The Roman Revolution by Ronald Syme (PDF)

Description

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, refersseldomly to modern authorities, and states controversial opinions quite openly. The result is a book which is both fresh and compelling.

User’s Reviews

Reviews from Amazon users which were colected at the time this book was published on the website:

⭐This is a monumental and absolutely first rate work of scholarship. It covers the period roughly from Marius to Tiberius, which saw the fall of the traditional oligarchic republic and its replacement by the despotic monarchy as designed by Augustus. While it has a great deal about the politics, it also addresses issues related to the administration of the Empire.Following the empowerment of the Tribunes of the People under the Gracchi brothers – enabling popular assemblies to make law, originally the exclusive province of the Roman Senate – and the expansion of the empire beyond Italy, Syme argues, the Roman Republic entered a period of unprecedented crisis. Not only did the army gain political power as enforcer and monopoly holder of organized military means, but the subject peoples became interested in accessing and influencing the old-style oligarchy. Moreover, with the multiple new avenues of power, including mob-inciting demagogues who ruled the streets, a cacophony of laws were promulgated (or more often, blocked). The result was over a century of recurring civil war, which invariably erupted during certain crucial transfers of power at the change of the yearly consulship. It was only Augustus who solved the equation of who should wield power with the creation of a kind of monarchy, in this view.Prior to this crisis, Rome was governed much as a Greek City State, with a narrow local elite taking advantage of its subject peoples to support their power games via the extraction of their wealth; responsibilities were thrust onto governors (for periods too short to learn much about their provinces) who had little knowledge of administration and cared nothing for the welfare of local subjects. The Roman Oligarchy had ruled for hundreds of years in this way, transferring power on a yearly basis to consuls as voted by the Senate, which prevented the development of autocratic power. It was essentially an aristocracy of Patricians (descendants of those who overthrew the monarchs) and rich Plebians who had achieved military glory in times of crisis (e.g. the Scipios, who defeated Hannibal). The Senators had to maintain their prestige through lavish displays of wealth in public events but also to help their client base, all for the glory of their families. Rather than parties or ideology, their power was based on family alliances as extended by a loyal “clientele” sworn to mutual assistance. Underneath them were the equestrians, who were businessmen and local aristocrats in the provinces; they made money instead of seeking glory. Finally, there was the proletariat. Only rarely did “new men”, such as the military genius Caius Marius, arise to hold power in times of external threat.Politically, this system worked reasonably well until Rome became a Mediterranean superpower. First, the source of soldiers – gentleman farmers – proved inadequate to the requirements for years of military service: they were too few and had to work the fields regularly or face ruin. This opened the way to the establishment of a professional army by Marius, in which the proletariat and anyone else could serve for wages and make a career. Second, the subject peoples of Rome wanted the same rights as the citizens; they rebelled violently and were suppressed with increasing frequency. With the opportunities that the Tribunate offered to go over the heads of the Senatorial oligarchy, the great general Marius created a new structure of power, which included both his loyal soldiers and the proletariat as well as the provincials. Sulla, Marius’ protegé and then rival for power, attempted to reinstall the old oligarchy in a bloody civil war that wiped out a vast array of political talent from ranks of the oligarchy and equestrians. It was here that the powerful generals – Pompey (allied with provincials) and soon Julius Caesar (a patrician favoring the “common man”) – emerged to battle the old oligarchy in a conflict that eventually could have destroyed the Republic.While still a teenager, Octavian (mysteriously adopted by Caesar just prior to his assassination and later known as Augustus) then stepped into the breach and after much struggle completely reshaped the power structure. The true genius of Augustus, according to Syme, is that he was able to use the power of the armies – he gained command of the most important nearby legions in case of need – while channeling the ambitions of citizens into service for Rome (and for himself, of course). He did this by creating legitimate outlets for the energies of ambitious men of talent (as military officials but also as professional administrators), who served the state and empire rather than constantly maneuvered for executive power within the oligarchy. Essentially, in addition to opening administration to talent from the provinces, Augustus made a major step in the establishment of the apparatus for a more modern state, replacing the amateurish behavior of non-professionals that was the hallmark of Greek City States.This is a wonderful interpretation that makes many aspects of Roman history comprehensible beyond naked grabs for personal power and glory. In Syme’s view, the huge Roman Empire had become ungovernable by the fractious oligarchy, denuded as it was of talent over the previous 100 years of civil war; Augustus buried the old oligarchy while maintaining the appearance of the republic’s institutions, bringing order at the price of liberty, which an exhausted citizenry welcomed. There is no doubt that much of this is accurate, in my opinion.That being said, Syme makes many judgments that I found questionable, though they are nuance rather than the core ideas that I find very sound. He portrays Augustus as a proto-totalitarian, while I think he was a simple despot. He likes both Marc Anthony and Tiberius, while I think they were mediocre libertines. These are things we can never know, of course, so my interpretation is personal.Regarding Syme’s method, I want to add a note of caution for the reader. He assumes a certain level of knowledge; if the reader lacks it, the book will be very rough going and dry. You need to know not only who Sulla and Cato are, but also Livius Drusus, Crassus, the Metelli, and many many others. Syme did not intend to retell any of the stories attached to them. You also need to know the history and chronology from about 150 bc to 30 ad. If you have this grounding, the book is truly a joy of subtle interpretation and analysis accomplished by a great master scholar, who knows every obscure scrap of written sources that supports his case. The book also has a quirky, though elegant writing style.This is one of the best books on Roman history that I have ever read, but it is not for casual readers. You need to be something of a Roman history buff before you read this, either at the gradual level or having read the wonderful historical novels of McCullough. With these caveats, I recommend this book with the greatest enthusiasm.

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

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

⭐Covering perhaps the most important period in Roman history as the republic shattered under the excessive abuses of the military dynasts from Marius through to Julius Caesar, and Octavian took over and created the Principate or empire, the book is a must. Syme explores many issues of critical importance such as the date at which the empire can truly be said to have started, and the means employed by Octavian, later Augustus, of holding monarchic power whilst avoiding the fate of Caesar his predecessor. The book suffers slightly from antiquated writing style, but is still a must both for those interested in Roman history generally who can see embodyied in Augustus many of the qualities of the empire right through to the 4th century and to the scholar of Augustus.

⭐This is a sweepingly intelligent analysis of the end of the Roman Republic and the opportunism of Octavian/Augustus who was just a teenager when Caesar was assassinated. It’s not by any means an easy read (partly because of Syme’s indiosyncratic but weirdly fascinating writing style) or a quick one, but it’s well worth the trouble. Probably not a good starting point for anyone new to this period but still an absolute classic.

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

⭐Although obviously influenced by the events of the late 1930s in Germany, this is an amazingly detailed study of the personalities and political factions that changed Rome forever.

Keywords

Free Download The Roman Revolution in PDF format
The Roman Revolution PDF Free Download
Download The Roman Revolution 2002 PDF Free
The Roman Revolution 2002 PDF Free Download
Download The Roman Revolution PDF
Free Download Ebook The Roman Revolution