What do you think?
Rate this book
The Rise of Rome: The Making of the World's Greatest Empire
From Anthony Everitt, the bestselling author of acclaimed biographies of Cicero, Augustus, and Hadrian," "comes a riveting, magisterial account of Rome and its remarkable ascent from an obscure agrarian backwater to the greatest empire the world has ever known.
Emerging as a market town from a cluster of hill villages in the eighth and seventh centuries B.C., Rome grew to become the ancient world's preeminent power. Everitt fashions the story of Rome's rise to glory into an erudite page-turner filled with lasting lessons for our time. He chronicles the clash between patricians and plebeians that defined the politics of the Republic. He shows how Rome's shrewd strategy of offering citizenship to her defeated subjects was instrumental in expanding the reach of her burgeoning empire. And he outlines the corrosion of constitutional norms that accompanied Rome's imperial expansion, as old habits of political compromise gave way, leading to violence and civil war. In the end, unimaginable wealth and power corrupted the traditional virtues of the Republic, and Rome was left triumphant everywhere except within its own borders.
Everitt paints indelible portraits of the great Romans--and non-Romans--who left their mark on the world out of which the mighty empire grew: Cincinnatus, Rome's George Washington, the very model of the patrician warrior/aristocrat; the brilliant general Scipio Africanus, who turned back a challenge from the Carthaginian legend Hannibal; and Alexander the Great, the invincible Macedonian conqueror who became a role model for generations of would-be Roman rulers. Here also are the intellectual and philosophical leaders whose observations on the art of government and "the good life" have inspired every Western power from antiquity to the present: Cato the Elder, the famously incorruptible statesman who spoke out against the decadence of his times, and Cicero, the consummate orator whose championing of republican institutions put him on a collision course with Julius Caesar and whose writings on justice and liberty continue to inform our political discourse today.
Rome's decline and fall have long fascinated historians, but the story of how the empire was won is every bit as compelling. With "The Rise of Rome," one of our most revered chroniclers of the ancient world tells that tale in a way that will galvanize, inform, and enlighten modern readers.
Emerging as a market town from a cluster of hill villages in the eighth and seventh centuries B.C., Rome grew to become the ancient world's preeminent power. Everitt fashions the story of Rome's rise to glory into an erudite page-turner filled with lasting lessons for our time. He chronicles the clash between patricians and plebeians that defined the politics of the Republic. He shows how Rome's shrewd strategy of offering citizenship to her defeated subjects was instrumental in expanding the reach of her burgeoning empire. And he outlines the corrosion of constitutional norms that accompanied Rome's imperial expansion, as old habits of political compromise gave way, leading to violence and civil war. In the end, unimaginable wealth and power corrupted the traditional virtues of the Republic, and Rome was left triumphant everywhere except within its own borders.
Everitt paints indelible portraits of the great Romans--and non-Romans--who left their mark on the world out of which the mighty empire grew: Cincinnatus, Rome's George Washington, the very model of the patrician warrior/aristocrat; the brilliant general Scipio Africanus, who turned back a challenge from the Carthaginian legend Hannibal; and Alexander the Great, the invincible Macedonian conqueror who became a role model for generations of would-be Roman rulers. Here also are the intellectual and philosophical leaders whose observations on the art of government and "the good life" have inspired every Western power from antiquity to the present: Cato the Elder, the famously incorruptible statesman who spoke out against the decadence of his times, and Cicero, the consummate orator whose championing of republican institutions put him on a collision course with Julius Caesar and whose writings on justice and liberty continue to inform our political discourse today.
Rome's decline and fall have long fascinated historians, but the story of how the empire was won is every bit as compelling. With "The Rise of Rome," one of our most revered chroniclers of the ancient world tells that tale in a way that will galvanize, inform, and enlighten modern readers.
512 pages, Hardcover
First published August 7, 2012
619 people are currently reading
7272 people want to read
About the author
Anthony Everitt
17 books464 followersAnthony Everitt is a British academic. He studied English literature at the University of Cambridge. He publishes regularly in The Guardian and The Financial Times. He worked in literature and visual arts. He was Secretary-General of the Arts Council of Great Britain. He is a visiting professor in the performing and visual arts at Nottingham Trent University. Everitt is a companion of the Liverpool Institute of Performing Arts and an Honorary Fellow of the Dartington College of Arts. Everitt has written books about Roman history, amongst which biographies of Augustus, Hadrian and Cicero and a book on The Rise of Rome. He lives in Wivenhoe near Colchester.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 309 reviews
October 23, 2012
I am a nerd. And my love (bordering on obsession?) for Ancient Rome has even made me more of a nerd. Not many people my age (or any age for that matter) possess this kind of dedication to the memory of one of the greatest empires the world has ever known (this is a fact and not pure gushing on my part).
It is because of this love (not just for Ancient Rome, but for history in general) that I recommend The Rise of Rome to other enthusiasts of Ancient Roman history and culture. The way Anthony Everitt wrote this book — so lucid and so compelling at the same time. If only all history textbooks were like this!
Taking the "variable nature of literary sources" on Ancient Roman history, the author interestingly (and effectively) divided the book into three parts: "Legend, the age of the kings, where most of the events never took place, at least not in the manner described; Story, the conquest of Italy and constitutional conflict, where fact and fiction cohabit; and History, the Republic as a Mediterranean power, where the literary sources make a serious attempt at objectivity and accuracy." Just the way I would tell Rome's story, if given the chance haha (the book opened with the story of the Trojan War, one of my favorite childhood tales) :D
When people ask me why I love Ancient Rome so much, I just tell them that a historical power such as Rome cannot just exist so posterity can forget about it. Luckily for me, Mr. Everitt has given me two new answers to share :)
1) "The remote past is worth the trouble of exhuming because the Romans remain relevant to us. They still inspire us, still have an effect on how we view social, political, and moral values. We live in a world they made."
2) "The idea of Rome is imprinted on our genes. It has generated proverbs, maxims, and phrases that we use in our everyday lives with scarcely a thought for their old significance: all roads lead to Rome, the grandeur that was Rome, when in Rome do as the Romans do, Rome wasn’t built in a day, Rome the eternal city."
Roma Victor! :D
It is because of this love (not just for Ancient Rome, but for history in general) that I recommend The Rise of Rome to other enthusiasts of Ancient Roman history and culture. The way Anthony Everitt wrote this book — so lucid and so compelling at the same time. If only all history textbooks were like this!
Taking the "variable nature of literary sources" on Ancient Roman history, the author interestingly (and effectively) divided the book into three parts: "Legend, the age of the kings, where most of the events never took place, at least not in the manner described; Story, the conquest of Italy and constitutional conflict, where fact and fiction cohabit; and History, the Republic as a Mediterranean power, where the literary sources make a serious attempt at objectivity and accuracy." Just the way I would tell Rome's story, if given the chance haha (the book opened with the story of the Trojan War, one of my favorite childhood tales) :D
When people ask me why I love Ancient Rome so much, I just tell them that a historical power such as Rome cannot just exist so posterity can forget about it. Luckily for me, Mr. Everitt has given me two new answers to share :)
1) "The remote past is worth the trouble of exhuming because the Romans remain relevant to us. They still inspire us, still have an effect on how we view social, political, and moral values. We live in a world they made."
2) "The idea of Rome is imprinted on our genes. It has generated proverbs, maxims, and phrases that we use in our everyday lives with scarcely a thought for their old significance: all roads lead to Rome, the grandeur that was Rome, when in Rome do as the Romans do, Rome wasn’t built in a day, Rome the eternal city."
Roma Victor! :D
June 19, 2016
"On occasion, contemporary academics overreach themselves. They dismiss incidents because they are, to the rational mind, simply implausible; they must have been made up. Unfortunately, much in history is implausible.”
― Anthony Everitt, The Rise of Rome: The Making of the World's Greatest Empire.
There is no doubt that Everitt knows his Classical stuff. His previous books: Cicero: The Life and Times of Rome's Greatest Politician and Augustus: The Life of Rome's First Emperor were fantastic. Hadrian and the Triumph of Rome aimed high, but didn't quite hold up to the first two. 'The Rise of Rome' signals a steep decline in Everitt's Rome history, IMHO. The book is messy, Brendan Boyle (I recently discovered) called it shaggy-dog in a WSJ review. His narrative begins with Section I (Legend) a review of the legends and foundation myths surrounding the rise of Rome. He then jumps into a review of 'big themes' as Rome's politics, warfare, and society develop.
IN this second section, He isn't interested in the history, rather he attempts to construct the narrative STORY of history. He tries (and fails) to draw a distinction between Section II (Story) and Section III (History), but the last two thirds of the book are really one, story-driven, narrative slog through 1000 years of Roman history and personalities.
The problem is Everitt tries to present 1000 years of Rome's rise in less than 500 pages and fills almost 67 of these pages with foundation myths, etc. The best parts of this book are those pages when he is talking about Rome's great enemy Hannibal, the problem is those pages are 50 pages less spent on the actual direct topic of his book.
Fundamentally, Everitt's biggest failure is the standard high school and college freshman failure. He starts with far too big a topic and devotes to it too little space. He tries for a sweeping history of Rome and only delivers a shoddy, uneven narrative. IN the end, the book feels like a graveyard for Everitt's unpublished background material and detritus for previous books or aborted histories.
― Anthony Everitt, The Rise of Rome: The Making of the World's Greatest Empire.
There is no doubt that Everitt knows his Classical stuff. His previous books: Cicero: The Life and Times of Rome's Greatest Politician and Augustus: The Life of Rome's First Emperor were fantastic. Hadrian and the Triumph of Rome aimed high, but didn't quite hold up to the first two. 'The Rise of Rome' signals a steep decline in Everitt's Rome history, IMHO. The book is messy, Brendan Boyle (I recently discovered) called it shaggy-dog in a WSJ review. His narrative begins with Section I (Legend) a review of the legends and foundation myths surrounding the rise of Rome. He then jumps into a review of 'big themes' as Rome's politics, warfare, and society develop.
IN this second section, He isn't interested in the history, rather he attempts to construct the narrative STORY of history. He tries (and fails) to draw a distinction between Section II (Story) and Section III (History), but the last two thirds of the book are really one, story-driven, narrative slog through 1000 years of Roman history and personalities.
The problem is Everitt tries to present 1000 years of Rome's rise in less than 500 pages and fills almost 67 of these pages with foundation myths, etc. The best parts of this book are those pages when he is talking about Rome's great enemy Hannibal, the problem is those pages are 50 pages less spent on the actual direct topic of his book.
Fundamentally, Everitt's biggest failure is the standard high school and college freshman failure. He starts with far too big a topic and devotes to it too little space. He tries for a sweeping history of Rome and only delivers a shoddy, uneven narrative. IN the end, the book feels like a graveyard for Everitt's unpublished background material and detritus for previous books or aborted histories.
August 26, 2012
As a history major – and especially as one who enjoys classical Rome – finding a solid, yet easily readable, narrative on the early history of the Roman Republic has been a goal of mine. Adrian Goldsworthy’s “How Rome Fell” is an excellent source on the later Roman Empire, but the early phases of the Republic, combined with the mythological underpinnings that the people of Rome they themselves believed, can make this opening difficult for beginners on the subject. I would highly recommend Anthony Everitt’s works, especially his biography of Augustus and Hadrian, though this book falls short of that purpose.
A notable interruption in the narrative occurs on page 71, when Everitt goes from discussing the mythological history and the period of kings back into the Stone Age. This jump, for me, was completely unnecessary and I think can confuse the reader. The jump itself also seemed rather pointless and the section itself, which was well written, would have made an excellent prologue. The second weakness is the ending itself; it is sudden and abbreviates the history more than I think is necessary. Marius and Sulla are part of the sequence leading to the ultimate collapse of the Roman Republic that culminates with Julius Caesar. As such, Julius Caesar makes the natural ending point to the tale, but the history is gone through so rapidly – in less than 10 pages – that it does not feel like an ending. Anthony Everitt is a great writer and I would have been happy to read 20 or 40 forty more pages on Julius Caesar and Pompey.
Despite the negatives, this remains one the best works on early Roman history that I have read, though it may not be everything I was looking for in a book to recommend to beginners. Anthony Everitt is an excellent writer and, once you go through this book, pick up his biographies of Cicero, Augustus and Hadrian.
A notable interruption in the narrative occurs on page 71, when Everitt goes from discussing the mythological history and the period of kings back into the Stone Age. This jump, for me, was completely unnecessary and I think can confuse the reader. The jump itself also seemed rather pointless and the section itself, which was well written, would have made an excellent prologue. The second weakness is the ending itself; it is sudden and abbreviates the history more than I think is necessary. Marius and Sulla are part of the sequence leading to the ultimate collapse of the Roman Republic that culminates with Julius Caesar. As such, Julius Caesar makes the natural ending point to the tale, but the history is gone through so rapidly – in less than 10 pages – that it does not feel like an ending. Anthony Everitt is a great writer and I would have been happy to read 20 or 40 forty more pages on Julius Caesar and Pompey.
Despite the negatives, this remains one the best works on early Roman history that I have read, though it may not be everything I was looking for in a book to recommend to beginners. Anthony Everitt is an excellent writer and, once you go through this book, pick up his biographies of Cicero, Augustus and Hadrian.
January 13, 2014
Everitt's The Rise of Rome is a two- (maybe three) pronged recounting of the beginnings and evolution of the western world's most prominent power prior to and during the early Christian era.
The book's structure is centered upon significant episodes in the genesis and development of Rome the city as the empire expanded, beginning with the traditional history. This first stage is acknowledged as having nuggets of truth, in that the overarching event described probably occurred, but has likely been revised to endow the story with traditional Roman principles. A suitable comparison might be the mularkey that is Parson Weems' claim with regard to George Washington's honesty in confessing to chopping down a cherry tree as a youth--a traditional trait that, in this age of information, seems an unlikely quality of any person of political clout.
Having told us what Romans told themselves, Everitt tends to cite Roman sources, such as nationalistic Livy or Cicero, and historians Polybius and Plutarch (the former lived in close proximity to the events he recorded) to reinforce or dispute the traditional history and effects of this indoctrination.
Next Everitt holds these fables up to the light of archeological evidence and competing sources to determine their validity, and finally offers his opinion on why or why not the traditional history should be trusted or suspicious. For the most part, the traditional history is reliable in the sense that the recorded event occurred, though not necessarily in the same manner that it was told.
While I don't give much credence to opinions without supporting evidence, and some of Everitt's speculations are guesswork backed by extended immersion in the topic, Everitt's guesses seem safe bets when cut and dry historical evidence is not available.
A bit more academic and less breakneck than Tom Holland's work, but extensive sourcing and the fact that Everitt works almost exclusively on Roman history makes him seem a more reliable read. For what it's worth, like Holland, his training is in English, not history.
The book's structure is centered upon significant episodes in the genesis and development of Rome the city as the empire expanded, beginning with the traditional history. This first stage is acknowledged as having nuggets of truth, in that the overarching event described probably occurred, but has likely been revised to endow the story with traditional Roman principles. A suitable comparison might be the mularkey that is Parson Weems' claim with regard to George Washington's honesty in confessing to chopping down a cherry tree as a youth--a traditional trait that, in this age of information, seems an unlikely quality of any person of political clout.
Having told us what Romans told themselves, Everitt tends to cite Roman sources, such as nationalistic Livy or Cicero, and historians Polybius and Plutarch (the former lived in close proximity to the events he recorded) to reinforce or dispute the traditional history and effects of this indoctrination.
Next Everitt holds these fables up to the light of archeological evidence and competing sources to determine their validity, and finally offers his opinion on why or why not the traditional history should be trusted or suspicious. For the most part, the traditional history is reliable in the sense that the recorded event occurred, though not necessarily in the same manner that it was told.
While I don't give much credence to opinions without supporting evidence, and some of Everitt's speculations are guesswork backed by extended immersion in the topic, Everitt's guesses seem safe bets when cut and dry historical evidence is not available.
A bit more academic and less breakneck than Tom Holland's work, but extensive sourcing and the fact that Everitt works almost exclusively on Roman history makes him seem a more reliable read. For what it's worth, like Holland, his training is in English, not history.
September 1, 2020
This book does an incredible extensive job covering the entire chronology of Ancient Rome. That being said, I do not recommend it for the curious average history reader like me. Anthony Everett did a genius job writing this book, he clearly is a genius when it comes to Ancient Rome. Although, I feel like he got a bit carried away with this and forgot not all of his audience has similar brains. At times it was very muddy differentiating fact from fiction, who was real and who wasn’t. I also found myself frequently looking up names of historical figures, as I wasn’t reminded more than once. There are I guarantee over a hundred people brought up in this book, it becomes very hard to keep track of. This book is excellent to pick around in for a bit of history, but definitely not recommend for a first tome learner of Ancient Rome.
March 18, 2016
The Rise of Rome is a rather nice overview of a vast time period, starting with the mythological Romulus and Remus and culminating with the assassination of Julius Caesar. I wanted to read something not overly dense, but still well-researched and reliable, and I got just that. My main complaint about this book is the lack of focus. I am not very knowledgeable in the history of the great empire just yet, so I found the endless names and dates, and battles a little overwhelming. I did appreciate the commentary on the social life and culture of early Romans though. Made me want to read some more on Cornelia Africana - the daughter of Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus and wife of Tiberius Gracchus.
March 8, 2017
I think this book may have been a case of too much information for me, or maybe the information just wasn't focused enough. The book covered a tremendous amount of history, beginning with the myths about the founding of Rome, through the rise of Augustus. I think I should stick with the books that deal with more limited periods of time, because this book felt like a rushed march through the timeline of Roman history. I would also have preferred much less military history and more political and social history.
December 2, 2012
A solid overview of Republican Rome.
Everitt, especially in looking at the early years of the republic, and the ancient authorial sources, breaks their writing, like Caesar's Gaul, into three parts:
1. The largely to entirely mythical
2. The mythical by nature, but reflecting a historical core
3. The largely historical
And, with that, tells how the city grew to become a city-state and more.
A large part of this is discussing Roman politics: consuls, plebian tribunes, pleb, patricians (and knights) as social classes, and more.
As part of this, he explains Roman politics in terms of checks and balances. He notes that the American Constitutional Founding Fathers looked to Rome, not just in a generic way, but in specific political guidance ways as much as they did Montesquieu.
And, there is a good point there. Venice was the only place in the world after ancient Rome and before the US to have a Senate. And, in all three cases (drop your myths, Americans) that senatorial body was deliberately designed to be oligarchical. (Don't forget that just about every US state in 1789 had property qualifications for state-level public office and many did for voting; it's a surprise, to me, that similar requirements for federal office weren't put into the Constitution.)
Anyway, back to the book itself. It's a solid overview of the development of Rome. It would probably be of more benefit to someone less familiar with the details of Roman history, yet interested in learning more.
Everitt, especially in looking at the early years of the republic, and the ancient authorial sources, breaks their writing, like Caesar's Gaul, into three parts:
1. The largely to entirely mythical
2. The mythical by nature, but reflecting a historical core
3. The largely historical
And, with that, tells how the city grew to become a city-state and more.
A large part of this is discussing Roman politics: consuls, plebian tribunes, pleb, patricians (and knights) as social classes, and more.
As part of this, he explains Roman politics in terms of checks and balances. He notes that the American Constitutional Founding Fathers looked to Rome, not just in a generic way, but in specific political guidance ways as much as they did Montesquieu.
And, there is a good point there. Venice was the only place in the world after ancient Rome and before the US to have a Senate. And, in all three cases (drop your myths, Americans) that senatorial body was deliberately designed to be oligarchical. (Don't forget that just about every US state in 1789 had property qualifications for state-level public office and many did for voting; it's a surprise, to me, that similar requirements for federal office weren't put into the Constitution.)
Anyway, back to the book itself. It's a solid overview of the development of Rome. It would probably be of more benefit to someone less familiar with the details of Roman history, yet interested in learning more.
August 19, 2012
same excellent style (Cicero, Augustus) that makes it hard to put down; on the other hand while the mythical beginnings are covered well, the book starts becoming very diluted after that and even the narrative pull suffers. There are still some good parts - the story of Pyrhus for example, but by the Punic Wars the book becomes really mediocre and you can read Wikipedia for better stuff.
Overall for early Rome, I still recommend the extant Titus Livius (Livy) on which i grew up, but this book will do; for the Punic wars on, much better stuff out there (for example A. Galsworthy book on the subject or of course Livy again) and for the later Republic from the Grachii on Rubicon by Tom Holland is an incomparable better book
In fiction, Steven Saylor Roma is a great overview of the history from 1000 BC till Augustus and a great companion to any book of the story of Rome.
On the other hand for a total newbie to the subject, the book is generally very good to adequate
Overall for early Rome, I still recommend the extant Titus Livius (Livy) on which i grew up, but this book will do; for the Punic wars on, much better stuff out there (for example A. Galsworthy book on the subject or of course Livy again) and for the later Republic from the Grachii on Rubicon by Tom Holland is an incomparable better book
In fiction, Steven Saylor Roma is a great overview of the history from 1000 BC till Augustus and a great companion to any book of the story of Rome.
On the other hand for a total newbie to the subject, the book is generally very good to adequate
September 8, 2020
An excellent read for those new to Roman history as well as those who consider themselves familiar with the subject. I particularly enjoyed the chapters on early Rome - pre-Punic Wars, say - which I know less about than the later periods.
Rather than review the book generally, I want to point out a bit of minutiae that interested me. Discussing kit, Everitt writes:
"An ingenious technical device helped make survival on the field of battle a better bet. The heavy javelin, or pilum, was an essential part of the legionary's armory. But when he threw it at this opponents, they often picked it up and hurled it back. Its iron head was attached to a wooden pole by two metal rivets. One of these was now replaced by a wooden dowel so that the head was bent or snapped off entirely when the pilum reached its target or fell to the ground. This meant that it could not be reused."
I've heard this a zillion times before, so this isn't Everitt going out on a limb; it's conventional wisdom as far as I'm aware. However, I recently picked up "Roman Military Equipment: From the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome" by Bishop and Coulston (2d ed.). In it they write:
"It is often said of the pilum that it was designed to bend upon impact, thus rendering it incapable of instant re-use, but this is only one side of the story. This was not a function of the pilum, merely a useful consequence of its design. The pilum existed as a close-range javelin that used weight, as opposed to velocity, to to provide its penetrative power. Moreover, careful consideration of the most common form suggests that it was designed as an armour-piercing missile, a fact witnessed by the pyramidal bodkin-head... As such, its prime function was firstly to pierce an enemy shield and then, carried by its own impetus... assail the body of the enemy. Thus the long iron shank did not just exist to bend, but to provide the reach for the weapon between punching a hole in the shield and striking the bearer...
Nevertheless, it was characteristic of the pilum that the shank could suffer partial failure upon impact, disabling the weapon. It has been suggested that this was achieved in a variety of ways, for example using a wooden rivet to attach the shank to the shaft... More likely it was simply a result of the form of the weapon and the whole notion of a wooden rivet has been dismissed as a misunderstanding on the part of Plutarch or his source..." (pp. 51-52).
So the wooden dowel wasn't, and the pilum bent (sometimes) as a second-order effect, not as a result of intentional design.
Again, Everitt is great and I don't find him any less authoritative because of a small quibble like this. Instead, I think that it's a useful reminder of how sources can get details wrong, and how settled details sometimes aren't.
I'm also super-pumped that I noticed the bit about the wooden dowel and checked Bishop and Coulston. I award myself a gold star, first class.
Rather than review the book generally, I want to point out a bit of minutiae that interested me. Discussing kit, Everitt writes:
"An ingenious technical device helped make survival on the field of battle a better bet. The heavy javelin, or pilum, was an essential part of the legionary's armory. But when he threw it at this opponents, they often picked it up and hurled it back. Its iron head was attached to a wooden pole by two metal rivets. One of these was now replaced by a wooden dowel so that the head was bent or snapped off entirely when the pilum reached its target or fell to the ground. This meant that it could not be reused."
I've heard this a zillion times before, so this isn't Everitt going out on a limb; it's conventional wisdom as far as I'm aware. However, I recently picked up "Roman Military Equipment: From the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome" by Bishop and Coulston (2d ed.). In it they write:
"It is often said of the pilum that it was designed to bend upon impact, thus rendering it incapable of instant re-use, but this is only one side of the story. This was not a function of the pilum, merely a useful consequence of its design. The pilum existed as a close-range javelin that used weight, as opposed to velocity, to to provide its penetrative power. Moreover, careful consideration of the most common form suggests that it was designed as an armour-piercing missile, a fact witnessed by the pyramidal bodkin-head... As such, its prime function was firstly to pierce an enemy shield and then, carried by its own impetus... assail the body of the enemy. Thus the long iron shank did not just exist to bend, but to provide the reach for the weapon between punching a hole in the shield and striking the bearer...
Nevertheless, it was characteristic of the pilum that the shank could suffer partial failure upon impact, disabling the weapon. It has been suggested that this was achieved in a variety of ways, for example using a wooden rivet to attach the shank to the shaft... More likely it was simply a result of the form of the weapon and the whole notion of a wooden rivet has been dismissed as a misunderstanding on the part of Plutarch or his source..." (pp. 51-52).
So the wooden dowel wasn't, and the pilum bent (sometimes) as a second-order effect, not as a result of intentional design.
Again, Everitt is great and I don't find him any less authoritative because of a small quibble like this. Instead, I think that it's a useful reminder of how sources can get details wrong, and how settled details sometimes aren't.
I'm also super-pumped that I noticed the bit about the wooden dowel and checked Bishop and Coulston. I award myself a gold star, first class.
March 20, 2015
I'm reeeeely happy with this book! I had decided that I needed to spruce up my pathetically inadequate knowledge of Roman History and this book is just perfect for what I needed. It is written in a direct manner that doesn't put style ahead of substance, but keeps your attention on the subject at hand. It is divided into three simple sections. The first is labelled "legends" and is the Roman's own myth of the founding of the city. However, as he recounts the myth, the author also gives us archeological findings of the earliest remains scientists have found. It's pretty fascinating and I particularly liked the clear delineation of fact (however cold) and fiction (however warm and fuzzy.)
The second section is labelled "stories" and makes it apparent that although we are on firmer ground, these tales of the growth and increasing power of Rome are not always completely reliable. The author identifies his sources for his information and points out where his sources differ and why they might have wished to "pretty-up" the history. (The Romans liked to think of themselves as righteous guys and sometimes kinda sorta left out the little fiddly bits about naked territorial aggression and other embarrassing stuff.)
The third section is history and here, we have a more solid grasp of the events from narrators who had reason to know the truth. For example Cicero's letters tell us a lot about the frightening and unsettled years of Sulla's proscriptions. We actually have an amazing amount of first hand information about the last days of the Republic, despite the losses of many writings that have not survived into our times.
Everitt displays an impressive ability to recount many years of events in a concise fashion. He is writings for an audience of intelligent amateurs and doesn't make the error of overloading his readers with technical terms. He leaves the ponderous details and the delicate academic hair-splitting to others and just gets on with the basics, which is just what I wanted. His capable handling of those basics did whet my appetite for more and I will be looking for more early period writings to study. I think this book is a good choice for a history buff who is not an academic.
The second section is labelled "stories" and makes it apparent that although we are on firmer ground, these tales of the growth and increasing power of Rome are not always completely reliable. The author identifies his sources for his information and points out where his sources differ and why they might have wished to "pretty-up" the history. (The Romans liked to think of themselves as righteous guys and sometimes kinda sorta left out the little fiddly bits about naked territorial aggression and other embarrassing stuff.)
The third section is history and here, we have a more solid grasp of the events from narrators who had reason to know the truth. For example Cicero's letters tell us a lot about the frightening and unsettled years of Sulla's proscriptions. We actually have an amazing amount of first hand information about the last days of the Republic, despite the losses of many writings that have not survived into our times.
Everitt displays an impressive ability to recount many years of events in a concise fashion. He is writings for an audience of intelligent amateurs and doesn't make the error of overloading his readers with technical terms. He leaves the ponderous details and the delicate academic hair-splitting to others and just gets on with the basics, which is just what I wanted. His capable handling of those basics did whet my appetite for more and I will be looking for more early period writings to study. I think this book is a good choice for a history buff who is not an academic.
November 28, 2015
An excellent survey of Rome from its legend-shrouded birth through the end of the Republic (which Everitt considers to be Sulla's hegemony, rather than Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon. Everitt gives a very brief wavetop view of Rome post-Sulla up to Octavian), told with flair and a feel for dramatic story-beats and centering around the characters that made the history of this city-state more implausible than any work of fiction.
Everitt is to be commended in particular for his organization of the dizzying array of material. Much of classical history comes to us through supernatural legend, and Everitt is careful to neither discount nor oversell this. He freely admits what modern historians do not and can never know. In this, Everitt is breaking new ground. This book doesn't introduce new material, but it is the most forthright I have yet read in the sifting of legend from fact, and in its staunch refusal to speculate when answers aren't available. Everitt is comfortable with the greatest zone of discomfort for academics: unanswered questions, and more than willing to leave threads dangling where they lie, trusting an informed and intelligent reader to pull them as they wish.
Fun, engaging and illuminating, it is NOT a book for those interested (like me) in any kind of in-depth examination of the military innovations that made Rome so important to the world. That's all right. There are plenty of other books on that topic. Everitt's contribution is a social and political history first and foremost, and a valuable addition to the field for historians and casual readers alike.
Everitt is to be commended in particular for his organization of the dizzying array of material. Much of classical history comes to us through supernatural legend, and Everitt is careful to neither discount nor oversell this. He freely admits what modern historians do not and can never know. In this, Everitt is breaking new ground. This book doesn't introduce new material, but it is the most forthright I have yet read in the sifting of legend from fact, and in its staunch refusal to speculate when answers aren't available. Everitt is comfortable with the greatest zone of discomfort for academics: unanswered questions, and more than willing to leave threads dangling where they lie, trusting an informed and intelligent reader to pull them as they wish.
Fun, engaging and illuminating, it is NOT a book for those interested (like me) in any kind of in-depth examination of the military innovations that made Rome so important to the world. That's all right. There are plenty of other books on that topic. Everitt's contribution is a social and political history first and foremost, and a valuable addition to the field for historians and casual readers alike.
September 13, 2012
This book took a long time to read. It just didn't grab my attention, but I kept at it and slogged through it. The author knows what he is talking about, but he doesn't know how to explain it, in an palatable way, to someone who doesn't know the subject.
Honestly, I do not believe there was one entire page that was engaging. A lot of names and short little tidbits of interesting facts that got my attention of good things to come, but evaporated in the very next sentence. Disappointingly, the Kindle edition did not have any links to the notes, so I was unable to check sources, etc. Having those links might have helped.
February 1, 2021
Very readable but not very good. Everitt is not careful with facts, nor even clear where history ends and myth begins.
December 29, 2012
This is a good beginner's guide to the history of ancient Rome, without getting too worked up about it. There is nothing particularly special about it, but then again the aim of the book is to provide a chronological overview of how the Romans really came about without having the reader take on several different historical sources. It's the Starbucks coffee version of a much bigger undertaking...fast-food with some CDs at the counter.
Everitt has broken up the book into Legend, Story, and History, which makes it easy on the reader (and very logical). Now, when it comes to 'legend', ancient Rome has it over everyone else. Any nation that can start their beginnings with the Trojan War is going to be pretty illustrious. However, the author has a hard time bringing the magic alive for that section. Virgil, of course, would be a better read but I expected more. Whether it's the Romans who migrated from Troy or the Etruscans (I vote for Tuscany), we DO know there was a migration from the geographic area of ancient Troy, thanks to DNA analysis. So why isn't the first chapter more, um, "alive"?
The second chapter gets going a bit, as there are better historical sources to base the evidence. Still, I yearned for more and started thinking of the Starbucks comparison. The third chapter picks up dramatically and saves the book from a lower rating. Even though he could have done so much more, Everitt has some zingers for the latter portion of the Republic, and I applaud him for his new thinking about the Gracchi, who are usually portrayed as dangerous revolutionaries. It is here that we begin to see the corrosion of the ideals of Cincinnatus and when Gaius Marius and Sulla ("Sulla is a mulberry sprinkled with barley meal") step into the picture, it's okay to forget time and space and just concentrate on the book.
There is a brief afterword focusing on Cicero and Varro...so brief I don't know why it's there except to quote The Whiner (Cicero) on the loss of the Republic. The Sources, Bibliography, and Notes are excellent and quite helpful. Still, I wanted more. So much more.
"His words have won me more cities than my own military campaigns."
(Pyrrhus on Cineas)
I wanted more cities, not a tall latte.
Book Season = Autumn (Hannibal is at the gates)
Everitt has broken up the book into Legend, Story, and History, which makes it easy on the reader (and very logical). Now, when it comes to 'legend', ancient Rome has it over everyone else. Any nation that can start their beginnings with the Trojan War is going to be pretty illustrious. However, the author has a hard time bringing the magic alive for that section. Virgil, of course, would be a better read but I expected more. Whether it's the Romans who migrated from Troy or the Etruscans (I vote for Tuscany), we DO know there was a migration from the geographic area of ancient Troy, thanks to DNA analysis. So why isn't the first chapter more, um, "alive"?
The second chapter gets going a bit, as there are better historical sources to base the evidence. Still, I yearned for more and started thinking of the Starbucks comparison. The third chapter picks up dramatically and saves the book from a lower rating. Even though he could have done so much more, Everitt has some zingers for the latter portion of the Republic, and I applaud him for his new thinking about the Gracchi, who are usually portrayed as dangerous revolutionaries. It is here that we begin to see the corrosion of the ideals of Cincinnatus and when Gaius Marius and Sulla ("Sulla is a mulberry sprinkled with barley meal") step into the picture, it's okay to forget time and space and just concentrate on the book.
There is a brief afterword focusing on Cicero and Varro...so brief I don't know why it's there except to quote The Whiner (Cicero) on the loss of the Republic. The Sources, Bibliography, and Notes are excellent and quite helpful. Still, I wanted more. So much more.
"His words have won me more cities than my own military campaigns."
(Pyrrhus on Cineas)
I wanted more cities, not a tall latte.
Book Season = Autumn (Hannibal is at the gates)
September 5, 2014
Where many histories of Rome prefer to focus on its fall or the transition of Classical to European Europe, Anthony Everitt offers a reading of Rome’s rise. The Rise of Rome reaches back into Rome’s mytho-historical past, when Rome was little more than a market town and concludes with the rise of Augustus Caesar.
Mr. Everitt has written a popular, but comprehensive, history of Rome’s rise that will satisfy most neophytes interested in learning how Rome came to be one of the greatest empires the world has seen. In all probability the greatest was the British Empire, but historians would most likely quibble about this.
The prose is very accessible and the division of the parts and chapters of the book are done rationally and the explanation for how the parts all fit together to form a whole is very clear and easy to follow. Sometimes, not often, the details can be a little overwhelming and confusion may occasionally set in…but the history of Rome’s rise is long and complicated, so one must adjust one’s mind to the need for detail.
Overall, the story maintains a good pace and is an exciting read…for a history.
What Mr. Everitt does do very well, is to demonstrate how important Rome remains for us today in the West. Not having a passing acquaintance with its history is like not having read Homer, Shakespeare, or the Bible [King James…of course]. You needn’t agree with any of these, but they are key to being a cultured and articulate citizen of the West.
Highly recommended as an introduction to the rise of Rome and as a refresher to this history.
5 out of 5 stars
Mr. Everitt has written a popular, but comprehensive, history of Rome’s rise that will satisfy most neophytes interested in learning how Rome came to be one of the greatest empires the world has seen. In all probability the greatest was the British Empire, but historians would most likely quibble about this.
The prose is very accessible and the division of the parts and chapters of the book are done rationally and the explanation for how the parts all fit together to form a whole is very clear and easy to follow. Sometimes, not often, the details can be a little overwhelming and confusion may occasionally set in…but the history of Rome’s rise is long and complicated, so one must adjust one’s mind to the need for detail.
Overall, the story maintains a good pace and is an exciting read…for a history.
What Mr. Everitt does do very well, is to demonstrate how important Rome remains for us today in the West. Not having a passing acquaintance with its history is like not having read Homer, Shakespeare, or the Bible [King James…of course]. You needn’t agree with any of these, but they are key to being a cultured and articulate citizen of the West.
Highly recommended as an introduction to the rise of Rome and as a refresher to this history.
5 out of 5 stars
January 8, 2015
I am a general reader interested in U. S. and English history, but I read The Rise of Rome with the hope of learning something about the beginning of the Roman Empire. I was vastly disappointed. Rather than concentrating on specific topics such as how Rome grew militarily or how its constitution was ultimately subverted, Everitt approaches Rome’s growth chronologically. The result is an endless series of confusing names and places incorporated into anecdotes that do not have any apparent connection.
When I began reading The Rise of Rome I was impressed with Everitt’s scholarship and was planning to read him books about Cicero and Augustus. No way!
When I began reading The Rise of Rome I was impressed with Everitt’s scholarship and was planning to read him books about Cicero and Augustus. No way!
December 6, 2022
The Rise of Rome offers a somewhat brief but accessible introduction to the history of Rome from its mythical Trojan origins to the death of the Republic. It begins with an exiled Cicero lamenting the Republic's decline into decadence and corruption thus inspiring him to give an account of Rome's history from the beginning in an attempt to understand what went wrong and how to correct it. Cicero periodically returns throughout the book to give lively commentary on major historical events. Overall, the Rise of Rome is accessible and informative, the only fault I could find with the book was that I wish it went into further detail on Roman religion and military campaigns which are some of my particular areas of interest. It is difficult to hold this against Everitt as the book is meant to be a social and political history however I felt that giving important battles a couple of pages rather than a brief paragraph would have been beneficial even at the expense of a few hundred more pages but that is really my personal preference and I still immensely enjoyed the book regardless.
November 7, 2017
A pretty typical popular book on Roman history. Think Beard's SPQR but with a focus from the founding of Rome to around the time of the rise of Augustus. Nothing too exceptional, but that may be because I have less interest in this period than the late republican period. I suspect (though I cannot confirm) that the book is mostly a summary and synthesis of Polybius, Livy, and Sallust. The book's description of the fall of the republic is pretty orthodox, making allusions to the Marian reforms, to Sulla and the collapse of the oligarchical consensus necessary for republican rule. An aspect of the book that I thought was inventive and positive was the separation of the book into story, legend, and history. Roughly the first third of the book is dedicated to the Aeneid retelling of Rome's origins up to the end of reign of kings. It was interesting to see how the Romans assigned each king a specific role in Rome's historical development and to see the stories of each king fleshed out in one place. I was surprised to learn that of the seven kings, there were foreign ones. Everitt takes the now popular view of interpreting the stories as expressions of the anxieties and concerns of the story tellers, so there's some interpretation of these founding legends as exemplars of a lost Roman virtue or the shadow of fratricidal violence. It was interesting to learn about the practices of devotion (where a self sacrifice or devotion would cause the ruin of an enemy), evocatio (calling the gods of a foreign enemy to abandon them and make their home in Rome), and the rituals involving causi belli (the Romans were very legalistic and thought their wars required a legal purpose to be waged, this was accompanied by religious ritual, of sending emissaries to explain the cause of the war and symbolically throwing a spear into the land of the enemy). I was also interested in the traditional role of the king, who balanced the nobles and the common people, a conception of the rule of orders that survived until John Adams. Additionally interesting was the traditional concept of the tyrant, who using demagoguery used the power of the people ruled over the polity (instead of oligarchical rule) and the various fears Romans had about the Gracchi trying to replicate the Greek tyrant.
The second section runs from the expulsion of the kings, into the beginning of recorded/verifiable history. Included in this second is Brutus's execution of his sons who conspired to return the king (which even some ancient commentators thought was unnecessarily cruel) to the conflict of the orders, and the controversy of the 12 tables (Everitt advances a theory that the Decemviri were an experimental form of government that failed). Everitt notes that throughout the conflict, there was give/take and compromise which collapse near the end. Also described are the various wars Rome had with its neighbors gradually growing into the dominant power in the area and but also assimilating past enemies into to the polity with tiers of citizen rights.
The third section of the book summarizes what is well trodden ground. From the three carthaginian wars (which show the injustice of Rome when it seized Sardinia after the conclusion of the first war in violation of the peace treaty, and the third unprovoked war where Rome attacked Carthage), to the social wars, the Gracchi, the eastern campaigns, Marius, Sulla and the fall of the republic. Nothing too novel or original here, though a good summary of the era in the traditional telling of history. I was interested to learn of some of the unlikely bed fellows made between enemies of rome (one of the cities was citizen ruled and did not like Rome's typical support of local aristocracies [an interesting application of Dictator's Handbook, Rome prefered to deal with a small coalition when it came to foreign affairs] and called for help from an oriental style tyrant). Rome's involvement with the Greeks was interesting as well, from it's "liberation" of Greece, to the destruction of Corinth, and the various clashes with Alexander's successors, cumulating with the defeat of the Macedonian phalanx by the Roman offset three lined maniple.
The second section runs from the expulsion of the kings, into the beginning of recorded/verifiable history. Included in this second is Brutus's execution of his sons who conspired to return the king (which even some ancient commentators thought was unnecessarily cruel) to the conflict of the orders, and the controversy of the 12 tables (Everitt advances a theory that the Decemviri were an experimental form of government that failed). Everitt notes that throughout the conflict, there was give/take and compromise which collapse near the end. Also described are the various wars Rome had with its neighbors gradually growing into the dominant power in the area and but also assimilating past enemies into to the polity with tiers of citizen rights.
The third section of the book summarizes what is well trodden ground. From the three carthaginian wars (which show the injustice of Rome when it seized Sardinia after the conclusion of the first war in violation of the peace treaty, and the third unprovoked war where Rome attacked Carthage), to the social wars, the Gracchi, the eastern campaigns, Marius, Sulla and the fall of the republic. Nothing too novel or original here, though a good summary of the era in the traditional telling of history. I was interested to learn of some of the unlikely bed fellows made between enemies of rome (one of the cities was citizen ruled and did not like Rome's typical support of local aristocracies [an interesting application of Dictator's Handbook, Rome prefered to deal with a small coalition when it came to foreign affairs] and called for help from an oriental style tyrant). Rome's involvement with the Greeks was interesting as well, from it's "liberation" of Greece, to the destruction of Corinth, and the various clashes with Alexander's successors, cumulating with the defeat of the Macedonian phalanx by the Roman offset three lined maniple.
December 27, 2012
I give Anthony Everitt credit for taking on this subject, which has largely remained untouched in the field of classical studies: that of the rise of Rome. Gibbon himself said that it was among the two most puzzling aspects of this society-the other being its fall of course a rite of passage for any classical scholar. The rise, however is harder, much harder: legend and fact are so intimate in the early days of Rome that it is very difficult, if not impossible to separate the two successfully. Everitt chooses the logical middle ground and uses portions of legend: timelines, basic events and so on, which is safe enough all the while weaving in what is archaeologically known. He did the same thing in his biographies of Augustus, Cicero, and Hadrian and it worked very well. It works well here too for that matter. Everitt also wisely stops his narrative at the death of Sulla instead of rehashing the old First Triumvirate, Caesar/Pompey Civil War Rivalry, assassination of the victorious Caesar, and rise of Augustus. He briefly mentions them, so this isn't necessarily a text that one would have to know significant background to enjoy.
What I didn't like: Everitt supports the idea of a moderate, compromising Republic that was tragically overthrown, but he also notes which I did appreciate that the Roman Republic was not suited for overseas expansion, indeed it was not suited for expansion at all. Everitt however seems to largely buy the argument that the Roman Constitution, despite its flaws was at heart an excellent system, tragically overthrown-the obligatory response for any Roman history it seems. However, the Roman Republican form was not at all 'stable' in a governmental sense. It was obstinate certainly in that it proved inflexible to change, but hardly perfect, and no amount of moderation, or compromise could have saved it. The Roman government was fundamentally a flawed system-basing a government around an aristocratic class produced a rule as disconnected from day to day life as any monarchy, or dictatorship. Those who governed the state virtually excised those lower class, whom they yet relied upon as Rome grew in size, yet leaving them powerless in the political sphere. Greed and self interest for political office, lucrative overseas provinces and conquest destroyed Roman Republicanism, not failure to moderate. Hence I cannot award Everitt's work more than three stars in that the history is great, but what it means, is flawed.
What I didn't like: Everitt supports the idea of a moderate, compromising Republic that was tragically overthrown, but he also notes which I did appreciate that the Roman Republic was not suited for overseas expansion, indeed it was not suited for expansion at all. Everitt however seems to largely buy the argument that the Roman Constitution, despite its flaws was at heart an excellent system, tragically overthrown-the obligatory response for any Roman history it seems. However, the Roman Republican form was not at all 'stable' in a governmental sense. It was obstinate certainly in that it proved inflexible to change, but hardly perfect, and no amount of moderation, or compromise could have saved it. The Roman government was fundamentally a flawed system-basing a government around an aristocratic class produced a rule as disconnected from day to day life as any monarchy, or dictatorship. Those who governed the state virtually excised those lower class, whom they yet relied upon as Rome grew in size, yet leaving them powerless in the political sphere. Greed and self interest for political office, lucrative overseas provinces and conquest destroyed Roman Republicanism, not failure to moderate. Hence I cannot award Everitt's work more than three stars in that the history is great, but what it means, is flawed.
August 7, 2013
Anthony Everitt's The Rise of Rome is a delightful popular-level account of Rome from its origins to the 1st century CE. Everitt judiciously divided the work into three parts, based on the quality of the source material and our current ability to make historical judgments: Legend, Story, and History. This framework allows Everitt to spin the yarns of Aeneas and Romulus like a bard around a campfire, then reclaim his historical credentials with a brief summary that sorts fact from fiction.
Though touching on many themes, the book focuses on the political evolution of Rome from a city-state with a mixed constitution into an Empire. The balancing act between the aristocracy and the plebs gets sustained attention. The author adopts a Ciceronian view on the history of Rome. Indeed, the entire book might well be seen as a contemporary defense of Cicero's political views. It closes on a wistful note. The Republic has fallen, Everitt and Cicero lament. The reader senses that Rome, though most often remembered (even in this book's subtitle!) as an empire, is from this Ciceronian view a traitor to its heritage. (It is not surprising that Everitt has also written biographies of Cicero and Caesar Augustus.)
However, many a military maneuver and colorful character spice up the social commentary. The two most captivating figures in the book are enemies of Rome: Pyrrhus of Epirus and Hannibal of Carthage. Everitt focues more on character profiles than military details. The reader comes to admire tricky, inexorable Hannibal, to mourn with the jilted Sibyl and bereaved Cornelia Gracchi, to resent the hypocritical, hard-nosed Cato. After the midway point, some of the characters steal the show and disrupt the book's flow, but Everitt wrestles his political narrative back into place by the end.
For those seeking more information on Rome, the book contains both endnotes and a bibliographical essay, in which Everitt gives recommendations on a chapter basis. This is much more helpful than a mere alphabetical bibliography.
Though touching on many themes, the book focuses on the political evolution of Rome from a city-state with a mixed constitution into an Empire. The balancing act between the aristocracy and the plebs gets sustained attention. The author adopts a Ciceronian view on the history of Rome. Indeed, the entire book might well be seen as a contemporary defense of Cicero's political views. It closes on a wistful note. The Republic has fallen, Everitt and Cicero lament. The reader senses that Rome, though most often remembered (even in this book's subtitle!) as an empire, is from this Ciceronian view a traitor to its heritage. (It is not surprising that Everitt has also written biographies of Cicero and Caesar Augustus.)
However, many a military maneuver and colorful character spice up the social commentary. The two most captivating figures in the book are enemies of Rome: Pyrrhus of Epirus and Hannibal of Carthage. Everitt focues more on character profiles than military details. The reader comes to admire tricky, inexorable Hannibal, to mourn with the jilted Sibyl and bereaved Cornelia Gracchi, to resent the hypocritical, hard-nosed Cato. After the midway point, some of the characters steal the show and disrupt the book's flow, but Everitt wrestles his political narrative back into place by the end.
For those seeking more information on Rome, the book contains both endnotes and a bibliographical essay, in which Everitt gives recommendations on a chapter basis. This is much more helpful than a mere alphabetical bibliography.
September 7, 2014
Everitt, a professor of visual and performing arts, has a hobby: classic studies. The author of several biographies of famous Romans, he has produced a readable history of the Republic from its legendary foundations until its collapse.
Rather than presenting a long, dry recapitulation of archaeological evidences as regards the formation of the Roman state, Everitt treats of the legends as represented by late Republican and early Imperial authors such a Cicero, Livy and Varro. In other words, he combines the legends they relate as a coherent narrative, contrasting it occasionally with what we can reconstruct from physical evidences and common sense. This serves as a means to get at what they thought of themselves, their city and their civilization. This, he believes, tells us something of their character as a people, their virtues and their flaws.
The real historical record begins around the time of the invasion of Pyrrhus in the early third century B.C.E. Here the narrative continues as a description of growth and the fitful attempts by such as the Gracchi to adapt the traditional institutions of the city to its ever-expanding domain, wealth and population. Without saying as much, parallels with more modern empires, their rises and their falls, are evident.
What most struck me were the (unspoken) similarities between Rome and Nazi Germany as regards the treatment of subject populations, Here the genocides, enslavements, lootings, forced deportations and scorched earth practices of the Romans--behaviors I've long known about but never quite appreciated the enormity of--prefigure the worst, but all too common, practices of subsequent powers. It's not a pretty picture.
Rather than presenting a long, dry recapitulation of archaeological evidences as regards the formation of the Roman state, Everitt treats of the legends as represented by late Republican and early Imperial authors such a Cicero, Livy and Varro. In other words, he combines the legends they relate as a coherent narrative, contrasting it occasionally with what we can reconstruct from physical evidences and common sense. This serves as a means to get at what they thought of themselves, their city and their civilization. This, he believes, tells us something of their character as a people, their virtues and their flaws.
The real historical record begins around the time of the invasion of Pyrrhus in the early third century B.C.E. Here the narrative continues as a description of growth and the fitful attempts by such as the Gracchi to adapt the traditional institutions of the city to its ever-expanding domain, wealth and population. Without saying as much, parallels with more modern empires, their rises and their falls, are evident.
What most struck me were the (unspoken) similarities between Rome and Nazi Germany as regards the treatment of subject populations, Here the genocides, enslavements, lootings, forced deportations and scorched earth practices of the Romans--behaviors I've long known about but never quite appreciated the enormity of--prefigure the worst, but all too common, practices of subsequent powers. It's not a pretty picture.
September 7, 2012
What makes this book great for me is that Everitt parses out myth and legend and story and history. Not only does he practically assess the causes of our common impressions of the rise and fall of the Roman republic, he takes them to task.
In "The Rise of Rome," we see both images; the lionized grandeur of a formative republic and its senate and the hypocrisy of Roman ideals. We see things through the eyes of the Roman elite as well as through those of their enemies. Regretably, we've no concept of the commoner, but Everitt does his best to venture a guess and explains his reasoning. He provides what there is to know and compares it with its counterpoints. In short, he gives us the concise but no less complete argument of pre-imperial Roman history and I don't think one can do much more than that.
Better still, Everitt's methods of explanation have greatly improved from his book on Cicero - also a great book. Here, he takes less for granted and chooses to remain circumspect in the absence of absolute fact. Whereas Cicero leaves you with some sense of his beatification by the author, no such thing exists in The Rise of Rome. He has allowed the Romans to be Romans, so you're allowed to see them as they are or at the very least as an outsider would and - truly - we are outsiders and what is best is to always remember that without romanticizing.
Of Everitt's books, I'd recommend this your first read. Then read Cicero. The Rise of Rome is just the grain of salt you need in approaching the story of humankind's first great republic and how it was built, collapsed and became just another Empire.
In "The Rise of Rome," we see both images; the lionized grandeur of a formative republic and its senate and the hypocrisy of Roman ideals. We see things through the eyes of the Roman elite as well as through those of their enemies. Regretably, we've no concept of the commoner, but Everitt does his best to venture a guess and explains his reasoning. He provides what there is to know and compares it with its counterpoints. In short, he gives us the concise but no less complete argument of pre-imperial Roman history and I don't think one can do much more than that.
Better still, Everitt's methods of explanation have greatly improved from his book on Cicero - also a great book. Here, he takes less for granted and chooses to remain circumspect in the absence of absolute fact. Whereas Cicero leaves you with some sense of his beatification by the author, no such thing exists in The Rise of Rome. He has allowed the Romans to be Romans, so you're allowed to see them as they are or at the very least as an outsider would and - truly - we are outsiders and what is best is to always remember that without romanticizing.
Of Everitt's books, I'd recommend this your first read. Then read Cicero. The Rise of Rome is just the grain of salt you need in approaching the story of humankind's first great republic and how it was built, collapsed and became just another Empire.
January 12, 2013
A fun read! I understand why some more conventional historians would oppose the meshing of myth and fact (and all the in-betweens), but I found it quite useful as a prequel for my recent trip to Rome. Everitt is right: unless you understand how the Romans understood themselves, a significant part of which was based on the mythic founding and founders of the city, it is hard to understand much of the classical iconography and architecture that you will find there.
I also couldn't help but think of some of the parallels to our current times in the US: the fall of the Republic as a collapse of the conventions and norms that governed political discourse, which rendered the checks and balances of the old constitution unworkable. Not that we are there by any means, but I think it is another example of how systems that rely on people to "just be good" don't work out very well over the long run.
I also couldn't help but think of some of the parallels to our current times in the US: the fall of the Republic as a collapse of the conventions and norms that governed political discourse, which rendered the checks and balances of the old constitution unworkable. Not that we are there by any means, but I think it is another example of how systems that rely on people to "just be good" don't work out very well over the long run.
March 3, 2025
How often do you think about the Roman Empire?
For me, it wasn’t a frequent thought until recently. With the release of Gladiator II, I decided to revisit the first film and found myself much more invested in its world and themes. While many had issues with Gladiator II, I thoroughly enjoyed it—the action, spectacle, and immersive theatre experience made it one of the most engaging historical films I’ve seen in a long time. It may not be entirely accurate, but it did what a great historical film should do: spark curiosity. That excitement led me to pick up The Rise of Rome: The Making of the World's Greatest Empire by Anthony Everitt, eager to explore the real history behind the legendary civilization that inspired the film.
I didn’t conduct extensive research on where to start reading about Rome, but this book caught my eye when its cover stood out to me, and I was determined to explore more about Rome. While I’m sure there are more detailed or scholarly works available, The Rise of Rome serves as an engaging introduction to the story of Rome’s beginnings, covering its early myths, historical foundations, and rise to dominance. It provides a readable, albeit somewhat brief, account of Rome’s path to empire, though I found that the transition from republic to empire felt hurried near the end. Ancient Rome continues to be a major influence on modern storytelling, appearing in films, books, and even science fiction. Even outside of direct depictions like Gladiator, references to Rome are ubiquitous—such as in Alien: Romulus, where the name itself evokes themes of foundation, survival, and expansion. It’s fascinating to see how Rome’s legacy endures not only in history but also in our collective imagination. Reading Everitt’s account of Rome’s origins deepened my appreciation for how foundational these myths and histories have been in shaping Western storytelling.
Everitt organizes his book into three sections: Legend, Story, and History. Legend delves into Rome’s mythical origins, including the story of Romulus and Remus. It is particularly intriguing to see how Romans regarded these myths not merely as tales but as essential components of their identity. Homer’s influence is apparent, with Roman leaders and citizens looking to The Iliad and The Odyssey as guides for heroism and governance. The power of myth in shaping civilizations is a theme that remains pertinent today. Story transitions from mythology to semi-historical accounts, discussing figures such as Aeneas and early Roman kings. While it’s challenging to distinguish fact from fiction in this period, Everitt presents the narratives in a manner that aids the reader in understanding how Romans perceived their own past. History ultimately shifts into a more documented era, covering the expansion of Rome, its military conquests, and political struggles. This section provides some of the book’s most captivating material, though at times it feels disjointed. The transitions between chapters could have been smoother, and the organization of events sometimes made it difficult to follow a clear timeline.
The book highlights how Rome’s innovations in government, law, and warfare have shaped the world we live in today. The Roman Republic established the foundation for modern democratic principles, and its legal system influenced many laws that are still in use worldwide. Reading about Rome’s governance prompted me to reflect on how deeply its systems are embedded in our modern institutions. Of course, Rome’s story is not solely one of triumph. The Republic was plagued with corruption, power struggles, and relentless warfare. Everitt does an excellent job summarizing key conflicts, but I occasionally found that his descriptions of wars and political intrigue lack cohesion. The book jumps between events instead of weaving them into a continuous narrative, which can make it challenging to fully grasp the cause-and-effect relationships that led to Rome’s transformation.
One of my main critiques of the book is how it handles the transition from Republic to Empire. The title, The Rise of Rome: The Making of the World's Greatest Empire, suggests a broad scope, but in reality, the focus is more on the Republic’s formation and struggles. The shift to an imperial system feels somewhat rushed, almost like an afterthought. While Everitt provides an engaging account of Rome’s foundations, I expected a deeper dive into how it evolved into the empire we recognize today. That said, I understand that Rome’s rise to imperial dominance didn’t happen overnight—it was the culmination of centuries of political maneuvering, military conquests, and social upheaval. This period of transition is complex, filled with shifting political dynamics and military campaigns that reshaped the ancient world.
Overall, I wouldn’t call The Rise of Rome: The Making of the World's Greatest Empire the definitive history of Rome’s formation, but it was a compelling and digestible introduction. Everitt’s writing is accessible, making complex historical events easier to follow, even if the narrative structure felt a bit uneven at times. This book has made me eager to explore more in-depth histories of Rome, particularly those that delve into the fall of the Republic, the formation of the empire, and the empire itself. If anyone has recommendations for books that provide a more detailed account of these developments or explore different aspects of Roman history, I’d love to hear them. Rome’s history is vast, and I’m excited to continue learning about it!
For me, it wasn’t a frequent thought until recently. With the release of Gladiator II, I decided to revisit the first film and found myself much more invested in its world and themes. While many had issues with Gladiator II, I thoroughly enjoyed it—the action, spectacle, and immersive theatre experience made it one of the most engaging historical films I’ve seen in a long time. It may not be entirely accurate, but it did what a great historical film should do: spark curiosity. That excitement led me to pick up The Rise of Rome: The Making of the World's Greatest Empire by Anthony Everitt, eager to explore the real history behind the legendary civilization that inspired the film.
I didn’t conduct extensive research on where to start reading about Rome, but this book caught my eye when its cover stood out to me, and I was determined to explore more about Rome. While I’m sure there are more detailed or scholarly works available, The Rise of Rome serves as an engaging introduction to the story of Rome’s beginnings, covering its early myths, historical foundations, and rise to dominance. It provides a readable, albeit somewhat brief, account of Rome’s path to empire, though I found that the transition from republic to empire felt hurried near the end. Ancient Rome continues to be a major influence on modern storytelling, appearing in films, books, and even science fiction. Even outside of direct depictions like Gladiator, references to Rome are ubiquitous—such as in Alien: Romulus, where the name itself evokes themes of foundation, survival, and expansion. It’s fascinating to see how Rome’s legacy endures not only in history but also in our collective imagination. Reading Everitt’s account of Rome’s origins deepened my appreciation for how foundational these myths and histories have been in shaping Western storytelling.
Everitt organizes his book into three sections: Legend, Story, and History. Legend delves into Rome’s mythical origins, including the story of Romulus and Remus. It is particularly intriguing to see how Romans regarded these myths not merely as tales but as essential components of their identity. Homer’s influence is apparent, with Roman leaders and citizens looking to The Iliad and The Odyssey as guides for heroism and governance. The power of myth in shaping civilizations is a theme that remains pertinent today. Story transitions from mythology to semi-historical accounts, discussing figures such as Aeneas and early Roman kings. While it’s challenging to distinguish fact from fiction in this period, Everitt presents the narratives in a manner that aids the reader in understanding how Romans perceived their own past. History ultimately shifts into a more documented era, covering the expansion of Rome, its military conquests, and political struggles. This section provides some of the book’s most captivating material, though at times it feels disjointed. The transitions between chapters could have been smoother, and the organization of events sometimes made it difficult to follow a clear timeline.
The book highlights how Rome’s innovations in government, law, and warfare have shaped the world we live in today. The Roman Republic established the foundation for modern democratic principles, and its legal system influenced many laws that are still in use worldwide. Reading about Rome’s governance prompted me to reflect on how deeply its systems are embedded in our modern institutions. Of course, Rome’s story is not solely one of triumph. The Republic was plagued with corruption, power struggles, and relentless warfare. Everitt does an excellent job summarizing key conflicts, but I occasionally found that his descriptions of wars and political intrigue lack cohesion. The book jumps between events instead of weaving them into a continuous narrative, which can make it challenging to fully grasp the cause-and-effect relationships that led to Rome’s transformation.
One of my main critiques of the book is how it handles the transition from Republic to Empire. The title, The Rise of Rome: The Making of the World's Greatest Empire, suggests a broad scope, but in reality, the focus is more on the Republic’s formation and struggles. The shift to an imperial system feels somewhat rushed, almost like an afterthought. While Everitt provides an engaging account of Rome’s foundations, I expected a deeper dive into how it evolved into the empire we recognize today. That said, I understand that Rome’s rise to imperial dominance didn’t happen overnight—it was the culmination of centuries of political maneuvering, military conquests, and social upheaval. This period of transition is complex, filled with shifting political dynamics and military campaigns that reshaped the ancient world.
Overall, I wouldn’t call The Rise of Rome: The Making of the World's Greatest Empire the definitive history of Rome’s formation, but it was a compelling and digestible introduction. Everitt’s writing is accessible, making complex historical events easier to follow, even if the narrative structure felt a bit uneven at times. This book has made me eager to explore more in-depth histories of Rome, particularly those that delve into the fall of the Republic, the formation of the empire, and the empire itself. If anyone has recommendations for books that provide a more detailed account of these developments or explore different aspects of Roman history, I’d love to hear them. Rome’s history is vast, and I’m excited to continue learning about it!
March 14, 2021
A good insightful read. No unnecessary detours of unneeded facts, persons or histories. Better in my opinion than Mary Beard's SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome. Tightly written, humorous when needed.
August 25, 2021
Speaking of classical civilization, the American novelist Poe said excitedly, "Glory belongs to Greece, and glory belongs to Rome." Indeed, ordinary readers with a little bit of historical knowledge can understand why we are still studying the societies of ancient Greece and Rome, because it is difficult to grasp the various forces that shape today's world without understanding the distant ancients. The ancient Greeks left Homer's epic, drama, democracy, and philosophy, and the Romans who followed them did not show weakness. With their many pioneering works in legal practice and urban construction, they set up an insurmountable monument.
The British historian Edward Gibbon started the research craze on the decline and fall of the Roman Empire with the emperor's masterpiece. However, compared to Gibbon's interest, Anthony Eforet is more concerned about how Rome rose to become a hegemon. In "The Rise of Rome", the author leads readers through the fog of legends and stories (although it is very fascinating), into the history of Rome from the very beginning to the proud power that can not be ignored. In this process, we saw kings who acted recklessly, and also appreciated the importance of the republic to the Romans in a certain period of time.
As one of the holy places of the Catholic Church, Rome is an eternal city, but in terms of literary and artistic achievements, Rome can still be worthy of this title. As we all know, "Iliad" describes the desperate struggle between the Greek Union and the Trojans, and the great Roman epic "Aeneas" is equally impressive, and it is particularly striking that it will be the ancestors of the Romans. Dating back to the Trojans, Rome naturally became the "New Troy": this seemed to foreshadow the frictions, conflicts and wars between Rome and the Greek city-states in the years to come.
Rome has an indissoluble bond with the number "seven", not only because it is well-known as the "city of seven hills", but also because it had seven kings (in the reign of kings) and its beautiful seven-syllable verses. However, in Eforet's view, there may be more than seven kings in history. The history from the dictatorship of the king to the republic is as uncertain as most stories about ancient Rome. The specific reasons are unknown and the fuse is also controversial, but the fact of republic is beyond doubt.
The civil war is also one of the important features of Rome, which has plagued the Romans for hundreds of years. Perhaps this kind of fraternal rivalry is doomed in the legend of the twins of Romulus and Remus: in the process of choosing a location for the new city, the former brutally killed the latter. In the ensuing hundreds of years, conflicts between nobles and tyrants, commoners and nobles continued one after another, even if it did not tear Rome, at least it caused it to suffer from the suffering of life, not to mention the many consuls in the late Republic. The experience that challenged the republic and set off a civil war.
In spite of this, the Romans achieved prosperity and prosperity, although the road was not without twists and turns. The experience of the Romans in achieving this is worthy of a great book: under normal circumstances, after completing the conquest, they will establish their own alliance system, instead of exhausting all the resources of the conquered land, the Republic of Rome during the transition to the empire, more It did not hesitate to expand Roman citizenship, allowing some citizens of the conquered land to enjoy Roman political status-they used their own system of laws as an important guarantee.
The existence of the ancient Roman Colosseum inadvertently contributed to our stereotype of the Romans: they were martial arts, even militants. However, we have no evidence that other peoples love peace more, not to mention that it was a period of frequent wars. It cannot be denied that war plays a unique role in the public life of the elite. For men, war is an indispensable part of their masculinity and respect and prestige to reach the top of the political arena. Therefore, we It is difficult to see that Roman men without war experience will have extraordinary influence in Roman society, not to mention that Rome is about to become an empire.
The British historian Edward Gibbon started the research craze on the decline and fall of the Roman Empire with the emperor's masterpiece. However, compared to Gibbon's interest, Anthony Eforet is more concerned about how Rome rose to become a hegemon. In "The Rise of Rome", the author leads readers through the fog of legends and stories (although it is very fascinating), into the history of Rome from the very beginning to the proud power that can not be ignored. In this process, we saw kings who acted recklessly, and also appreciated the importance of the republic to the Romans in a certain period of time.
As one of the holy places of the Catholic Church, Rome is an eternal city, but in terms of literary and artistic achievements, Rome can still be worthy of this title. As we all know, "Iliad" describes the desperate struggle between the Greek Union and the Trojans, and the great Roman epic "Aeneas" is equally impressive, and it is particularly striking that it will be the ancestors of the Romans. Dating back to the Trojans, Rome naturally became the "New Troy": this seemed to foreshadow the frictions, conflicts and wars between Rome and the Greek city-states in the years to come.
Rome has an indissoluble bond with the number "seven", not only because it is well-known as the "city of seven hills", but also because it had seven kings (in the reign of kings) and its beautiful seven-syllable verses. However, in Eforet's view, there may be more than seven kings in history. The history from the dictatorship of the king to the republic is as uncertain as most stories about ancient Rome. The specific reasons are unknown and the fuse is also controversial, but the fact of republic is beyond doubt.
The civil war is also one of the important features of Rome, which has plagued the Romans for hundreds of years. Perhaps this kind of fraternal rivalry is doomed in the legend of the twins of Romulus and Remus: in the process of choosing a location for the new city, the former brutally killed the latter. In the ensuing hundreds of years, conflicts between nobles and tyrants, commoners and nobles continued one after another, even if it did not tear Rome, at least it caused it to suffer from the suffering of life, not to mention the many consuls in the late Republic. The experience that challenged the republic and set off a civil war.
In spite of this, the Romans achieved prosperity and prosperity, although the road was not without twists and turns. The experience of the Romans in achieving this is worthy of a great book: under normal circumstances, after completing the conquest, they will establish their own alliance system, instead of exhausting all the resources of the conquered land, the Republic of Rome during the transition to the empire, more It did not hesitate to expand Roman citizenship, allowing some citizens of the conquered land to enjoy Roman political status-they used their own system of laws as an important guarantee.
The existence of the ancient Roman Colosseum inadvertently contributed to our stereotype of the Romans: they were martial arts, even militants. However, we have no evidence that other peoples love peace more, not to mention that it was a period of frequent wars. It cannot be denied that war plays a unique role in the public life of the elite. For men, war is an indispensable part of their masculinity and respect and prestige to reach the top of the political arena. Therefore, we It is difficult to see that Roman men without war experience will have extraordinary influence in Roman society, not to mention that Rome is about to become an empire.
March 5, 2025
Honestly I think I prefer the Roman Republic over the Roman Empire. This book was great. I’ve read a few overviews of Roman history and now I’m starting to target in on key areas I’m interested in.
Early Rome is fascinating. The political intrigue and the massive military campaigns are paramount.
Personally, I really enjoy the Punic Wars. I couldn’t help but laugh at the Roman Corvus. The idea that Rome was terrible sailors so they threw a big bridge with a spike on their ships so they could fight a land war at sea was fantastic.
Moving the to Second Punic War, Hannibal might be one of the greatest tacticians in history. The Battle of Cannae was an absolute masterclass in military strategy. It’s crazy to think how different history would have been if he could’ve gotten his Spanish reinforcements.
I know it’s cliche to say that history repeats but it’s incredible how often it does. The fights between the Patricians and Plebeians for control of Roman politics was fascinating. The impact of the Roman Republic on the American founding fathers paints a very rose colored picture on the Roman Senate. We may have modeled our own government after it, but the real version was rife with corruption, assassination, and was essentially an oligarchy (I guess maybe it is the same). It was still a better system than the autocracy that would follow but it’s cool to study the real history and not just the stuff that’s made its way into our collective conscious.
This is a great place to start with the Roman Republic. I’d definitely recommend it. Now I need to dig deeper into the Punic Wars.
Early Rome is fascinating. The political intrigue and the massive military campaigns are paramount.
Personally, I really enjoy the Punic Wars. I couldn’t help but laugh at the Roman Corvus. The idea that Rome was terrible sailors so they threw a big bridge with a spike on their ships so they could fight a land war at sea was fantastic.
Moving the to Second Punic War, Hannibal might be one of the greatest tacticians in history. The Battle of Cannae was an absolute masterclass in military strategy. It’s crazy to think how different history would have been if he could’ve gotten his Spanish reinforcements.
I know it’s cliche to say that history repeats but it’s incredible how often it does. The fights between the Patricians and Plebeians for control of Roman politics was fascinating. The impact of the Roman Republic on the American founding fathers paints a very rose colored picture on the Roman Senate. We may have modeled our own government after it, but the real version was rife with corruption, assassination, and was essentially an oligarchy (I guess maybe it is the same). It was still a better system than the autocracy that would follow but it’s cool to study the real history and not just the stuff that’s made its way into our collective conscious.
This is a great place to start with the Roman Republic. I’d definitely recommend it. Now I need to dig deeper into the Punic Wars.
February 28, 2023
600 years is a long time to cover in 400 pages, but Everitt does it beautifully.
I recently read Beard's SPQR, which was good but I felt it's scope was too grand for its length. This book however, in chronicling the years from foundation to about 60 BCE (and spending a majority of time from 4th century BCE foreward), I find it's scope to be more appropriate. The level of zoom is enough to capture major events and their meaning, but also to provide color by going into detail about the characters involved in the events, all without getting bogged down in too much politics or combat maneuvers.
On display here is a wonderful picture of how Rome came to be an empire through aggression, creativity, and compromise, the largest empire in the world, and the key events that led to corruption and end of the Republic. In the end, Everitt in a way can make you feel the mourning and nostalgia for the Republic just as Cicero felt it.
I recently read Beard's SPQR, which was good but I felt it's scope was too grand for its length. This book however, in chronicling the years from foundation to about 60 BCE (and spending a majority of time from 4th century BCE foreward), I find it's scope to be more appropriate. The level of zoom is enough to capture major events and their meaning, but also to provide color by going into detail about the characters involved in the events, all without getting bogged down in too much politics or combat maneuvers.
On display here is a wonderful picture of how Rome came to be an empire through aggression, creativity, and compromise, the largest empire in the world, and the key events that led to corruption and end of the Republic. In the end, Everitt in a way can make you feel the mourning and nostalgia for the Republic just as Cicero felt it.
November 29, 2022
An enjoyable, fast paced history on the Roman kings and Roman Republic. For parts of the book, we are viewing Rome from an outsider's eyes (Pyrrhus, Hannibal), but the majority of the time we are looking at the most important events in Roman history, with some interesting chapters on the culture and daily life in Rome. I think Everitt is most comfortable in the last several chapters, when discussing the downward spiral of the Republic, but these chapters were fairly condensed. As he clearly noted, the beginning histories are legendary and almost entirely fictional, but I can’t help but wish he spent more time on the kings and early Republic, instead of leading into the collapse. This said, the book was still highly entertaining and left me wanting to read more about it, and more from Everitt, so I’d highly recommend to those interested in Roman History.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 309 reviews