What do you think?
Rate this book
Roman Republics
From the Renaissance to today, the idea that the Roman Republic lasted more than 450 years--persisting unbroken from the late sixth century to the mid-first century BC--has profoundly shaped how Roman history is understood, how the ultimate failure of Roman republicanism is explained, and how republicanism itself is defined. In Roman Republics , Harriet Flower argues for a completely new interpretation of republican chronology. Radically challenging the traditional picture of a single monolithic republic, she argues that there were multiple republics, each with its own clearly distinguishable strengths and weaknesses. While classicists have long recognized that the Roman Republic changed and evolved over time, Flower is the first to mount a serious argument against the idea of republican continuity that has been fundamental to modern historical study. By showing that the Romans created a series of republics, she reveals that there was much more change--and much less continuity--over the republican period than has previously been assumed. In clear and elegant prose, Roman Republics provides not only a reevaluation of one of the most important periods in western history but also a brief yet nuanced survey of Roman political life from archaic times to the end of the republican era.
224 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2009
18 people are currently reading
221 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
September 16, 2019
I think Flower does indeed create a better periodization for Roman Republic history:
509: Pre-republican
494: Proto-republican
450: Consular tribunes
366: Patricians and plebeians share government
300: Nobiles
180: Nobiles with lex Villia annalis
139: Nobiles with lex Gabinia
88: Sulla's dictatorship
81: Sulla's reforms to a Republic system
59: "Big Three" of Pompey, Caesar, and Crassus (Flower accurately does not call them a tresviri (triumvirate) because it was not de jure)
52: Transition to...
49: Caesar's dictatorship
43: Triumvirate of Octavian, Lepidus, and Antony (Lex Titia made these leaders tresviri de jure)
The biggest strength of the book is Flower's use of the history we're certain of to create a characterization of each period in her own periodization.
509: Pre-republican
494: Proto-republican
450: Consular tribunes
366: Patricians and plebeians share government
300: Nobiles
180: Nobiles with lex Villia annalis
139: Nobiles with lex Gabinia
88: Sulla's dictatorship
81: Sulla's reforms to a Republic system
59: "Big Three" of Pompey, Caesar, and Crassus (Flower accurately does not call them a tresviri (triumvirate) because it was not de jure)
52: Transition to...
49: Caesar's dictatorship
43: Triumvirate of Octavian, Lepidus, and Antony (Lex Titia made these leaders tresviri de jure)
The biggest strength of the book is Flower's use of the history we're certain of to create a characterization of each period in her own periodization.
March 2, 2024
I'm definitely not a historian or an expert in the history of ancient Rome. But I enjoyed this book and bought into Flower's proposed new periodization of the Roman RepublicS rather than focusing on when was the fall of the Republic.
I'm not certain this would work if one had no prior knowledge of Roman history, and in particular in the period of the Republic. Many names (Marius, Sulla, Cato, Cicero, the Gracchi, Pompey, Caesar, etc., etc.) are included, without much explanation. Fortunately, I've read enough at this point about the period, and have taken a few classes, so that the names weren't new to me.
I'm not certain this would work if one had no prior knowledge of Roman history, and in particular in the period of the Republic. Many names (Marius, Sulla, Cato, Cicero, the Gracchi, Pompey, Caesar, etc., etc.) are included, without much explanation. Fortunately, I've read enough at this point about the period, and have taken a few classes, so that the names weren't new to me.
January 22, 2023
NOTE: C'était ma deuxième lecture de ce court essai (171 pages), une dizaine d'années après la première. L'argument principal m'avait séduit à l'époque et me semble toujours aussi stimulant; j'ignore cependant s'il a fait école ou non.
Harriet Flower propose que l'on divise la "république romaine", traditionnellement vue comme un seul et unique régime politique qui aurait duré pendant près de 500 ans, en au moins six républiques distinctes enrobées et entremêlées de périodes de transition. Selon elle, les institutions et le fonctionnement du système politique ont changé si souvent et si radicalement, entre la fin de la royauté et l'instauration de l'empire, que parler d'une seule république n'a pas de sens. Et ce, peu importe la date où l'on décide de déclarer la république morte et enterrée. (Flower choisit une date beaucoup plus hâtive que la plupart des autres historien(ne)s.)
La segmentation proposées par Flower est plus convaincante au début et à la fin de la période qu'au milieu. Sa première république est une phase d'expérimentation où l'on imagine toutes sortes de magistratures aux pouvoirs et aux configurations variables. La deuxième, qui apparaît une fois que les magistratures principales sont établies de façon définitive, est caractérisée par des règles quasi-héréditaires pour l'accès à certains postes et par la réconciliation progressive des intérêts des patriciens et des plébéiens. Quant à la "dernière république", instaurée par Sylla vers 80 AEC et désagrégée presque aussitôt, Flower affirme qu'elle constitue une révolution plutôt que la restauration décrite dans l'historiographie. La raison: parce que Sylla remplace la coutume qui gouvernait le fonctionnement du système politique romain (le mos maiorum) par un code de lois beaucoup plus rigide et qu'il redéfinit radicalement le rôle du Sénat. Jusqu'ici, l'argumentation est inattaquable, même si les sources sur lesquelles on peut se fier pour parler des deux premières républiques sont extrêmement fragmentaires.
Entre les républiques archaïques et Sylla, Flower propose trois "républiques des nobles", toutes les trois basées sur l'élection aux magistratures et sur l'hégémonie de la même élite riche et bien connectée, mais gouvernées par des règles de fonctionnement quelque peu différentes. Ici, l'argumentation est un peu plus sulfureuse; les points de rupture que Flower propose, par exemple, sont discutables et peut-être un peu trop artificiels. Et elle consacre étonnamment peu de temps aux républiques #3 et #4, surtout si l'on compare avec les chapitres sur les conséquences de la chute de la #6, qui semblent hors propos. Mais on retrouve dans cet ouvrage amplement de quoi stimuler la réflexion (et les contre-exemples), ce qui représente déjà beaucoup!
Une petite mise en garde: Roman Republics se lit rapidement mais présume beaucoup de connaissances préalables. Je ne suis pas antiquisant, encore moins historien de la république romaine, mais j'ai beaucoup lu sur le sujet depuis plus de 30 ans et j'ai parfois sursauté en voyant des références à des individus et à des événements relativement obscurs. À lire avec plaisir si l'on s'y connaît, mais il vaut mieux s'assurer d'avoir la mémoire bien fraîche au préalable.
Harriet Flower propose que l'on divise la "république romaine", traditionnellement vue comme un seul et unique régime politique qui aurait duré pendant près de 500 ans, en au moins six républiques distinctes enrobées et entremêlées de périodes de transition. Selon elle, les institutions et le fonctionnement du système politique ont changé si souvent et si radicalement, entre la fin de la royauté et l'instauration de l'empire, que parler d'une seule république n'a pas de sens. Et ce, peu importe la date où l'on décide de déclarer la république morte et enterrée. (Flower choisit une date beaucoup plus hâtive que la plupart des autres historien(ne)s.)
La segmentation proposées par Flower est plus convaincante au début et à la fin de la période qu'au milieu. Sa première république est une phase d'expérimentation où l'on imagine toutes sortes de magistratures aux pouvoirs et aux configurations variables. La deuxième, qui apparaît une fois que les magistratures principales sont établies de façon définitive, est caractérisée par des règles quasi-héréditaires pour l'accès à certains postes et par la réconciliation progressive des intérêts des patriciens et des plébéiens. Quant à la "dernière république", instaurée par Sylla vers 80 AEC et désagrégée presque aussitôt, Flower affirme qu'elle constitue une révolution plutôt que la restauration décrite dans l'historiographie. La raison: parce que Sylla remplace la coutume qui gouvernait le fonctionnement du système politique romain (le mos maiorum) par un code de lois beaucoup plus rigide et qu'il redéfinit radicalement le rôle du Sénat. Jusqu'ici, l'argumentation est inattaquable, même si les sources sur lesquelles on peut se fier pour parler des deux premières républiques sont extrêmement fragmentaires.
Entre les républiques archaïques et Sylla, Flower propose trois "républiques des nobles", toutes les trois basées sur l'élection aux magistratures et sur l'hégémonie de la même élite riche et bien connectée, mais gouvernées par des règles de fonctionnement quelque peu différentes. Ici, l'argumentation est un peu plus sulfureuse; les points de rupture que Flower propose, par exemple, sont discutables et peut-être un peu trop artificiels. Et elle consacre étonnamment peu de temps aux républiques #3 et #4, surtout si l'on compare avec les chapitres sur les conséquences de la chute de la #6, qui semblent hors propos. Mais on retrouve dans cet ouvrage amplement de quoi stimuler la réflexion (et les contre-exemples), ce qui représente déjà beaucoup!
Une petite mise en garde: Roman Republics se lit rapidement mais présume beaucoup de connaissances préalables. Je ne suis pas antiquisant, encore moins historien de la république romaine, mais j'ai beaucoup lu sur le sujet depuis plus de 30 ans et j'ai parfois sursauté en voyant des références à des individus et à des événements relativement obscurs. À lire avec plaisir si l'on s'y connaît, mais il vaut mieux s'assurer d'avoir la mémoire bien fraîche au préalable.
December 18, 2019
Concise overview of Roman Republican history, with the main portion covering from the time of the Gracchi (CA 133 BC) to the advent of Caesar. Flower spends a considerable amount of time discussing the concept of periodization and why it is important tool for historical analysis.
Although scholarly, this book is accessible to the lay reader, although the author writes with an expectation that the reader has at least some passing familiarity with roman history.
Although scholarly, this book is accessible to the lay reader, although the author writes with an expectation that the reader has at least some passing familiarity with roman history.
November 23, 2021
This is a good book and a very well written and promising one. However, in many ways, it is not as good as it could have been. With an ambitious goal of reshaping the periodisation of Republican Rome, Harriet Flower had enough information, writing skills, straightforwardness and, most importantly, the scientific mindset that enables the creation of an instant classic in the Social Sciences. What, in my opinion, makes her fail to do so is the strange lack of focus on the topic she proposes to analyse.
When one thinks of creating a new periodisation from the ground up, one would ideally see, in the long run, the institutions that regulated social, cultural, economic and political life, and then see how they changed and what watershed moments marked the periods where these important institutions worked differently. Apparently, she was very much successful in doing so. The problem is that she fails to give the details on what characteristics marked each period. From the circa 180 pages of actual content, 24 are dedicated to the 5th, 4th and 3rd centuries and the rest (about 156 pages) covers the end of republicanism starting in mid to late 2nd century. This is obviously not very well distributed, even considering the lack of evidence we have about earlier periods. These 150 pages talk mostly about the spiral of violence that killed the peaceful resolution of conflicts between Roman citizens, which is a great topic, but not what the book promises to explain.
The focus on the end is not only for the republic itself, Harriet explains Roman political institutions mostly by the changes to them, not by explaining how they worked. In order to understand the republics of the nobiles, the important questions are: how many people were plebeians and patricians and how did this caste system work? How did the elections work? How was the military administered? How were the provinces administered? How did all of these change from the first to the second republic of the nobiles? Some of these questions will find barriers in evidence, but some of them weren’t answered for apparently no reason.
I would imagine the focus on the final years of the republic and the actual details of the individual generals and politicians is probably with the intention of establishing a more precise date for the periods during the last century B.C, but, honestly, the third century was basically just skipped, while the first century took almost a century to be read through. Even so, since the objective of the book is periodisation, the chapters about the end explain only superficially the institutional changes that led to the instability and therefore not being the best book Harriet could have written on this topic.
Harriet is very skilled, but the lack of focus makes the book deserve the title of “How Democracies Die: Ancient Edition”, instead of “Roman Republics”. I only recommend it to Roman periodisation nerds and people interested in the end of the Republic.
When one thinks of creating a new periodisation from the ground up, one would ideally see, in the long run, the institutions that regulated social, cultural, economic and political life, and then see how they changed and what watershed moments marked the periods where these important institutions worked differently. Apparently, she was very much successful in doing so. The problem is that she fails to give the details on what characteristics marked each period. From the circa 180 pages of actual content, 24 are dedicated to the 5th, 4th and 3rd centuries and the rest (about 156 pages) covers the end of republicanism starting in mid to late 2nd century. This is obviously not very well distributed, even considering the lack of evidence we have about earlier periods. These 150 pages talk mostly about the spiral of violence that killed the peaceful resolution of conflicts between Roman citizens, which is a great topic, but not what the book promises to explain.
The focus on the end is not only for the republic itself, Harriet explains Roman political institutions mostly by the changes to them, not by explaining how they worked. In order to understand the republics of the nobiles, the important questions are: how many people were plebeians and patricians and how did this caste system work? How did the elections work? How was the military administered? How were the provinces administered? How did all of these change from the first to the second republic of the nobiles? Some of these questions will find barriers in evidence, but some of them weren’t answered for apparently no reason.
I would imagine the focus on the final years of the republic and the actual details of the individual generals and politicians is probably with the intention of establishing a more precise date for the periods during the last century B.C, but, honestly, the third century was basically just skipped, while the first century took almost a century to be read through. Even so, since the objective of the book is periodisation, the chapters about the end explain only superficially the institutional changes that led to the instability and therefore not being the best book Harriet could have written on this topic.
Harriet is very skilled, but the lack of focus makes the book deserve the title of “How Democracies Die: Ancient Edition”, instead of “Roman Republics”. I only recommend it to Roman periodisation nerds and people interested in the end of the Republic.
March 6, 2022
This book presents a discussion on how the Republican institutions of Rome changed throughout time. Flower challenges the perception of a stable, unchanging republic between the kingdom and imperial eras. Instead, she argues that there were seven Roman republics and tries to stablish the key characteristics of each, as well as the markers for change between the periods. The book is very well written and succinct, which makes the topic engaging.
This book brought a lot of fresh takes on the perception of politics of the Romans as well as how the different stakeholders interacted in such environment. Among the highlights I would mention: i) the different understanding about what was a republic for the Romans, with even a lack of vocabulary and political theory to define many of such concepts that we take for granted; ii) how Sulla’s tentative reform moved the constitution from one of consensus and deliberation to be centered around a judicial system of sorts; iii) how many of the changes and breaks in political tradition by the end of the period were products of the enormous pressure Rome was under between 140 – 80 b.C. and; iv) how actually the last half a century before the ascension of Augustus there was very little Republic to speak of and there was a constant violent conflict among the various political actors in Rome.
My minor criticism here is that frequently the author mentions traditions and rituals that made the Roman political institutions but rarely goes into any length of detail to explain how they worked or even what they were. While she provides a lengthy bibliography for further details, this makes the book much less accessible for a reader that doesn’t have deep knowledge on the subject, giving the sprawling number of examples she cites.
This book brought a lot of fresh takes on the perception of politics of the Romans as well as how the different stakeholders interacted in such environment. Among the highlights I would mention: i) the different understanding about what was a republic for the Romans, with even a lack of vocabulary and political theory to define many of such concepts that we take for granted; ii) how Sulla’s tentative reform moved the constitution from one of consensus and deliberation to be centered around a judicial system of sorts; iii) how many of the changes and breaks in political tradition by the end of the period were products of the enormous pressure Rome was under between 140 – 80 b.C. and; iv) how actually the last half a century before the ascension of Augustus there was very little Republic to speak of and there was a constant violent conflict among the various political actors in Rome.
My minor criticism here is that frequently the author mentions traditions and rituals that made the Roman political institutions but rarely goes into any length of detail to explain how they worked or even what they were. While she provides a lengthy bibliography for further details, this makes the book much less accessible for a reader that doesn’t have deep knowledge on the subject, giving the sprawling number of examples she cites.
October 3, 2020
I'm not a historian, but one has to admire this concise, well-written book about dividing the Republic into eras. The author does a sterling job while giving all pertinent details required for a well-informed reader to keep abreast of the narrative. It's well-written, not too dense, and simple enough that most people with some grounding in Roman Republic history would be able to follow it. In addition, it gives one much to think about, especially with the current climate being what it is. Drawing parallels between the modern world and the ancient one becomes a lot easier with such an excellent bit of material to help one do it with.
4/5 because it was a touch dry: the writing is quite academic, I don't see this as a mass-market book at all. But otherwise if you don't care about that it's solid.
4/5 because it was a touch dry: the writing is quite academic, I don't see this as a mass-market book at all. But otherwise if you don't care about that it's solid.
September 6, 2025
Flower reframes the way the history of republican Rome is periodized in order to bring out the many changes it underwent. As such, she is more interested in talking about historiography than about history, and the prose assumes a level of familiarity with the history in question. She also, understandably, chooses to focus on the changes during the 1st century CE and the way it failed to reign in the escalating abuses of men like Sulla, Marius, Pompey and culminating in Ceasar. The work is interesting enough for its relative compactness, though, again, it demands enough familiarity with republican Roman history to follow the clipped references made. The beginning of the work also lays out in great detail the importance of something so seemingly mundane as periodization of history.
April 14, 2024
I quite enjoyed the book -- it was well-written, concise, and well-argued. It drew upon a rich set of evidence and a broad bibliography.
The main issue is that the book is clearly written for other specialists -- the book assumes a pretty deep degree of familiarity with Roman political history (e.g. you should know about the mechanics of Roman elections; how the cursus honorum works; who figures like the Gracchi brothers, the Scipios, Gaius Marius are; and many other such topics). I admit some of the book probably went over my head because of that, and I would consider my self fairly well-read in general.
The main issue is that the book is clearly written for other specialists -- the book assumes a pretty deep degree of familiarity with Roman political history (e.g. you should know about the mechanics of Roman elections; how the cursus honorum works; who figures like the Gracchi brothers, the Scipios, Gaius Marius are; and many other such topics). I admit some of the book probably went over my head because of that, and I would consider my self fairly well-read in general.
April 19, 2025
a really great analysis of the systemic crises with which the roman government was regularly faced. this book argues for a reimagining of how we conceive of the roman state between its monarchies—of several republican systems which faced periodic crises, and was reimagined several times as a result. one of the strongest arguments was for a reframing of how we view the ‘late’ republic and the rise of autocratic rule—not as the result of the whims of particular powerful individuals, but as the result of ongoing political violence and crisis that had become chronic by the period.
September 4, 2024
I picked this up after hearing it recommended by Patrick Wyman on his "Tides of History" podcast, and I sort of agree with his assessment ("It's a compelling take that makes a bunch of good arguments, but I'm not sold on the number of 'Republics' that she identifies").
Also, if you're of the "Management secrets of Julius Caesar" and "Boy, I really love reading about Roman Battles, we should RETVRN to that" schools of Roman history, this is not the book for you, lol.
Also, if you're of the "Management secrets of Julius Caesar" and "Boy, I really love reading about Roman Battles, we should RETVRN to that" schools of Roman history, this is not the book for you, lol.
December 17, 2025
At the end of the day, historians tell narratives about events. By changing the period dating, she redefines the field. Her account of the Sullan Republic especially helped me better understand this poorly accounted period
November 7, 2021
A great new way to understand the Roman Republics as well as the benefits (and problems) of periodization.
October 2, 2025
Interesante
July 31, 2023
Strong book, capable of unsettling quite a few of my perspectives. Gets a little too dry and academic from time to time, but it's to be expected as it undertakes its task with gravity.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews