Livy: The Early History of Rome

Since I recently reported on a book that I read about ancient Roman history, that I did not find interesting, I thought I'd report on one that I really liked. I actually read this many years ago, but made notes in the margins to help my (very bad) memory. Anyway, here it is-

The Early History of Rome, Livy

A captivating, almost year-by-year account of the early history of Rome from about 1200 B.C. to 750 B.C. until about 385 B.C., summarized in five “books”. Spoilers ahead...

The city itself was founded sometime around 750 B.C. but the book starts long before that in an attempt to show (prove?) that the Romans (or more correctly, the Latins), originated from the Trojans of ancient Troy. That may or may not be true, and Livy settles quickly into a period of time during which Rome was ruled by kings, beginning with the story of Romulus and Remus -- one brother killing the other, and their city taking the name of Romulus.

Book One covers this period - from 750 B.C. (ish) to 507 B.C. Romulus was the first of seven kings, the last being Tarquin, who was ousted, the Romans tiring of being ruled by tyrants. With the election of the first Consuls, Brutus and Collatinus, the beginning of the Roman Republic was set in motion.

Book Two covers the time of the early republic - of wars with their neighbors, the Sabines, the Etruscans, Aurunci, Volscians, and more - and also of social change, particularly of friction between the patrician ruling class and the plebeian masses. Debtors were made slaves; creditors or lenders had the power of life and death over them. The plebs on the whole were indebted to the ruling class. The friction reached a climax where the plebs left the city of Rome in secession for an adjacent hilltop (the sacred mount) in 494 B.C. From here was born the concept of the Tribunes - representatives of the common people. With this crisis averted without bloodshed, the Romans refocused on fighting their neighbors. In this times, the Romans showed that they were capable of engaging in armed conflict on two fronts, simultaneously and separately engaging their rivals in Veii and the Aequians. By 480 B.C., Rome had arrived as a formidable military power. At the same time, the friction between plebeians and patricians continued - Consuls were put on trial by Tribunes at the end of their terms, and Tribunes were murdered.

Book Three covers the social upheaval in more detail, and covers the period from 467 B.C. to 446 B.C. It should be noted that Livy himself was a patrician, and outwardly criticizes the decisions and the actions of the Tribunes, and at times seems quite biased. There were patrician politicians who made concessions to the plebeians in the interest of better relations, but were often chastised by their own class. But there were advances and setbacks in the relationship. And focus often returned to external conflict- during this period, the Romans were at war again with the Aequians and the Henrici, and virtually wiped out the Volscians. (Apparently a cow talked in 461bc. o_0.) To help with their social problems, the Romans turned to the Greeks for advice, and sent envoys to study Greek law. A group of learned men were appointed - the Decemvirs (there were 10 of them) to temporarily replace the Consuls, and to publish laws that would govern Roman society. Consular and Tribunal positions were eliminated. This was a success to a certain extent, but the Decemvirs grew accustomed to their power, and the plebes, now without representation, were resentful. Again in 450 B.C., the entire plebeian population left Rome for the sacred mount; and again, there was no bloodshed. The crisis ended with the Consular and Tribunal positions reinstated.

Book Four covers the period from 455 to 404 B.C. This period stars with the Plebs requesting the right to elect one of the Consuls- a position strictly intended for patricians only, and was seen as a threat to the particians. But war got in the way again, and the Romans now faced renewed hostility from without, and to deal with it, the patricians in 444 B.C., allowed ‘Military Tribunes’ to hold Consular powers, to that Rome could get on with defending/attacking their external enemies. Famine and plague afflicted the city, and in 430 B.C., the Carthaginians landed in Sicily, but this was not seen as relevant at the time. Fighting continues against Veii, Aequians and Volscians.

Book Five covers the period from 403 B.C to 386 B.C., and this is when the rivalry between Rome and the Etruscan city of Veii came to a head. As the Romans laid siege upon Veii, armies of Capena and the Falerii attacked the Roman camps, however Roman preparedness and tactics resulted in the capture of the city, followed by the killing and enslaving of the entire population. At this time, Veii passes into history. For a century or more up to this time, the Celtic Gauls were gradually populating Etruscan territories in the Po valley and south of the Alps, and now they were on the move south. A Roman army met them, but Celtic victory was swift, and the Gauls proceeded to sack Rome. Livy says that the citadel remained intact and that the Romans paid a fortune in gold to persuade the Gauls to leave. He also says that a remnant Roman army surprised the Gauls outside Rome, and put them to slaughter. Some of these details are disputed, but the facts are that the Gauls came suddenly and were gone suddenly, and while Rome was vanquished, it remained, and after a generation, grew much, much stronger.

Unlike some of other Roman classic literature, I really enjoyed reading Livy. For the most part, he moves quickly from event to event, covering historical facts without too much bravado and embellishments. Well, for the most part, anyway. Aubrey De Selincourt's translation was easy to read, and Robert Oglivie's introduction was informative without being overly analytical.

**** 4 stars out of 5!

That's right, another book. Tacitus: The Annals of Imperial Rome

The Annals of Imperial Rome

Tacitus

One of my fave subjects is ancient history, and of that, ancient Roman history interests me the most. In this book, Publius Cornelius Tacitus, a Hadrian-era writer and senator, retells the stories of the Emperors from the death of Augustus to the downfall of Nero. Written sometime around AD 120, covering events from AD 14 to AD 66. Along with Suetonius, these works are the basis for our knowledge of the early Roman empire. Tacitus suggests that earlier authors were biased because of their being alive closer to or during the events, they wrote about, either in fear of retribution, or, more likely, in retaliation for poor treatment (personal or reputational injury) by the subjects of the text. I’m not sure who he was referring to- probably not Suetonius - he wrote after him - perhaps some lost works.

One interesting tidbit- Tacitus, a wealthy aristocrat, believed that the non-wealthy were all lazy. How things have not changed in 2000 years…

Tacitus describes Tiberius as aloof and absent from the Senate, and describes the climate in the Senate as one of predatory behavior - accusations of treason for the purposes of being awarded the property of the victims. He compares Tiberius’ adopted son, Germanicus, to Alexander the Great, showing an unexpected amount of love for a young warrior-politician. Maybe in the same way that Americans idolize JFK?

He doesn't say much about Caligula, whom he refers to as Gaius; most of these sections are lost. Much of the sections on Claudius were lost as well, although from what is left, we seems to shine a more favorable light on him. There is quite a lot of coverage on Nero, whom he portrays as quite a monster - especially after a failed coup by a group of senators, members of the guard and others. Paranoia seems to have played a major role in his spiral downward.

The drama of the political court is interesting when the players are generally known - for example, the emperors themselves, Germanicus, Sejanus, various well known senators, etc., but less interesting when the players are unknown (at least to me), and this tends to drone on and on.

I stalled on this years ago (2005?) near the end of the section on Tiberius. Later in 2015, I made it past that, and into the Claudius section, but faltered again. Finally finished with Claudius and the final sections on Nero in 2016. Again, a lot of court intrigue between unknowns (plus the fall of Neros’s mother Agrippina, which was far less interesting than I imagined that it would be).

For me, one of the ultimate goals was to read about Tacitus’ off-hand mention of a certain Christ executed by a certain Pilate, and how depraved these crazy Christ followers were. Just a small passage, but one of the few mentions in all ancient Roman works. Depravity is a term used often in Tacitus’ work; he uses it to describe the sexual perversions of Nero and others, but also Nero’s mere undignified habits as well - i.e., singing and acting. I guess ‘depravity’ can have many meanings. To be fair though, from other readings, it seems there was a lot of misinformation regarding Christians of the day (apparently, some Romans believed that they sacrificed their own children to their God, etc.).

I found myself questioning some the the prose in this book- having been written so many years after the events, and including minute details about people’s motivations, etc. While Tacitus did have access to senatorial records, did they really contain that much detail? I feel that much must have been hearsay at the very least, or perhaps even just made up. Now I know that many ancient authors, when writing about important events decades or centuries earlier, detailed long speeches made by relevant historical figures, and that they were just ‘capturing the mood of the moment’ in and around these events. But to me, at times it feels a little bit like fiction.

I’ve read both Suetonius and Tacitus covering the same period, and I definitely preferred Suetonius. Tacitus does bring a lot more detail, but for me, much of that extra detail wasn’t the interesting detail. I have ordered Tacitus’ “Histories” but won’t get to it for while. I don’t find Tacitus an easy read. I'd recommend it only to those with an extremely keen interest in the subject matter.