A History of Rome

Title: A History of Rome

Author: Marcel Le Glay, Jean-Louis Voisin & Yann Le Bohec

Publisher: Blackwell Publishing, 2002 (First published 1991)

ISBN: 9780631218593

Pages: 563

History is the topic on which the most number of books are reviwed in this blog. So, it is embarrassing for me to admit that I am yet to read a complete history of the Roman Empire from start (!) to finish (?). Familiarisation with the world’s oldest superpower has been in bits and pieces from the descriptions in other books which deal with only a part of the story. One of my pet projects to review the entire ubabridged version of Toynbee’s ‘A Study of History’ is nearing completion and the next logical step is to try Gibbon’s ‘History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire’, considered by scholars to be the best historical work in the English language. A primer is hence absolutely necessary on Roman history and that’s the relevance of this volume. This book is aimed more on students rather than casual or serious readers and is said to be the best single-volume history of Rome. All three authors were eminent professors of history at the prominent universities in France.

The first part of the volume describes the story of the Roman state from its origins to the establishment of a continent-spanning Empire. The transition to the Empire was from a republic but not in the modern sense. The post-revolutionary emergence of democracy in the western world brought with it new political structures. Fundamentals of the modern republic are obviously borrowed from the ancient institution, but the difference is also profound. In history, only the voice of the well-to-do was heard in the decision making body. The poor, artisans, women, slaves and inhabitants of annexed territories didn’t possess any role to play in the functioning of the republic. Rome was administered first by kings and then changed over to the oligarchic control by patricians, which lasted for nearly four centuries. Voice of the people, as it was often called, didn’t translate to enlightenment in foreign policy and matters of military conflicts. Carthage paid dearly for the capriciousness and avarice of Roman senators, who were captivated by the riches of Carthage in the Third Punic war. The Republican regime destroyed Carthage, destroyed its magnificence, sold its people to slavery and took effective measures to ensure the city would never rise up again to become a challenge to Rome. This is a clear illustration of the fact that political enlightenment is a product of the age and not related to the development of an institution that looks like modern, at least in paper. The first Triumvirate comprising Julius Caesar, Pompey and Crassus set in motion a chain of events that undermined the republic and which were brought to completion by the Second triumvirate, consisting of Octavian, Lepidus and Mark Antony. When Octavian defeated Mark Antony at the battle of Actium in 31 BCE, the republic vanished from the face of Earth.

Rome as we know, it is said to have ended in 410 CE, with the Goths sacking the city which was ripe for any adventurous barbarian with sufficient means to try his luck on the capital city, already weakened and disintegrated from within due to schism in the political and cultural fields. The birth of Constantinople as a rival to the eternal city marked a shift in the centre of gravity to the east. Paganism’s eventual decline is noteworthy in this era. Christianity suffered much in the form of persecutions in the early period, but the vitality of a new religion carried them forward, drawing sustenance from the blood of martyrs, and not yielding an inch in theology and ecclesiastical practices. We also see that the curious spectacle of the roles of the persecutor and the persecuted interchange between paganism and Christianity. After Constantine accepted Christianity and the later Christian Emperors made practice of paganism illegal, Christians pounced on their pagan rivals with as little compassion and tolerance they had received from them, when the pagans were on the ascendant. Constantine’s intellectual backwardness is brightly illustrated by the remark that ‘he was a man with a narrow forehead, but a powerful jaw’!

Being a text book for students, this is to be treated only as a starting point on the initiation of serious reading on a particular theme of Roman history. The authors have included a number of personalities and events to ensure comprehensiveness, rather than stopping to explain them in detail. The book includes a good many monochrome images of Roman ruins and art which provide much interest. A chronological table, a comprehensive glossary and a commendable index adds value to the text. It provides a fine list of Roman and Greek writers and suggests an impressive list of books for further reading. Originality is clearly lacking in the ideas expressed in the volume, but that is hardly something one would look for in a book, meant as a text book for students. Illustrative maps of the various periods in Roman history are much worthy of adding to one’s own collection.

The book’s historicity is undermined by referring to Jesus as a historical character. Without second thoughts on the foundation on reality of the extraordinary claim they are about to make, the book states that “Near the end of Tiberius reign, a man named Jesus died on the cross in Jerusalem. The prefect of the province of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, whose existence is attested by an inscription, very probably submitted a report on the matter to the Emperor, but it appears that no echo of this local news item reached wider circles in Rome” (p.232). Here, the authors rely on the existence of a local governor to weave a story to conform to their religious beliefs. Pilate, who was real for sure, is said to have ‘very probably’ submitted a report to his capital city! But it didn’t cause any echo there. Why? If the Bible is to be believed, Jesus died on the cross, but was resurrected on the third day. This incident has such a terrific news value as to rivet the attention of the Emperor and the entire state. On the contrary we don’t even have evidence of such a report. See the heap of unanswerable questions generated by linking a religious belief which has no evidence on reality to a historical character! This moral debauchery on the part of a historian is unpardonable. The book’s authenticity falls by a notch due to this unfortunate episode.

The book is highly recommended.

Rating: 3 Star