The Twelve Caesars: The Dramatic Lives of the Emperors of Rome

by Matthew Dennison

One of them was a military genius; one murdered his mother and fiddled while Rome burned; another earned the nickname 'sphincter artist'. Six of their number were assassinated, two committed suicide - and five of them were elevated to the status of gods. They have come down to posterity as the 'twelve Caesars' - Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian, Titus and Domitian. Under their rule, from 49 BC to AD 96, Rome was transformed from a republic to an empire, whose model of regal autocracy would survive in the West for more than a thousand years.

Matthew Dennison offers a beautifully crafted sequence of colourful biographies of each emperor, triumphantly evoking the luxury, licence, brutality and sophistication of imperial Rome at its zenith. But as well as vividly recreating the lives, loves and vices of this motley group of despots, psychopaths and perverts, he paints a portrait of an era of political and social revolution, of the bloody overthrow of a proud, 500-year-old political system, and its replacement by a dictatorship which, against all the odds, succeeded more convincingly than oligarchic democracy in governing a vast international landmass.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Biography, Ancient History, Roman History, Historical, Classics

400 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2012

About the author

Matthew Dennison is the author of five critically acclaimed works of non-fiction, including Behind the Mask: The Life of Vita Sackville-West, a Book of the Year in The Times, Spectator, Independent and Observer. He is a contributor to Country Life and lives in the United Kingdom.

Reviews

[Paul Bryant · Rating 1 out of 5]

How's this for a sentence :

Song, slaughter, sex, subversion and a search for sensation became the stuff of his supremacy.

I hated this book for many reasons, one of which is that Matthew Dennison actually believes it's a good idea to describe Nero (and others) in absolutely appallingly alienating alliteration.

This book is deadly dull. It uses an unpleasant combination of boring vagueness (when talking about political events) and smirkingly inflated scandal-mongering pomposity (when talking about the personalities) to blow smoke over the fact that it's actually hard to figure out what just happened in ancient Rome half of the time, everyone does everything to everyone else, and also, who gives a flying flurk anyway? Well, I kind of thought I did, and so I was looking forward to a good solid account of the parade of interesting grotesques which ran the show from Julius to Domitian (a period of about 150 years), but this wasn't it.

P 33

At Cato's suggestion Caesar's remaining fellow triumvir was appointed sole consul without an election but with enhanced powers, which he in turn used to legitimise Caesar's desire to stand for the consulship in his absence. He also obtained a five-year extension to his own command in Spain. Shortly afterwards, in an unexpected change of heart, Pompey passed a law preventing absenteeism among candidates for the consulship.

This is deadly dull, and also, arbitrary. Why and how did Pompey do these things? Why should I care? What was at stake? All this hustling for power amongst a teeny elite. In an early episode of the Sopranos someone asks a very pissed-off Tony whatever happened to the Romans. Tony shoves his face in front of the guy and says "You're lookin at them right now". I prefer Tony Soprano to Julius Caesar, Tiberius and the other ten emps any day.

This book and any other about this period has to rely on ancient sources, principally Suetonius, Cicero, Plutarch and Tacitus. Their collective motto appears to be "All hyperbole all the time" - every moment someone is bankrupting the treasury with a single dinner, or a wedding, or beheading half of the senate, or marrying their male concubine. Given the general popularity of what modern society would consider to be homosexual activities, it's strange that as soon as a particular man gets actaually serious about one particular partner, the Roman commentators begin to describe him as licentious and shameless. This book gave me the idea that these grave and serious Roman historians were actually more like the gossip columnists in mags like OK!, Heat and Closer




E,g. :

On rainy days Tiberius encouraged unsuspecting dinner-guests to gorge themselves on wine. Then he bound their cocks so tightly it was impossible to piss, a double torture he had devised himself. (p95)

Oh really? Or did Suetonius make that one up himself? I mean, how would that actually be done?: Would the cockbinding be suddenly announced in the middle of the dinner? "Gentlemen, please rise and present your genitals to the burly slave over there – I have prepared a delightful surprise for you all". I don't buy it. This is exactly the kind of thing the Murdoch press used to make up about the Labour Party.

That was the main problem – I didn't really buy anything I was reading in this book. It fell precisely between actual history and the weird obscenity of Divine Caligula (already reviewed) . "The present work is an entertainment" says the author in his introduction. Well. I was not amused.

The Twelve Caesars : a summary.

Caesar/Augustus/Tiberius/Caligula/Claudius/Nero/Glaba/Otho/Vitellius/Vespasian/Titus/Domitian is proclaimed emperor by the Praetorian Guard and the Senate
Caesar/Augustus/Tiberius/Caligula/Claudius/Nero/Glaba/Otho/Vitellius/Vespasian/Titus/Domitian has a sex problem
Caesar/Augustus/Tiberius/Caligula/Claudius/Nero/Glaba/Otho/Vitellius/Vespasian/Titus/Domitian murders his wife
Caesar/Augustus/Tiberius/Caligula/Claudius/Nero/Glaba/Otho/Vitellius/Vespasian/Titus/Domitian goes bankrupt
Caesar/Augustus/Tiberius/Caligula/Claudius/Nero/Glaba/Otho/Vitellius/Vespasian/Titus/Domitian murders anyone who is anyone in Rome
Caesar/Augustus/Tiberius/Caligula/Claudius/Nero/Glaba/Otho/Vitellius/Vespasian/Titus/Domitian gets killed and not before time

[Julian King · Rating 2 out of 5]

Self-consciously literary, this is hard going, and adds little to the knowledge most interested readers will already have acquired elsewhere.

Dennison writes as if he is Tacitus - which he might choose to take as a compliment, but which I do not mean as one. His literary style is verbose to the point of opacacity, and in places even syntax proves elusive amongst all the oh-so-knowing allusion. As for chronology: forget it.

Sample (from early on in chapter 1, on Julius Caesar): 'Compulsively adulterous, subject to the aphrodisiac of power as he resisted submission in every other aspect of his life, he cultivated a legend of personal distinction and vaulting audacity in which none believed more fully than he.' This sort of thing might work in Latin, but English isn't built that way.

If you can be bothered with such prolixity for its own sake, carry on.

I'm off to find something I only have to read once.

[Nicky · Rating 1 out of 5]

The quote on the cover calling this 'gossipy' is right; 'insightful', not so much. There's a lack of meaningful dates and orientation, and Dennison avoids picking a side so much that he immediately undermines any definite point with something else. He talks about Tiberius, for example, presents him as a little reluctant to take power, and then a couple of pages later presents him as a power-hungry tyrant; he talks about his simple, ascetic life, and then repeats gossip about his sexual proclivities and excesses.

It mostly seems as though Dennison is unsure about what the truths are, and isn't willing to put in the scholarship to figure out how true or false any particular assertion may be. He just seems to present it all.

So yeah, didn't find this all that entertaining, really. It's just so vague about actual events.

[Peter Johnson · Rating 1 out of 5]

pretentious, indulgent writing by the author. Will put you off a fascinating story of 12 legends. Give it a wide berth.

[Lauren Albert · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is a kind of smutty People Magazine version of “12 Caesars.” I lost track of the number of times he uses variations of the word “fuck.” Incest, sodomy, fratricide. It’s not that he names it, it’s that he seems to gleefully rub his hands together when he can.

[Samuel B. Shaw · Rating 1 out of 5]

Awfully written.

[Goedele Anckaert · Rating 3 out of 5]

It doesn't always have to be fiction. This book, which draws mainly on the work of Suetonius, describes the lives of the first 12 Roman emperors, including Julius Caesar who, strictly speaking, was not the first emperor.
I gave it three stars only. The book reads pretty dry and chaotic and above all, lacks a deeper setting. I had hoped to see the Rome of the two centuries around our time table revived but it did not become that. Regrettable.

[Sud666 · Rating 2 out of 5]

What would happen if you had a journalist take Suetonius' Lives of the Caesars and essentially rewrite it in modern English and added a smattering of Dio and Tacitus to boot? You would have The Twelve Caesars by M. Dennison. Coming soon after I had finished reading Tom Holland's excellent book Dynasty, this book was disappointing. I freely admit that this is one of the reasons it has received only two stars. Much like reading a paper by a very bright student and then following it up with a mediocre paper by a student who thinks Henry VIII fought at Agincourt, the latter will be judged far more harshly than had it been read by itself. This is the case with this book. As a journalist versus a historian Mr. Dennison seems to approach his subject with more of a rumor based method relying heavily on the writings of Suetonius. This means many rumors are posited as facts instead of a more nuanced approach to the topic of the Roman Emperors. I think he misses some of the points of these amazing people- from Julius Caesar's reasons for seeking ultimate power to some mistakes such as saying Augustus "..lived in the same small house on the Palatine for forty years". Ok true...except for the fact Mr. Dennison fails to understand that the Palatine hill was where Romulus and Remus (mythical founders of Rome) had their cave where they were nursed by a she-wolf and that it was placed right next to the temple of Apollo, the sun-god temple that he built himself, said far more than some overly showy house might have. To quote historian Tom Holland, in regards to this 'small house' - " Augustus, a man wealthier than the Republic itself, did not need to demonstrate to anyone how well endowed he was". It's things like this that I found irritating. The more I read the more it seemed that Mr Dennison did not seem to understand about Rome and it's values- whether he is constantly harping on how the Roman's were not very modern about women's rights (which leads to him misinterpreting the reason why Romans hated Cleopatra's hold over Marc Antony- not because she was female but because she was foreign and a queen thus showing the Republican values and xenophobia of the Romans versus simple misogyny). It is for reasons like this that I did not care for this book. As a survey of the twelve Emperors this is not a bad book though I, personally, would prefer Suetonius' original work. If I were to list the variety of problems like this that I found in the reading would cover far more space than I wish to use. Also it does not help when the author uses painful prose such as "..........he importuned his contemporaries if not for love, then for acquiescence, assistance, acknowledgement, awe, acclaim, an approximation of ardour and, above all, admiration and action." Ugh. That was not only a mouthful, but it is discordant even to read. Sorry, this book reminds me more of a tabloid does the Caesar's history than a serious historian.

[Daniel Kukwa · Rating 2 out of 5]

One of the strangest books that I've read in some time. There is some interesting information to be found here...if you can get past (1) the over-blown, overly-pretentious writing, (2) the blasts of crudeness that can't decide if they are truly shocking...or crude for crude's sake, (3) the flexible (bwahahaha) idea of what "chronology" and "biography" imply, and finally (4) the impression that the author is trying to out-do the Roman historians he is looking back upon. It's a titanic, glorious, car crash mess of history and literary drama...so be warned.

[Claire · Rating 1 out of 5]

I bought this book based on reviews on Amazon which suggested that this was an excellent introduction to the subject. As someone who knows virtually nothing about Roman history, this was exactly what I was looking for. Or it should have been. It hasn't taken me this long to read a book in a LONG time. The structure was incredibly difficult to follow and far from being a good introduction makes many assumptions of prior knowledge. Frequently Dennison will summarise the characteristics of an emperor and then say 'and we all know what this led to.' No. No, I don't. That's why I was reading what has been billed as a good introduction to the subject!
Dennison leaps backwards and forwards chronologically and offers interesting snippets of events that never go far enough. I realise covering twelve emperors is a big ask and he is limited in what can be included, but all this book has provided me with is an indication as to which of the twelve Caesars I would now like to find informative, lucid books on!
To add some context, I do have both a BA and MA in History and getting to grips with a new historical topic is something that I don't usually struggle with. I think this book is aimed at an extremely niche market. I certainly would not recommend it to anyone who wants a good introduction to the subject. On the other hand, anyone who already knows a lot about the Caesars is unlikely to find this very informative - although you may stand a chance of following Dennison's ramblings!
Ultimately, something is very wrong when I finish a book by resoundingly slamming the pages shut and shouting, 'finished!' so loudly that I scare my cats.

[Jacob Stelling · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good, enjoyable read overall, although I’m not sure the book does justice to it’s stated aim of bringing Suetonius’ work into the 21st century.

This version seems to have a consistent obsession with the sexual appetites of the first 12 emperors, and uses in depth analysis of these habits to drive evaluation of the emperors overall.

Despite this, “The Twelve Caesars” does link the reigns of the first Roman emperors together and shows how the rise and fall of these men were all inextricably linked. Great for those, much like me, who pick up the book for a brief introduction into the beginnings of the Roman principate.

[Drrk · Rating 1 out of 5]

Rather than review this book, I'd like to run through the major thoughts I had while reading it.

"Well the style is pretty wanky.... This is going to be a long one...."

"WTF, is this guy British...? Yes. Yes he is".

"Dat alliteration. How tedious".

"This is the kind of writer who would use the world 'prolixity' without a trace of irony".

*Three days later*: "BINGO! 'Prolixity' on page 133!"

*Upon encountering tedious alliteration #2*: "Puns possibly perturb but alliteration proves properly and primarily PURE PUD-PULLERY".

"Why is he giving equal coverage to a guy who ruled for 3 months and a guy who ruled for 40 years?"

So, yes, avoid this. At best, it's a retelling of Suetonius and "prints the legend". Like other reviewers have suggested, Tom Holland's "Dynasty" does a better job of covering the Julio-Claudians and is worth checking out. Champlin's "Nero" is great for an in-depth study as well.

[Ruben DG · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well-documented revision of the classic views on the Julian-Claudian en Vespasian dynasties. Dennison certainly sheds new lights on these ancient figures for me, albeit we will never really know how they were. Not a light read.

[Jason · Rating 2 out of 5]

Book was written like a shotgun blast, very scattered and little cohesion. I suspect it would be more enjoyable to just read the original source material and you would get more out of it.

[Brad Cohn · Rating 1 out of 5]

What a let down. I actually thought this would be an informative book when in reality it is just a slightly updated and even more gossipy re-write of Suetonius. What a shame.

[Ruth Harwood · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you haven't read Suetonius, that would be the first book I would pick up if you're interested in these amazing, charismatic enigmatic 2,000 yo enigmas. Second stop would be this awesome commentary, taking from all the ancient sources at the historian's fingertips, including Dio and Tacitus (dry reading, if i'm honest), to give what the author feels is n unbiased opinion.
I'm not going to dispute his assertions of bias, but when I came to Nero, I found myself faced with a very narrow view on who was after all villainified and forced into suicide for not being the man the senate felt he should be. Now, I'm not one to take the sources at face value: love the 'news of the world' style gossip of Suetonius, even if most of it is sensational gossip and innuendo, but to have a character so slandered and mis-represented just because his 'heirs' didn't feel they'd look good unless he was brought down a peg or two, because their pedigree was less than stellar... I think anyone who knew the ways of this period, or any period, of history, knows that it's written by the victors, and written to make themselves look like they've delivered the populace from an ignominious and evil regime. One look at Nero, who loved music and poetry, chariot racing and holidaying at Naples, this makes the assertions of his perfidy a little like badly painted walls, the original beautiful colours showing despite the ugly overcoat. Dennison doesn't seem to give Nero any kind of sympathy, and I found that unsettling. Especially as Domitian gets his full sympathy, and Caligula is admitted to have suffered a mental illness. I feel sorry for this man two millennia removed. Saying that, since I first read about him, I've known he was never the man the sources painted him. We're all a collection of contradictions, but the portrayal has always struck me as a little too contradictory to be true. And he had no relations or friends powerful enough to defend him against the complete character assassination that came after his suicide.
Aside from this intellectual disagreement, the book is written with a great deal of care, and all his subjects are dissected, their actions and non-actions analysed and no real conclusion came to other than some of these men deserve plaudits and some not, some were created from birth by circumstance and others were born with vices not acceptable to Roman society.
Thanks for this five star read - this was my second reading, and prompted me to go through six boxes of books to find a series by Colleen McCullough that I'd packed away but now just have to read!!

[Tex · Rating 2 out of 5]

“The Twelve Caesars” is a non-fiction book by Matthew Dennison. In miniature biographies it details the lives of each of Rome’s first twelve Emperors (namely Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian) covering the period 49BC to 96AD.

12 Emperors, six assassinated, two suicides, and five in total deified, Dennison gives a detailed account of each Caesar’s highs and lows, politics and perversions.

While interesting this was a difficult book to read for many reasons. First and foremost falls directly at the hands of the author (and partly his editor) because Dennison had seemingly swallowed a thesaurus. Words such as opprobrium, calumny, abstemiousness, millefeuille, nugatory, legerdemain, prolixity, parsimony, impecunious, peregrinations, and oblations are used throughout. I would like to think I have a relatively wide vocabulary but I needed a dictionary on hand to understand the author’s point much of the time. Throw in the fact that I got lost on more than one occasion on the narrative’s timeline I found myself having to re-read many sections of the book.

Secondly, there were editorial decisions made on where particular references were located in the book. A decent glossary was at the end - where I found it once I’d finished the book on my Kindle. I would have found this far more useful at the start of the book.

Finally, the author’s use of “Endnotes” rather than more traditional “Footnotes”. Having these clarifying notes at the bottom of the page rather than at the end of the book would have given certain passages and noted events more context for the reader rather than flipping backwards and forwards.

Individually they aren’t that big but collectively, for a non-fiction work, they significantly reduced my enjoyment of the book as a whole...and my rating overall.

Matthew Dennison’s “The Twelve Caesars” gets two self proclaimed gods out of five.

[Marley · Rating 2 out of 5]

There must be a logical historical narrative somewhere in this mess, but it is summer, I have no air conditioning, and it was just too much to suss out. Not that the book is all bad. I did learn some things--mostly nasty--about the first 12 Caeears. By no stretch of the imagination would any of them be considered "nice men" or a good date. Nor would most of their mothers, daughters. or myriad wives, whose chief characteristics with a couple notable exceptions (such as Antonia), were driven by a lust for power, sex, and riches. Lots of sex. Didn't some clever Romans back in the day figure out that a system where 10 of the first 12 Caesars die of suspected murder (poison was popular), assassination or suicide (forced or voluntary) a good system? By today's standards. the Trump administration is run by saints and angels.

The author seems to have been on a leave of absence from TMZ. Not that gossip doesn t' make politics and the world go'round, but if these people had as much sex of numerous variety as he (along with Suetonius, Dio, and other--who has axes to grind) claim they did, they would be at the bottom of Frank Sinatra's infamous jar.

Actually the book is enough to drive me to Suetonius for the real deal. (I loved the BBC production of I, Claudius). Hopefully he didn't hop all over the page and could write snark-free sentences.

[Ronald · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book makes a case for why journalists should stick to gossip mongering and mangling stories. Dennison is the poster boy for Gell-Mann Amnesia effect and I regret some of the harsh things I said about Hugh Lindsay in my review of his specialist book after reading this lazy exercise in pop history. Dennison is guilty of rewriting Suetonius in a rendition of the English language punctuated by salaciousness and crudity. He gleefully highlights all the rumors and slander Suetonius reported, paying lip service to the fact they born from a hostile upper class, all the while playing it up. It's titillation without real effort to ground things in their historical context.

Dennison is a journalist, and like all journalists, he has a poor understanding (if any) of the subject he's covering. He's happy to repeat the gossip, beg the question, but otherwise deliver the impression that all the scandals are all the average reader needs. I browsed his bibliography and his citations, and he mostly worked off translations of the ancient sources, with token references to people far more learned than he. In fact, I would argue that the sole purpose of this book is to use it to replace citations of Suetonius' work on Wikipedia, as that online depository is so obsessed with prohibiting the use of primary sources for fear of "original research."

[Michael O'sullivan · Rating 2 out of 5]

It's a ballsy move to open the book with a direct confrontation with Seutonius and say what follows is a clearer portrait of each of the Caesars. It isn't.

This book plays with history in a manner that lacks chronological coherency, so often while reading I was reliant on my own memory from previous books as to what happened and when. It feels like a book in which the writer gave little concern for readers, not helped by the gratuitous choice of words employed to convey information. It's particularly egregious when during key events, they dismissively write sentences like "of course we all know happened then" instead of actually writing what happened.

The writing is compelling enough to read steadily that at times it feels as though you're reading a celebrity profile rather than historical accounts, but man did I not enjoy this.

(Also, I know it's nit-picky but calling a historical event common knowlege in "the layman's Rome" had massive tory energy that irritated me even more).

[Emma McGilvray · Rating 3 out of 5]

so this is basically just a retelling of suetonius’ work titled “the twelve caesars”. i feel like there was good information in it but it was not presented very well. the chapters didn’t really describe each caesar’s reign in a certain timeline or theme; the author jumped around a lot and it was a bit confusing. i also just didn’t like his writing style in general. it wasn’t necessarily bad but it just wasn’t for me and i felt like he had to use a lot of big words. i consider myself a pretty knowledgeable person when it comes to vocabulary and i found myself googling at least five words every chapter. if you already know a lot about the caesars and want to read a book comparing suetonius’ ideas with other roman authors, this is the book for you. if you know a little bit about roman history and just want to read a book about the caesars to learn about them, this book is not a good place to start.

[Rob · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good brush up on early empire Rome. Denison is dismissive of the fluff and legend and really cuts to the core. He can come off as very scholarly at one moment and then refer to Nero as "Agrippina's brat" in the same sentence, for instance. I liked that very much and enjoyed his quite British sense of humor which was well-aligned with his myth deconstructing and sobering examination of these 12 men in their times. Very interested to read his book about Livia, the wife of Augustus.

[Neal Smith · Rating 2 out of 5]

Never use a short word when a long one is available

In this history cloudy abstraction collide with a highly mannered style. The book is clearly well researched but somehow manages to make its subject rather boring. That’s some achievement given the lurid and fascinating nature of the lives of the Caesars! It may be more accurate history but it cannot compare with Suetonius.....

[Emmett · Rating 2 out of 5]

Imagine any of the classical historians or a Victorian writing for The Daily Mail and you obtain an impression of the style of writing: stentorious, circumlocutory but occasionally tending to the sensational. The moral judgments that abound rather distracted from the moderate, expository account of the Caesars I was expecting this to be.

[Dirk Janssens · Rating 3 out of 5]

Maar dan in het Nederlands (vond die niet terug via GoodReads). We wisten allemaal al wel dat die Romeinse keizers allemaal kleine of grote smeerlapjes waren. Wordt compleet bevestigd in dit overzicht. Je krijgt er enkele gore details bij, veel sex, bloed en moord.
Maar ook een paar anecdotes waardoor enkele van die keizerlijke idioten heel zielig en kleintjes over komen.

[Loïc Koehoorn · Rating 2 out of 5]

Heeft me lang geduurd om er door te geraken. Ik vond het een moeilijke read, er werd vaak van de hak op de tak gesprongen. Ook gebruikt hij weinig punten wat leid tot zeer lange zinnen vol komma’s. Hierdoor weet je op den duur niet meer wat je eigenlijk aan het lezen bent. Ook heb ik het gevoel dat hij sommige dingen 10 keer gezegd heeft en sommige dingen heeft overgeslagen.
Score: 2,5/5

[Belinda · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is horrible. First book I have ever given up on. The lack of chronology, repetition and contradictory descriptions just makes following the biographies hard work. I refuse to waste any more of my life trying to finish this.

[Bill Robson]

I highly recommend this book. It’s a condensed telling of the lives of 12 Caesar’s. Overall it was a good read, but at times vocabulary challenging words, but enough to deter me. I found Vespasian and my new favorite emperor's and Claudius. Now I want to read more perhaps by Suetonius.

[Ethan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Didn’t think it was possible to make a tabloid/gossipy book about Roman Emperors, but here we are. There were moments where I knew he added info simply for a better story, not historical accuracy, but I didn’t dislike the book on the whole. 3.5

[Jan Peter van Kempen · Rating 2 out of 5]

Alsje dan toch Suetonius wil lezen, ga dan gewoon Suetonius lezen. Dit is niet negatief bedoeld, maar geeft alleen maar aan dat - naar mijn mening - dit boek weinig toevoegt.