, and Caesar, supremely charismatic, well-connected, and, through his popular conquest of Gaul, a military hero to rival Pompey. Syme takes the reader, quite brilliantly, through the rise of the First Triumvirate, the showdown between Caesar, under threat to his dignitas and armed with veteran legions from the Gallic Wars and the support of the Populares, and the Optimates, having elected a reluctant (and jealous) Pompeius as their champion. We all know how it ended: Caesar victorious and voted Dictator for life, only to be cut down by a cabal of Senatorial assassins—the self-proclaimed Liberatores—as he prepared to embark upon a campaign against the Parthians in the far east.

Here's where Syme begins delivering his specialized goods: in convincing detail he traces the lingering discontent within an Italy that had, as recently as the Sullan era, embarked upon a savagely fought conflict, the Social War, to free themselves from the domination of Roman rentiers and politicians. Following Sulla's death, these peninsular realms would prove fertile recruiting grounds for the legions of both Pompey, from his origins and patronage in Picenum and surrounding areas, and Caesar, who headed the remnant Marian populist faction; but they furnished a surprising number of the Novi Homines with which the two—and particularly Caesar—staffed their armies and represented themselves in the maelstrom of Roman civic politics. With his nascent party, the Populares, in control, the opportunity was ripe for a thorough reform of the Republican system, to ameliorate the problems of trying to govern an empire via the constitution of a city-state. However, Caesar did not deliver on his promises of reform—indeed, unwilling to fully embrace the measures demanded by those who had assisted him in his rise, he claimed monarchical powers that needlessly riled the Optimates who had been delivered unto his broad clemency and conspired to murder him; and the latter quickly found themselves helpless to maneuver against Antonius, holding the consulship in 44BC, without making use of Octavian—the heir to Caesar's name—who used that invaluable heirloom as a means of raising a private army with which he forcibly inserted himself into the political competition, first on the side of the aristocratic oligarchy, and then joined with Antonius and Lepidus in the Second Triumvirate.

Syme displays, throughout, a charitable view of Antonius—a man competent, vigorous, and skilled in the ways of both forum dais and military camp, he was also impulsive, loyal, and charitable: as proof of such, Syme offers the three distinct opportunities that Antonius had to eliminate his youthful rival, and of which he never availed himself. However, he also notes how an enduring reason for their reconciliations lay in that it was so-willed by the Caesarian Party, the backbone of which were the legion veterans, who revered the name of Caesar and the personal wealth he lavished upon them (and which Octavian prudently continued in full measure), and the NH, moneymen and senators, established in the provinces, who felt insecure without cohesion between the two leaders of the coalition government. Dreading the possibility of another civil war, and with the chief Liberatores Brutus and Cassius slain after the Battle of Philippi, the Republic groaned beneath a military despotism more stringent and oppressive than anything experienced under Caesar: indeed, in many ways, Syme posits, Octavian and Antonius ruled in a manner that Pompey would have, had he possessed political gifts to match his military ones. Still, there was stability and rule, no matter how precariously balanced—and Rome found itself prepared to accept the stringent and harsh rule of the Triumvirs, with their brutal marshals and governors, however much it debased the republican ideal.

As the years passed, and notwithstanding that both men were associated with the proscriptions that had decimated the senatorial and, in especial, the equestrian ranks—for both political security and financial enrichment, with which the legionaries were paid and the veterans provided with lands to settle upon—the nobiles and foreign notables, including the first rank of the Caesarian party, gravitated to the side of Antonius; while youthful adventurers and talented plebs with grievances against landed property joined with Octavian—and, in any event, Rome was filled with ruffians and the dues paid to pietas shown as an empty charade. At the same time, the structure of Roman politics shifted: no longer were family alliances and resounding lineages the determining factor in the allotment of offices; rather, the number of personal legions and provincial clientele became paramount. The author also paints fascinating portraits of the chief marshals for whom the two dominant leaders competed: Plancus, a talented time-server changing sides as advantage was determined; Lepidus, an ignoble cipher, aligned with Antonius and sidelined by Octavian when he moved too early after the victories over Sextus Pompeius; and Pollio, a literary wit and republican Caesarian who strived for neutrality until Actium convinced him that Octavian's star was ascendant.

And yet it proved that Octavian had the better marshals: Agrippa and Salvidienus, descended from peasant stock, and Taurus, a superb military mind who easily filled Salvidienus' shoes when the latter was executed for treacherous outreach to Antonius after Perusia. Another Etruscan, Gaius Maecenas, served Octavian faithfully as his civil administrator in Rome, entertaining, feeding, and soothing the city masses. As the years passed, and the term of the triumvirate neared expiry, Octavian, through his rule of the Western half of the empire and hewing to Roman norms, developed a potent propaganda effort against Antonius, long absent in the east and decried as having succumbed to Greek tyrannical airs, the proof of which lay in his flaunted marriage with Cleopatra, a foreign queen with rapacious eyes upon Roman provinces. In the deciding Battle of Actium, Antonius saw, one by one, his republican supporters cross over to the side of Octavian—even Ahenobarbus, once Octavian's bitterest foe and the leader of the tattered remnants of the Optimates. Afterwards, when Octavian found himself sole master of the Roman world, it was time to complete the revolution with an artful genius that would disguise its broad, pervasive, and perduring implementation.

What was the revolution? It was not the elimination of the oligarchy itself, because, as Syme perceives, it ever lasted, at the font of power, while Octavian (become Augustus) developed his forms of despotic mastery. The revolution was the overthrowing of the ancient houses and established money by the influx of new names, as well as the vast distribution of landed property amongst legion veterans, in Italy and colonies abroad. It was the evolution of the senate from legislative power to a forum of nominal debate and acceptance of imposed law. It was the change from proconsular provincial rule designed for personal aggrandizement and wealth, that it be wielded in the game of power amongst the nobiles in Rome, and the farming out of administrative needs like tax collection and public services; rather, the rule of Augustus saw the division of the empire into senatorial provinces, governed by praetors until Augustus felt secure enough to give them to the ex-consuls, and military provinces—the only ones with legions—that were governed by legates chosen from men who owed everything to his favor—along with the development of a centralized administration staffed by competent freedmen and knights, rather than the patronage appointments of competing factions. While the tamed senate indulged in powerless orations and displays of wealth, a cabinet, in which the real decisions of government were undertaken, cohered, comprised of such as Augustus, Maecenus, Agrippa, Taurus, and the freedmen, often non-Roman, who occupied that central hub. The former ambitions that drove the nobiles and patriciate into intense competition to become the first man of Rome, and which severely destabilized the republic through the corruption, factionalism, and violence it engendered and required, were harnessed to the service of the Roman state. Unwilling to see one of their own emerge on top, the aristocracy yet proved pliable as long as Augustus lorded, as Princeps, over the lot; it was a swing towards stability, order, regulation, meritorious administration: but it was not all at once, and it was not according to any ordained unfolding. In Syme's calculation, the Caesarian party was revolutionary in spirit and intent, not so much in theory or ideology. It intended to initiate change upon the unstable, violent, and faction-ridden Republic to ameliorate that condition—but did so, under Augustus and the oligarchy, in reaction to events and the moment, not in a doctrinaire service to ideas. The revolution was effected, not premeditated.

The star of the the revolution was Gaius Julius Caesar Divi Filius Augustus, the Princeps. Notwithstanding the author's severe portrayal of him as a man cold, inhuman, despotic, and fortunate beyond measure in both his name and his lieutenants, the first Roman emperor was courageous, competent, and politically savvy sans peer. His life story is nigh unheralded, and his progression from callow youth, scrounging up legions and daring the heavyweights, to Triumvir struggling mightily in dealing with the unrest between Roman citizens and unhappy veterans, to Dux commanding the forces of the West against the more experienced (and liked) Antonius, and ending as Princeps of Rome is a remarkable one. Having secured, through his third wife Livia, the allegiance of the Claudii and Livii clans, Augustus ever worked the aristocracy to bring them on board to the Caesarian party and its dominance. As patiently revealed by Syme, Louis XIV had nothing on the Princeps: by assuaging the honor of the upper class through their continued participation in the consulship, membership in the senate, and accumulation of private honor and wealth (to be spent on public goods), Augustus prevailed over their previously ruinous ambition. The aristocracy was regulated and sterilized, set to vie for the emperor's favor in serving the Roman state—the political demagogues and military adventurers from the days of the Republic had no place in the new system. Indeed, when Augustus, in 23 BC, attempted to veer fully into nepotism and monarchy through the raising of his nephew, Marcellus, it was his closest peer, Agrippa, and his wife, Livia, who forced a confrontation and emerged victorious. And although Augustus ruthlessly used the women in his family as marriage tools to cement alliances with important nobiles, it was his austere stepson, Tiberius, who survived to be instated as the emperor's successor.

As so often proves the case when revolution has prevailed, there was also a reactionary rebound: the writerly talents of Rome, under the emperor's patronage, penned paeans to the values of the sturdy (and mythic) Roman peasant of old—chaste, loyal, honest, and hard. Moral laws were promulgated (and mocked in their transgression), the borders expanded to the Danube in a series of hard-fought campaigns, while the Parthian Great King was happy to make enduring peace with the Lord of the World. Roads were built, grain stored and distributed—trade flourished and fortunes were made. Having sown for the masses the vision of a great enterprise, stability and strong, orderly government won the day over the cacophonous electioneering of old. And in this Syme proved a realist: while his sympathies lay with staunch Republicans like Tacitus and Pollio, who lamented the loss to the arts and to life under a staid, overweening despotism, he yet realized that such was a part of the enduring trade-off between liberty and security, in that liberty inevitably loses if security becomes sufficiently threatened. Nor is this balancing act ever fully settled, just like the Human Nature which drives our actions and emotions. Augustus gave the people of his vast, sprawling empire security and stability under the carefully orchestrated illusion of freedom, for which, in the end, they gratefully acquiesced. It is a tale that was written ere the Princeps and ever and anon afterwards—indeed, it plays out in its various permutations and threads in our own third millennium. That is a part of what makes The Roman Revolution such a thoroughly superb work of historical interpretation: that Syme, despairing in the onset of the Second World War, plumbed the words of the near entirety of sources that he might explicate it in ways that both made sense and were relevant to our own times. Only a part, however. That he is such a wonderfully talented writer, acerbic, witty, elegant, able to expound at length and with grace or deliver succinct, driving lunges of sustained energy are a huge part of the remainder.

Indeed, there is only one single drawback, and which stems from the fact that the author wrote his great and enduring work at a time of different standards in general education: he quotes extensively from the primary sources in Latin and Greek, and assumes that the reader has sufficient knowledge of such as to dispense with translation. Aided in a small part by my so-so grasp of Spanish, I nonetheless passed a considerable amount of time typing words, or copying paragraphs, into Google Translate. It was a laborious effort, but proved worth it in the end—as with so many of the best scholars, the pudding wherein lies the proof is to be found in the footnotes. So, gird yourself for plying the trade of translation, and there is no reason whatsoever why you shouldn't drop whatever you are planning on reading and devour The Roman Revolution—after the opus from Mighty Gibbon the Eternal and Resplendent, the single greatest work of Roman history I have ever had the pleasure to experience.

[Olethros · Rating 4 out of 5]

-Contracorriente hasta crear su propio curso.-

Género. Ensayo.

Lo que nos cuenta. El libro La revolución romana (publicación original: The Roman Revolution, 1939) ofrece un análisis interpretativo del final de la república y el comienzo del imperio en la Antigua Roma, con especial hincapié en la figura de Octaviano/Augusto y su comportamiento durante dicha transformación sociopolítica. Esta edición en español se corresponde con la segunda edición del original, de 1951, corregida y revisada.

¿Quiere saber más de este libro, sin spoilers? Visite:

https://librosdeolethros.blogspot.com...

[Evan Leach · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Roman Revolution is a tricky book to review. Written back in 1939, Ronald Syme’s book details Rome’s transition from republic to empire between 60 b.c. and 14 a.d. The book has been enormously influential and controversial since its release 73 years ago, and is probably the most famous book of Roman history this side of Edward Gibbon.

First off, this book is not a good introduction to the period in question. Syme assumes that his audience is already familiar with the course of events, and he flies through certain incidents that I wanted to hear about in more detail. This was by far my biggest frustration with this book. I know the basic details regarding the wars between Julius Caesar and Pompey & between Augustus and Antony, but I’m not an expert and was looking forward to learning more about them. And despite the book’s size (almost 600 pages), I was disappointed.

However, I’m hesitant to kill the book for this. After all, it’s not Syme’s fault that I don’t know my Philippi from my Pharsalus. The Roman Revolution is ultimately not a book of general history, but a book of political history. Syme is interested in the detailed mechanics of the transition from republic to empire and the political machine that allowed it to happen. And in this regard, The Roman Revolution is pretty amazing. The level of research that must have went into this is incredible. Syme has painstakingly reconstructed the political web that Augustus built, to a degree that I wouldn’t have believed possible considering all of the participants have been dead for 2,000 years. It’s a pretty herculean work of scholarship. Whether or not you believe his argument that the republic was basically dead on his feet and the shift to empire was virtually inevitable (and I thought he made a convincing case), Syme’s writing is superb and his portrayal of Augustus is inspired.

So. If you already know your Roman history, and are looking for an in-depth examination of how the mechanics of power were used to effect the switch from republic to empire, this book is for you. If like me, your knowledge is somewhat wanting going in, this book will make you realize what you don’t know and cause you to slink off and search for a more general history, like Tom Holland’s Rubicon. I don’t want to make this book sound like a totally myopic look at the Roman power transition: Syme regularly makes observations on the nature of government and power that are universal (given the year the book was released, the book was controversial as some of its arguments could be twisted to support fascism, at least according to certain readers). This was an impressive book and I enjoyed it, but if I knew more about it going in I definitely would have tackled a more general history of the period first. 4.5 stars, recommended for readers interested in political theory and true Rome-ophiles.

[Scriptor Ignotus · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is history writing at its very best. Syme provides readers with a total immersion into the familial and factional maneuvering of the transition from republic to principate. The central narrative of the book deals with the rise of Octavianus; from a 19-year-old youth at the time of Caesar's assassination, to a polished demagogue stirring up trouble, to a marauder with a mercenary army, to a triumvir sharing autocratic power, and finally ascending, at the head of a new coalition, to a position that transcended the state itself, allowing him to rework the constitutional structure into a new governing apparatus, the principate.

The rest of the book chronicles the consolidation of power around Augustus' new ruling faction, and the gradual decline of the old aristocrats, which left the field to a new Augustan aristocracy. Throughout the book, Syme meticulously describes the allegiances and fortunes of the great families, patrician and plebeian, and how they made their way during the revolutionary period.

In addition to the quality of the scholarship, Syme's prose also stands out. His language is both beautiful and skeptical, and some of the laconic statements he makes about political life throughout the work are timeless and worthy of one of the great historians of the twentieth century. It is difficult to do justice to just how great this book is.

[Andrew · Rating 5 out of 5]

There is a sadness to this book as you watch an entire group of people - not all angels certainly - slowly extinguished: the Caecilii, Metelli, Scipiones fade from the history of Rome. And newcomers, to whom the Roman historians have not been kind, set up in their place.

It really was a revolution, not just a slow decay of the Republic. The ruling classes died off in civil wars and proscriptions, to be replaced by a de novo ruling class which, in the incipient empire, could not continue to hold prominence in the Senate, the courts, or the battlefield. All these honours belonged now to the princeps and his increasingly professionalized corps of civil servants.

Continuously in print, this remains an important contribution to our understanding of the fall of the Republic. It is, at times, turgidly dense, as Syme walks through the tangled family connections of the period. But his thoughts on the changing social structure of the time, the uses of propaganda, and the theory of government are vivid and insightful.

[Stephen · Rating 5 out of 5]

When Syme finally says "The revolution is over" (on page 451) you let out a sigh of relief too. Generations of anarchy, civil war, a time when you had to choose sides, with the losing side killed off through vengeful, extralegal means, this is all conveyed marvelously, frighteningly, with the depth of a great literary stylist. Names pass by in a bewildering array, none of whom are explained, as if you are in the center of Rome around the time of Julius Caesar gathering bits of information, none of which makes any sense. But you feel the power at stake and it shakes you. Time passes. Power changes hands. You survive. It makes a little more sense.

At each turn, Syme explains exactly what the choices were for those vying to subdue the country. You come away from this book with a deep knowledge of politics in a world without right and wrong. Not one second is wasted, in other words, detailing how the gods of Rome overlooking the Republic effected men's minds. Syme is as clear-headed as you'd hope a historian could be.

Hobsbawm, together with the liberal bourgeois historians of the 19th century, ask if history had finally slipped away from humanity during the crisis of the French Revolution. Syme doesn't argue for it; he shows that it did. When this happens we are often willing to experiment and try anything to prevent the destruction of a way of life. That's the feel of a revolution: there's nothing anyone can do to stop it. This brought out the guillotine in France; Rome had its proscription lists. The 20th century the atomic bomb, the firebombing of civilians. That's the crux of what Syme details. No one was in control because no one could be in control.

But then it was finally over. Augustus was in charge. Monarch, dictator, hero of the people, the first citizen, suppressor of public immorality - nice labels all, but in reality what the hell was he? Syme doesn't come out and say it. But in a nutshell, a necessary evil.

Syme had so absorbed the writers he studied that his work actually feels Roman. I look at him on the shelves and think he is no different from Tacitus. That's no accident - he said his prose style was sharpened on Tacitus and Sallust. In reading this history you wonder how you'd react. Would you just throw up your hands like those two historians did, incredulous that all has fallen apart?

The final chapters were especially outstanding when he shows how the revolution was secured in every facet of Roman and Italian life. You couldn't call it progress, even though the Republic could now fulfill its imperial aims, extending itself to the east, making forays into the perimeters. Rome may have been heading in this direction anyway but it didn't feel that way at the time. Peace had returned. Public opinion was manipulated to uphold the regime. There was mind control but at least there was peace.

Then there are the patriotic poets like Horace and Virgil, Rome's legacy to world culture. They did as much to shape public opinion as their benefactors demanded. And those benefactors wished to please power. In that, not much has changed in 2,000 years. Their relationship to power isn't to be condemned, since Syme won't condemn it, but like a great poet himself, Syme is under no illusion about the relationship between poetry and politics - it is everything - it is real.

[Al · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent work that explores the decay of the Republic and the establishment of the Principate, from 60 BC to AD 14. It uses extensive prosopographal evidence throughout, to outline extensive familial connections among the elite of the Republic in all three classes. Syme outlines the basis of power in the late Republic within three familiar themes: the consulate, the army and the tribunate. This was an extremely dense read, but very interesting in examining motives and methods in achieving not just electoral results to the consulship, but familial alliances and movement among the plebs, knights and patricians. Footnotes are limited to the essential primary and secondary source material. The bibliography is extensive and excellent. Syme also provides an appendix which lists by name and date all of the consuls from 80 BC to AD 14. He also provides family trees of the leading Roman families, such as the Metelli and the family of Augustus, and lists kinsmen of Cato, the Aemilii and the descendants of Pompeius. Once of the best one volume works on the late Republic.

[Robyn · Rating 5 out of 5]

"The" classic work on the Late Republic (before Gruen, which is largely in response to this book), Syme envisions the first century BC Roman world as a crumbling Republic inhabited by squabbling cliques of aristocrats and over-mighty generals. He classifies the shift between the true "Republic" before Sulla and the institution of the Principate in 27 BC as a true 'Revolution.' I love Syme, and I love his ideas, even if I don't entirely agree with his admittedly extremist arguement...

[Aurélien Thomas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Here's not a biography of Augustus. Here's an expose of how the Roman Republic ended (or did it?) and how a young man greedy for power would establish a new autocratic regime which would define Rome for about three hundred years. This is a political narrative, where the author focus intensely on the political factions, rivalries, families feuds, clash of personalities that would serve a brutal change of government; a change which, also, had been profound indeed. Echoing Tacitus, the author's conclusion about the emergence of the Principate, though, is actually blunt and uncompromising:

'it may be regarded merely as the legalization, and therefore the strengthening, of despotic power.'

One could accuse him of being politically influenced. After all, this was first published in 1939; in an international context which was witnessing the rise of totalitarian regimes all across Europe (fascistic rulers ridding their countries of inadequate regimes, in the name of law and order when civil unrests where threatening...). One could also accuse him of being cynical too. For him indeed, such Roman Revolution was not done out of political ideal, but, self-serving interests from selfish factions of all sorts -the corruption and greed of adventurers, financiers, and feuding families, who all saw in Augustus the defender of their privileges. One could accuse him to do so, yet...

Taking an original approach, the historian tackles his subject using prosopography. This not only allows him to show that, yes indeed, the Republic was inadequate and Julius Caesar a dictator, but, also and above all, that the volatiles factions then fighting each others were so intricately linked by common interest that the oligarchy was too strong to be easily overthrown... should one wish to overthrow it! Augustus, despite all the political slogans, knew better. He just had to tap into it to assert full power, his own coup; and, ruthless and ambitious as he was, he will not hesitate to do just that. Politicians putting self-interest before the common good may (*cough*) sound shocking (well…) but let's not forget how alien Roman politics was to ours. Taking the time to outline key political concepts, the historian also points in fact to a mindset ripe for dictatorship:

'Debauched by demagogues and largess, the Roman people was ready for the Empire and the dispensation of bread and games.'

With such view in mind, it becomes clearer why the likes of Mark Anthony, too conciliant perhaps, were doomed to fail anyway. The rot had already nested within long ago, and so they had to be rid off too. Ronald Syme, here, does a good job in debunking the silly justifications put forward for a war to be declared against him -for, of course, Cleopatra was no threat to Rome! But the propaganda machine had been oiled and fully worked: Actium (not the glorious and grandiose battle you may think it was) had been well exploited.

That is not to say Augustus' triumph wasn't revolutionary. It was, for it would change the constitution of the ruling class forever. But, such drastic changes were more the by-products of the civil wars and their consequences than the result of a clear and intended revolutionary will. Indeed, Augustus the populist would well reward his cronies and, as 'nobiles' had been decimated through intestine wars, the 'novi homines' would rise from all over (from the whole of Italy -newly united- to, later on, the barbarians Provinces). Roman citizenship was on the path of massive change indeed...

Is this a enlightening read on troubled events? Oh yes! Here's brilliant scholarship and a massive opus on one of the focal point in Roman history. It can be daunting too, though. Prosopography might be the most relevant and persuasive approach to deal with the subject, considering Roman society and politics, but, the whirlwind of names and volatiles factions parading in here surely can be confusing and mystifying too! Here is, undeniably, a long and challenging book to go through. Yet, the core argument of it all remains powerful. In fact, Augustus might be here exposed for who he, and his regime, might truly have been about. Was Tacitus right, then? Whatever: this has become a classic on the period!

[Czarny Pies · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ce livre etait le manuel d'un cours sur l'histoire de l'empire romaine que j'ai suivi il y a quarante ans quand j'etais etudiant a une universite anglo-saxonne sur le bord de Lac Ontario. Le professeur James Boake nous a fait comprendre que l'Auguste a eu un parcours identique a celle de Michel (plus tard Don) Corleone le protagonsite du Grand Bestseller de l'epoque le Parrain. Dans le Parrain, le jeune Michel fait son retour a New York apres avoir passe les deux annees precedentes dans les forces Americaines dans le theatre du Pacifique qui faisaient la guerre contre les Japonais. L'assassinat du frere aine de Michel par une des familles ennemis met la famille Corleone en crise. Alors, te jeune Michel surprend tout le monde. Il organise rapidement une contre-offensive qui aneantit la famille adversaire et retablit une dominance sans equivoque de la famille Corleone a New York. Alors Syme demontre que le jeune Octave (plus tard Auguste) a vite raile la faction des homines novi apres l'assassinat de Jules Cesar qui a mis leur hegemonie en peril.

Le message du professeur Boake etait qui la politique en Italie se faisait comme ca partout en Italie depuis les debuts de la Republique Romaine jusqu'a la triomphe de Risorgimento en 1871. Apres 1871, on voyait ces pratiques chez les familes mafiosi de Sicile, de New York et de Chicago.

La these de Syme semble bien tenir la route et est peut conteste depuis 1939 l'annee de lancement de "Roman Revolution".

Attention ce Roman Revolution est tout a fait incomprehensible pour ceux qui ne possedent pas une bonne connaissance de l'historie de l'epoque.

[l · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found most of it quite interesting - Syme traces the role of the 'oligarchy' in the fall of the Republic. It's not actually a difficult read - you are confronted with an intimidating onslaught of detail and the footnotes are in Greek or Latin but the chapters are short, he writes very clearly and has a sardonic tone which is quite amusing at times. I had thought from the introduction and the book's reputation that Syme's bias against Augustus would be much clearer and really detract from the book, but I didn't actually think it a major problem (maybe it's only because I've read worse in my really ill-conceived research project on Elagabalus.) In the chapters dealing with the Principate, Syme does get noticeably overly speculative about Augustus' motives but, imo, that isn't the interesting part of the book anyway - there are definitely more indepth studies of Augustan propaganda (Syme relies totally on texts so he limits himself). I liked that it gave you the sense of a society - the familiar historical figures being simply part of that. Anyway, I enjoyed it!

[A.J. Howard · Rating 5 out of 5]

Full review to come, but quick thought. Syme has me convinced that Octavian/Caesar/Augustus should be considered one of the most successful revolutionary leaders of all time, which has me thinking: perhaps the true mark of success for a revolutionary leader is that future generations no longer consider them truly revolutionary? Before I follow that logic to picturing George Will in a beret and Castro beard, I'll leave. Hopefully, more to come...

[Nick · Rating 5 out of 5]

Classic history of the rise of Augustus. Ruthless revolutionary changes Rome forever.

[Elliott · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a good book- a great book even. All interpretive history of Rome could be condensed to Gibbon and this book and shelves while lighter, would be no less rich. Five stars then.
Now that I've given this book its rightful due I do have my criticisms.
For its brilliance it is perhaps too smart for its own good. It is difficult to get past Syme in the classics department. His lens of the end of the Republic has not been changed in 80 years, and his narrative has been swallowed by popular culture.
This is of course no fault of Syme. The book had the (mis)fortune of being written and published concurrently with Weimar's Fall and Hitler's rise. The latter regime, as Italy, identified with all things Roman and certainly Syme's text became fused together as an angst amongst Western democracies that saw appeals to the poor as Augustan machinations, and Caesarian embryos. John Milius recently exploited this in his series Rome. All the Optimates are dour, aloof, and pudgy in a good humored Republican way. All the Populares are slick communicators, with a penchant for hidden sociopathy. Think of the latter as crude portrayals of the Hollywood left. With Syme you can easily find the portraiture that was used. This is not Syme's fault of course, just a tell as to how widespread his influence has been and who that is. He has crafted THE closing of every democratic society.
It should be noted however that Syme's analysis is not supported by the actual progression of history. His primary source is Tacitus and both befall the same problem of viewing history within a preconceived narrative, and backwards. Tacitus saw the hopelessness and precariousness of the plebes and criticized them for the hundreds of years of exploitation they had endured and had been locked into. Syme is gentler recognizing the limitations of the Republican government and how it was undone by its aloofness but still assumes that Augustus from the inexperienced teenager to the septuagenarian had a single authoritarian vision to realize. Syme, like Tacitus views it all backwards, as does the present era in appropriating his narrative. The problem is that the very real issues at the heart of the Republic's fall: income disparity, monopolies, exploitative labor practices, militarism, oligarchical power, deliberate moves to limit the franchise, and moneyed interests are accepted as proper and beyond control at least until one man either says differently (the Gracchi), or appropriates them himself (Augustus). The result is that rather than head off the issue by redistributing wealth for instance the focus is an absurd spotlight towards any potential Augustus'. Taking this to classics departments the spotlight is still on Augustus, ignoring these same issues in their historical contexts. Syme's book limits deeper study of Rome by investing its energies in a few figures at the expense of classes, labor relations, civic organisation and much more. Accordingly for all its very real brilliance this book does not provide a truly accurate history of the Republic's fall and it does not adequately answer the important "how," or "why."

[Steve · Rating 5 out of 5]

Capolavoro storico, si legge peraltro in modo quasi facile , scorrevole. Un lavoro forse di altri tempi (è del '36), ma ancora credo un riferimento assoluto per ricostruire la storia di quegli eventi , un tempo lontano ma poi così vicino a noi, dove uomini e donne posizionati in un altro tempo vivevano le relazioni, il potere il danaro, la politica, l'opulenza ...... molto interessante, consigliato.

[Francisco · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pesado, académico pero genial.

La lección que me llevo? No te preocupes mucho por los calificativos y nombres que usan tus políticos para el régimen que manejan. Mirá un poco más y te darás cuenta que detrás de tus repúblicas y democracias hay siempre una oligarquía que lleva la batuta.

Y que una revolución es simplemente el cambio de una oligarquía por otra. No importa como quiera llamarse.

[Vivianmorin · Rating 5 out of 5]

best book i've ever read

[Tom Ludwig · Rating 2 out of 5]

Too verbose

[C. Çevik · Rating 5 out of 5]

Muazzam bir çalışma.
Ronald Syme zamanında Türkiye'de, İstanbul Üniversitesi, Klasik Filoloji'de de bulunmuş bir otoritedir.

[Paul · Rating 5 out of 5]

not only the story of dives julius and divi filius, but that of bureaucracy, oligarchy, the way Roman society influenced its government.
written in a most engaging manner!

[Miranda Alford]

Not exactly the most exhilarating text, a little bit dense and some parts were a little bit unnecessary. But I'm pleased I've read it?? I think? Sense of achievement rather than actual use to me I think.

It was interesting to see that the political background of Syme's times influenced his opinions on the Roman republic. History never repeats itself huh?

[Tom Schulte · Rating 2 out of 5]

The "Roman Revolution" was more of years of civil war that seen a military despot (Julius Caesar) traded for August the autocrat; the war-like Roman city-state emerged from its bloody throes a domineering empire with a monarchy with not really much in the way of republican ideals.

Octavius was named in Caesar's will as his adopted son and heir, then known as Octavianus (Anglicized as Octavian). This author eschews that Anglicization even to the point of calling Mark Antony Marcus Antonius. All those -ius suffixes this Anglicized reader found wearying. Surely, the author is in the right here, as he obviously knows his Roman history in detail. He speeds through it like a fanboy reeling off Marvel Comics back stories of minor characters. Before I even absorb the fact there were 800 to a thousand senators at any one time during this period, he is off on the available details of the nearly lost career of some of them.

The story is told in three acts. Act I, Octavian, Mark Antony, and Marcus Lepidus formed the Second Triumvirate to defeat the assassins of Caesar. Act II: War! My copy has extensive marginalia from the previous reader, often about place names. It makes me realize this book needs some maps for the years of conflict about the Mediterranean.

Following their victory at the Battle of Philippi, the Triumvirate divided the Roman Republic among themselves and ruled as military dictators. The Triumvirate was eventually torn apart by the competing ambitions of its members. Lepidus was driven into exile and stripped of his position, and Antony committed suicide following his defeat at the Battle of Actium by Octavian in 31 BC. Actium, here, is shown to have nationalistic impact on developing the Roman identity like Yorktown for us. Because, this is as much about the unification of Italy and an identity for the entire peninsula as hub to the provinces.

Act III: Consolidation and establishment. After the demise of the Second Triumvirate, (now named) Augustus restored the outward façade of the free Republic, with governmental power vested in the Roman Senate, the executive magistrates, and the legislative assemblies. (So much for the rewards of revolution, but the weary populace and subjugated peoples were ready for a new godhead on the throne.) Princeps Civitatis ("First Citizen of the State") oversaw a constitutional framework became known as the Principate, the first phase of the Roman Empire.

[Bonnie_blu · Rating 5 out of 5]

First published in 1937, "The Roman Revolution" was a ground-breaking masterpiece that forever changed how historians look at ancient Rome. Some of Syme's conclusions were extremely controversial for years, but a great many historians now agree that his approach of looking at the events of 60 BCE - 14 CE as being greatly influenced, if not precipitated, by the histories and interactions of Rome's leading families is vital to understanding this crucial period in Western history. As Syme writes: "The nobiles by their ambition and their feuds, had not merely destroyed their spurious republic: they had ruined the Roman People. There is something more important than political liberty; and political rights are a means, not an end in themselves. That end is security of life and property: it could not be guaranteed by the constitution of Republican Rome. Worn and broken by civil war and disorder, The Roman people was ready to surrender the ruinous privilege of freedom and submit to strict government as the beginning of time....So order came to Rome." In other words oligarchies will go to any (often short-sighted) extreme to protect their interests, even if it results in their eventual destruction. His work is as important today as it was in 1937, and is an essential read for anyone interested in Roman history in particular, and Western history in general.

[Reid · Rating 4 out of 5]

Syme is in complete control of his subject matter and this is not a book intended for the novice Roman history student. In a little over 500 pages, Syme gives us a multi-faceted look at the end of the Republic and the gradual evolution of the Principate. Syme's narrative chapters are insightful and exceptionally apt, conveying a plethora of events in easy flow, while exploring some of the more difficult aspects/dilemmas for the Roman historian. Unfortunately, the specfics of the later chapters, dealing with certain aspects of the Principate and Rome under Augustus, tend to become overbearing and it really takes a lot of concentration to push through. I'm very glad I finished but it was a tough last half of the book. In terms of a general approach to the end of the Republic, Syme triumphs, keeping rival factions and families divorced and hiding some of the clutter that enters his later chapters. A dense, scholarly tome, limited in scope and limitless in depth, an unparalelled study of Augustus.

[Peter Crouse · Rating 1 out of 5]

Learned yes, but extremely poor delivery. Filled with facts about obscure members of the senatorial elite who I really could care less about. Distractingly too many footnotes, most of which in untranslated Latin. The focus on oligarchic "factions" and party takeovers would certainly have resonated in the 1930s and 40s, but comes across today as being dated. This is the failed attempt of an academic study of the roman aristocracy trying to come across as popular history. Could not finish

[Sean · Rating 5 out of 5]

Magesterial.

[Carlos Wang · Rating 5 out of 5]

閱讀了一段時間的羅馬史後，時不時在許多著作中看到學者提起《羅馬革命》，特別是中國許多研究者都大力推崇，心久仰之，不惜從海外購了一本原文回來膜拜。對，膜拜而已。我的語文能力實在太差，越級打怪真的太不自量力。

後來看到北京商務推出“古典文明譯叢”，書目中有這本書，實在心喜若狂，待一出版後，就立刻購入一睹為快。



羅納德‧塞姆(Ronald Syme)，出生在紐西蘭，後來在牛津大學任教，於1939年戰雲密布的時候推出了這本《羅馬革命》(The Roman Revolution)，照義大利古典學者莫里米亞諾(A.D.Momigliano)所說，因為其內容在當時的政治環境中顯然有些敏感，所以這本大做開始時並不怎麼被待見，要到戰後才開始發光發熱。

正如我們所知，二十世紀初期是個獨裁者橫行歐洲的年代，而奧古斯都實則是這些人的“祖師爺”，這樣的說法並不為過。塞姆這本大作正是描述從蘇拉奪權到提比略接班為止，羅馬從共和轉向帝制的經過。

像這樣主題的書多如過江之鯽，而塞姆的書還能被公認為經典，在於他運用了十九世紀德國學者格爾澤爾(Matthias Gelzer)開創的從貴族關係網路研究政治史的手法，觀察奧古斯都是怎麼在內戰及公民權擴大之際，從義大利自治市的上層階及中找到自己的追隨者，完成了凱撒沒有做到的“革命”，並將之交接傳承給提比略，讓帝制成為穩定的政體。羅馬名為共和，實為寡頭統治，政權把握在各大門閥氏族之手，偶爾才有幾個“新人”可以冒出，故此，在研究其政治時，忽略了這些彼此聯姻、鬥爭跟陰謀詭計的貴族，是難以想像的。格爾澤爾在十九世紀首開這條路徑，而塞姆則發揚光大，運用了各種考古結果及古代文獻，充分的觀察了共和末期的每個在政治界中的“行動者”之間的關係網路，為讀者描繪出了一幅充滿洞見的圖景。

當然，同樣的，這樣一本學術著作，塞姆開宗明義即表明，他不會浪費太多筆墨在描述眾所皆知的史實上，也就是說，讀者自己要熟悉這段故事才行。這是一本非常進階的讀物。



本書共三十三個章節，塞姆在前面幾章分析了人物跟關係網路，中間分析了奧古斯都政權的成立，最後再評論其功業。個人印象最深刻的是塞姆對於幾位重要人物的評論。

首先，作者先簡單的分析了一下共和的政體，基本上他認為在末期，由於成就了的帝國霸業，導致顯貴集團急速的腐敗，早年那團結對外的精神被拋到九霄雲外，人人只顧在這場“腐屍宴”中爭奪私人的利益。他們分黨結派，擁護一些強人出來代言自己，參與這場遊戲。

從中第一個冒出頭的是蘇拉，但他仍護佑著顯貴階級的利益。接著而來的龐培則藐視跟摧毀前人的成果，塞姆指出，就算在內戰中最終勝出的是龐培，我們也沒有理由相信他是想要恢復共和的，更有可能的是另外一種形式的武力統治，作者甚至認為，說不定最終結果倒在元老院裡那尊雕像旁的就是龐培自己！對加圖等共和派來說，龐培只是危害急迫性較低，可供利用的棄子。另外，塞姆在文中深深的讚譽了龐培在東方的帝國主義事業，他認為其針對各希臘化諸國的安排非常到位，以至於接手的凱撒、安東尼乃至奧古斯都都加以繼承。或許我們應該要重新修正對龐培的看法。



對於凱撒，塞姆並不做道德上的批判。作者並不認為他就是天生的獨裁者(有別於蒙森)，凱撒至少在盧比孔河前也是想在體制內繼續遊戲，一旦越過後，他就必須正視名存實亡的共和的百孔千瘡。塞姆認為凱撒是亞歷山大的繼承者，他想建立的是一個神權君主制，融合了各民族的世界帝國。這種觀念在當時，要不就太過前衛，不然就是異常保守。不管怎樣，凱撒知道自己腹背受敵，這樣的困局讓他甚至覺得自己“活的夠久”。作者更說，也由於凱撒太“前進”，以至於他甚至忽略了自己“黨派”的利益，以至於原本那些支持他的人都參與了刺殺，象徵了其事業的最終失敗。塞姆的語調藏著中立，對於共和派的人他也只是淡淡的說“自由與法律的背後其實是特權與利益”。他認為當時的每個行動者也都只是維護己身的利益，沒有什麼是非對錯的問題。



塞姆對安東尼的評論是我目前看過書中最不同的觀點。傳統對此人的評價可能不脫HBO的那部“Rome”電視劇中的形象-或許個性直率，有勇無謀的莽夫。作者認為這只是因為其為失敗者的一種偏見，做為後期凱撒的左臂右膀，甚至多次把羅馬首都委任給他，其在處理事務上的手腕很難想像是個庸才。在塞姆的眼中，安東尼的弱點是在於其個性中的那種“俠義”，他沒有那種政客的權變，才是在跟屋大維鬥爭中落敗的原因。3月15日之後，安東尼並不糾纏在報仇上，他嘗試跟共和派取得和解，爭取自己的安全，跟著讓凱撒的所有政令合法化，完成了對羅馬的控制，從中就可以看出其手腕。但安東尼不幸的是，他遇見的對手是放在世界史上都屬頂級水準的人。

西塞羅是個很難評論的人。他在文壇上是主角，政壇上二流。雖然曾經貴為祖國之父，但對於共和國的衰亡卻無能為力，他贏得了各方的尊重，但也僅只於此而已，沒有一個巨頭真把他當回事。這或許跟他本身的性格野有關係，布魯圖斯的評論道破了一切：「為了他想要的一切：榮譽與地位，西塞羅是可以甘心被奴役的。」但追求至高榮耀是羅馬人的傳統，這並沒有錯。真正的問題在於毛澤東的一句話：「槍桿子出政權。」不懂兵的西塞羅，注定講話沒有底氣。塞姆對於西塞羅在凱撒死後的最後一博有些讚許，但更多的是冒險，他樂觀的看待自己的政治判斷，錯看了一個十九歲少年的政治智慧，以為自己可以輕易駕馭他。但或許這不是西塞羅的錯。凱撒看中屋大維，但未必認為這孩子這麼早就能接自己的班。至少，無兵無權的西塞羅，終於為自己的理想把性命都賠上了。



不太明白譯者為什麼堅持把大家熟知的屋大維(Octavian)譯成渥大維，但不管怎樣至少比“奧克塔維亞”好。

最近看網路上有人用一段話評論金正恩：「他有今天的地位，是他運氣好；他能夠坐到現在，是技術好。」

屋大維也是。

安東尼評論屋大維能得到其所有的，都是拜繼承凱撒之名所賜。此言不假，但也僅止於此，這一個二十歲不到的青年，在這樣險惡的環境中，憑著其超年齡的政治智慧登上羅馬世界的頂峰，不可能全然是運氣。

屋大維很清楚知道政治的規則，要有權力，錢、名譽、軍團缺一不可，而要鞏固統治，擁有自己黨羽更是必須的要件。屋大維利用凱撒的名號爭取到了老兵的支持，這是第一步，接下來更高明的是，他向廣大的義大利自治市的顯貴們伸出了橄欖枝，這是塞姆認為其最終成就霸業的最重要舉措。當羅馬被逼開始把公民權向整個半島開放時，一個地方勢力抬頭的趨勢就不可阻擋。凱撒之所以讓高盧人加入元老院，除了要削弱舊顯貴力量外，相信也是看到了這股洪流。屋大為沒有他那麼激進，這個青年決定先爭取離他更近，力量更強，也更不容易引起反彈的騎士階級跟各自治市顯貴成為自己的黨羽。這些人有錢，也有能力可以幫助他完成霸業，更重要的是，能夠讓他達成階級替換。舊顯貴階級是不會接受他們的奴役的，凱撒失敗了，屋大維不會重蹈覆轍。

不過在這之前，我們看到的是屋大維的權變，剛起步時他完全無法跟已經取得政權的安東尼抗衡，於是他跟西塞羅聯手，在削弱了安東尼實力後，再倒打一把，組成後三頭，發動公敵宣告運動，開始他的第一步，剷除異己，然後藉著安東尼的手，布魯圖斯等共和派殘餘被清除了。

後三頭開始時，屋大維的實力還是不足以跟安東尼抗衡，他在羅馬市民心中還是個英雄，但有弱點。在屋大維成就霸業的路上，有兩個人是必不可少，一個是替他打仗的阿格里帕，另外一個則是梅塞納斯，此人堪稱是古代版的戈培爾，他的成就並不比前者低。

宣傳戰是羅馬政治中不可或缺的一種手段，正所謂“名正言順”，沒有掌握大義名分，怎麼號召人們追隨你？一個聲名狼藉的人，很難想像他有什麼作為。在羅馬官場抓小辮子抹黑造謠，根本就是家常便飯，像霍騰修斯、西塞羅這樣雄辯滔滔的人，在當時被人畏懼三分也不是沒有道理。塞姆認為安東尼的性格上是有缺失的，所以耐心的屋大維利用他遠離羅馬的情況下，一直等待機會不斷的抓他的小辮子，然後放大宣傳汙名化，雖然安東尼也不是沒有反擊，但在這方面顯然他被梅塞納斯甩開了不知幾條街。但屋大維即使在亞克興之戰前，也沒有把矛頭直指安東尼，要說服羅馬人民再打一場內戰並不易，他的目標是那位埃及女王克里奧佩托拉。這場戰役被打成一場民主跟邪惡的東方專制的較量，屋大維不只讓羅馬而是動員整個義大利起來參戰，這是他踏出的更重要的一步。塞姆說安東尼必不如古代文獻所說的惑於女王手中，但他或許夢想著亞歷山大的偉業，這並不是羅馬人想要的，所以才被屋大維一步一步打垮。這場戰爭是“東方”與“西方”的較量，是兩個文明的衝突。塞姆認為，如果這場戰爭是安東尼贏了的話，羅馬的東方化或許會提前一兩百年上演，但當時的條件尚不充分，君士坦丁能搬移首都，安東尼則做不到。

勝利的屋大維其實接下來的挑戰更大。他要接手的一個千瘡百孔的羅馬，怎麼同時完成穩固權力結構跟重建祖國，是屋大維的難題。他首先處理了軍團，這群常常被忽略，卻又非常重要的行動者，在內戰後令人震驚的數量，不好好安置恐怕立馬生變。屋大維無意再進行財產調整，他明智的把軍團職業化，以餉金跟退休金酬庸，對於冗員則是安排殖民地去屯墾，讓他們成為散播文化跟隱藏的權力點，一舉兩得。

塞姆花了幾章分析屋大維重建的共和晉身之階，但簡單的來說，這是他用來酬庸支持自己的核心集團的工具，同時也是融合部分在內戰中倖存的舊顯貴。屋大維重建了貴族階級，讓他們可以跟騎士階級互相流動，擁有共同的利益，然後一起支持唯一的元首。


解決這兩個最重要的問題後，剩下的就是怎麼傳承下去。不論是命運女神的作弄還是宮廷陰謀，總之，幾乎每個屋大維的血緣接班人都先他而去，最終結果是由他的繼子提比略獲得寶座。即便如此，為了順利交接，屋大維也花了不少心血。先讓提比略從日耳曼打到多瑙河，建立無數戰功贏得軍團尊敬，再讓他憑著資歷跟古老克勞迪家族血脈取得顯貴認可，才順利的完成權力轉移。

塞姆試圖告訴我們的是，即便是屋大維，也不是隨意就可以王座交給自己屬意的人。要成為羅馬帝國的最高權力者，沒有貴族(財富)跟軍團(武力)的支持是不可能的。或許從中我們可以理解，三世紀後為什麼“皇帝”如走馬換燈般的來來去去。

屋大維被尊稱為“奧古斯都”，這個頭銜個人覺得其實並不過譽。認真的觀察他一生的成就，基本上屋大維可以算是重建了整個帝國，沒有他，或許羅馬將會像亞歷山大死後的希臘世界那樣分裂成軍閥混戰的時代。屋大維不只給予了人民需要的秩序與安全，他還企圖在人們腐敗墮落的心靈上重建一個共同的道德，一種精神觀，不論是否成功，至少屋大維確實在重塑一個民族。塞姆指出，就算是塔西陀這樣狠辣的批判者，也不得不承認屋大維的功業，還有共和國是“回不去了”。屋大維建立的體制維持了一兩百年，到戴克理先、君士坦丁才又重整一次，雖然不無缺陷，但世界上本來就沒有可能存在一個永遠長治久安的政府，至少他讓國家穩定的存在了很長的時間。

屋大維是天之驕子，他體弱多病，但卻意外的長壽，足夠讓他在驚濤駭浪中穩定的航行。他也是蘇拉、馬略、龐培、安東尼，甚至是凱撒之中最具政治天賦的一位。屋大維很清楚自己的路，也懂得在這過程中他什麼最重要，什麼是次要的，還有���麼是可以拋棄的。前面的幾位在這點上，正如作者塞姆指出的都有明顯的缺點，所以失敗了。

屋大維的一生是所有後世獨裁者的最佳模範，有慧根的人可以從中得到很多啟發。我們也不難理解為什麼墨索里尼也想跟他葬在一起，雖然我覺得屋大維會嗤之以鼻。不過不管怎樣，“奧古斯都”跟“凱撒”都成為歐洲最高權力者的代名詞，是其來有自的。至於塞姆，雖然他力圖保持中立，也沒有塔西陀那樣的批判，不過我們還是可以感受出來他所在書中隱約暗示的，用奴役去換取安全與秩序的必要性問題。





一般來說，塞姆比較容易為人詬病的是，他在書中使用了“黨”(Party)跟“革命”(Revolution)的詞句，前者容易讓人跟現代政黨產生誤解，後者則是意義不精確或模糊。事實上仔細讀完內容，就會知道作者在這方面其實掌握的不算差，就像在中國史上提到的“黨”，也不該把它時空錯置。塞姆希望表達的是一群為了各種不同特殊目的，而以某一強人聚集而成的團體。而革命，指的是一種階級流動跟政體的轉變。不要混淆。



最後，不得不盛讚的是本書的譯者呂厚量老師，這是我讀過他第二部譯作，基本上依舊堪稱非常出色的完成了這項任務，將如此經典的作品帶入了華文圈中，也希望他能夠持續不懈的耕耘，造福更多後輩學子。

[Armand R.R. · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Roman Republic — Definitive History

Reviewed, Ronald Syme, The Roman Revolution (1939, Clarendon Press, Oxford University, ISBN 0-19-881001-6, Kindle EBook).

Mr. Syme fleshes out the world of Roman civil war leading to the fearsome purges of the Triumviri through the precarious beginnings of a sickly, youthful heir to Caesar, who was scoffed for his sickbed rest during the most critical junctures of Roman warfare, but who for all of that was the designated heir of the slain Julius Caesar, and who had the gift, it is not to much to say genius, for formation of alliances, as well as for the marshaling of societal forces and the transformation and renewal, even reinvigoration of Rome’s institutions, and for the transformation of a chaotic, contentious Republic, sometimes brutally, into a Principate, a virtual Monarchy, which, for all the loss of ancient freedoms, kept the peace and promoted the arts and letters, the poetry and history of which were already recognized by contemporaries as Classical Literature.

In the end, there is much in the times to disillusion the lover of liberty and free speech, much that shocks the conscience — not least, the propensity of Augustus to sacrifice his own loved ones — a dear daughter and even a granddaughter — upon the altar of his own Principate, his ideals, his hypocritical public morality, but above all, his own power.

Mr. Syme eschews biography, but he draws unforgettable portraits of countless worthy women and men, while he narrates the evolution of Rome into a worldwide Empire with a whole body of able administrators, jurists and public servants — both in the army, navy and in a virtual civil service administration based in surprising measure on merit.

Mr. Syme lives and loves his subject, and he loves to quote richly from Tacitus, Horace, Virgil, Dio, Livy, even Cicero, for which the reader needs to let the Latin rhythms roll lovingly off the tongue. (I am illiterate in Latin, but am well familiar with Oxford classical pronunciation of Classical Latin and love how it rolls off the tongue, and am using useful manuals to make up my own lack in the language).

Ronald Syme, The Roman Revolution, should be read with the authoritative volumes of H.H. Scullard and Mary Beard.

I give Ronald Syme‘s work the highest of recommendations. His is a work I will advert to repeatedly.

The Kindle Ebook handles the work well, with a very few misprints.

[Jenn Phizacklea · Rating 3 out of 5]

I can only describe this book as heavy going. If you want to know about this time period, I recommend you start with a good translation of Plutarch, The Civil Wars by Caesar, or in modern works, Augustus by Adrian Goldsworthy. This work by Syme is largely an overview of Ancient authors anyway.

To be frank, I don’t enjoy Ronald Syme’s work. It is old-fashioned in its way of approaching the subject (not surprising noting its year of publication), and far too prescriptive. It offers answers as though they are set in stone to questions which are still very much open questions - again, of its time. This is not helped by the fact that the language is unnecessarily dense (in the sense of, it needs a lot of unpacking); most ‘everyday’ readers would need a dictionary to read through the first few chapters.
And don’t even get me started on the liberal untranslated passages of Latin in the notes and in quotes.

As to Syme’s slant on things, here are some notes I wrote as a clawed my desperate way through this book, for what they’re worth:

- The first half is basically a review of ancient writers that can be read, in good translations, much more engagingly than here. In many ways, it’s little more than an overview - and not an especially readable one. It doesn’t dive in, but skims over the surface of events in a disconcerting way.

- About halfway through: we hit a new angle, called ‘glaring personal bias’.
Syme comes across as entirely one eyed (in the positive) when it comes to Marcus Antonius, and equally one eyed (in the negative) about Octavian/Augustus.
In his view, the propaganda against Fulvia and Marcus Antonius was excessive and no doubt exaggerated; but not so with Augustus - he must have been worse even than he was painted in the slanderous propaganda. Sure it was, Syme.

- Nearing the final quarter: Irritated and over it.
A perfect example of what’s irritating me: he’s talking about the Battle of Actium. He states that a clear record no longer exists for the event, so we can’t say what really happened; but he then goes on to declare that Actium was a non-event, a ‘shabby affair’, and no battle at all. He says that all the records that state that there was a battle must be propaganda.