A Critical History of Early Rome: From Prehistory to the First Punic War

by Gary Forsythe

During the period from Rome's Stone Age beginnings on the Tiber River to its conquest of the Italian peninsula in 264 B.C., the Romans in large measure developed the social, political, and military structure that would be the foundation of their spectacular imperial success. In this comprehensive and clearly written account, Gary Forsythe draws extensively from historical, archaeological, linguistic, epigraphic, religious, and legal evidence as he traces Rome's early development within a multicultural environment of Latins, Sabines, Etruscans, Greeks, and Phoenicians. His study charts the development of the classical republican institutions that would eventually enable Rome to create its vast empire, and provides fascinating discussions of topics including Roman prehistory, religion, and language.

In addition to its value as an authoritative synthesis of current research, A Critical History of Early Rome offers a revisionist interpretation of Rome's early history through its innovative use of ancient sources. The history of this period is notoriously difficult to uncover because there are no extant written records, and because the later historiography that affords the only narrative accounts of Rome's early days is shaped by the issues, conflicts, and ways of thinking of its own time. This book provides a groundbreaking examination of those surviving ancient sources in light of their underlying biases, thereby reconstructing early Roman history upon a more solid evidentiary foundation.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Ancient History, Roman, Roman History

416 pages, Hardcover

First published January 15, 2005

Reviews

[Broos · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very interesting and informative book, I don't understand why other reviews deemed it as dry and boring (it will definitely be boring if Roman history does not interest you, but if that is the case, why even attempt to read it?), as I found it incredibly well written and eloquent; this comment on the confidence of the Romans even earned a hearty laugh out of me:

Thus, this brief northern war can be taken to show the opportunistic nature of Roman expansion and imperialism. If this interpretation of the war's causes and motivations is valid, Rome's growing confidence in its strength and abilities appears even more extraordinary when we realize that the Romans were still engaged in a major war with the Samnites. In order to have opened up another front, the Roman senate must have been convinced that they had overcome Lautulae, and that Samnite defeat was now merely a matter of time.

Forsythe analyzes all relevant passages in the extant sources of this period and is very critical towards them, which he should be as the authors were incredibly biased and chauvinistic towards Rome and would try to present it in the best possible light, which is contrary to the duty of the historian to try to present the truth and what really happened. Forsythe in my opinion excels in his duty and manages to very elegantly distinguish the facts from the fictions (at least as much as possible due to the paucity of the sources of this period).

Another impressive thing about this book is that its author was (Gary Forsythe unfortunately passed away in 2023) blind, a limitation which does not show at all throughout the book as it is incredibly well researched, a thing which must have been incredibly hard to achieve for I doubt obscure history texts and studies had a braille version, nor did most of them had been digitized to be somewhat useful with various OCR technologies (which were in their infancies at the time this book was written).

To summarize, this book is a very recommended read for anyone interested in history in general and Roman history in particular (in fact, this book will be of much help in understanding various references to this period in Roman histories of later periods).

[Rebecca · Rating 4 out of 5]

Anyone who thinks history is just about repeating facts, should read a book like this (and if you are into Roman history this book). History is about evaluating sources, interpret them, discard some of them, and see what can be used. And it continues to evolve. We know more now than we did 50 years ago - and in all likelihood we will know things 50 years from now, that we don't now.

Actually, the cover itself is a testament to this. When this book was written, the Capitoline wolf here on the cover was believed to be an Etruscan sculpture (with a Renaissance addition of the two children) - but modern research techniques (from after this book was published, I hasten to add) has shown that the wolf sculpture might actually be from the 11-12th century AD. And a few years later this new fact was called into question again - so now it might be hard to know what to think of it. Our knowledge about the Romans and their world continues to change.

[Zachary Olsen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Unbelievably dry but nonetheless an essential volume for those interested in early Roman history. Forsythe critically examines much of what has been taken for granted by both contemporary historians, and Roman historians themselves (in this book, mostly Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus) about Rome's early history and attempts a more accurate history of that time period. Although he drops his multidisciplinary approach somewhat as the book's chronology nears Rome's period of conquest of the Italian peninsula, Forsythe incorporates archaeological history evidence well to give a complete picture of the regnal period and early Republic. Again, not an easy read, but a good one if you want to read the work of an historian who really cares about digging deep into Rome's often murky early history.

[Matthew · Rating 4 out of 5]

He said right at the top that he was trying to split the difference between the history buff with some knowledge of the period, the college student, and the serious scholar. It mostly works, but it does make the book a bit uneven, as he veers from covering the debate over certain interpretations of the past to actually presenting a timeline of events we can feel certain actually happened. He discussion of how we know what we know, what early authors we can trust and how far and why was superb. I enjoyed it and learned a great deal, especially regarding how much we truly do not know.

[Taylor Swift Scholar · Rating 2 out of 5]

Very boring. I learned some stuff. I don’t recommend this unless you’re realllllllllly interested in Roman History.

[Marcus Dovigi · Rating 2 out of 5]

booooooooo

[Tim · Rating 3 out of 5]

Great book with many interesting counterpoints to Cornell. Overall I tend to agree with Cornell, but there were several instances where Forsyth seems to provide better insight.

[Citrom Citrom]

While Cornell's (intro) book is superior in many ways, Forsythe's work shows us a different (albeit very useful) approach.

[Praveen Gowtham · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is not an easy read. It is a history book that deals with a time from which much knowledge and wisdom on the matter stems from late Classical and Renaissance sources. Of course, when taking from these sources we must be careful -- as they see the early events of Rome as they wish to see them. Example: Porsenna withdrawing from Rome because he was impressed by the virtue of its men and the purity and exceptional character of its women. The portrayal of Tarquinus Superbus as an absolute tyrant (although not coincidentally in ways that were clearly modeled from stock Greek models of the stages of tyranny).

Forsythe uses archaeological evidence, consular fasti, the late Republican accounts, and more to put together a coherent and quite plausible story. This means detailed analysis -- so detailed that it at times it can be quite forbidding. But when all is said and done, a very solid peice of scholarship on a dynamic and important period(s) of Roman history.

[Maya · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not an easy read but a good one none the less.