Roman history was not something that had much emphasis in school. I can’t remember any specific classes, and I suspect that any Roman history we were taught lasted maybe a week. I’ve always wanted to learn more about Ancient Rome (and Ancient Greece, for that matter – we did read The Odyssey in second grade), and Rome has rekindled that desire. I’ve often thought about picking up The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire. How about some suggestions for other works on Roman history?
If you’re interested in more fiction then you might want to check out “The First Man in Rome” by Colleen McCullough. She wrote some other books set in Rome but that’s the only one I’ve read and it was very good.
Adrian Goldsworthy has written a few books about the Roman army that are pretty good. You can find his books in most big box bookstores. Don’t ignore old historians like Polybius or Livy. You can find their works for relatively inexpensive prices and they often come with excellent footnotes.
Marc
I’m looking for non-fiction.
There are some good translations out there of the Roman historians/biographers themselves - that’s what I’d recommend reading first. I’d recommend the Penquin Classics translations of Polybius and Suetonius; Woodman’s translation of Tacitus’ Annals is great if you can find it. Livy is available in several volumes of Penguin Classics, but I haven’t read those versions myself so I don’t know if they are any good. Another good Penguin Classic is the Cicero volume ‘Murder Trials’ which contains some of the most interesting cases from the 1st c. BCE.
The best guide IMHO to the period 44 BCE - 180 CE is Martin Goodman’s ‘The Roman World’ but it does not contain extensive narrative.
Other sources worth reading (in the Loeb bilingual editions, or other translations) include the letters of Cicero, Cassius Dio’s history of Rome, Josephus’ Jewish War, the letters of Pliny, and various ‘Lives’ of Plutarch from the Roman period.
Along with Gibbon (who I would strongly cautyion against taking too seriously - a great artist though), Ammianus Marcellinus’s history is available from Penguin, and in a very readable translation. Peter Brown’s book ‘The World of Late Antiquity’ is the best guide I think for the period 200 - 500 CE.
With all the primary sources, it is always worth remembering that the authors were not under the same obligation to the ‘truth’ as modern historians and journalists might be. But the best sense of the period comes from reading the words of contemporaries or near-contemporaries.
Roman history is an immensely wonderful but very extensive field. Enjoy!
Like **MGibson **said already, original sources shouldn’t be avoided - the Oxford World Series’ primaries are usually pretty good translations, but if you don’t mind 17th-18th c translations you can pick stuff up pretty cheaply as it is in the public domain. I’ll add Tacitus to the list and if you would like biographies, get thee some Plutarch (Parallel Lives) and especially Suetonius’ Lives of the Caesars, both of which are on my reading list this quarter as a matter of fact (I’m taking a course in ancient biography).
In fact you could bypass the books altogether and get public domain works from Perseus or Project Gutenberg.
I have a few secondaries that are good. I recommend the Handbook to Life in Ancient Rome (link), it is a nice little encyclopedia and is useful to have on hand for those little things you might not remember. For my Roman history survey last quarter we had A Brief History of the Romans (Amazon link). I didn’t read it as I stuck to the primary sources, but I know that Mary Boatwright is well thought of. If you decide you like this one in fact I’d be happy to send you my barely worn copy.
And you can always read the Aeneid. I recommend the Fitzgerald translation.
Ah, I forgot another classic.
It contains some untranslated quotations, and a very controversial thesis, but Ronald Syme’s ‘The Roman Revolution’, covering the period between 60 bce - ad 14, i.e. the rise of Julius Caesar, the civil war between Pompey and Caesar, and the rise of Octavian/Augustus and his civil war with Marc Antony, up to Augustus’ death.
Like Gibbon, it is wise to be critical and not accept what Syme says because of his authoritative voice and way of creating a superb feeling of tension, but it is an extremely valuable book.
The Teaching Company has lectures that are quite good. There’s a 25-hour lecture on The History of Rome. You can review it here.
About the authors who were there: Do they reference people and events that were general knowledge at the time? My knowledge of ancient Rome comes from documentaries, references in various books, and poking around the 'Net. What’s a good primer for a comprehensive overview?
The Decline and Fall is a pretty tough read, wouldn’t really recommend it unless you’re willing to spend a month or two reading it. I’m really into Roman and Classical history myself and stopped reading it around the 800th page or so.
One original source I would recommend is The Twelve Caesars by Suetonius. It covers the time from Julius Caesar’s defeat of Pompey (although Caesar was never truly an emperor) to the death of Domitian, or about 40 BC to 120 AD. This was the “golden age” of the empire.
I’ve slogged my way through some tough reads before.
On the other hand…
I looked this one up on Amazon, and it has five stars. I skimmed the reviews, and people like it. I’ve added it to my shopping cart.
Start off with a basic history so you can put everything else you read into a political and social context. Primary sources obviously have their place, but frankly you can do better when just starting out. Modern historians reveal the biases of the original authors and are learning new things every day. A solid basic history is “History of Rome” by Michael Grant. I read “Life in Ancient Rome” by Cowell for the flavor of day to day life. It was a bit light but still better than a standard history for the everyday stuff. I want to check out “As the Romans Did” by Shelton next time I’m in a bookstore.
I wouldn’t recommend Decline and Fall (at least yet) because it deals with…um…the decline and fall of Rome and doesn’t start until after Marcus Aurelius. Most of the good stuff has already gone by. Suetonius is fun but sensationalistic–he’s considered the national enquirer of Rome by modern historians. I listened to the above lecture from The Teaching Company that someone cited as well as two others. The best one by far was “Famous Romans” by Rufus Fears. Consider it as an alternative or supplement to Plutarch’s Lives.
I’m currently reading “Caesar: Life of a Colossus” by Goldsworthy and am liking it.
Lastly, the History, Discovery, Military channel et al have some great progams on Rome. “The Battle for Rome” is a really well acted series depicting important events. I don’t think a night goes by that some show featuring Ancient Rome is on.
I have the complete Decline and Fall… I’ve never finished it. I second the rec of Joshepus’ The Jewish Wars. Very readable. Always go for primary sources when you can find them.
I don’t mean to hijack, but it should of course be remembered that modern historians can and often do insert their own biases. History when taken secondarily has to pass not just through the lens of the original but through the modern author, and no one is so transparent as to not leave their own imprint. In fact one could make an argument whether or not translated primary sources are sufficiently undistorted.
Just my two asses.
I just checked out the contents to “As the Romans Did” and am definitely ordering it. Check it out:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/019508974X/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4427258-1224639#reader-link
Yes, well, you’re welcome for the non-fiction references I gave you then.
Marc
I figured I should have preempted this. Of course what you say is true, but on the whole, someone not embarking on a lifetime of scholarship in Ancient Rome is better served with a tertiary source in terms of the truth divided by time spent researching in order to get the entire picture of Roman civilization.
I’ll agree that tertiary sources are a good primer, but saying that they are less biased than the original source is a bogus claim.
I didn’t say they were “less biased,” I said they “revealed the biases” of the primary and secondary sources. A modern historian can at least reveal where secondary sources disagree and give a thesis, albeit biased, on why they do.
I popped into this thread specifically to mention As the Romans Did. It was one of my textbooks in college and is comprehensive without being overwhelming or boring.
The Plybius book I have is filled with footnotes talking about the differences between what he says and what was true. Ie. the size of the Roman fleet, etc.
Marc