What do you think?
Rate this book
The Histories by Tacitus [Penguin Classics, 2009] (Paperback) Revised edition [Paperback]
The Histories by Tacitus [Penguin Classics, 2009] (Paperback) Revised edition...
Paperback
184 people are currently reading
5676 people want to read
About the author
Tacitus
3,045 books367 followersborn perhaps 55
died perhaps 120
From the death of Augustus in 14 Histories and Annals , greatest works of Publius Cornelius Tacitus, Roman public official, concern the period to Domitian in 96.
Publius Cornelius Tacitus served as a senator of the empire. The major portions examine the reigns of Tiberius, Claudius, Nero and those four emperors, who reigned in the year. They span the empire to the years of the first Jewish war in 70. One enormous four-books long lacuna survives in the texts.
Publius Cornelius Tacitus discusses oratory in dialogue format in Dialogus de oratoribus , Germania in De origine et situ Germanorum , and biographical notes about Gnaeus Julius Agricola, his father-in-law, primarily during his campaign in Britannia (see De vita et moribus Iulii Agricolae ).
died perhaps 120
From the death of Augustus in 14 Histories and Annals , greatest works of Publius Cornelius Tacitus, Roman public official, concern the period to Domitian in 96.
Publius Cornelius Tacitus served as a senator of the empire. The major portions examine the reigns of Tiberius, Claudius, Nero and those four emperors, who reigned in the year. They span the empire to the years of the first Jewish war in 70. One enormous four-books long lacuna survives in the texts.
Publius Cornelius Tacitus discusses oratory in dialogue format in Dialogus de oratoribus , Germania in De origine et situ Germanorum , and biographical notes about Gnaeus Julius Agricola, his father-in-law, primarily during his campaign in Britannia (see De vita et moribus Iulii Agricolae ).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 139 reviews
September 19, 2025
The Histories is the second volume of Tacitus’ magnum opus, outlining the moral degeneracy of imperial Roman politics. Fourteen books are thought to have originally been written; only five survive. These books detail the frenzied Year of the Four Emperors (AD 69): Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and Vespasian. It is a tale of power in disequilibrium and the rise of a new dynasty, the Flavian. Tacitus laments the bygone idyll of Roman Republicanism that was free from tyranny. As mentioned in my review of The Annals, this review of The Histories will analyse Tacitus’ moral historiography. I begin by providing an overview of moral historiography and how Tacitus uses it. I follow this with three brief critiques of moral historiography from Leopold von Ranke, E.H. Carr, and Keith Jenkins. I then conclude with a defence of moral historiography that partially builds on Carr’s theorisations.
If you enjoy my reviews and analyses, you’ll find more on my Substack, where you can also subscribe (no sign-up required): https://callumscolumn.substack.com/
There are two types of moral historiography. First, the historical evolution of morality; and second—which is the focus of this article—how morality influences the study and presentation of history. Joel Alden Schlosser describes it thus:
Tacitus does not present a formal theory of moral historiography. Instead, he interrogates the facts and delivers narrative judgements on those facts. Three edifying themes permeate The Histories. He asserts that Rome had “grown old and rotten” under imperial rule. Galba, for example, was not murdered for incompetence, as Caligula or Nero had been, but because Rome had degenerated into a normative state where murderous power struggles were perpetuated with impunity. Tacitus also evaluates individual actions, suggesting that personal vices or virtues determine one’s fate and that future leaders should learn from their predecessors. For instance, Vitellius’ reign—marked by hubris, avarice, and tyranny—ended in his decapitation and the disposal of his body in the Tiber. Tacitus ultimately concludes that checks on power can restore Roman virtue, hence his yearning for the Roman Republic—particularly a time before Gaius Marius and Lucius Sulla.
Tacitus’ interrogative method is echoed in the theorisation of Leopold von Ranke. In The Theory and Practice of History, Ranke famously states that the historian should show “how it actually was.” Like Tacitus, Ranke asserts that factual history can be articulated through critical examination of sources. Ranke diverges from Tacitus by positing that historians can achieve objectivity by sidelining personal biases and moral judgements when analysing facts. By impartially presenting facts within a logical narrative, societies of the past can be judged on their own terms. A historian should not serve a specific agenda but instead represent the “naked truth without adornment.” Through this methodology, Ranke argued that he had created a “scientific” understanding of the past. In The Histories, however, Tacitus reveals the gap between imperial proclamations and reality, showing that history may not be a neutral record but is shaped by interpretation. This implicitly challenges Ranke’s notion of objectivity, a critique later developed by E.H. Carr in What is History?
Like Ranke, Carr’s historiography is underpinned by fact-based sources. However, Carr counters Ranke’s claim of objective historicism with an analogy. Historical facts, according to Carr, are like fish on a fishmonger’s slab, ready to be prepared and consumed in the manner deemed best by the purchaser. This fish can be consumed and prepared in multiple ways, with new recipes possibly giving it different flavours. History is therefore “a continuous process of interaction between the historian and his facts, an unending dialogue between the present and the past.” A historian’s interpretation of the facts is contingent on their own time and context; consequently, Carr argues that moral judgments about the past cannot be based on universal principles. Thus, according to Carr, Tacitus’ moral analyses may not reflect a universal measure of right or wrong, but the anachronistic dynamics of power and decadence as he understood them in his own time.
Postmodernist historians extend Carr’s subjective lens. For example, Keith Jenkins argues that history is inherently subjective because the ontological past cannot be directly accessed. As a result, no singular meaning or true narrative of the past is possible; history becomes a literary construction where the historian interprets events as they see fit. History is a contested discourse, shaped by autobiographical perspectives that serve the interests of different groups. Ultimately, history is relative. However, Richard Evans, in In Defence of History, pushes back against postmodern relativism. According to Evans, despite the subjectivity of the historian, historical events remain objectively true. If all history is relative, then no historical event can be falsified. Someone’s “history” that proclaims Holocaust denial is theoretically of equal validity to that of Ian Kershaw’s seminal biography of Hitler. Such relativism is inherently a threat to historical scholarship.
What does this all mean for Tacitus’ moral historiography? Setting aside the moralistic element for a moment, Carr’s approach, especially when compared to Ranke and Jenkins, offers a more balanced historiographical method. He acknowledges that facts form the foundation of history, yet it is the historian who gives them meaning. This avoids the positivist oversimplification of Ranke and the relativism of Jenkins. Carr argues that historical events are shaped by the societal context in which they are written, and he illustrates this with his mountain metaphor: although one may view a mountain from different angles, it remains the same mountain. Tacitus’ work aligns with Carr’s view; he chose to tell the story of Rome’s moral decline under imperial rule. However, while Carr’s historiography shares common ground with Tacitus, particularly in recognising the historian’s interpretive role, he, like Ranke and Jenkins, refrains from endorsing moral judgement in historical analysis.
This seems to be a contradiction in Carr’s thinking. If the mountain represents objective reality, then why not apply the same logic to universal morals? Carr’s refusal to cast moral judgments may inadvertently risk legitimising historical atrocities. While many moral questions involve grey areas, certain actions—such as torturing infants—are universally recognised as unequivocally immoral. In the context of politics, a liberal society is clearly preferable to one founded on terror. The purpose of history, therefore, is not only to understand the past but also to inform the present and guide the future. By sidelining moral evaluation, Carr’s method, despite its strengths, may fall into moral relativism. Although there may be different interpretations of the facts, it is arguably more responsible to make imperfect moral judgements of the past based on reasonable parameters than to avoid them altogether. Without moral historiography, society loses an important tool of ethical reflection, which is necessary for societal progress and reform.
Tacitus’ historiography rejects the relativism of postmodernism and implicitly acknowledges the limitations of the historian’s craft in producing an objective account. However, Tacitus’ moralism is distinct from that of Ranke, Carr, and Jenkins; he recognises and promotes a universal morality. Tacitus sought to expose the moral decline of Rome, showing how a political system that normalised terror and murder was inherently more corrupt than one governed by civic decorum and institutional checks. This didactic approach to history—interrogating the facts and drawing moral lessons from past events—is one of the reasons Tacitus is regarded as one of the great historians. By studying the past and making moral judgements, he was better able to assess the present. His strong opposition to tyranny offered valuable lessons for posterity, highlighting the importance of civic virtue and the dangers of unchecked power.
If you enjoy my reviews and analyses, you’ll find more on my Substack, where you can also subscribe (no sign-up required): https://callumscolumn.substack.com/
If you enjoy my reviews and analyses, you’ll find more on my Substack, where you can also subscribe (no sign-up required): https://callumscolumn.substack.com/
There are two types of moral historiography. First, the historical evolution of morality; and second—which is the focus of this article—how morality influences the study and presentation of history. Joel Alden Schlosser describes it thus:
Moral history intends to instruct its readers on living a moral life. This instruction comes through various strategies employed by an author to teach the reader something about the ethical implications of various human actions and behaviours; moral history directs the reader toward specific actions or thought. While these directions speak first of all to the character and choices of individuals, political views follow… [with] historians [seeking] to operate at multiple levels – to entertain as well as instruct. Moral history… contain[s] didactic elements while also delivering other primary content.
Tacitus does not present a formal theory of moral historiography. Instead, he interrogates the facts and delivers narrative judgements on those facts. Three edifying themes permeate The Histories. He asserts that Rome had “grown old and rotten” under imperial rule. Galba, for example, was not murdered for incompetence, as Caligula or Nero had been, but because Rome had degenerated into a normative state where murderous power struggles were perpetuated with impunity. Tacitus also evaluates individual actions, suggesting that personal vices or virtues determine one’s fate and that future leaders should learn from their predecessors. For instance, Vitellius’ reign—marked by hubris, avarice, and tyranny—ended in his decapitation and the disposal of his body in the Tiber. Tacitus ultimately concludes that checks on power can restore Roman virtue, hence his yearning for the Roman Republic—particularly a time before Gaius Marius and Lucius Sulla.
Tacitus’ interrogative method is echoed in the theorisation of Leopold von Ranke. In The Theory and Practice of History, Ranke famously states that the historian should show “how it actually was.” Like Tacitus, Ranke asserts that factual history can be articulated through critical examination of sources. Ranke diverges from Tacitus by positing that historians can achieve objectivity by sidelining personal biases and moral judgements when analysing facts. By impartially presenting facts within a logical narrative, societies of the past can be judged on their own terms. A historian should not serve a specific agenda but instead represent the “naked truth without adornment.” Through this methodology, Ranke argued that he had created a “scientific” understanding of the past. In The Histories, however, Tacitus reveals the gap between imperial proclamations and reality, showing that history may not be a neutral record but is shaped by interpretation. This implicitly challenges Ranke’s notion of objectivity, a critique later developed by E.H. Carr in What is History?
Like Ranke, Carr’s historiography is underpinned by fact-based sources. However, Carr counters Ranke’s claim of objective historicism with an analogy. Historical facts, according to Carr, are like fish on a fishmonger’s slab, ready to be prepared and consumed in the manner deemed best by the purchaser. This fish can be consumed and prepared in multiple ways, with new recipes possibly giving it different flavours. History is therefore “a continuous process of interaction between the historian and his facts, an unending dialogue between the present and the past.” A historian’s interpretation of the facts is contingent on their own time and context; consequently, Carr argues that moral judgments about the past cannot be based on universal principles. Thus, according to Carr, Tacitus’ moral analyses may not reflect a universal measure of right or wrong, but the anachronistic dynamics of power and decadence as he understood them in his own time.
Postmodernist historians extend Carr’s subjective lens. For example, Keith Jenkins argues that history is inherently subjective because the ontological past cannot be directly accessed. As a result, no singular meaning or true narrative of the past is possible; history becomes a literary construction where the historian interprets events as they see fit. History is a contested discourse, shaped by autobiographical perspectives that serve the interests of different groups. Ultimately, history is relative. However, Richard Evans, in In Defence of History, pushes back against postmodern relativism. According to Evans, despite the subjectivity of the historian, historical events remain objectively true. If all history is relative, then no historical event can be falsified. Someone’s “history” that proclaims Holocaust denial is theoretically of equal validity to that of Ian Kershaw’s seminal biography of Hitler. Such relativism is inherently a threat to historical scholarship.
What does this all mean for Tacitus’ moral historiography? Setting aside the moralistic element for a moment, Carr’s approach, especially when compared to Ranke and Jenkins, offers a more balanced historiographical method. He acknowledges that facts form the foundation of history, yet it is the historian who gives them meaning. This avoids the positivist oversimplification of Ranke and the relativism of Jenkins. Carr argues that historical events are shaped by the societal context in which they are written, and he illustrates this with his mountain metaphor: although one may view a mountain from different angles, it remains the same mountain. Tacitus’ work aligns with Carr’s view; he chose to tell the story of Rome’s moral decline under imperial rule. However, while Carr’s historiography shares common ground with Tacitus, particularly in recognising the historian’s interpretive role, he, like Ranke and Jenkins, refrains from endorsing moral judgement in historical analysis.
This seems to be a contradiction in Carr’s thinking. If the mountain represents objective reality, then why not apply the same logic to universal morals? Carr’s refusal to cast moral judgments may inadvertently risk legitimising historical atrocities. While many moral questions involve grey areas, certain actions—such as torturing infants—are universally recognised as unequivocally immoral. In the context of politics, a liberal society is clearly preferable to one founded on terror. The purpose of history, therefore, is not only to understand the past but also to inform the present and guide the future. By sidelining moral evaluation, Carr’s method, despite its strengths, may fall into moral relativism. Although there may be different interpretations of the facts, it is arguably more responsible to make imperfect moral judgements of the past based on reasonable parameters than to avoid them altogether. Without moral historiography, society loses an important tool of ethical reflection, which is necessary for societal progress and reform.
Tacitus’ historiography rejects the relativism of postmodernism and implicitly acknowledges the limitations of the historian’s craft in producing an objective account. However, Tacitus’ moralism is distinct from that of Ranke, Carr, and Jenkins; he recognises and promotes a universal morality. Tacitus sought to expose the moral decline of Rome, showing how a political system that normalised terror and murder was inherently more corrupt than one governed by civic decorum and institutional checks. This didactic approach to history—interrogating the facts and drawing moral lessons from past events—is one of the reasons Tacitus is regarded as one of the great historians. By studying the past and making moral judgements, he was better able to assess the present. His strong opposition to tyranny offered valuable lessons for posterity, highlighting the importance of civic virtue and the dangers of unchecked power.
If you enjoy my reviews and analyses, you’ll find more on my Substack, where you can also subscribe (no sign-up required): https://callumscolumn.substack.com/
Read
August 22, 2017For all the detail Tacitus goes in to, this is a fast paced introduction to a turbulent year in Roman history. Emperor Nero has recently committed suicide and has been replaced by the elderly Galba who in short order is murdered by Otho who seizes the imperial crown only to commit suicide himself when Vitellius declares himself Emperor and marches on Rome, defeating Otho's army with an army drawn from the Rhineland frontier, but Vitellius doesn't get to enjoy being Emperor for long before he is executed by supporters of Vespasian who has left the siege of Jerusalem for his son to complete while he launches his claim for the Imperial throne. Pause for breath. This has taken place over the years 68 to 70AD.
Tacitus' account of the course of the war is shaped by the role of the unpredictable and unforeseeable. Plans are made and the Generals have a fixed course of action but troops panic or are unexpectedly successful, battles develop almost by chance and loyalties change.
Particularly enjoyable are Tacitus' prejudices. Natives are cowardly and fickle (although despite this opinion, they fight no less bravely). The plebeian soldiers are prone to swing from one extreme mood to the its opposite. While members of the upper classes have vices that are sadly too appalling to be detailed. Occasionally someone will meet with Tacitus' approval, generally for having committed suicide with appropriate dignity.
On the subject of suicide, apparently if you are a messenger in Imperial Rome and your news is not believed, killing yourself is a sure way to convince people that you were telling the truth. This happens a couple of times during the course of the narrative. As unlikely as it sounds Suetonius mentions this in his life of Otho (one of The Twelve Caesars).
Reading between the lines Tacitus' views seem unusual even in the Roman world. For all his negative comments about Otho and Vitellius, both are described as having been cronies of Nero. If Vitellius is frequently shown eating and being greedy both he and Otho seem to have inspired affection and support from parts of the army and from the people of Rome. You are left with the feeling that perhaps the people of Rome liked these extravagant, larger than life figures and that their massive appetites better reflected the Roman way of life than Tacitus' ideas on virtue and old-fashioned discipline.
If you enjoy The Histories then there is more along similar lines in The Annals of Imperial Rome, although admittedly the pace of it is somewhat less intense.
Tacitus' account of the course of the war is shaped by the role of the unpredictable and unforeseeable. Plans are made and the Generals have a fixed course of action but troops panic or are unexpectedly successful, battles develop almost by chance and loyalties change.
Particularly enjoyable are Tacitus' prejudices. Natives are cowardly and fickle (although despite this opinion, they fight no less bravely). The plebeian soldiers are prone to swing from one extreme mood to the its opposite. While members of the upper classes have vices that are sadly too appalling to be detailed. Occasionally someone will meet with Tacitus' approval, generally for having committed suicide with appropriate dignity.
On the subject of suicide, apparently if you are a messenger in Imperial Rome and your news is not believed, killing yourself is a sure way to convince people that you were telling the truth. This happens a couple of times during the course of the narrative. As unlikely as it sounds Suetonius mentions this in his life of Otho (one of The Twelve Caesars).
Reading between the lines Tacitus' views seem unusual even in the Roman world. For all his negative comments about Otho and Vitellius, both are described as having been cronies of Nero. If Vitellius is frequently shown eating and being greedy both he and Otho seem to have inspired affection and support from parts of the army and from the people of Rome. You are left with the feeling that perhaps the people of Rome liked these extravagant, larger than life figures and that their massive appetites better reflected the Roman way of life than Tacitus' ideas on virtue and old-fashioned discipline.
If you enjoy The Histories then there is more along similar lines in The Annals of Imperial Rome, although admittedly the pace of it is somewhat less intense.
June 29, 2016
A Feast of Thrones
29 June 2016
Tacitus' Annals of Imperial Rome, with all of its political maneuverng, backstabbing, plotting, and of course sex (was there sex in the Annals? Actually I'm not really all that sure, it's not like it was some sort of Roman novel, it was a history, and from my experience the Histories tend to be nowhere near as sexually explicit as the one and a half Roman novels that we have), reminded me a lot of an episode (or a season – or the entire show) of A Game of Thrones, or at least the television series, since I haven't read the book. Well, now we come to the sequel, which isn't actually a sequel because Tacitus wrote the Histories before he wrote the Annals, but it pretty much starts where the Annals end (or at least where it was supposed to end, if somebody hadn't lost it). Also, like the Annals, and the Song of Fire and Ice, the Histories are also unfinished – it fact from what I gather we only have about 30% of the Histories, namely because some monk in the 10th century found it and thought it might be a good idea to preserve it, it was just that he couldn't remember where he placed the remaining parts of the book.
Mind you, it's probably not a bad thing that we have lost the remaining parts of the Histories because it is supposed to chronicle the period between Nero's fall and, well, up to the point that Tacitus decided to start writing the Histories, or even up to the point where he finished writing the Histories because we can be assured that history didn't stop simply to allow Tacitus to chronicle it. Mind you, the part of the book that is missing sounds as if it was emperor ascends throne, emperor does emperorish things, emperor dies, next emperor ascends the throne – and so on and so forth. Well, maybe the scene where they decide that Domitian is a bit of a prick and decide they want to kill him might have been interesting, but it probably doesn't beat the murder of Caligulia and the praetorian guards then dragging Claudius out from the closet, kicking and screaming, and crowning him emperor (not that we have that section of the Annals because, you guessed it, some monk lost it).
So, you might be wondering what the connection between the Histories and Game of Thrones is (other than the fact that both are unfinished)? Well, from what I recall from the television series (I haven't read the books, and am unlikely to do so because, well, with the number of books on my too read list, they sort of find themselves on the 'might get to one day in the future if I can be bothered, and if George R R Martin bothers to finish them' pile), when Eddard Stark is murdered the armies of the North rise up in rebellion against Kings Landing, and the two Baratheon brothers also rise up in rebellion, and there is a forth dude rising up in rebellion as well, not that I can remember who it was because it was a while ago when I watched the second and third seasons, and we entered a period known as the war of five kings where people are running all over Westeros pretty much killing each other at will (as if anything else happens in Westeros).
Well, a similar thing happens when Nero abdicates the throne (and then kills himself, I believe, though since I haven't read the end of the Annals because some Monk lost it, I am only going by some pretty shocking TV mini-series that I watched about Nero and according to the mini-series Nero killed himself), the Romans suddenly realise that there actually isn't anybody to take over from him because Nero doesn't have any heirs (not that he Romans particularly wanted a Neronian heir to take the throne, if their father was anything to go by), so some guy named Galba takes the throne, but another guy named Otho objects, kicks him out, and installs himself as emperor. However some guy named Vitellius objects, goes to war against Otho, kicks him out, and takes the throne, and then Vespasian, who is busy crushing a Jewish uprising in the east, marches his troops over to the Italian Peninsula (leaving his son Titus to mop up the mess), and goes to war with Vitellius. Vitellius then decides that being emperor isn't as crash hot as he thought it was going to be, and attempts to abdicate, except the people of Rome refuse and force him back into the Palace, where he is subsequently defeated by Vespasian.
As you can probably tell, Rome was pretty chaotic around this time. In fact, after 70 to 80 odd years of stability (with a few mad emperors to make things interesting, including one who made a horse a senator – though a horse would probably do a better job that half the senators we have today – hey, lets start nominating horses for the senate, though Michael Moore did try that with a Ficus, and unfortunately it didn't work – we ended up getting stuck with a politician instead), the entire Roman experiment looks like it it was pretty much on the verge of collapse (much like the EU experiment is today). Actually, Rome's enemies saw it as much, especially over the Rhine in Germanica, because the Germans suddenly launched an invasion of Gaul (or at least the provinces of Upper and Lower Germania) during this time. So, when the Histories aren't talking about the Romans going at each other, its talking about the Germans invading Rome and causing them no end of trouble.
Actually, it wasn't just the Germans who saw an opportunity because the Jews, who didn't particularly like the Romans, despite everything the Romans had done for them, decided that it might be a pretty good idea of go to war against the Romans and liberate their country. As it turned out, despite the fact that Rome was embroiled in an almost never ending civil war, it still seemed as if they were able to hold out on their own. Mind you, it probably at a lot to do with Vespasian being a pretty strong, and capable leader, as he was able to bring peace to the Empire, and then not only drive back the Germans, but also crush the Jews, and to bring grain to the city to ward off starvation. As we know, after this one dreadful year, known as the Year of the Four Emperors, Rome when on to last for another 150 odd years.
One final interesting thing is what Tacitus says about the Jews. It is actually really interesting hearing the theories of the Jewish origins from the point of view of a Roman. Mind you, having had the Old Testament history drummed down my through for most of my life, reading Tacitus' opinion makes me want to scream out in objection, however what we are seeing are suppositions coming from somebody who lived at the time, giving us a rundown on the various beliefs at the time, which I believe helps us understand, much better, how the Jews were perceived by the Romans. The other thing is that it provides a background for the Jewish War. Up until I read the Histories (this is the second time), I didn't realise that the Jewish revolt, and the Roman civil war, occurred around the same time. In fact it is my belief that the civil war that broke out after Nero's fall actually provided the catalyst for the Jewish revolt. It certainly does put things into perspective.
29 June 2016
Tacitus' Annals of Imperial Rome, with all of its political maneuverng, backstabbing, plotting, and of course sex (was there sex in the Annals? Actually I'm not really all that sure, it's not like it was some sort of Roman novel, it was a history, and from my experience the Histories tend to be nowhere near as sexually explicit as the one and a half Roman novels that we have), reminded me a lot of an episode (or a season – or the entire show) of A Game of Thrones, or at least the television series, since I haven't read the book. Well, now we come to the sequel, which isn't actually a sequel because Tacitus wrote the Histories before he wrote the Annals, but it pretty much starts where the Annals end (or at least where it was supposed to end, if somebody hadn't lost it). Also, like the Annals, and the Song of Fire and Ice, the Histories are also unfinished – it fact from what I gather we only have about 30% of the Histories, namely because some monk in the 10th century found it and thought it might be a good idea to preserve it, it was just that he couldn't remember where he placed the remaining parts of the book.
Mind you, it's probably not a bad thing that we have lost the remaining parts of the Histories because it is supposed to chronicle the period between Nero's fall and, well, up to the point that Tacitus decided to start writing the Histories, or even up to the point where he finished writing the Histories because we can be assured that history didn't stop simply to allow Tacitus to chronicle it. Mind you, the part of the book that is missing sounds as if it was emperor ascends throne, emperor does emperorish things, emperor dies, next emperor ascends the throne – and so on and so forth. Well, maybe the scene where they decide that Domitian is a bit of a prick and decide they want to kill him might have been interesting, but it probably doesn't beat the murder of Caligulia and the praetorian guards then dragging Claudius out from the closet, kicking and screaming, and crowning him emperor (not that we have that section of the Annals because, you guessed it, some monk lost it).
So, you might be wondering what the connection between the Histories and Game of Thrones is (other than the fact that both are unfinished)? Well, from what I recall from the television series (I haven't read the books, and am unlikely to do so because, well, with the number of books on my too read list, they sort of find themselves on the 'might get to one day in the future if I can be bothered, and if George R R Martin bothers to finish them' pile), when Eddard Stark is murdered the armies of the North rise up in rebellion against Kings Landing, and the two Baratheon brothers also rise up in rebellion, and there is a forth dude rising up in rebellion as well, not that I can remember who it was because it was a while ago when I watched the second and third seasons, and we entered a period known as the war of five kings where people are running all over Westeros pretty much killing each other at will (as if anything else happens in Westeros).
Well, a similar thing happens when Nero abdicates the throne (and then kills himself, I believe, though since I haven't read the end of the Annals because some Monk lost it, I am only going by some pretty shocking TV mini-series that I watched about Nero and according to the mini-series Nero killed himself), the Romans suddenly realise that there actually isn't anybody to take over from him because Nero doesn't have any heirs (not that he Romans particularly wanted a Neronian heir to take the throne, if their father was anything to go by), so some guy named Galba takes the throne, but another guy named Otho objects, kicks him out, and installs himself as emperor. However some guy named Vitellius objects, goes to war against Otho, kicks him out, and takes the throne, and then Vespasian, who is busy crushing a Jewish uprising in the east, marches his troops over to the Italian Peninsula (leaving his son Titus to mop up the mess), and goes to war with Vitellius. Vitellius then decides that being emperor isn't as crash hot as he thought it was going to be, and attempts to abdicate, except the people of Rome refuse and force him back into the Palace, where he is subsequently defeated by Vespasian.
As you can probably tell, Rome was pretty chaotic around this time. In fact, after 70 to 80 odd years of stability (with a few mad emperors to make things interesting, including one who made a horse a senator – though a horse would probably do a better job that half the senators we have today – hey, lets start nominating horses for the senate, though Michael Moore did try that with a Ficus, and unfortunately it didn't work – we ended up getting stuck with a politician instead), the entire Roman experiment looks like it it was pretty much on the verge of collapse (much like the EU experiment is today). Actually, Rome's enemies saw it as much, especially over the Rhine in Germanica, because the Germans suddenly launched an invasion of Gaul (or at least the provinces of Upper and Lower Germania) during this time. So, when the Histories aren't talking about the Romans going at each other, its talking about the Germans invading Rome and causing them no end of trouble.
Actually, it wasn't just the Germans who saw an opportunity because the Jews, who didn't particularly like the Romans, despite everything the Romans had done for them, decided that it might be a pretty good idea of go to war against the Romans and liberate their country. As it turned out, despite the fact that Rome was embroiled in an almost never ending civil war, it still seemed as if they were able to hold out on their own. Mind you, it probably at a lot to do with Vespasian being a pretty strong, and capable leader, as he was able to bring peace to the Empire, and then not only drive back the Germans, but also crush the Jews, and to bring grain to the city to ward off starvation. As we know, after this one dreadful year, known as the Year of the Four Emperors, Rome when on to last for another 150 odd years.
One final interesting thing is what Tacitus says about the Jews. It is actually really interesting hearing the theories of the Jewish origins from the point of view of a Roman. Mind you, having had the Old Testament history drummed down my through for most of my life, reading Tacitus' opinion makes me want to scream out in objection, however what we are seeing are suppositions coming from somebody who lived at the time, giving us a rundown on the various beliefs at the time, which I believe helps us understand, much better, how the Jews were perceived by the Romans. The other thing is that it provides a background for the Jewish War. Up until I read the Histories (this is the second time), I didn't realise that the Jewish revolt, and the Roman civil war, occurred around the same time. In fact it is my belief that the civil war that broke out after Nero's fall actually provided the catalyst for the Jewish revolt. It certainly does put things into perspective.
March 25, 2016
A meaningless rating, that just means "I didn't really enjoy reading this, but I'm glad I did." There's just too much movement of arms and men in the story Tacitus tells to really grab me, too many generals moving and shaking. When he focuses away from generals and onto people, I'm all in. The one-liners, of course, are fabulous.
The introduction to the World's Classics edition is well worth reading, too, which is something you can't normally say for these introductions. This one makes an interesting argument about what's happening in Tacitus' writings, without banging on about current obsessions (except to make the reasonable point that Tacitus isn't anti-semitic, even though he's no fan of the Jews in Palestine at this time). The argument is, basically, that Tacitus is most interesting in his attention to the power of rumor. He does have his own interpretations of events, and he backs them up, but he also rarely describes an event (say, general Y concedes a battle) without pointing out how other people understood that event at the time. And those understandings are often the result of ignorant speculation, but sometimes people get it right. It's a nice reminder that our actions and reactions are entirely mediated by our interpretation of actions, and that those interpretations are often undertaken with very little evidence or knowledge. Plus ca change...
The introduction to the World's Classics edition is well worth reading, too, which is something you can't normally say for these introductions. This one makes an interesting argument about what's happening in Tacitus' writings, without banging on about current obsessions (except to make the reasonable point that Tacitus isn't anti-semitic, even though he's no fan of the Jews in Palestine at this time). The argument is, basically, that Tacitus is most interesting in his attention to the power of rumor. He does have his own interpretations of events, and he backs them up, but he also rarely describes an event (say, general Y concedes a battle) without pointing out how other people understood that event at the time. And those understandings are often the result of ignorant speculation, but sometimes people get it right. It's a nice reminder that our actions and reactions are entirely mediated by our interpretation of actions, and that those interpretations are often undertaken with very little evidence or knowledge. Plus ca change...
September 6, 2016
”I am entering on the history of a period rich in disasters, frightful in its wars, torn by civil strife, and even in peace full of horrors. Four emperors perished by the sword. There were three civil wars; there were more with foreign enemies; there were often wars that had both characters at once...Never surely did more terrible calamities of the Roman People, or evidence more conclusive, prove that the Gods take no thought for our happiness, but only for our punishment.” – The Histories, Book I.
The Histories are an account of the “Year of the Four Emperors” (69 AD) by the Roman Historian Tacitus. Unlike most Roman histories, including Tacitus’ own Annals, the book doesn’t cover a broad slice of history, instead diving deep into a specific period of crisis. This is partly by chance – the Histories originally covered the entire Flavian Dynasty (69 to 96 AD), but only the first few books have survived down to the modern era. Still, the heightened focus on a smaller period probably makes this Tacitus’ most inviting book for modern readers.
An Empire Divided
Tacitus has an excellent eye for detail and a great sense of the dramatic, and he’s at his best in the Histories. The story itself is naturally compelling. After the death of Nero, the most powerful empire in the world underwent a period of crisis where three pretenders fell in quick succession, before Vespasian seized power and was finally able to stop the bloodshed (sort of like A Game of Thrones with togas). His writing is famously fun to read, thanks to the knack Tacitus has for inserting memorable little aphorisms and moral judgments (on Licinius Mucianus: “he was the sort of man who found it more congenial to make an emperor than to be one.”) Ancient historians considered it acceptable (even necessary) to insert speeches into the mouths of their subjects in order to liven up the narrative, and Tacitus was one of the best at this. Take this speech he shoves into Otho’s mouth:
”So the state takes its stand here: over there, against us, are the enemies of that state. Do you really imagine that this most beautiful city depends on mansions, buildings, and piles of masonry? These are dumb, lifeless things, and one or all can fall or be rebuilt. The survival of our empire, peace between the nations and your life as well as mine find a firm support in the continued preservation of the senate. The senatorial order was solemnly instituted by the patriarch and founder of our city. From the regal period up to the principate it has survived in unbroken continuity. We received it from our fathers. Let us as surely transmit it to our sons.” Book IV.73
Good stuff. Tacitus also has a way of conveying the horror of civil war; his description of the decapitation of political victims, and the way the victim’s relatives would pay a ransom to recover the heads in order to keep them from becoming trophies, was particularly chilling. Tacitus language can be naturally disapproving, even cynical (on the Germans: “they use 'liberty' and other fine phrases as their pretexts [for invading Gaul]. Indeed, nobody has ever desired to enslave others and gain dominance for himself without using this very same language.”) This fits in perfectly with his choice of subject here, which offers up plenty of examples of human folly.
The Histories are also notable for Tacitus’ controversial description of the Jews. Before winning the principate, Vespasian was fighting Jewish rebels in Judea, which leads Tacitus to a discursion on Judaism early in Book V. Tacitus’ opinions are not particularly well informed in this area, and he comes across sounding like a bit of a bigot. But the passage is valuable as a window into how Romans perceived Jewish culture, and helps shed some light into why the two peoples butted heads so fiercely in the 1st and 2nd centuries.
Overall, this book is ancient history at its finest. The Annals is generally considered Tacitus’ masterpiece, but for my money the Histories is the author’s best surviving work, and the second best ancient history I’ve read behind Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War. 4.5 stars, highly recommended.
The Histories are an account of the “Year of the Four Emperors” (69 AD) by the Roman Historian Tacitus. Unlike most Roman histories, including Tacitus’ own Annals, the book doesn’t cover a broad slice of history, instead diving deep into a specific period of crisis. This is partly by chance – the Histories originally covered the entire Flavian Dynasty (69 to 96 AD), but only the first few books have survived down to the modern era. Still, the heightened focus on a smaller period probably makes this Tacitus’ most inviting book for modern readers.
An Empire Divided
Tacitus has an excellent eye for detail and a great sense of the dramatic, and he’s at his best in the Histories. The story itself is naturally compelling. After the death of Nero, the most powerful empire in the world underwent a period of crisis where three pretenders fell in quick succession, before Vespasian seized power and was finally able to stop the bloodshed (sort of like A Game of Thrones with togas). His writing is famously fun to read, thanks to the knack Tacitus has for inserting memorable little aphorisms and moral judgments (on Licinius Mucianus: “he was the sort of man who found it more congenial to make an emperor than to be one.”) Ancient historians considered it acceptable (even necessary) to insert speeches into the mouths of their subjects in order to liven up the narrative, and Tacitus was one of the best at this. Take this speech he shoves into Otho’s mouth:
”So the state takes its stand here: over there, against us, are the enemies of that state. Do you really imagine that this most beautiful city depends on mansions, buildings, and piles of masonry? These are dumb, lifeless things, and one or all can fall or be rebuilt. The survival of our empire, peace between the nations and your life as well as mine find a firm support in the continued preservation of the senate. The senatorial order was solemnly instituted by the patriarch and founder of our city. From the regal period up to the principate it has survived in unbroken continuity. We received it from our fathers. Let us as surely transmit it to our sons.” Book IV.73
Good stuff. Tacitus also has a way of conveying the horror of civil war; his description of the decapitation of political victims, and the way the victim’s relatives would pay a ransom to recover the heads in order to keep them from becoming trophies, was particularly chilling. Tacitus language can be naturally disapproving, even cynical (on the Germans: “they use 'liberty' and other fine phrases as their pretexts [for invading Gaul]. Indeed, nobody has ever desired to enslave others and gain dominance for himself without using this very same language.”) This fits in perfectly with his choice of subject here, which offers up plenty of examples of human folly.
The Histories are also notable for Tacitus’ controversial description of the Jews. Before winning the principate, Vespasian was fighting Jewish rebels in Judea, which leads Tacitus to a discursion on Judaism early in Book V. Tacitus’ opinions are not particularly well informed in this area, and he comes across sounding like a bit of a bigot. But the passage is valuable as a window into how Romans perceived Jewish culture, and helps shed some light into why the two peoples butted heads so fiercely in the 1st and 2nd centuries.
Overall, this book is ancient history at its finest. The Annals is generally considered Tacitus’ masterpiece, but for my money the Histories is the author’s best surviving work, and the second best ancient history I’ve read behind Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War. 4.5 stars, highly recommended.
November 30, 2017
3 Stars - Good book
Lots of information in a pretty small book. The amount of information was slightly overwhelming, but overall fascinating.
Tacitus takes us back to aftermath of the fall of Nero. He gives us a detailed history of Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and Vespasian - father of the Flavian Dynasty. The years covered are 68 CE to 70 CE. There are a lot of names in this book that are unknown to most - though nonetheless fascinating.
The writing isn't hard to understand, just jam-packed with information. I wouldn't necessarily say I enjoyed this one, more like I'm glad I read it. Would I recommend it? If you really like ancient history/Ancient Rome/ancient writers then yes. If not, no.
Lots of information in a pretty small book. The amount of information was slightly overwhelming, but overall fascinating.
Tacitus takes us back to aftermath of the fall of Nero. He gives us a detailed history of Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and Vespasian - father of the Flavian Dynasty. The years covered are 68 CE to 70 CE. There are a lot of names in this book that are unknown to most - though nonetheless fascinating.
The writing isn't hard to understand, just jam-packed with information. I wouldn't necessarily say I enjoyed this one, more like I'm glad I read it. Would I recommend it? If you really like ancient history/Ancient Rome/ancient writers then yes. If not, no.
February 20, 2019
Well, there goes the last major work of Tacitus. Over the last month and a bit its been a fun experience going through the Annals and the Histories.
The histories is an extremely chaotic book both in content and narration. Tacitus constantly switches back and forth between events. Sometimes this change can be quite unforgiving and without the footnotes I would have probably struggled to notice the change (especially for the discussion of Vitellius time in Rome).
Overall, I would divide this book into two parts, both in terms of themes and my enjoyment. The first portion of the book spans book 1 to book 3 and this is by far my favourite part of the histories. Tacitus is at his most cynical and brutal in this section. There are very few redeeming moments. Tacitus very clearly deals with what he perceives to be a disruption of Roman traditions. At the centre of this narrative is the crowd. They are fickle, sycophantic and quick to change sides. Galba and Piso are brutally murdered in the forum, senators degrade themselves by dressing as slaves or freedmen. Galba, Otho and vitellius are all shown as incompetent in commanding troops and dealing with sycophants. Even the victorious Vespasian is treated in a negative light. By far my favourite part of this section is book 3. No where else is Tactius' absolute disgust at this period more clearly seen than in the destruction of Cremona and the burning of the capitol. This disgust created one of the best books written by a classical historian I have ever read.
The second major part of this book comes from books 4 to 5. The themes of the first 3 books give way to new ideas: the Senate dealing with Neros former informers, a precursor to the tyranny of Domitian and the revolts of Germany and Judea. This part was not as good as the first section. Perhaps this is because this section is so incomplete. After reading the first part I cannot say that this part was as good. In fact, I would be lying if I did not say that I found Civilis' revolt to be boring. That being said, Tacitus' discription of Jews and Jewish history was very fascinating.
I've decided to come back after a month of really letting this work sink in. I still stand by my stance that the 'second half' of the book is not as good as the first but I do believe there is a real importance to it. Yes, the narrative is cut off. All we get is the rebellion of Civilis and a history of Judea, but there is the essence of some really intriguing ideas. It always seems to me that a focus is placed on the actions of the major parties during a civil war and not so much the effects of said civil war on the provinces. Perhaps this is the case because Marius and Sulla are immediately followed by the mithridatic war and the rise of Pompey. The same can be said with the war between Octavian and Antony, the brilliance of the beginning of the principate takes centre stage. With the histories, we get the sense of the real damage that a civil war can have on volatile regions of the empire. Tacitus really helps to answer the question of what happens when large number of troops are moved away from the Rhine, or political instability threatens Romes control of her borders. This may be a somewhat incoherent ramble, but I've really come to appreciate this second half. Civilis may be insignificant in the grand scheme of Roman history, but he shows just how precarious the relationship between Rome and tribes of Gaul and Germany really are.
The histories is an extremely chaotic book both in content and narration. Tacitus constantly switches back and forth between events. Sometimes this change can be quite unforgiving and without the footnotes I would have probably struggled to notice the change (especially for the discussion of Vitellius time in Rome).
Overall, I would divide this book into two parts, both in terms of themes and my enjoyment. The first portion of the book spans book 1 to book 3 and this is by far my favourite part of the histories. Tacitus is at his most cynical and brutal in this section. There are very few redeeming moments. Tacitus very clearly deals with what he perceives to be a disruption of Roman traditions. At the centre of this narrative is the crowd. They are fickle, sycophantic and quick to change sides. Galba and Piso are brutally murdered in the forum, senators degrade themselves by dressing as slaves or freedmen. Galba, Otho and vitellius are all shown as incompetent in commanding troops and dealing with sycophants. Even the victorious Vespasian is treated in a negative light. By far my favourite part of this section is book 3. No where else is Tactius' absolute disgust at this period more clearly seen than in the destruction of Cremona and the burning of the capitol. This disgust created one of the best books written by a classical historian I have ever read.
The second major part of this book comes from books 4 to 5. The themes of the first 3 books give way to new ideas: the Senate dealing with Neros former informers, a precursor to the tyranny of Domitian and the revolts of Germany and Judea. This part was not as good as the first section. Perhaps this is because this section is so incomplete. After reading the first part I cannot say that this part was as good. In fact, I would be lying if I did not say that I found Civilis' revolt to be boring. That being said, Tacitus' discription of Jews and Jewish history was very fascinating.
I've decided to come back after a month of really letting this work sink in. I still stand by my stance that the 'second half' of the book is not as good as the first but I do believe there is a real importance to it. Yes, the narrative is cut off. All we get is the rebellion of Civilis and a history of Judea, but there is the essence of some really intriguing ideas. It always seems to me that a focus is placed on the actions of the major parties during a civil war and not so much the effects of said civil war on the provinces. Perhaps this is the case because Marius and Sulla are immediately followed by the mithridatic war and the rise of Pompey. The same can be said with the war between Octavian and Antony, the brilliance of the beginning of the principate takes centre stage. With the histories, we get the sense of the real damage that a civil war can have on volatile regions of the empire. Tacitus really helps to answer the question of what happens when large number of troops are moved away from the Rhine, or political instability threatens Romes control of her borders. This may be a somewhat incoherent ramble, but I've really come to appreciate this second half. Civilis may be insignificant in the grand scheme of Roman history, but he shows just how precarious the relationship between Rome and tribes of Gaul and Germany really are.
August 12, 2016
It's like a soap opera (but with swords): Part II.
March 15, 2024
Historiae began at January 1, 69, with Galba in power and proceeded to the death of Domitian, in 96. The work contained 12 or 14 books (it is known only that the Histories and Annals, both now incomplete, totaled 30 books). Only books i–iv and part of book v, for the years 69–70, are extant. They cover the fall of Galba and Piso before Otho (book i); Vespasian’s position in the East and Otho’s suicide, making way for Vitellius (book ii); the defeat of Vitellius by the Danubian legions on Vespasian’s side (book iii); and the opening of Vespasian’s reign (books iv–v).
This text represents a small part of what must have been a brilliant as well as systematic account of the critical Flavian period in Roman history, especially where Tacitus wrote with firsthand knowledge of provincial conditions in the West and of Domitian’s last years in Rome. The narrative as it now exists, with its magnificent introduction, is a powerfully sustained piece of writing that, for all the emphasis and colour of its prose, is perfectly appropriate for describing the closely knit set of events during the civil war of 69.
This was only the first stage of Tacitus’ historical work. As he approached the reign of Domitian, he faced a Roman policy that, except in provincial and frontier affairs, was less coherent and predictable. It called for sharper analysis, which he often met with bitterness, anger, and pointed irony. Domitian’s later despotism outraged the aristocratic tradition. It is not known, and it is the most serious gap, how Tacitus finally handled in detail Domitian’s reputation.
This text represents a small part of what must have been a brilliant as well as systematic account of the critical Flavian period in Roman history, especially where Tacitus wrote with firsthand knowledge of provincial conditions in the West and of Domitian’s last years in Rome. The narrative as it now exists, with its magnificent introduction, is a powerfully sustained piece of writing that, for all the emphasis and colour of its prose, is perfectly appropriate for describing the closely knit set of events during the civil war of 69.
This was only the first stage of Tacitus’ historical work. As he approached the reign of Domitian, he faced a Roman policy that, except in provincial and frontier affairs, was less coherent and predictable. It called for sharper analysis, which he often met with bitterness, anger, and pointed irony. Domitian’s later despotism outraged the aristocratic tradition. It is not known, and it is the most serious gap, how Tacitus finally handled in detail Domitian’s reputation.
Read
February 4, 2020Excellent background for reading Lindsay Davis’s mystery series about a Roman detective—Tacitus is relating the story of the turbulence after Nero’s death when there was no clear line of succession to the position of emperor and military discipline was beginning its long years of decline. It’s the year of four emperors, ending with Vespasian. The events in Gaul and Germany described by Tacitus are woven into Davis’s plots. But of course it’s good background in general as well.
Who should I support? Would I be better off selling him out or pretending to be loyal while secretly negotiating just in case? How depraved can someone be? How much loot can I carry off? All good but, of course, historical questions.
Who should I support? Would I be better off selling him out or pretending to be loyal while secretly negotiating just in case? How depraved can someone be? How much loot can I carry off? All good but, of course, historical questions.
May 17, 2009
Excellent.
July 30, 2018
After defeat in battle, Otho commits suicide and Vitellius is proclaimed emperor. An unrestrained hedonist, he and his forces fall into despicable practices in Italy. Vespasian is persuaded to proclaim himself emperor by his supporters and immediately gains the support of the Egyptian, middle Eastern and Asian parts of the empire, while the Balkan legions, angry at their treatment by Vitellius join him. Vespasian and his commanders, in particular Mucianus and Antonius, launch an offensive, defeat Vitellius and take Rome. Vitellius is executed in the same place where Vitellius watched Vespasians brother' murder.
With Vespasians acension to principate the year of the 4 emperors ends and the Flavian dynasty established.
With Vespasians acension to principate the year of the 4 emperors ends and the Flavian dynasty established.
July 23, 2011
Les événements relatés ici par Tacite couvrent la période qui suit la mort de l’empereur Néron. Aux turpitudes des frasques des empereurs viennent à présent s'ajouter les malheurs de guerres civiles d'un nouveau genre, mettant aux prises différentes factions armées de la ville éternelle. Galba, Othon, Vitelius, Vespasien sont les principaux acteurs des drames qui se nouent, et qui menacent la stabilité de l'empire jusqu'à ses fondements. Les guerres en Germanie et en Judée sont également évoquées. Tacite serre ses propos et exige une attention soutenue du lecteur. J'ai une petite préférence pour les Annales qui sont encore plus édifiantes. La fin est malheureusement perdue...
February 12, 2022
"A knight named Musonius Rufus had attached himself to the envoys. He was a student of philosophy and an enthusiastic advocate of Stoicism. He mingled with the companies, offering the armed soldiers advice and discoursing on the advantages of peace and the perils of war. This amused many of them and bored still more. Some, indeed, wanted to knock and trample him down, but the advice of more sober spirits and the threats of others persuaded him to cut short his ill-timed lecture."
[3,81] The Histories - Tacitus
[3,81] The Histories - Tacitus
November 27, 2010
If you have to read one 2000 year old history book this should be it. Tacitus is not without his prejudices but boy does he bring Rome to life. It is Roman history as current affairs.
May 31, 2021
While most of the books that constituted the full "Histories” are now lost to us, what remains gives us a fascinating insight into the intrigues of many of the Roman emperors of the first century of the common era.
Tacitus, born in the 60s, lived into the first third of the second century, and throughout his work makes it very clear how far he believes the ethos of Rome's rulers have become debauched in the post-Republic era.
For those who remember the television series "I, Claudius" from the last half of the 20th century, they would not be at all surprised at the antics, plots, paranoia, and cruelty that so characterized the rule of Nero. Unlike Homer's Iliad, in which we frequently encounter vivid descriptions of war with all of its gore and blood-letting, Tacitus observes murders and assassinations aplenty, but he does so without -- thankfully -- giving us the awful details. Sufficient to say that in a culture of the upper class that revels in deceit and plotting -- predominantly that of the Senate and the powerful -- many who emerge victorious in gaining the upper hand "today" soon find that their "tomorrow" will bering a quick, and often fatal, reverse.
The Histories also give us a detailed report of one of the civil wars that came to characterize periods of Roman imperial history as -- when an emperor died, or was assassinated, without a clear successor -- various Roman legions would put forth their own favorite as the next emperor, a claim rapidly contested by other army units.
While Tacitus, like most ancient historians, gives us very little information about the common people -- the overwhelming majority's of course -- we do get some evidence of the sufferings they endured when the legions went on rampages in the midst of civil war. Tacitus remarks that there is nothing worse than civil war, as there is really nothing to distinguish brother from brother once imperial emblems disappear. Soldiers of one faction in Rome searching for members of others easily mistake ordinary citizens for members of the opposite party, women are ravished, and property confiscated and destroyed.
Tacitus comments about the horror of "brother killing brother." In one particularly sad and moving scene, he describes how a son encounters and kills his father in one civil war engagement. Both hailed from Spain but were fighting on opposite sides. Neither recognized one another at first because of the heat of the battle and the helmets they wore. However, as the father fell his helmet became dislodged. Recognizing his father, the younger man cried out in anguish, cradling his father's body. He then performed what Tacitus calls his "last duty as a son" in burying his father. Tacitus notes that a group of soldiers from both sides, witnessing this event, momentarily stopped fighting, perhaps for a moment pondering the insanity of civil war.
As irresponsible rhetoric continues to heat up in our country in our time, we would be well advised to remember how costly civil divides rapidly become. The dastardly and honor-less politicians and bloviators cheering on these divisions must be aware of how violence, once unleashed, cannot be controlled.
Tacitus, born in the 60s, lived into the first third of the second century, and throughout his work makes it very clear how far he believes the ethos of Rome's rulers have become debauched in the post-Republic era.
For those who remember the television series "I, Claudius" from the last half of the 20th century, they would not be at all surprised at the antics, plots, paranoia, and cruelty that so characterized the rule of Nero. Unlike Homer's Iliad, in which we frequently encounter vivid descriptions of war with all of its gore and blood-letting, Tacitus observes murders and assassinations aplenty, but he does so without -- thankfully -- giving us the awful details. Sufficient to say that in a culture of the upper class that revels in deceit and plotting -- predominantly that of the Senate and the powerful -- many who emerge victorious in gaining the upper hand "today" soon find that their "tomorrow" will bering a quick, and often fatal, reverse.
The Histories also give us a detailed report of one of the civil wars that came to characterize periods of Roman imperial history as -- when an emperor died, or was assassinated, without a clear successor -- various Roman legions would put forth their own favorite as the next emperor, a claim rapidly contested by other army units.
While Tacitus, like most ancient historians, gives us very little information about the common people -- the overwhelming majority's of course -- we do get some evidence of the sufferings they endured when the legions went on rampages in the midst of civil war. Tacitus remarks that there is nothing worse than civil war, as there is really nothing to distinguish brother from brother once imperial emblems disappear. Soldiers of one faction in Rome searching for members of others easily mistake ordinary citizens for members of the opposite party, women are ravished, and property confiscated and destroyed.
Tacitus comments about the horror of "brother killing brother." In one particularly sad and moving scene, he describes how a son encounters and kills his father in one civil war engagement. Both hailed from Spain but were fighting on opposite sides. Neither recognized one another at first because of the heat of the battle and the helmets they wore. However, as the father fell his helmet became dislodged. Recognizing his father, the younger man cried out in anguish, cradling his father's body. He then performed what Tacitus calls his "last duty as a son" in burying his father. Tacitus notes that a group of soldiers from both sides, witnessing this event, momentarily stopped fighting, perhaps for a moment pondering the insanity of civil war.
As irresponsible rhetoric continues to heat up in our country in our time, we would be well advised to remember how costly civil divides rapidly become. The dastardly and honor-less politicians and bloviators cheering on these divisions must be aware of how violence, once unleashed, cannot be controlled.
March 28, 2017
3.5 Stars
“Mighty and wretched, Rome had endured an Otho and Vitellius in the same year and suffered every variety of humiliations at the hands of men like Vinius, Fabius, Icelus and Asiaticus, until finally Mucianus and Marcellus succeeded them-fresh faces rather than a new outlook.”
Mighty and wretched. Tacitus writes almost like a dramatist. There is no melodrama here, though. Just vivid descriptions and hard observations that perfectly capture what happened from April 68AD to September 70AD. (The end of Book five is lost, making the work incomplete.) For Books 1-4, he really had me hooked.
However, Book 5 happened, and it caused me to doubt Tacitus's complete reliability as a historian. There were occasional anti-semitic comments in the earlier books. But when he begins describing Jewish customs, it is absolutely clear that he did not do his homework. His blasé treatment reveals also that he did not care to. He has some strange offerings as to where they came from, his main one being that they came from Crete. He also claims that “the charms of idleness made them devote every seventh year to indolence.” He informs us that they keep an idol of an asses head in the inner temple, but later says they believe it is sinful to make idols (this was under his list of “sinister and revolting” practices) and that Pompey had discovered that there was no image or idol in the inner temple. This is a really strange charge to me, especially since it is one that apparently stuck around for a long time. Tertullian addresses this charge at some length over one hundred years later. However, he does grudgingly admit that "the physical health of the Jews is good, and they can endure hard work." Glowing words.
I could really go on and on with all of the errors in this book, but I suppose this is enough. There is no doubt that this is an important work, and it is engaging, but it should definitely be read with caution.
“Mighty and wretched, Rome had endured an Otho and Vitellius in the same year and suffered every variety of humiliations at the hands of men like Vinius, Fabius, Icelus and Asiaticus, until finally Mucianus and Marcellus succeeded them-fresh faces rather than a new outlook.”
Mighty and wretched. Tacitus writes almost like a dramatist. There is no melodrama here, though. Just vivid descriptions and hard observations that perfectly capture what happened from April 68AD to September 70AD. (The end of Book five is lost, making the work incomplete.) For Books 1-4, he really had me hooked.
However, Book 5 happened, and it caused me to doubt Tacitus's complete reliability as a historian. There were occasional anti-semitic comments in the earlier books. But when he begins describing Jewish customs, it is absolutely clear that he did not do his homework. His blasé treatment reveals also that he did not care to. He has some strange offerings as to where they came from, his main one being that they came from Crete. He also claims that “the charms of idleness made them devote every seventh year to indolence.” He informs us that they keep an idol of an asses head in the inner temple, but later says they believe it is sinful to make idols (this was under his list of “sinister and revolting” practices) and that Pompey had discovered that there was no image or idol in the inner temple. This is a really strange charge to me, especially since it is one that apparently stuck around for a long time. Tertullian addresses this charge at some length over one hundred years later. However, he does grudgingly admit that "the physical health of the Jews is good, and they can endure hard work." Glowing words.
I could really go on and on with all of the errors in this book, but I suppose this is enough. There is no doubt that this is an important work, and it is engaging, but it should definitely be read with caution.
December 4, 2024
Anarchy and civil war. The political role of the military and the year of four emperors. Pessimistic tone.
April 9, 2025
Tacitus's The Histories is a compelling yet dull series of books that primarily go over the year 69 AD, where four Roman emperors competed for the throne. His detailed accounts of the emperors (Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and Vespasian) shows the good, the bad, and the ugly sides of each. He goes into great detail for the politics and battles behind the civil wars. Tacitus even gives a glimpse into how common Romans were affected by the wars; all of this information was very interesting to say the least!
Not everything was perfect though, some passages read like clusters of words that felt meaningless. New names and locations are introduced frequently to the point where you lose track of their purpose easily. Many of the people are only mentioned once and not brought up again.
A good portion of my complaints however are with the translator/revisionist. It could be their fault for the text feeling lackluster and clustered due to translation. I understand that notes are necessary for all history books, but in this one they feel excessive. A good chunk of the notes are useless, as the reader can figure out what Tacitus is describing by simply reading the book.
It's a shame that the rest of the books in The Histories have been lost to time, I'm sure they would've shed more light onto the Flavian era of the Roman Empire!
Not everything was perfect though, some passages read like clusters of words that felt meaningless. New names and locations are introduced frequently to the point where you lose track of their purpose easily. Many of the people are only mentioned once and not brought up again.
A good portion of my complaints however are with the translator/revisionist. It could be their fault for the text feeling lackluster and clustered due to translation. I understand that notes are necessary for all history books, but in this one they feel excessive. A good chunk of the notes are useless, as the reader can figure out what Tacitus is describing by simply reading the book.
It's a shame that the rest of the books in The Histories have been lost to time, I'm sure they would've shed more light onto the Flavian era of the Roman Empire!
Read
May 21, 2025I read this for a class I’m taking on Tacitus and now know far more than I ever thought I would about the “Year of the Four Emperors,” AD 69. I read the Penguin Classics version of Tacitus’ The Histories and found the introduction quite helpful. In terms of the rest of the book, I tended to skim the lengthy descriptions of battles, preparations for battles, marches to battles, generals in battles, etc. I’m just not that fond of military history. In contrast, I loved so many of the comments (always snarky) Tacitus made about the various key players in the year. He definitely hated Otho and Vitellian (along with women, slaves, the common people, and so many more). Poor Galba Tacitus just describes him most of the time as old, and at one time comments that “He was lacking in vices rather than endowed with good qualities.” (p. 22).
Book 5 is supposedly devoted to the conquest of Judea, but it seems more a chance for Tacitus to write about every horrifying prejudiced belief he holds about the Jewish people. I ended up skimming much of it as well.
Book 5 is supposedly devoted to the conquest of Judea, but it seems more a chance for Tacitus to write about every horrifying prejudiced belief he holds about the Jewish people. I ended up skimming much of it as well.
August 4, 2018
The death of Nero begins a Roman bloodletting that Augustus had thought he had completely ended as four men will within a year claim the title Emperor. The Histories by Tacitus follows the aftermath of Nero’s death as a succession of men claimed the throne until the Flavians emerge to return the Roman Peace.
Tacitus begins his work with those who had prospered under Nero worrying for themselves while the rest of the populace celebrated and setting the stage for the eventual assassination for Galba and the rise of Otho, who the former had passed over as his chosen successor. Yet at the time of his death Galba was facing a mutiny on the German frontier that had installed Vitellius as their choice as emperor, a task that Otho took to quash and retain his own throne. The invasion of Italy by Vitellius’ legions brought war to the core of empire for the first time in almost a century and witnessed the defeat of Otho’s forces before he committed suicide. The rise of Vitellius brought Vespasian, the leader of the legions fighting the Jewish War, into the fray as he accepted the proclamation of his legions as emperor and soon found the supporters of Otho and others joining him. After the crushing defeat of his forces, Vitellius attempted to abdicate but the Guards wouldn’t let him resulting in his death by Vespasian’s soldiers. On top of civil war in Italy and the final phase of the Jewish War under Titus, a Gallo-German uprising at first claiming support for Vespasian became an invasion and rebellion that took numerous legions to suppress and the aftermath would be alluded to in Tacitus’ own Germany.
Although The Histories are incomplete, from the beginning Tacitus brings his aristocratic ideology and politics in focus early by showing only someone with political realism and firm hand on the legions can prevent civil wars and the rioting of the masses. The writing is quick-paced, going hand in hand with the rapid succession of events but Tacitus does give excellent portraits on the prime actors in this historical drama the played across the Roman world. The only thing a historian would have against Tacitus would be the twisting of the chronology to suit his own purposes. Yet like Agricola and Germany, my biggest complaint is how Oxford World Classics edition is structured with the Notes at the very end of the piece and making the reader use two bookmarks so they could go back and forth.
The Histories, the first of Tacitus’ two large scale historical works, shows the horrors of civil war and the according to Tacitus the dangers of leader who cannot control the legions and masses. Even though the we are missing over two-thirds of the overall work, the portion we have that covers the Year of Four Emperors shows the breakdown of society in vacuum of strong leadership that is important not only in that time but throughout all of history including down to our own time.
Tacitus begins his work with those who had prospered under Nero worrying for themselves while the rest of the populace celebrated and setting the stage for the eventual assassination for Galba and the rise of Otho, who the former had passed over as his chosen successor. Yet at the time of his death Galba was facing a mutiny on the German frontier that had installed Vitellius as their choice as emperor, a task that Otho took to quash and retain his own throne. The invasion of Italy by Vitellius’ legions brought war to the core of empire for the first time in almost a century and witnessed the defeat of Otho’s forces before he committed suicide. The rise of Vitellius brought Vespasian, the leader of the legions fighting the Jewish War, into the fray as he accepted the proclamation of his legions as emperor and soon found the supporters of Otho and others joining him. After the crushing defeat of his forces, Vitellius attempted to abdicate but the Guards wouldn’t let him resulting in his death by Vespasian’s soldiers. On top of civil war in Italy and the final phase of the Jewish War under Titus, a Gallo-German uprising at first claiming support for Vespasian became an invasion and rebellion that took numerous legions to suppress and the aftermath would be alluded to in Tacitus’ own Germany.
Although The Histories are incomplete, from the beginning Tacitus brings his aristocratic ideology and politics in focus early by showing only someone with political realism and firm hand on the legions can prevent civil wars and the rioting of the masses. The writing is quick-paced, going hand in hand with the rapid succession of events but Tacitus does give excellent portraits on the prime actors in this historical drama the played across the Roman world. The only thing a historian would have against Tacitus would be the twisting of the chronology to suit his own purposes. Yet like Agricola and Germany, my biggest complaint is how Oxford World Classics edition is structured with the Notes at the very end of the piece and making the reader use two bookmarks so they could go back and forth.
The Histories, the first of Tacitus’ two large scale historical works, shows the horrors of civil war and the according to Tacitus the dangers of leader who cannot control the legions and masses. Even though the we are missing over two-thirds of the overall work, the portion we have that covers the Year of Four Emperors shows the breakdown of society in vacuum of strong leadership that is important not only in that time but throughout all of history including down to our own time.
Want to read
September 9, 2024There is so much action going on in every page, perhaps so much that it becomes a problem. You only get vague impressions of the historical figures Tacitus describes. I wish he did a physiognomic analysis of those involved, describing their facial features, coloring, height, constitution, BMI, and paired this with their personality. Instead, the 3-4 emperors he describes all seem the same with minor differences in their virtues and vices, which don’t really show in the story. Except for Galba—he’s fat—or maybe it was Otho? I don’t remember or care enough to review the text.
I didn’t finish this book and can only imagine coming back to it if I overcame my indifference toward the topic or if there were money/success tied to completing it. Otherwise, it wasn’t particularly entertaining.
The best parts were the ethnographic/sociological details and lore behind various locations and people. For example, Tacitus notes that there was a man in Gaul who claimed to be a living god and amassed an army of 8,000 men, who were later defeated. He was tortured to death after the lions refused to eat him. I didn’t realize there were other messiah/god claimants around the time of Jesus in other parts of the Roman Empire, and that they had a major impact. He explains the origin story of strange temples on distant islands, the lineages of their priests, the abstract statues found therein, the doctrines and superstitions of “druidism,” and the abridged speeches of emperors. These were the best parts. If the entire book had consisted of these sections, I would have finished it. I find descriptions of troop movements uninteresting, and much of the book consists of this and political maneuvering in Rome. His description of the Senate during this time and the concentration of power in the emperor was interesting. I didn’t realize the Senate played such an important role in the Empire. It seems that all of the emperors and important leaders were at least partly descended from the senatorial class.
I would recommend if you’re going through a phase of life where you’re thinking about the Roman Empire and care about its history. This book would probably leave a good impression if you’re so inclined.
I didn’t finish this book and can only imagine coming back to it if I overcame my indifference toward the topic or if there were money/success tied to completing it. Otherwise, it wasn’t particularly entertaining.
The best parts were the ethnographic/sociological details and lore behind various locations and people. For example, Tacitus notes that there was a man in Gaul who claimed to be a living god and amassed an army of 8,000 men, who were later defeated. He was tortured to death after the lions refused to eat him. I didn’t realize there were other messiah/god claimants around the time of Jesus in other parts of the Roman Empire, and that they had a major impact. He explains the origin story of strange temples on distant islands, the lineages of their priests, the abstract statues found therein, the doctrines and superstitions of “druidism,” and the abridged speeches of emperors. These were the best parts. If the entire book had consisted of these sections, I would have finished it. I find descriptions of troop movements uninteresting, and much of the book consists of this and political maneuvering in Rome. His description of the Senate during this time and the concentration of power in the emperor was interesting. I didn’t realize the Senate played such an important role in the Empire. It seems that all of the emperors and important leaders were at least partly descended from the senatorial class.
I would recommend if you’re going through a phase of life where you’re thinking about the Roman Empire and care about its history. This book would probably leave a good impression if you’re so inclined.
April 12, 2016
A detailed account of the 'year of four Emperors' which followed Nero's suicide in 68-69 AD, this is a very readable translation with excellent notes and maps to augment and clarify the text. Sadly, like the Annals, it only survives in incomplete form, just four and a fraction of its 12 original books still extant. While originally documenting Roman history from Nero's death through the reign of Domitian (to 96 AD) the remaining text ends abruptly at the start of Titus's siege of Jerusalem in 70 AD at the end of the "Jewish War", and it's in this fragment of book 5 that Tacitus falls down a bit in his ethnographical account of the Jews. His hostility might be taken for granted, as Jewish monotheism and religious ritual -- and especially ithe Jews' social exclusivity and refusal to accommodate other traditions and gods -- was so inscrutable and even apparently antagonistic to a worldly, Roman polytheist of his era. However Tacitus' account of the Jewish people's origins and basic beliefs and traditions are surprisingly off base. After all, there was a Jewish community in ancient Rome, Rome had already ruled Judaea for well over a century, and one would expect him to be much better informed, if he'd made any serious effort. Indeed if he can get so much wrong about a people relatively close at hand, one wonders how much stock to put in his accounts of far-flung Celtic and German tribes in his "Agricola" and "Germania". But overall, this is a solid, credible, and fascinating history and the best account we have of the tumultuous civil wars which followed the end of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, and eventually gave rise to the reigns of Vespasian and his two sons, Titus and Domitian -- the brief-lived Flavian dynasty.
May 22, 2019
De Historiën van Tacitus bestond oorspronkelijk uit ca. veertien boeken waarin de Romeinse geschiedschrijver de periode 69-96 n. Chr. beschreef, vanaf de dood van Nero tot het einde van Dominiatus. Helaas zijn alleen de eerste vier boeken en een beetje van het vijfde bewaard gebleven, en daarmee alleen Tacitus' verslag van het vierkeizerjaar 69 en een stukje van 70. Niettemin is zijn relaas een genot om te lezen. Ondanks de vele namen en ingewikkelde politiek weet Tacitus je in de geschiedenis te zuigen, met levendige beschrijvingen van de gebeurtenissen alsof hij er zelf bij was, met de naargeestige plundering van Cremona als 'hoogtepunt'. Bovendien wordt zijn schrijfstijl niet voor niets geroemd: Tacitus schrijft in korte, krachtige zinnen met een uniek ritme dat versnelt en vertraagd naar gelang het beschrevene dat vraagt. Bovendien doet Tacitus weliswaar aan waarheidsvinding, objectief is hij niet: hij laat zijn mening over de vele verdorven, incapabele, luie, gulzige en inhalige leiders die hij beschrijft duidelijk blijken. Dit levert levendige literatuur op die zelden droog wordt alle politieke en militaire verwikkelingen ten spijt. Voor moderne lezers zijn hoogtepunten Tacitus' beschrijvingen van de Bataafse opstand, die zich grotendeels in Nederland en directe omstreken afspeelt, en zijn uitleg over het Joodse volk (boek V: 1-5), dat doorspekt is van onbegrip voor hun onzichtbare, idoolloze God...
January 15, 2023
W.H.Fyfe translation w/ edits and revisions by D.S.Levine (shoutout NYU Classics dept.) Great translation and edition.
My least favorite of Tacitus' work, though it opens with a bang. I was initially bummed by his description of the Jews, (though ancient authors often disparage many different peoples in an anthropological way) but in describing our depravities he makes us sound absolutely metal:
"Thus they think much of having children and nothing of facing death."
My least favorite of Tacitus' work, though it opens with a bang. I was initially bummed by his description of the Jews, (though ancient authors often disparage many different peoples in an anthropological way) but in describing our depravities he makes us sound absolutely metal:
"Thus they think much of having children and nothing of facing death."
October 30, 2021
I really loved this book! Tacitus' writing style is engaging!
February 13, 2011
Nero commits suicide and Tacitus leads the reader through the turbulent years of Galba, Otho, Vitellus and the founder of the Flavian emperors, Vespasian. Five books covering three years- 68 AD to 70 AD. In some ways, The Histories stands in contrast to the subsequent (but substantively antecedent) The Annals. Where The Annals meandered through the corridors of Roman imperial politics, The Histories covers the military maneuvers of competing generals during the civil war of the Year of the Four Emperors. With impressive detail, Tacitus archives the players and movements of ancient Rome. Sadly, the work is incomplete and missing potentially seven additional books covering the reigns of Titus and Domitian.
Though filled with a cast of unfamiliar names otherwise lost to history, Tacitus’ writing is accessible for the modern reader. The writing is crisp and moves at a steady clip. Even so, it is hard to stay focused as Tacitus details the dramas of various political camps- oftentimes involving a flurry of obscure Romans. The Penguin addition provides some guidance with its endnotes (always a frustratingly common editorial alternative to the preferred, and in my opinion far superior, footnote), but the layperson will probably still gloss over some of the more meticulously recorded events.
Overall, Tacitus provides invaluable source material for historians and his writing seems more modern and, consequently, more enjoyable than other classical sources.
Though filled with a cast of unfamiliar names otherwise lost to history, Tacitus’ writing is accessible for the modern reader. The writing is crisp and moves at a steady clip. Even so, it is hard to stay focused as Tacitus details the dramas of various political camps- oftentimes involving a flurry of obscure Romans. The Penguin addition provides some guidance with its endnotes (always a frustratingly common editorial alternative to the preferred, and in my opinion far superior, footnote), but the layperson will probably still gloss over some of the more meticulously recorded events.
Overall, Tacitus provides invaluable source material for historians and his writing seems more modern and, consequently, more enjoyable than other classical sources.
February 13, 2013
I struggled with this, but liked it overall. It was tough to keep up with everything that was going on and keep track of all the people and places Tacitus refers to. His writing is really dense and concise, which on the plus side means this book is reasonably short but on the other hand means that a lot of meaning is packed into each paragraph. Tacitus is a stern, moralistic writer. He attributes the causes of the historical events he portrays to personal qualities such as courage or venality, honour or recklessness. Modern day historians would be more likely to inquire into the material circumstances behind the various actions. He seems fairly balanced and objective, offering praise or censure where it seems due.
One thing that did surprise me was how undisciplined the Roman legions seemed. They are constantly mutinying, plundering and murdering their commanders in this book. I had always pictured them as a disciplined fighting force and this has made me revise my opinion. It seems from this that the military was a powder keg that was always ready to blow up.
Funnily enough this book reminded me of Game of Thrones. 4 Emperors claim the throne in a year and the empire falls into a viscous civil war, the legions of the South warring against the legions of the north. An Emperor arises in the distant East to become the final victor after a bloody battle in Rome itself. The barbarian hordes of the north join together and rise up against the empire in spite of belonging to disparate tribes.
One thing that did surprise me was how undisciplined the Roman legions seemed. They are constantly mutinying, plundering and murdering their commanders in this book. I had always pictured them as a disciplined fighting force and this has made me revise my opinion. It seems from this that the military was a powder keg that was always ready to blow up.
Funnily enough this book reminded me of Game of Thrones. 4 Emperors claim the throne in a year and the empire falls into a viscous civil war, the legions of the South warring against the legions of the north. An Emperor arises in the distant East to become the final victor after a bloody battle in Rome itself. The barbarian hordes of the north join together and rise up against the empire in spite of belonging to disparate tribes.
December 24, 2011
I think this book by Tacitus is worth reading since (from my note), according to Gibbon, he wrote history based on philosophy. This may stimulate some of his readers to think/find some reasons or evidence to this interesting remark. As for me, I've no idea and would like to hear from my Goodreads friends who read/are familiar with him, in a word, as Tacitus readers.
Some of my remarks:
1) His description on war scenes are simply fantastic, realsitic and amazing. For instance, on pages 254 onwards.
2) I think mentioning anyone's name should be systematic, that is, keeping it in a singular way. For example, on page 231, chapter 71, the name of 'Petilius Cerialis', he's called 'Petilius' in the third line, but 'Cerialis' in the next paragraph. This of course confused me while reading.
3) I wonder if Gibbon's meant 'historiography' rather than philosophy.
Some of my remarks:
1) His description on war scenes are simply fantastic, realsitic and amazing. For instance, on pages 254 onwards.
2) I think mentioning anyone's name should be systematic, that is, keeping it in a singular way. For example, on page 231, chapter 71, the name of 'Petilius Cerialis', he's called 'Petilius' in the third line, but 'Cerialis' in the next paragraph. This of course confused me while reading.
3) I wonder if Gibbon's meant 'historiography' rather than philosophy.
March 22, 2020
So much bloodshed. So many troop engagements, just one year. Groups of people, tribes, citizen alliances that have no trace on a modern map. So many political shenanigans that seem so modern, it could be yesterday, except for the literal executions (no, wait, that still happens in some parts of our “modern” world—) And the Bon Mots thrown here or there, tossed off by the narrator in a lightly ironic tone. snap! How can we still after centuries not have figured this out? How can a society be so organized and progressive to have a well ordered rule of law, but devolve into massacres and battle? Why am I still able to see parallels in life today without us having moved forward to resolve the political in-fighting? A conundrum for the ages.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 139 reviews