The history of the Roman republic and Empire

[Claudius the God]

I've just been given all eight volumes of Edward Gibbon's The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

but i don't know what to look at first, i just want to pass the time with something interresting...

any suggestions?

[nokhor]

8 volumes?

i've been plodding through them for the last couple of months and i have the unabridged version. so difficult to find, and the version i have only has six volumes. don't tell me he wrote more? the thing is lenghty. i'm on chapter 50 and dude jibber jabbers a lot and writes these convoluted sentences that skirt with dancing around what he's trying to allude to. i know it was the writing style of the time for any man of letters in england but i'd rather have a little less 'wuthering heights' style in my history and more bluntness.

[Claudius the God]

mine has maps

[Rayven1]

If your interested in the rise and fall of the empire you might find this interesting as well.

I was very interested in the events of Teutonberg Wald (9AD) and I found some books that deal with the topic that I thought might be entertaining for those interested in the Roman Empire.
(Teutonberg Wald is one of the most important events in history. Without the events in Teutonberg forest in 9AD there would be no Germanic dialects as the people would have been subjugated by by the Romans like the peoples of Gaul. There would be no Germanic peoples to influence the evolution of english language and no Saxons to invade Brittan. Infact, there would be no Vandals to sack Rome some 400+ years later.)

The books I found most interesting when looking into this topic were:

History of the Art of War Within the Framework of Political History Volume2 -by Hans Delbruck

The Great Battles of Antiquity a Strategic and Tactical Guide to Great Battles that Shaped the Development of War - By Richard A. Gabriel and Donald W. Boose JR.

[Somebody Else]

Book One has a nice overview of the empire, and is probably a good place to start. Personally, I'm going for straight though, in order. On Book Two at the moment, got a bit bogged down in all that blither about Christianity.

[Dutch_guy]

yeah Teatonburg forrest (Wald ) is indeed interresting '' Give me back my legions ! '', never thought about the fact that it was a part of the cause of the sacking of Rome, good thinking about that one...I would also read about Ceasar, I think he was one of the most brilliant generals of al time, which explainse how he managed to conquer gaul in 9 years, with not a single motorized thing in his army

[_Aetius_]

Ive Gibbons *masterpiece* ive read most of it that interested me, and didnt find it to hot to be honest, i havent read it all and its a shortened version but still massive, however i just couldnt get into it.

[fuddha]

Ceasar (Gaius Julius) was truly a great person. But to call him the greatest of all is mistake. He was not a master tactician nor a master strategist. For example; In one battle with the Gauls (can't remember where or when, sorry) his troops were completly surrounded. What he did was the probably worst thing he could do - he charged in both directions. Yet he got extremley lucky and got away with it. The sole reason the Roman troops didn't flee is because they knew if they deserted their whole unit would be tortured and some even to death. That's the reason for the success of their armies. Strict discipline and organization that nowhere in the ancient world could be found.
Ceasar was only special that he was the first of many generals that would use his own troops against Rome herself. Yes, his own troops. He took every drifter, petty criminal, vagabund he could find and give them food, shelter and training. He made men out of nobody. After they were too old to fight he gave them land in newely conquered areas thus expanding Romes power directly. In the ancient Rome, if you didn't have land, you were nobody. That's why his troops were loyal to him instead of senate. Caeser inventioned pension plan... When he was called to Rome, and was specificaly told to leave his troops behind, he knew that his greatest rival general will kill him, the rest is history...
If you ask me what's the greatest person from Roman times, it has to be Cinncinatus. For those of you who don't know, he was a noble man that lived a life of simple folk. One day he got elected for the dictator to defend Rome from the enemy. He dropped his plow and took his sword. Once he banished the enemy, he still had a couple of months left to rule and govern all roman people as he wished. Since he had power over every life and death in Rome he could have ordered that everybody must be painted blue and walk the streets on their hands if he wanted so, and he could get away with it too. However, on the day of his victory he stepped down from the office of dictator and returned to his plow.

What made Rome itself great? It wasn't the fact that they ruled whole know world in their day... It was the fact that an etruscan king made the first census in the world. After they got rid of etruscans, Romans sweared that they'll never be under a king again. They used the census to know how many people Rome had, thus general public voting became a possibility. A truly organised republic. Of course the greeks had republic long before Rome was a collection of mud shacks, but Rome wasn't a simple collection of small bickering tribes. The ability for a state to be that highly organized is what made Rome great. Of course the Greece was conquered! Each greek army had 10 or more generals that could give out orders with equal importance. They needed a lengthy counsel each time to perform a simplest flank!

[caesar44]

wow
caesar was a failure , he was beaten repeatedly , repeatedly
this is new history
caesar was beaten repeatedly...
you could have an argument until now
let us rewrite history - caesar did not conquered gaul , did not beat all of his enemies including pompey the great , did not took egypt with 3,000 man , did not invade britania (for the only time in 100 years) , did not rule an empire alone tor the first time ever , did not became a common hero as a dictator , he did not establish an empire for centuries , no no , he was beaten repeatedly by the gauls , by the britons , by ahenobarbus or calvinus or something like that and most of all - by the descendants of scipio in mauritania or numidia or africa
oh plutarch , cicero , saliustius , appianus , dio cassius , paterculus ets
did you not noticed that caesar was beaten tepeatedly

i rest my case

by the way , caesar was kidnapped by pirates in 75 , you could add it to his defeats

[Rayven1]

wow
caesar was a failure , he was beaten repeatedly , repeatedly
this is new history
caesar was beaten repeatedly...
you could have an argument until now
let us rewrite history - caesar did not conquered gaul , did not beat all of his enemies including pompey the great , did not took egypt with 3,000 man , did not invade britania (for the only time in 100 years) , did not rule an empire alone tor the first time ever , did not became a common hero as a dictator , he did not establish an empire for centuries , no no , he was beaten repeatedly by the gauls , by the britons , by ahenobarbus or calvinus or something like that and most of all - by the descendants of scipio in mauritania or numidia or africa
oh plutarch , cicero , saliustius , appianus , dio cassius , paterculus ets
did you not noticed that caesar was beaten tepeatedly

i rest my case

by the way , caesar was kidnapped by pirates in 75 , you could add it to his defeats

LOL!! I liked the 75 pirates thing. I don't think anyone is trying to say Ceasar was a failure. Ceasar was a great general but he was bad at politics and had very little tact when it came to pushing his domestic agenda forward. He tried to change to much all at once. To Ceasar's credit he was a big success when it came to destroying the republic

[Rayven1]

" he did not establish an empire for centuries , no no "

Actually your right about that. Augustus established the principate. Ceasar mortally wounded the republic but Augustus finished it off and established the empire.


BTW: Someone said Augustus was no General. That person would be very wrong. Augustus was incharge of operations during the civil war and he beat Anthony , Sextus, Lepidus and the Liberators that remained. Regardless of reverses ultimate victory would always fall to Augustus. It was under Augustus that we see the Pax Roma.

Ok, I know someone will mention that while Augustus was emperor we see the destruction of 3 legions in Germany in 9AD under Varus. Remember that at this point Augustus had nothing really to do with the day to day operations of the military like he did during the civil war. Also remember that it was while Augustus was Emperor that Drusus subjegated the Germans in the first place and if it was'nt for Tiberius's fear of a Roman general controling troops for years on end Germanicus would have re-conquered Germany more than likely. If we look at the supply routes along the Lippe established by Germanicus we can see that he solved Drusus's supply problem and gave Aliso a line of supply and communication back to Vetera(Roman fort on the Rhine)

[Strategy]

caesar was beaten repeatedly...

Yes, as already pointed out. Gergovia, Dyrrhachium, and Ruspina are all Caesarian defeats. He won a lot too; but that doesn't change facts.

And actually Caesar:
- Did not beat all of his enemies (The Pompeian faction survived Caesar; Aggrippa was the man who put an end to the last of them - Sextus Pompeius).
- Did not conquor Egypt (Cleopatra remained ruler of Egypt until it was annexed by Augustus).
- Did not conquor Brittania and basically achieved nothing worthwhile during his visit there (except get some good propaganda material).
- Did not rule an empire alone; the first thing he did upon his arrival in Rome was to call into being the Senate. His power as dictator was no greater than that wielded by Sulla (and actually less - Sulla simply killed those who opposed him; Caesar refused to do so).
- Did not establish an empire for centuries; Augustus was the one who did that.
- Was in fact rather unpopular at the time of his death (as Plutarch also notes). He was considerably more popular fater hid assasination than prior to it, and that was partly through the manipulations of Antonius.

oh plutarch , cicero , saliustius , appianus , dio cassius , paterculus ets
did you not noticed that caesar was beaten tepeatedly

Yes they did. Assuming you've read any of them, you'd notice too.

Even Caesar notices that Caesar was beaten, though he likes try and cover it up.

i rest my case

What case was that? That Caesar was a failure? I think you'll have to find better arguements than those (though the case can be made - he did after all fail to reform Rome with ruinous consequences for himself and the Republic).

[Proletariat]

After reading this thread over a glass of chianti, I am salivating for more. I never studied history at all in school but recently developed a deep interest in antiquity. I just finished Plutarch's "Roman Lives" Penguin Classics and I still didn't know a quarter of the things brought up here. Could any of you recommend something to the laywoman to follow up Roman Lives with for more information? I'm specifically interested in Caesar and Cicero, if that narrows it down at all.



Oh yeah, and demanding that your ransom be twice as much as asked for when kidnapped by pirates and than crucifying your captors is up there with Greatest Turn of Events Ever.

[caesar44]

Yes, as already pointed out. Gergovia, Dyrrhachium, and Ruspina are all Caesarian defeats. He won a lot too; but that doesn't change facts.

And actually Caesar:
- Did not beat all of his enemies (The Pompeian faction survived Caesar; Aggrippa was the man who put an end to the last of them - Sextus Pompeius).
- Did not conquor Egypt (Cleopatra remained ruler of Egypt until it was annexed by Augustus).
- Did not conquor Brittania and basically achieved nothing worthwhile during his visit there (except get some good propaganda material).
- Did not rule an empire alone; the first thing he did upon his arrival in Rome was to call into being the Senate. His power as dictator was no greater than that wielded by Sulla (and actually less - Sulla simply killed those who opposed him; Caesar refused to do so).
- Did not establish an empire for centuries; Augustus was the one who did that.
- Was in fact rather unpopular at the time of his death (as Plutarch also notes). He was considerably more popular fater hid assasination than prior to it, and that was partly through the manipulations of Antonius.



Yes they did. Assuming you've read any of them, you'd notice too.

Even Caesar notices that Caesar was beaten, though he likes try and cover it up.



What case was that? That Caesar was a failure? I think you'll have to find better arguements than those (though the case can be made - he did after all fail to reform Rome with ruinous consequences for himself and the Republic).

so "he who know history better then me" if caesar was a failure then
napoleon was a joke , if caesar was a failure then hanibaal was a fool , pompey was a success yes because his sons outlived caesar hmmm
in your point of view alexander was a failure because his empire collapsed after his death
o yes cleopatra was ruling egypt , but you forgat , caesar loved her how you missed that ???
again and again you repeat the britania invasion and you simply wont listen
he did not want to conquer the island but to cut the supply road to galia
do you really think that octavian could rule an empire just like that , hey the first thing he did was to call himself caesar the second thing he did was to take control of caesar money and with that to control his army
aha now caesar was unpopular , you really don't know that antonius controlled rome just because he was caesar right hand
antonius words about caesar made rome a city on fire , just the word caesar made the people of rome fanatic and the "liberatores" so frightened that they escaped rome for ever
no matter you achieved something in your life - you are the first man ever to say that caesar was a failure
go to the academy and shout it and take with you the books of ancient historians to make your point they in the academy will be glad to laugh a little