The History Book Club discussion

This week's reading assignment is:

Week One - September 22nd – September 28th -> Preface and Chapter One p. xiii-30
Preface and One – The Paradoxical Republic

We will open up a thread for each week's reading. Please make sure to post in the particular thread dedicated to those specific chapters and page numbers to avoid spoilers. We will also open up supplemental threads as we did for other spotlighted books.

We look forward to your participation. Amazon, Barnes and Noble and other noted on line booksellers do have copies of the book and shipment can be expedited. The book can also be obtained easily at your local library, local bookstore or on your Kindle.

There is no rush and we are thrilled to have you join us. It is never too late to get started and/or to post.

Vicki will be leading this discussion.

Welcome,

Vicki & Bryan

TO ALWAYS SEE ALL WEEKS' THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL

by Tom Holland

REMEMBER NO SPOILERS ON THE WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREADS - ON EACH WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREAD - WE ONLY DISCUSS THE PAGES ASSIGNED OR THE PAGES WHICH WERE COVERED IN PREVIOUS WEEKS. IF YOU GO AHEAD OR WANT TO ENGAGE IN MORE EXPANSIVE DISCUSSION - POST THOSE COMMENTS IN ONE OF THE SPOILER THREADS. THESE CHAPTERS HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATION SO WHEN IN DOUBT CHECK WITH THE CHAPTER OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY TO RECALL WHETHER YOUR COMMENTS ARE ASSIGNMENT SPECIFIC. EXAMPLES OF SPOILER THREADS ARE THE GLOSSARY, THE BIBLIOGRAPHY, THE INTRODUCTION AND THE BOOK AS A WHOLE THREADS.

Notes:

It is always a tremendous help when you quote specifically from the book itself and reference the chapter and page numbers when responding. The text itself helps folks know what you are referencing and makes things clear.

Citations:

If an author or book is mentioned other than the book and author being discussed, citations must be included according to our guidelines. Also, when citing other sources, please provide credit where credit is due and/or the link. There is no need to re-cite the author and the book we are discussing however.


If you need help - here is a thread called the Mechanics of the Board which will show you how:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Table of Contents and Syllabus

Glossary
Remember there is a glossary thread where ancillary information is placed by the moderator. This is also a thread where additional information can be placed by the group members regarding the subject matter being discussed.

Bibliography

Book as a Whole and Final Thoughts

Chapter Overview and Summaries


Preface

It’s January 10, 49 BC, on the banks of the Rubicon, a small stream dividing Italy from the Cisalpine Gaul, one of Rome’s provinces. Julius Caesar and the 13th Legion are about to cross into Italy, an illegal act which will start a civil war. Caesar had tried to compromise with the Senate in order to keep from being prosecuted, but to no avail. Crossing the Rubicon is the only way he can see to keep his dignitas. This was the beginning of Rome changing from a republic to a virtual monarchy.

1: The Paradoxical Republic

Rome was founded as a monarchy in 753 BC and was ruled by a series of five kings, until the monarchy was overthrown in 509 BC and a republic was set up, ruled by two annually elected consuls with equal powers who were assisted by a group of eminent citizens called the Senate, all from the patrician class. From that time on, Romans had an abhorrence of being ruled by kings. The offices and structure of the government changed over time, as the non-patricians, called plebeians, wanted, and gained, more influence.

Rome started as just a city, but it gradually conquered neighboring cities until it comprised most of modern Italy. When Carthage, a wealthy trading city on the coast of North Africa, looked like a serious threat to Rome, a series of three wars were fought over a hundred years, and at the end, Rome’s “empire” had expanded to include Sicily, Sardinia, most of Spain and parts of North Africa. Rome was severely threatened during the second Punic War by the brilliant general Hannibal, but just refused to give up and finally defeated him. After the third war, Rome obliterated the city of Carthage. Subsequently, Rome took over most of Greece and parts of the Near East (called Asia in those days).

These far-flung lands brought new wealth into Rome, concentrated in the already well-off classes. More and more small farmers were bought out to make ever-bigger tracts of land for the wealthy, thus swelling the population of the city with the poor. The political office called the Tribune of the Plebs was only open to non-patricians, and holders of the office often proposed laws which benefited the poor over the rich. Two famous Tribunes, the brothers Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus, passed laws splitting some of the publicly held land into small plots and giving these plots back to the poor. This went too far and they were each killed, even though the person of the Tribune was supposed to be inviolate.

Thanks, Vicki.

I haven't started the read yet, but plan to join in later this week.

I started the Preface last night. I like the fact that he supports narrative history, a kind of approach that Holland argues was out of vogue, but then has returned.

I wonder if he is thinking about academics, since narrative history has always been popular among popular histories.

I think narrative history is a good way to learn about a new topic. I agree that popular histories are often narrative. I think that when people say " they were surprised how much they liked a history book and it reads like a novel" this is what they probably mean.

I only have a very basic understanding of ancient Rome, so I am very excited about reading this book. So far, I like Holland's approach.

Bryan & Whitney, I agree about narrative history being used in popular histories. I have many friends who say that they can't read history, but then find out they have not read any since taking history in middle & high school. Although there are many really good history texts, that doesn't seem to be the rule for high school texts.

I enjoy narrative history also, and I like how he brought that point to light. Especially with ancient histories where the amount of resources are limited and narrative histories give the writer a little bit of wiggle room to help develop the story. This is one of my favorite era's of history and I'm looking forward to reading on.

Just some housekeeping:

All, we do not have to do citations regarding the book or the author being discussed during the book discussion on these discussion threads - nor do we have to cite any personage in the book being discussed while on the discussion threads related to this book.

However if we discuss folks outside the scope of the book or another book is cited which is not the book and author discussed then we do have to do that citation according to our citation rules. That makes it easier to not disrupt the discussion. Thought that I would add that.

Holland does a pretty good job of condensing centuries of history (753 BC to 121 BC) in chapter 1, but I could wish that he had spent a bit more time on the kings, each of whom supposedly added a new element to the way Roman government and society worked. But perhaps he skimmed over early history because of the scarcity of real documentation for that period.

This looks like a really neat and eulogized book! I've been wanting to begin reading about the early history of England, and what better place to start than all the way back to ancient Rome? I've got a few books on my plate at the moment but I'll be sure to join in on the discussion as soon as I can.

I mistakenly ordered a volume by Tom Holland called 'The Rubicon: The Triumph and Tragedy of the Roman Republic'. Does anyone know if this is essentially the same book as '...Last Years'? I'm good for now with a library loaner of 'Last Years', though there may also be several editions with this title.

Yes, FrankH. I believe they are the same book. The hardcover edition had a different subtitle.

I am reading this on a Kindle, so I can't give you a specific page, but early on in Chapter One, the Paradoxical Republic, Holland explains how Rome, after the disastrous rule of Tarquin, created the Republic with the formula of two magistrates, both elected, with the power of the king divided between them. He then goes on to say "the monarchy might have been abolished, but very little else." Even that couldn't have happened if the empire didn't have the foundations of a non monarchical government. Interesting transition, I think, but I'm not clear how it really started.

What he means is that both the Senate and the Centuriate Assembly were created during the era of the Kings. The Senate was the original decision making body of the aristocracy that communicated their needs and wishes to the king, while one of the kings set up the Centuriate Assembly (which included merchants and other respectable city folks) to counter act the Senate's influence. When the kings were overthrown, there were two legislative decision making bodies already in place.

I guess it will help to add that the Plebian Assembly was added to the government in the 5th Century B.C.E. (the 400s) As a result of a conflict between the aristocracy and everybody else - plebians at this time were excluded from the Senate. The plebians, i.e. the majority of the population literally went on strike and marched out of the city, leaving it defenseless against other nearby cities. The aristocracy gave in but instead of allowing plebians into the Senate, they gave them their own legislative body - the Plebian Assembly. The Plebian Assembly elected the Tribunes, who could veto edicts of the Counsels and the Senate. It was a very complex government, but you can see the germ of ideas that showed up in our Constitution.

Thanks, Monte. That's very helpful. But wasn't the Plebian assembly added after the fall of Tarquin (the last)? I was curious as to how the Senate and Curiate were developed, because they had no power under the kings, as least as far I as I have seen, and I have not read that much. This is a very interesting topic.

The Roman legislative apparatus is very interesting and rather complicated, to my mind. I just put up a Glossary entry for those who want the details.

I guess it makes sense to keep them going after the king was dethroned. You needed to keep governing.

The author emphasizes how squalid the city of Rome was - garbage and feces in the street, towering, ramshackle apartment buildings, teeming multitudes of poor people. While there may not have been a middle class as we know it today, surely there were shopkeepers, merchants, innkeepers, bakeries and the like, who made a decent living and didn't think of themselves as destitute.

The Plebian assembly wasn't added until around 480 BCE, after the "strike" I described above. The Republic wasn't very democratic in the beginning, the aristocracy liked the idea of running the city by themselves. The hard thing about the Roman legislative apparatus is there is no founding constitution that lays everything out. Instead, everything evolved over time, the powers of the various bodies and who participated in them changed over the centuries. Of course, men without property, women, and slaves couldn't vote in the U.S. after the American Revolution - those things took another 130 years to shake out.

What struck me most in the Preface was the tension between the "Great Man" theory and the "Inexorable Forces" theory of history. The set piece is Julius Caesar standing with his army on the far side of the Rubicon, fighting an internal struggle whether or not to attack. The implication is that it could have gone either way -- if Caesar's balancing act tipped just a little the other way, the Republic would have lasted.

On the other hand, we get this historical background (page 16 of the Nook edition): "Once, there had been free cities dotted throughout the Mediterranean. . . By the first century BC, there was only one free city left, and that was Rome herself."

Julius Caesar was not responsible for the collapse of all of those free cities -- just the last one. So, does crossing the Rubicon really change the course of history, or does it just speed up the inevitable by a few years, and if it wasn't him then Julius Jones would have come a long a few years later to end the Republic?

Matthew, you make an interesting point. I think Holland tries to paint a transformational period when someone with power and vision can make a significant change. Caesar took the opportunity, and I agree, if it wasn't him, then would it be someone else?

Thanks, Monte, great background. Do you sense that it is easier to exploit a "common law" situation vs. a written constitution?

The sad truth is that people can twist around both types of constitutions to fit their political interests. For example, the 14th amendment (I think it was 14th) says no person shall be deprived of life or property without due process of law - the current Supreme Court and a couple of previous ones have ruled that corporations are people and are thus protected (and can spend like crazy on elections). That certainly would have surprised the people who created and passed that amendment. Or look at the mis-use of the 2nd amendment to meaning every individual has a right to own automatic weapons. Who thinks George Washington and John Adams would approve of heavily armed, independent militias?

In some ways the Romans were more honest because they knew the "rules" were based on customary practices and thus could change as society changed. I think no written constitution could have contained the level of social conflict going on at the end of the Republic.

Here's a bit of what Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Co...) has to say about the constitution -

"The Roman Constitution was an uncodified set of guidelines and principles passed down mainly through precedent. The Roman constitution was not formal or even official, largely unwritten and constantly evolving. Having those characteristics, it was therefore more like the British common law system than a statutory law system like the written United States Constitution, even though the constitution's evolution through the years was often directed by passage of new laws and repeal of older ones."

It seems to have worked for them for hundreds of years, until it didn't.

Vicki wrote: "The author emphasizes how squalid the city of Rome was - garbage and feces in the street, towering, ramshackle apartment buildings, teeming multitudes of poor people. While there may not have been..."

As the author points out, these tenements were a barrier to the sense of community so necessary to the Romans of that time. But I think that was a ruling class sense of community. Surely the working classes had their own. I wish the author had described this more but perhaps he will later on. Interesting lead in to the sociology of the Roman Empire.

I think we forget Rome was a true urban place with whole sections of classes, and we just think about the leaders only. Very vibrant place. I like how Holland mentions that Romans were a little embarrassed by the Greek cities, but still were proud.

Holland does not explain this well, but Rome more than doubled in size in the second century (200 BCE to 100 BCE) because farmers were displaced in great numbers by wealthy members of the nobility who set up huge latifundia (plantations) with slave labor. Many men served full time in the legions for years and their families could not compete with slave labor farm products. Without land, these folks tended to move to Rome seeking work. Thus, many very poor people poured into the city. Ironically, the creation of the empire led to poverty and instability in the city of Rome.

Well this chapter certainly left me with a less 'clean and bright' impression of the early Romans than I had. Thanks for the glossary, Vicki. Very helpful.

Monte wrote: "Holland does not explain this well, but Rome more than doubled in size in the second century (200 BCE to 100 BCE) because farmers were displaced in great numbers by wealthy members of the nobility ..."

Yes, good point, Monte. I have a lot of sympathy for the brothers Gracchi who tried to get small farmers back into the countryside by splitting up large plots of land owned by the state, giving the pieces to former farmers. Their murders were really shocking to me.

As Roman wars happened farther and farther away from central Italy, the soldiers, who had to be landowners, were kept away from their farms for long periods, so that their farms failed, then they had to sell out and move to the city.

I struggled with a few of the central ideas in this Chapter and how they played into each other. One of the ideas involved the horrendous, terroristic war-like nature of the Romans -- both in how they totally annihilated men, women, and children, and in how they kept on fighting, only defeating Carthage, for example, after numerous devastating losses to Hannibal. Another idea involved the "democracy" of the Republic, and how various leading citizens had to act to get elected in annual elections.

So, was foreign policy ever a campaign issue? Did anyone get voted out of office for attacking Carthage? Were the electorate so bloodthirsty that they required candidates to promise wars? Did the soldiers vote for the war party, or did they want to go home, or could they not vote because they were off in Gaul? In America, there tend to be cycles where we sometimes vote for candidates who are war heroes, and sometimes we vote for candidates who promise isolationism. How were the Republic's democratic prinicipals and empire-building related? We learned about them both, but not how the were related to each other.

On an unrelated topic, I was also unimpressed by the various "paradoxes" the author adopted in Chapter One. Perhaps because they exist in so many other placed -- including America -- they hardly seemed paradoxical at all. "The central paradox of Roman society -- that savage divisions of class could coexist with an almost religious sense of community" seems also to be a central part of American culture. No one doubts that the lower classes can be at least as patriotic as the rich. And is it any less so in, for example, India? Do the Dalits/ Untouchables not feel as much a "sense of community" as the Brahmins?

"The consequence was yet further paradox: meritocracy, real and relentless as it was, nevertheless served to perpetuate a society in wchih only the rich could afford to devote themselves to a political career." Again, not seeing how this is paradoxical, rather than just the way it has aways been everywhere. The rich -- whether rich due to merit or class or random luck -- have more free time for everything if they want it.

"Here, then, was one final paradox. A system that encouraged a gnawing hunger for prestige in its citizens . . .also bred paralysis." Here, I can see at least the theoretical grounds for a "paradox," but it strikes me as no different from many other societies, including America's today. If everyone is running quickly at the same speed, it looks like no one is getting anywhere.

Matthew wrote: "...So, was foreign policy ever a campaign issue? Did anyone get voted out of office for attacking Carthage? Were the electorate so bloodthirsty that they required candidates to promise wars? Did the soldiers vote for the war party..."

An interesting question, Matthew. My understanding is that offices were only held for one year - look at the uproar when Tiberius Gracchus ran for a second term as Tribune - so getting "voted out" wouldn't have been an issue. But as for what candidates promised regarding future wars, I'm not sure if we know what they said when campaigning.

On the one hand, it looks like offices were only held for a year. On the other hand, various councils and assemblies and committees were making laws, and vetoing decisions, and these were direct democracies where everyone played and no one ever got voted out as long as they were citizens. It seems like if the President served a year year term with no re-election, but Congress served for life.

So, who's making the decisions? A series of one year electees or the legislative branches? I'm not really getting a sense of who is making the decision "Let's invade Carthage!" And if anyone is thinking its a bad idea. The magistrates? The plebeian council? The Committee? A convention? The glossary is giving me a whole list of potential decision makers, but no sense of who was actually making the decisions.

Matthew, decisions about war and peace were made by the Senate. The Senate consisted entirely of former members of the nobility who had been elected counsel, praetor, or quaestor. People were appointed to the Senate by the censors, who served 5 year terms and were always former counsels. Once appointed, you were a Senator for life. I.E. the Senate, made foreign policy decisions (it also passed the budget and taxes) and consisted of leading political leaders from the nobility. As long as the nobility agreed on what to do, things moved smoothly - but at the end of the Republic the nobility was violently divided.

Thanks, Monte, for your clarifications. There have been times when reading (even this short time) when I wanted more detail from the author. He seems to be rambling on occasion

Makes sense that Senate made policy if these long wars continue on.

I have to admit that Holland does give us a lot of stuff with less context that I would like, but I'm a Roman history novice. He is a good writer, though.

Sounds like we need a Glossary entry on the Senate. Off to do that right now.

So the Senate controls the money, administration, and foreign policy and serves for life? Now I'm not clear on what is left for the actual democratic parts of the legislature to do. I would imagine this would be a set-up for an overarching conflict between the Senate and everyone else. It surprises me that they would be allowed so much power for so long before being challenged.

Once the plebians were allowed to hold offices starting around 360 BCE, then until the time of the Gracchi in 135 BCE the Senate did dominate the government and the other legislative bodies followed its lead. However, by the time of the Gracchi, the Republic faced huge social problems that divided the Senate and the nobility and there was a lot more conflict after that. The Gracchi were from a noble family and were supported by other noble families vs. the more conservative noble families. So this conflict was between members of the political/economic elite.

I am enjoying this book so far. it is a little confusing at times because he is describing events in different periods, but otherwise it makes a nice overview of the conflicting forces at play in the republic. it would be interesting to know more about how the government functioned during the time of the kings and to see if there were parallels for the end of the republic.

I guess that's the argument against term limits. When the legislature has a one year job with a long learning curve, all they really have time to do is follow the people who've been there long enough to know what's going on.

Good points, Matthew. I guess this is a more republican form of government not democratic. The nobles could elect Senators, making it a republic. I have to agree, the Senate's power is so strong, I don't see a variety of voices being heard in the Roman Republic.

The Plebeian Council or People's Assembly was actually the body which passed laws, and was restricted to non-patricians. The Tribunes of the Plebs, who could call a gathering of the Assembly, served in the Senate and could veto anything the Senate proposed. Several Tribunes over the years were real rabble-rousers. We'll meet the most famous one, Publius Clodius, later in the book.

Holland took on a significant challenge in covering this much history in one chapter. Here are a couple things to consider when looking at the first few centuries of Roman history:

The Roman empire developed somewhat by accident. It is doubtful that the early Romans had any vision of building their small city-state into a vast empire. I imagine this is why they didn't keep good records. Much of Rome's early history is mythological, written centuries later from an obviously forward-looking and at times even propagandist perspective. It is doubtful that Romulus was even a real person, let alone a descendant of Aeneas, as Rome's historians would have you believe. Did Tarquin the Proud's son-in-law really rape Lucretia, or was the story a myth fabricated or exaggerated by historians centuries later to reenforce the idea of republican government as superior to monarchy? One should always look at Rome's early history with this kind of skepticism.

Rome was one of dozens of city-states on the Italian peninsula, as well as those in Sicily and Greece, each mostly self-governed by its own aristocracy. The cities were often in small wars with each other or with larger powers. They were also often victims of raids (Rome was sacked by Gallic raiders in 390 BC). Many of Rome's wars were fought for security, not expansion, as rivals on their borders were frequently hostile. Several wars started because the Senate wanted to protect allied cities that were not part of the Roman empire. For example, Rome entered the 2nd Macedonian War because the king of Pergamum asked for help against Philip V. When Philip V was defeated, the Romans could have established a province there, like they had done in Spain. However, they assumed the military threat from Macedonia was gone, so they left. 30 years later, Perseus came along and raised another Macedonian army, so the Romans defeated him and finally set up a province there, seeing direct rule as the only way to avoid future conflicts there. Pergamum eventually joined the Roman empire voluntarily, as they had already relied on the empire so much for protection anyway.

I interpret Rome's growth into an empire as more accidental and defensive than aggressive and expansionist. I see some of the more aggressive and brutal military campaigns as the actions of semi-rogue generals or consuls (you only have a 1-year term as consul, so you might as well make your mark) or as responses to previous brutalities from the other side, as was often Rome's justification for aggression against the Carthaginians.

If you want a very detailed history of Rome, I highly recommend The Romans: From Village to Empire by Mary T. Boatwright. I have compared it to some other books, and it is, in my opinion, the most comprehensive and logically organized history of the Roman Empire. I believe it was designed as a college textbook, so it is a lot different than Holland's more narrative style. I personally love to read both academic and narrative history books to get a full perspective of an era of history. Those of you who have more questions about this stuff might enjoy reading the Boatwright book or Greg Woolf's Rome: An Empire's Story after you finish Rubicon.

by Mary T. Boatwright (no photo)
by Greg Woolf (no photo)

Thanks for the excellent summary, Douglass, and for the book recommendations. I hadn't heard of Boatwright's book and will be sure to check it out.

by Mary T Boatwright (no photo)

Douglas, I really don't think empires happen accidentally. The Romans had a very militaristic culture and the one year term for counsels/generals (with plenty of glory for winners) certainly encouraged a constant vigilance for any excuse to wage war. For example, the final war with Carthage took place after 50 years of peace and was entirely provoked by the Romans. In fact, Greece is an interesting case because the Macedonians and the Greeks never threatened Rome - they just didn't do what Rome wanted them to do - they were independent and the Romans didn't like that. Also, the Romans spent 20 years subduing Spain and Caesar spent 10 years subduing Gaul. Campaigns of that length of time were certainly supported by the Senate. Acquiring the empire took time and was messy, but it certainly was not an accident.

It certainly is a different culture than modern times where Roman society can tolerate a long war. Many western countries are not suited for such a thing.

Monte, from the moment the Romans and Carthaginians became rivals in Sicily, there was a mutual hatred and suspicion, even in times of peace. It seems like they were looking for reasons to fight each other. I maintain that up until around 150 BC (3rd Macedonian War & 3rd Punic War), the Romans' primarily fought and expanded the empire in self-defense. It was not very easy or productive to take control of Spain from the Carthaginians after the 2nd Punic War, so I can't imagine it was terribly profitable. I think it was mostly done to prevent them from marching across the Alps again. I do think that the initial steps of expanding Rome from a village to an empire were largely accidental. I can't imagine the early Roman citizens had any visions of their city becoming the center of a worldwide empire. I think they just wanted their neighbors to leave them alone, but with each war they won, another foe was waiting on their borders to challenge them. However, with each further expansion, I think they became more and more confident in their ability to control territory and aware of its potential benefits, and by 150 BC there becomes no question that maintaining a large empire is the goal.

My current opinion on this matter is primarily based on the books I have read thus far about Roman history. If I read some sources that show the strength of economic incentives or more specific information about Rome's political motives for entering wars in the early days of the empire, I of course will change my opinion. It wouldn't be the first time I have done that while studying history.

I do not consider my view on this to be rock solid because we know so little today about Roman history. I definitely consider your view to be a possible explanation as well. It is possible that much of what we read about Roman history could be propaganda. If most of our information about how wars started is coming from Roman documents and Roman historians, it is very possible that stories like the defense of Pergamum were fabricated or exaggerated to justify a war that was really started for expansionist purposes. The Romans must have made excellent use of propaganda in order to maintain long wars, as Bryan pointed out.

Interesting discussion, Monte and Douglass. My impression (and I can't back it up with documentation) is that early Romans looked for any excuse to "defend themselves" from neighboring groups. Up until the time of the Social War, they did a pretty good job of integrating the conquered territories, allowing limited citizenship and allied status. Once that was resolved, Italy itself was pretty much united and Rome was looking for new areas to involve itself in.