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

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #22952 in Books
• Published on: 2002-08-08
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 592 pages

About the Author
Sir Ronald Syme (1903-1989), one of the most distinguished Roman historians, was Camden Professor of Ancient History at Oxford University. In addition to numerous awards and honors, he collected honorary degrees in eleven countries on five continents.

Customer Reviews

'THERE IS ALWAYS AN OLIGARCHY SOMEWHERE'
This great work of scholarly history was first published in June 1939. In his brief foreword Sir Ronald Syme speaks cryptically about its publication being a matter of some urgency. From that we have to infer that he saw it as having contemporary relevance. From a slow and careful reading I would add that we ought to be very careful and circumspect in how we draw parallels and apply lessons. I don't dispute for a moment that a thorough and precise examination of what was done over the turbulent transition from the later Roman republic to the principate gives deep insight into human motivations and political processes. However if one particular lesson comes over loud and clear to me it is how terminology can be distorted for political ends, deliberate or even unperceived. Those prone to assert that 'reading history' will in some inevitable way support some cherished preconception of their own will, if intelligent and attentive, gain a salutary insight into what history really consists of, and with that a perception of the pitfalls of dealing in glib generalisations and citing as convenient parallels things that are no parallels at all.

The first job of the historian is to clarify what really, or probably, happened and to interpret accurately or at least rationally what the sources for the period tell us. This is rarely a matter of simple fact in the sense that multiplication tables are simple fact. Syme's reasoning is bold and forthright, and while he has no claim to be taken as gospel he never seems to me perverse or unreasonable. I personally doubt that Antony was the straightforward and honest type portrayed by Syme - Syme himself can't get away from the part Antony played in the proscriptions. On the other hand he has every reason to ridicule Octavian's propaganda concerning the nonexistent threat posed to Rome from Antony's Egyptian queen and Octavian's official party line that elevated the naval skirmish at Actium into some mighty turning-point of history.

The story I read from Syme is as follows. The Roman republic was always part-sham. Its official mode of governance was by the senate and people, with the consuls as chief officers of government chosen at stated intervals by the people. Real power was exercised by shifting coalitions of nobles together with the unseen influence of the moneyed equestrian class. The values that weighed with both nobles and plebs were tradition and 'authority', there being no written constitution. There was certainly some flexibility, but it was rare for the plebs to choose as consuls anyone lacking aristocratic status. There was no concept of progress whatsoever, and democracy on the Athenian model was despised. 'Liberty' was largely theoretical, except in the sense that free speech was untrammelled to a degree we would never tolerate now. There was no pressure from any class for reform let alone revolution, but the knights and bankers were provoked at the peril of any who did so (as Catiline found to his cost), and the plebs were prone to periodic revolt, offering a power base successively to Marius and to Caesar. Blatant inversion of the meaning of the laws was the stock-in-trade of anyone with a mission, invoking some higher interpretation as suited. Indeed what Cicero tried to do in opposition to Antony was much what he boasted of having repressed as consul in relation to Catiline. Gradually a single figure came to be dominant in the power-struggles. Sulla brutally put down the adherents of Marius in the name of restoring the right-and-proper dominance of his fellow aristocrats. However when Sulla thought his work done he simply resigned. Not so Pompey or Caesar. They sought personal dominance in a way Sulla had not done. Pompey was a brute, Caesar to some extent genuinely liberal (although I see no reason to believe that any Roman republican leader had any opinion except contempt for the plebs). However on attaining power Caesar went back basically to the status quo ante, but took the unprecedented step of accepting dictatorship for life and appointing a successor, something not even Sulla had contemplated.

From there on fate favoured Octavian. His luck was phenomenal, his ruthlessness total, his skill in balancing interests and oligarchies unprecedented, and his mendacity instinctive and brilliant. He was the butcher of Perusia and the co-tyrant of the proscriptions, and he never really changed. He was by no means all-powerful, but he eviscerated the old aristocratic oligarchies and established his own. Unrest had suited him during his rise, stability after he reached the top. He had a genuine Roman respect for tradition, but he had a populist sense that the plebs would be kept on-side with a better water-supply. He knew a good idea when he saw it, and he first supported Egnatius Rufus and his private-enterprise fire-brigade until he realised Egnatius was a danger, at which point he executed Egnatius and nationalised the fire-brigade. He removed occasions of unrest by paying off retired soldiers with money rather than letting them loose to seize land in Italy, and he paid provincial governors a salary to reduce problems to himself from their practice of extortion. Throughout, he adopted the old names and titles while systematically inverting what was done in their name.

Syme has had to interpret the sources, and I have had to interpret Syme. That's history for you. It is a matter of using our brains, and it won't just prove what we prefer it to prove. In the last resort this history gives no comfort whatsoever to my own enthusiasm for democracy. In the first place Romans disliked that idea, and in the second they traded their once-cherished 'libertas' (such as it ever was) for stability, such as it turned out to be. Augustus established a monarchy, leaving a successor of last choice who, as a Roman noble (unlike Augustus), wanted supremacy but hated the form of supremacy he inherited. It all lasted for 400 or 500 effective years. The thousand-year Reich of 1939 lasted all of 12, the British Empire roughly 150, the Soviet empire some 40 or 70 depending on when we start counting, and the New American Century looks dead in the water already. It was the creation of one city and of one man, through oligarchies of course. Go figure.

Still perhaps the classic alongside Mommsen
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.

Syme's Controversial Masterwork
This is without doubt Syme's masterwork. The praise has been lavish. A.J.P. Taylor said it was a "work of brilliant scholarship which can be enjoyed by the expert and the layman alike". Sir Maurice Bowra said "his work is extraordinarily persuasive and interesting, it is the best book on Roman History that has appeared for many years." The Classical Review wrote that is the "one of the most important books on Roman history since Mommsen.

Need more reasons to read it? Well, I'll try. I'll start by saying that this is one of the top 25 books I have read - though I by no means agree with everything Syme believes.

What Ronald Syme has done is to lay bare the workings of the late Republic and early Empire. To do this required an effort of scholarship and synthesis on a gargantuan scale. And yet Syme manages to render the story in a lucid, straightforward, compelling manner. His arguments are often ineluctable. You find yourself drawn along, at times unwillingly, to conclusions you thought far-fetched.

The period under scrutiny is 60 BC to AD 14. Thus he covers the last generation of the Republic and the first two or three of the Empire. In a nutshell his hypothesis is that the Republic simply was not equipped to manage what had become an empire. He believes that Rome was inevitably drawn to the rule of one.

He writes of Caesar: "The rule of the nobiles, he [Caesar] could see, was an anachronism in a world-empire; and so was the power of the Roam plebs when all Italy enjoyed the franchise. Caesar in truth was more conservative and Roman that many have fancied; no Roman conceived of government save through an oligarchy."

Augustus, however, was a different matter. And it was Augustus, believes Syme, who wrought the revolution that forever changed the Roman way of life. To suggest, as has some have done, that there was no true revolution, almost defies sense and logic. And Syme ably makes the case.

But aspects of the Syme's theory remain controversial. He 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." "Acriora ex eo vincula", as Tacitus observes.

Wow. This is breath taking and highly controversial. He might as well have been writing about pre-Nazi Germany (and note that Syme wrote "The Roman Revolution" in 1939). And, frankly, I must tell you I do not agree with his condemnation of the nobiles. Nor do others.

The most important voice in opposition remains that of Erich Gruen's. "The Last Generation of the Roman Republic" MUST be read alongside "The Roman Revolution." Gruen believes that the monarchy was in fact neither anticipated nor inevitable. And he strongly believes that the Republic was functioning quite well, thank you very much, and could in fact have coped with empire.