Neil Faulkner has given us a clear, lucid, and objective appraisal of Rome, sans rosy glasses or sugar coating. A masterful work, beautifully written and thoroughly compelling and convincing! Prof. Faulkner sees through pro-Roman propaganda and portrays the predatory nature of the militaristic and imperialistic force that was Rome, backed by carefully documented research, and analyzes the contributions of the Romans to Western Civilization in a new light. This book should be required reading in every course on Rome, Western Civilization, or Classical Studies at the graduate, undergraduate, and even high school level. Don't be mislead by the notion that the book presents a "socialist" perpective. This is not a work pushing any kind of ideology; it is a sober, clear, and incisive analysis of the history of Rome from a modern scholarly perspective, and additionally it reads as fluidly as a novel, a most unusual characteristic for a serious scientific tome. Reading this book will change your views of the Roman Republic as well as the Roman Empire forever. Very highly recommended!!! Rome: Empire of the Eagles, 753 BC – AD 476
At first, I was somewhat suspicious of Neil Faulkner's Rome: Empire of the Eagles, 753 BC - AD 476. The description of the book on Amazon makes it out to be an ad hominem attack on ancient Rome (and, like many history buffs, I have a somewhat grudging sympathy for the Roman empire). However, it's not that at all. Faulkner's Rome: Empire of the Eagles is actually a very well-written and sophisticated history of the rise and fall of Rome. It is easily the best single-volume history of the ancient Roman empire.
Faulkner's thesis is simple yet insightful. The Roman Republic, and later the Roman Empire, grew and thrived through foreign conquest. Rome's initial expansion involved conquering wealthier neighbors, first in Italy, then abroad in Carthage and Greece, all the while using the booty and spoils of war to fund the military and state. In short, foreign war paid for itself and was a principal factor in the Roman state's strategy. Much of the civil wars during the Late Republic centered around how to distribute that patronage. However, by the time of Augustus' reign, the Roman Empire had reached the boundaries of the "civilized" agricultural world and conquering "barbarian" nomadic tribes would not reap enough spoils to pay for the costs (the exception was the Middle East/Mesopotamia, but was blocked by the Parthian Empire). Thus, the Roman elite sought internal funds and resources in order to maintain its military apparatus and defenses. In doing so, the state overtaxed the peasantry, stifled civil society, and depleted its own economic base. This increased social unrest and attenuated loyalty to the state. Ultimately, the empire was forced to rely upon barbarian tribes to supplement the army and in return granted the tribes significant federal autonomy.
As the title suggests, Rome: Empire of the Eagles, 753 BC - AD 476 covers a period of around 1,000 years. Fortunately, Faulkner's clear, concise writing makes this book work. He provides just the right amount of detail about each time period, focusing on the major events but also careful not to leave anything important out. Amazingly, he covers the entire time spanning from 753 B.C. to 476 A.D. in sufficient detail to explain the underlying dynamics behind each period. By the end of the book, I felt familiar with the key events throughout the entire history of Rome. Faulkner achieves this not by focusing on the particulars of a given battle (although he does this when necessary), but rather key themes, such as which elite groups thrived and what incentives drove the key players during each period. This makes the book an informative read even for history buffs who have read plenty of books about Roman history.
Faulkner usefully eschews any drama and romanticism in his narrative. He make certain to point out the flaws - and occasionally admirable qualities - in the cast of characters. His use of modern terminology such as "proletariat" actually proves useful as it allows him to explain why there was no class consciousness in ancient Rome. Moreover, he calls Caesar and the other giants of the Late Republic "warlords," a term we tend to associate with Afghan tribal leaders but nonetheless aptly describes the generals of antiquity. Occasionally, Faulkner reveals his emotions and antipathies - he seems to have a particular hatred for Augustus, whom he calls a murderous military dictator - but these instances don't detract from the book too much.
I do wish Faulkner had spent more time discussing and dissecting arguments against his thesis. He generally makes his case very well, and looking at the entire 1,000 years of Roman history helps as he incorporates most major events into his argument. However, there were a few events I thought did not fall quite so neatly into Faulkner's theme. For example, why did the king of Pergamum bequeath kingdom to Rome if Roman rule simply led to plunder and oppressive taxes? In Empires of Trust: How Rome Built--and America Is Building--a New World, Thomas Madden proposes that the king of Pergamum in fact trusted the Romans to govern the kingdom well. However, overall Faulkner provides more than enough evidence to convince most readers, including me, that much of Rome's power derived from its predatory nature.
I must say this was not quite the book I expected, but then after reading the cover blurb I was not certain what to expect.
"The Roman Empire is widely admired as a model of civilization. In this compelling new study, Neil Faulkner argues that in fact it was a ruthless system of robbery and violence."
Well, for any student of the ancient Romans this statement hardly comes as a surprise, nor does Faulkner's advocacy of that position. Indeed Faulkner's views are well known but they do not invalidate his scholarship both as an archeologist and as an historian. (One critic referred to Faulkner as a "military historian" as if that were some lesser class of Historian, to be tolerated but not endorsed.) Faulkner's earlier book on the Jewish Revolt (Apocalypse - The Great Jewish Revolt Against Rome AD 66-73) is one of the best written on that seminal event in Roman and Jewish history and established, for me at least, his credibility as an historian of ancient Rome.
Although not shy about calling himself a Marxist Historian, Faulkner is also quick to point out that, "...I also found myself at odds with the `orthodox' Marxist accounts of the ancient world." Indeed while he clearly believes that the Roman Empire was "a dynamic system of military imperialism - of robbery with violence - and that its rise and fall, its conquests and defeats, its revolutions and civil wars can best be understood as manifestations of this" one also gets the distinct impression that Faulkner admires the Romans, in spite of himself. He does not say so, not in so many words, but it is rather a feeling one gets as they read this and his earlier works. This is, to be sure, a subjective judgment but no less valid for being so.
This same basic argument was made most eloquently by those other famous Marxist Historians (of the Groucho School), Monty Python, in their historical treatise "The Life of Brian." Indeed Faulkner quoted them at length in a recent lecture about his book. However, though this argument: "Should we deplore the historical example of Rome, or admire it, perhaps even seek to emulate it?" is the stated core of this book, and even though Faulkner does make mention of it several times, this book is not so much an argument of that question but rather an excellent survey of Roman history from the founding to the fall of the Western empire.
This, in and of itself, is not a problem and in fact those looking for a good general survey of Roman history could do worse than this book. That being said it is still a bit of a disappointment that Faulkner did not spend more time making his case directly. That the book ends without a summing up or re-stating of the thesis and his points in support of it is a disappointment. That the book ends with the fall of the Western Empire is a major surprise. Perhaps the East just doesn't count?
There are other points that rankle as well.
His judgment of Augustus is harsh in the extreme.
Weak, untalented, immoral, self-serving, arrogant, murderous: all
these words applied to Octavian, and it is astonishing that this truly
disgusting man has been admired by a succession of ancient historians
mesmerized by the image-makers of the Augustan regime. He was in
fact one of history's bloody tyrants. (p172)
This statement is certainly in keeping with his central theme, but it is used almost as an aside and not more fully explored. Of course the good doctor is entitled to his interpretation of history, even if it flies in the face of all other scholarship. Faulkner does cause one to look again at Augustus and consider him with care. As we all know, history is written by the winners, and no more so than ancient history, when very few wrote and even fewer works survived.
More egregious is the following caption to a photo of the Colosseum, "The Colosseum is Rome's Auschwitz: built for the mass murder of slaves as a form of public entertainment." (plate 23)
Often it is the case that captions are taken directly from the text, however in this case this outrageous statement appears nowhere in the text of the book. So the question naturally arises where did it come from? Did Dr. Faulkner write it, and the other captions, specifically for the photo, or it is something the publisher came up with on his own, like the controversial jacket blurb? Either way Faulkner, as author, bears the responsibility for it and it does not reflect well on him as an historian either of ancient Rome or modern Europe. It calls into question not only his grasp of history but his judgment as well.
The Auschwitz Camps (for it was a complex of several camps) had but one objective - the death, either by work or by extermination, of all its inmates. It was not a venue for public entertainment and indeed measures were taken to keep its activities if not secret then at least hidden from public scrutiny.
The Roman Colosseum was nothing of the sort. Its objective was the entertainment of the inhabitants of Rome. That the Romans liked their sports bloody is deplorable but it is well know that not all Gladiators were slaves nor was the Colosseum used as a means to exterminate an entire people.
Another area that may prove controversial is the book's Bibliography. It is laid out in an unconventional way and while I like this, I do not agree with some of his assessments, particularly that of Michael Parenti's book The Assassination of Julius Caesar - A People's History of Ancient Rome. "...[It] is an excellent read and a refreshingly acerbic indictment of the Late Republican ruling class, but the analysis of Caesar and what he represented is naïve." (p.329) I do not think Parenti's analysis of Gaius Julius is naïve at all, quite the opposite, but that is just my opinion.
It is also worth pointing out that Faulkner does praise Tom Holland's book Rubicon "...when has Roman history ever been such a compelling and convincing read?" and that Holland is quoted on the book's jacket praising Faulkner, "A Thrilling and often coruscating fusion of narrative with scholarship. The Romans have rarely before seemed quite so terrifying." Perhaps it is just a coincidence.
(I should note that I actually like Holland's book Rubicon very much.)
Yet despite these flaws (minor and major), I did enjoy the book and found it to be a good general survey of Roman History. I do not think my time wasted in reading it.'
Detail Products
Detail Reviews
Click here for more information
