What do you think?
Rate this book
Rome: Empire of the Eagles, 753 BC - AD 476
The Roman Empire is widely admired as a model of civilisation. In this compelling new study Neil Faulkner argues that in fact, it was nothing more than a ruthless system of robbery and violence. War was used to enrich the state, the imperial ruling classes and favoured client groups. In the process millions of people were killed or enslaved.
Within the empire the landowning elite creamed off the wealth of the countryside to pay taxes to the state and fund the towns and villas where they lived. The masses of people – slaves, serfs and poor peasants – were victims of a grand exploitation that made the empire possible. This system, riddled with tension and latent conflict, contained the seeds of its own eventual collapse.
Within the empire the landowning elite creamed off the wealth of the countryside to pay taxes to the state and fund the towns and villas where they lived. The masses of people – slaves, serfs and poor peasants – were victims of a grand exploitation that made the empire possible. This system, riddled with tension and latent conflict, contained the seeds of its own eventual collapse.
- GenresHistoryNonfiction
378 pages, Hardcover
First published January 27, 2008
13 people are currently reading
251 people want to read
About the author
Neil Faulkner
34 books52 followersNeil Faulkner FSA was a British archaeologist, historian, writer, lecturer, broadcaster, and political activist. Educated at King’s College, Cambridge and the Institute of Archaeology, University College London, Faulkner was a school teacher before becoming an archaeologist.
He was currently a Research Fellow at the University of Bristol, Editor of Military History Monthly, and Co-director of the Great Arab Revolt Project (in Jordan) and the Sedgeford Historical and Archaeological Research Project (in Norfolk, England). On 22 May 2008, he was elected a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London
He was currently a Research Fellow at the University of Bristol, Editor of Military History Monthly, and Co-director of the Great Arab Revolt Project (in Jordan) and the Sedgeford Historical and Archaeological Research Project (in Norfolk, England). On 22 May 2008, he was elected a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
July 26, 2018
Like all classicists, Faulkner comes into his academic work possessing biases. Unlike the vast majority of his peers, however, Faulkner is up-front about what those biases are. Seeking to present an accessible Marxian interpretation of the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, Faulkner ultimately writes a compelling narrative that is of use to none.
Rome is too much of a layman's text for classicists to be comfortable with it (the author dispenses with footnotes and strict referencing in order to appeal to a wider audience), and yet too academic to assign as a textbook or provide to the general reader. Indeed, the very fact of Faulkner's blatant biases must necessitate the removal of his work from any introductory suite of texts.
Faulkner nonetheless deserves credit for speaking bluntly and harshly about the Roman Empire at a time when many classicists still fawn over her, and I do find Rome professionally interesting as part of my focus on reception theory. Future reception theorists will doubtless look back on the work--published in 2008--as a product of its time; a reaction more to American imperialism than Roman imperialism. Let that not be heard as a criticism.
Rome is too much of a layman's text for classicists to be comfortable with it (the author dispenses with footnotes and strict referencing in order to appeal to a wider audience), and yet too academic to assign as a textbook or provide to the general reader. Indeed, the very fact of Faulkner's blatant biases must necessitate the removal of his work from any introductory suite of texts.
Faulkner nonetheless deserves credit for speaking bluntly and harshly about the Roman Empire at a time when many classicists still fawn over her, and I do find Rome professionally interesting as part of my focus on reception theory. Future reception theorists will doubtless look back on the work--published in 2008--as a product of its time; a reaction more to American imperialism than Roman imperialism. Let that not be heard as a criticism.
July 7, 2022
Cennetmekân İmparator Augustus Han hazretlerine tiran dediği için bir puanını kırdım.
July 29, 2025
Neil Faulkner presents an alternative, anti‑imperialist narrative of Rome, framing the Empire not as a civilising force but as a system of sustained military aggression and exploitation designed to enrich elites while pillaging provinces
He coins Rome as “robbery with violence,” interpreting its rise and fall through the dynamics of imperialism, taxation, and class struggle .
An important supplementary study for anyone interested in Rome as a socio-political system driven by violence and inequality.
He talks about how Saint Paul denationalized Jesus message, and spiritualized Jesus and severed Christianity's roots and transformed it from a national religion concerned with struggle against oppression in Palestine into a universal one concerned with personal salvation. Jesus mission was to lead the jews in a national struggle against Roman imperialism.
A central tenet of early Christianity in contrast to most pagan religions was that all were equal before god, that earthly possessions were of no account, and that difference of rank and property would not be recognized in the afterlife. The Early church retained an egalitarian spirit. It offered Solace to slaves and commoners in a world corrupted by Class oppression.. It was therefore viewed with suspicion by authority, and was periodically the target of prosecution.
By 298 AD The church had demonstrated it strength and the central government was weak and the church was forced to cut a deal with the state. It was the largest ideological apparatus in the roman empire and the state could hardly function without it's cooperation. If the state became a patron of the church, a great network of preachers and adherents might be converted into enthusiasts for secular authority. Christians were strategically concentrated in towns always the locus of power in the ancient world- Their theology distinctive fit well with the centralizing aims of the late roman state, allowing Christian emperors to demonize pagan usurpers as enemies of god. The Christian vision of a heavenly hierarchy seemed to mirror and thereby legitimize the imperial order on earth. At the very least, being heart in the heartless world. Christianity offered personal solace in a world full of fear, giving many men the will to carry on, and some the courage to fight heroically in the empires defense.
Within a few decades the Church had been transformed into the principal ideological apparatus of the medieval states of Europe. The church embraced by Constantine was a flawed instrument. It was always split into theological factions. The Catholic moderates of northen africa who had caved in those had handed over copies of scriptures to be burnt. The donatist radicals were not. The catholic party was that of the government, the urban elite and the great landowners. The donatists were a party of village priests and the rural poor. The left-wing of the party included bands of militants who attacked landlords and debt-collectors. The conflict between rival churches erupted bitterly contested election to the vacant metropolitan see of Carthadge. If Constantine vision was a powerful, united, conservative church working for the defense of empire was to be realized, orthodoxy and obedience had to be imposed, otherwise, so far from being an ally , the church might become a vehicle for the empires subversion within. Henceforward church councils were regularly conved, often wit the emperor chairing in person, in a effort to heal the schism
A british born monk argued that people had free will, could choose to act righteously and this way accumulated enough heavenly credit to ensure salvation.
Conservatives like Augustine believed sin was inevitable and gods grace could be earned by faith and obedience alone- Pelgaius mainted that people were responsible for their actions and it was deeds no words that counted a much harder road for the rich to tread, since it required them not merely to profess to be a christian, but to also act christian.
He coins Rome as “robbery with violence,” interpreting its rise and fall through the dynamics of imperialism, taxation, and class struggle .
An important supplementary study for anyone interested in Rome as a socio-political system driven by violence and inequality.
He talks about how Saint Paul denationalized Jesus message, and spiritualized Jesus and severed Christianity's roots and transformed it from a national religion concerned with struggle against oppression in Palestine into a universal one concerned with personal salvation. Jesus mission was to lead the jews in a national struggle against Roman imperialism.
A central tenet of early Christianity in contrast to most pagan religions was that all were equal before god, that earthly possessions were of no account, and that difference of rank and property would not be recognized in the afterlife. The Early church retained an egalitarian spirit. It offered Solace to slaves and commoners in a world corrupted by Class oppression.. It was therefore viewed with suspicion by authority, and was periodically the target of prosecution.
By 298 AD The church had demonstrated it strength and the central government was weak and the church was forced to cut a deal with the state. It was the largest ideological apparatus in the roman empire and the state could hardly function without it's cooperation. If the state became a patron of the church, a great network of preachers and adherents might be converted into enthusiasts for secular authority. Christians were strategically concentrated in towns always the locus of power in the ancient world- Their theology distinctive fit well with the centralizing aims of the late roman state, allowing Christian emperors to demonize pagan usurpers as enemies of god. The Christian vision of a heavenly hierarchy seemed to mirror and thereby legitimize the imperial order on earth. At the very least, being heart in the heartless world. Christianity offered personal solace in a world full of fear, giving many men the will to carry on, and some the courage to fight heroically in the empires defense.
Within a few decades the Church had been transformed into the principal ideological apparatus of the medieval states of Europe. The church embraced by Constantine was a flawed instrument. It was always split into theological factions. The Catholic moderates of northen africa who had caved in those had handed over copies of scriptures to be burnt. The donatist radicals were not. The catholic party was that of the government, the urban elite and the great landowners. The donatists were a party of village priests and the rural poor. The left-wing of the party included bands of militants who attacked landlords and debt-collectors. The conflict between rival churches erupted bitterly contested election to the vacant metropolitan see of Carthadge. If Constantine vision was a powerful, united, conservative church working for the defense of empire was to be realized, orthodoxy and obedience had to be imposed, otherwise, so far from being an ally , the church might become a vehicle for the empires subversion within. Henceforward church councils were regularly conved, often wit the emperor chairing in person, in a effort to heal the schism
A british born monk argued that people had free will, could choose to act righteously and this way accumulated enough heavenly credit to ensure salvation.
Conservatives like Augustine believed sin was inevitable and gods grace could be earned by faith and obedience alone- Pelgaius mainted that people were responsible for their actions and it was deeds no words that counted a much harder road for the rich to tread, since it required them not merely to profess to be a christian, but to also act christian.
January 8, 2024
Dort bucuktan bes. Bir SPQR kadar surukleyici degil, degil ama olaganustu guzel bir gozlemi var ve kitap boyunca hic klise haline getirmeden, yanilmiyorsam yalnizca uc dort kere kullaniyor: Ortada cozum icin yollar var ama o yollari sahiplenecek siniflar yok. Boyle olunca da cikari, tutkusu ve gucu olanlar o yollari tikiyor, her seferinde baska bir "cozume" ilerleniyor, ama onlar da tikaniyor ve kostebek iyi kaziyor. Kole isyanlarini Spartakus'le ozdeslestirmeme ve oncesini sonrasini vermesi Roma tarihinde aklima oturmayan yerleri aydinlativerdi. Acikcasi Gracchus kardesler ve sonrasi, Sulla'nin yaptiklari, Sezar'in rolu vs. yi de oyle. Gibbon'i uzun suredir dovuyorlar zaten, Faulkner bir de soldan vurmus. Bazi bolumleri 18. Brumiere okuyucusu icin gercekten lezzetli ve guzel analiz.
September 5, 2020
Good history of ancient Rome, the republic, and the empire. The Marxist class struggle analysis of Roman history was evident without being too overbearing and provided an approach to the plebeian class that is not stressed in Mary Beard's SPQR. The only drawback I thought was bringing in more Roman mythology than I cared for.
November 21, 2013
Neil Faulkner's Rome is an interesting and concise Marxian history of the rise and fall of the Roman Empire. A narrative history, it is exceedingly well detailed, well put together history. He argues that Rome was a ruthless war-machine, a State fed on the blood and slavery of conquered peoples which derived its wealth from robbery and violence. This interpretation is a far cry from the model of civilization and peace that the Empire is portrayed as in conservative historiography. It's partisan influence and critical evaluation of the Roman Empire make for a riveting alternative account of the earliest super-power. However, the book eschews historiographical debate and engagement with other arguments - much to its detriment. To Faulkner's credit, he does provide a bibliographical essay which points readers towards other interpretations and analysis of the ancient Roman Empire.
This history, excellent as it is, is not perfect. Faulkner, whether because of the way the evidence is left behind or by some theoretical oversight, tends to prop up the Great Man theory of History; the theory that history is the biography of great men and not social forces. Although, confusing this methodology, he does make great reference to classes and social bases. The first chapter, and indeed the introduction, could well be considered a Marxist social history of Rome. Unfortunately, almost by accident, the later chapters are focused on Great Men and not on the social forces and struggles, the people, classes and social base, that Faulkner could have weaved into the narrative of this book.
Similarly, the book is better described as Marxian because of certain theoretical confusions. For example, twice he makes reference to manifestations of class struggle, yet the main thrust of the book barely discusses class or class struggle at any length. Considering Marx wrote that 'all hitherto existing history is the history of class struggles,' class struggle should form a central analytic. It may have been that classes were not fully formed - although curiously Faulkner does make reference to class in many places without elaborating in any theoretical rigor what he means - but the throwaway references to the 'ruling class' which derives its wealth and power from exploitation makes this oversight both disappointing and confusing. In another disappointing oversight, Faulkner does not engage with Marx's claim that 'in ancient Rome the class struggle took place only within a privileged minority, between the free rich and the free poor, while the great productive mass of the population, the slaves, formed the purely passive pedestal for these combatants.' This could have made for interesting reading and Marxist engagement. Instead Faulkner doesn't touch this piece of writing and the statement goes unsupported.
The other misstep worth noting is Faulkner's reference to the Eighteenth Brumaire, opening one paragraph with a statement that 'men make their own history.' What follows is little more than an account of the Great Man theory focused on one Roman ruler. He seems to have missed what Marx was saying - both these major missteps seem to derive from a misunderstanding of the Eighteenth Brumaire, or not having read its preface. Marx writes that social history tries to 'demonstrate how the class struggle...created circumstances and relationships that made it possible for a grotesque mediocrity to play a hero’s part.' Marx is here referring to Louis Napoleon, but the claim could just as easily apply to any great leader. Instead, the narrative focuses on names Roman conquerors, great enemies and soldiery. Very little mention of social life in Rome or Italy at the time is explored. The book could certainly benefited from an exploration of the other not-classes-but-referred-to-as-such social units that do on occasion make appearances. Major military battles, taxation and wealth stolen from conquered nations feature most heavily. Understandably so, as it fits Faulkner's general argument, but Marxist history's greatest contribution was exploring and showing the power of social classes in the historical process. None of this theoretical or historical rigor is present following Faulkner's sentence, and the general use of the reference unfortunately falls flat.
Faulkner's narrative is instead focused on military power, great military leaders and the propertied ruling classes. His claim that the Rome was a ruthless State of exploitation and robbery is certainly convincing, and well worth reading. It is perhaps a mistake to call this a Marxist history, and instead using the above Marxian as it shows the influence of Marx, yet not an in depth acquaintance with his work. That said, anyone interested in ancient Rome or Marxian historiographical interpretations of the ancient world should definitely read this book.
This history, excellent as it is, is not perfect. Faulkner, whether because of the way the evidence is left behind or by some theoretical oversight, tends to prop up the Great Man theory of History; the theory that history is the biography of great men and not social forces. Although, confusing this methodology, he does make great reference to classes and social bases. The first chapter, and indeed the introduction, could well be considered a Marxist social history of Rome. Unfortunately, almost by accident, the later chapters are focused on Great Men and not on the social forces and struggles, the people, classes and social base, that Faulkner could have weaved into the narrative of this book.
Similarly, the book is better described as Marxian because of certain theoretical confusions. For example, twice he makes reference to manifestations of class struggle, yet the main thrust of the book barely discusses class or class struggle at any length. Considering Marx wrote that 'all hitherto existing history is the history of class struggles,' class struggle should form a central analytic. It may have been that classes were not fully formed - although curiously Faulkner does make reference to class in many places without elaborating in any theoretical rigor what he means - but the throwaway references to the 'ruling class' which derives its wealth and power from exploitation makes this oversight both disappointing and confusing. In another disappointing oversight, Faulkner does not engage with Marx's claim that 'in ancient Rome the class struggle took place only within a privileged minority, between the free rich and the free poor, while the great productive mass of the population, the slaves, formed the purely passive pedestal for these combatants.' This could have made for interesting reading and Marxist engagement. Instead Faulkner doesn't touch this piece of writing and the statement goes unsupported.
The other misstep worth noting is Faulkner's reference to the Eighteenth Brumaire, opening one paragraph with a statement that 'men make their own history.' What follows is little more than an account of the Great Man theory focused on one Roman ruler. He seems to have missed what Marx was saying - both these major missteps seem to derive from a misunderstanding of the Eighteenth Brumaire, or not having read its preface. Marx writes that social history tries to 'demonstrate how the class struggle...created circumstances and relationships that made it possible for a grotesque mediocrity to play a hero’s part.' Marx is here referring to Louis Napoleon, but the claim could just as easily apply to any great leader. Instead, the narrative focuses on names Roman conquerors, great enemies and soldiery. Very little mention of social life in Rome or Italy at the time is explored. The book could certainly benefited from an exploration of the other not-classes-but-referred-to-as-such social units that do on occasion make appearances. Major military battles, taxation and wealth stolen from conquered nations feature most heavily. Understandably so, as it fits Faulkner's general argument, but Marxist history's greatest contribution was exploring and showing the power of social classes in the historical process. None of this theoretical or historical rigor is present following Faulkner's sentence, and the general use of the reference unfortunately falls flat.
Faulkner's narrative is instead focused on military power, great military leaders and the propertied ruling classes. His claim that the Rome was a ruthless State of exploitation and robbery is certainly convincing, and well worth reading. It is perhaps a mistake to call this a Marxist history, and instead using the above Marxian as it shows the influence of Marx, yet not an in depth acquaintance with his work. That said, anyone interested in ancient Rome or Marxian historiographical interpretations of the ancient world should definitely read this book.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews