Rome's Revolution: Death of the Republic and Birth of the Empire

Ancient Warfare and Civilization

by Richard Alston

"On March 15th, 44 BC a group of senators stabbed Julius Caesar, the dictator of Rome. By his death, they hoped to restore Rome's Republic. Instead, they unleashed a revolution. By December of that year, Rome was plunged into a violent civil war. Three men--Mark Antony, Lepidus, and Octavian--emerged as leaders of the revolutionary regime, which crushed all opposition over the next decade. In time, Lepidus was removed, Antony and Cleopatra were dispatched, and Octavian stood alone as sole ruler of Rome. He became Augustus, Rome's first emperor, and by the time of his death in AD 14 the 500-year-old republic was but a distant memory and one of history's greatest empires had been born.

"Rome's Revolution provides a riveting narrative history of this tumultuous period of change. In addition to chronicling the drama of aristocratic rivalries, author Richard Alston digs beneath the high politics of Cicero, Caesar, Antony, and Octavian to reveal the experience of the common Roman citizen and soldier. Portraying the revolution as the crisis of a violent society--both among the citizenry and among a ruling class whose legitimacy was dwindling--Rome's Revolution provides new insight into the motivations that drove men to march on their capital city and slaughter their compatriots. An enthralling story of violent politics, social upheaval, and personal betrayal, Rome's Revolution is a brilliant new history of an epoch which still haunts us today." -- from the Publisher.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Ancient History, Ancient, Politics, Roman History, War

336 pages, Hardcover

First published May 1, 2015

About the author

Professor of Roman History, Royal Holloway. Richard has worked extensively on social and economic history of the Roman imperial period. His work is at the interface of ancient history and modern social theory. His interest in reception is in the history of urbanism and in political philosophy.

Reviews

[Emma · Rating 4 out of 5]

Richard Alston has succeeded in demonstrating the complexity and brutality integral to political change in this period. The book is a fascinating investigation into power; the ways in which it is exercised, maintained, impeded and overthrown. Alston provides captivating insight into the motivations of the men involved in the violent process of change, and attempts to look beyond the key players into the hearts and minds of the citizenry. His picture of Rome under Augustus is sharply defined and clearly portrays the death and sacrifice that was needed to build and preserve the empire.

This is not politics by documents and hand shakes, it teems with blood, and is all the better for it.



Many thanks to Netgalley and Oxford University Press for this copy in exchange for an honest review.

[Jerome Otte · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great, accessible narrative history of the fall of the Republic and the origins of the Roman imperial government.

Alston begins with the murder of Tiberius Gracchus, and from there he describes the history of the republic until the death of Augustus. All the while, Alston emphasizes the violence of the revolution and the paradoxical aspects of Roman society that enabled charismatic leaders to seize absolute power. The narrative is dramatic, and the stories of Caesar, Antony, Cleopatra, and Octavian are always interesting to read about (most readers will probably find these more interesting than Alston’s actual argument). He also shows how the monarchy emerged under Augustus and how he sold it as the “restoration” of the very system he was overthrowing.

Alston’s book is an easy read and he is does a great job condensing all of the characters and events into concise, readable prose. The detail is never overwhelming for the general reader, although the Augustan era is treated in a much more in-depth way than other parts. The title asserts that these events were “revolutionary” but Alston makes it clear what he means: a shift in how Rome was governed and how the various institutions interacted. Alston does not portray Augustus as any sort of “revolutionary,” either; while a gifted leader, Alston argues that Augustus did not have any grand plan in mind from the start, and shows how he eventually made his dictatorship into a permanent system, something previous revolutionaries had not really attempted. His arguments are all backed up and not hard to follow, although at one point Alston also asserts that Caesar’s war with Pompey was “accidental” (huh?)

Readable, engaging and enjoyable, if a bit dry and thin at times.

[Lili · Rating 4 out of 5]

From Netgalley for a review:

Ok, I am going to be completely open, I hated this book at the beginning, it was so hard to get into, more personal philosophy on the goings on at the time period covered in this book than actual history. Hrrm, not what I signed up for. So I trudged on, fell asleep trying to read it more than once, was about to just give up on it....when it started to get really good!

When the author is giving accounts of history, he draws you in! I feel bad for being so unhappy about the introduction. Granted there are times where the dates and 'heavy' history gets pretty dense, but it is not too dense to be unpleasant. Or maybe I just like ready dense history! This is a time period that has always fascinated me, the people's stories are legends to me. From Caesar, Cicero, Milo, to Pompey, Gacchus, and of course, Octavian himself. This is such a tumultuous time period in Roman history, and I enjoyed reading about it in a mostly historical texts. There was very little speculation on the personality and lives of these figures, just lots of 'this is what happened, and here is what it caused.' which I found enjoyable.

I recommend this book to history buffs, just, maybe skip the opening if you find it not to your liking like I did.

[Travis Bow · Rating 3 out of 5]

Before reading this book, my knowledge of Republican Rome didn't extend much farther than Robin Williams impersonating Julius Caesar in Aladdin (et tu, Brute? apparently not what was said). After reading it, I can say that an extensive and detailed account of what led up to the rise of Caesar, the fall of the Republic, and the rise of the Empire has passed before my eyes... and that I've retained approximately 10% of it.

Much of the book was fascinating, but I got the impression that the author was writing to fellow historians (being very careful to justify any unorthodox takes on interpretation of data, nodding to other interpretations to show that he knew about them). I got the impression that the book was full of careful scholarship, but the "here's the big picture", "let's summarize that battle with a diagram", "taking a step back" parts were missing. If you're a Roman history buff who's looking for a thorough, careful take on one of the most legendary and romanticized periods of history, this book is for you. If you're a total newb (like me), it'll give you a general idea, but I suspect there may be clearer accounts out there.

[Liviu · Rating 4 out of 5]

starts quite interesting and promises a lot delivering for the period immediately following the Ides and until Mutina and Octavian's ascendance, the triumvirate and the proscriptions, but then it kind of sputters as it tries to cover way too much (all of Augustus reign) for the choice of detail level in the first part

[Erik Bloom · Rating 5 out of 5]

quite enjoyed reading Richard Alston’s “Rome’s Revolution.” It combined a historical narrative of the death of the republic and the birth of imperial government with political analysis.

I found the narrative history easy to read and digest. Alston writes well and is able to condense people and events (such as Sulla or the Battle of Actium) quite concisely. The book definitely gives you the information you need to understand the story without drowning the reader. The book does, however, go into much greater detail on the Augustan period.

The book’s strength is its political analysis. Unlike many books, it introduces framework to understand the give and take in politics in Rome. This is not a complicated, theoretical structure but it does give some discipline to analysis.

The author defines what he means by a revolution—a marked shift in how Rome was governed and the relationship among institutions. He explains the importance of networks in Roman society. He argues that there was not an underlying revolutionary agenda; Augustus may have been a good leader, but he was not planning the whole thing from the start. Revolution was his reaction to a more than fifty years of broken institutions. I should point that Alston does not see Augustus as a hero and is quite descriptive of what the emperor did to take control and maintain control of the state.

The book also explains how Augustus turned his personal “dictatorship” into a permanent system. While other tyrants (for example, Sulla) had seized the state, they did not try to establish a new regime or system of government.

For me, the discussion of redistribution was quite interesting and not one that I had thought of. Imperial government led to a large transfer of wealth and land from the elite (against their will and often violently) to soldiers and veterans. This continued as Rome maintained a large and expensive army. Likewise political power was transferred from the elite to the emperor, often to benefit of the lower classes (“plebes”). The author definitely does not believe that this was driven by ideology or class conflict; it is not a modern revolution. It has more to do with the necessities of maintaining power through the new Augustus’ network.

The book is probably best for people who have some experience with Roman history. The material is not difficult to understand but it is useful to have some additional knowledge to fill in the gaps.

Review also available on Amazon.com:
http://www.amazon.com/review/RPZQY896...

[Jennifer · Rating 3 out of 5]

I received a copy of this book from NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.

This book focuses on the time during the Roman Empire between the assassination of Julius Caesar to the death of Augustus. The author goes into detail regarding the power struggles and political rivalries associated with this time.

Overall, I liked this book. It was very informative and detailed in the descriptions of certain events that took place and the people involved. I would definitely recommend this book to lovers of history, particular those who enjoy Roman history.

[Bonnie_blu · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a fairly good overview of the end of the Roman Republic and the rise of Empire. I say "fairly" because I feel that the author treated many events superficially, and emphasized those that supported his interpretation of the transition from Republic to Empire. Also, I believe that his attitude toward some of the major characters shows a distinct bias. I have read hundreds of works on Ancient Rome (including primary sources) and feel that there are better works covering this time period (e.g., works by Adrian Goldsworthy).

In addition, I found a sprinkling of errors throughout the text. For example, on page 22, the author states that Cleopatra was the mother of Caesar's only child. This is not the case. She was the mother of his only living child, but Caesar had a daughter, Julia, who married Pompey and helped to cement the alliance of the First Triumvirate (she died in childbirth). On page 28, the author states that Caesar said to Brutus "And you, child" as he died. There are conflicting reports from ancient sources as to what, if anything, Caesar said (most report that Caesar said nothing).

The author also had a habit of switching between ancient and modern names for locations. In my opinion, he should have picked one method and stuck with it. In addition, when giving distance measurements, Alston would give a distance in kilometers with equivalent English miles in parenthesis. However, in some instances he would give Roman miles with kilometers in parenthesis. Again, I feel he should have picked one method and stuck with it.

[Chris Jaffe · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a fantastic book. Alston is a Brit academic who has previously written two books on Rome. The main contention he has in this book is that the change in power in these years constitutes a revolution. He notes we tend to think of revolutions as ideologically motivated whose foremost goal is to create a change in the social structure. That wasn’t the case in Rome. It was just individuals making power plays. But the plays that resulted did in fact revolutionize Rome.

A second and maybe more important theme here is the role of soldiers. We tend to look at the senators and the higher ups as the main actors because they provide our sources, but Alston argues the soldiers (and plebs more broadly) played a role. The Senate had been the traditional power brokers, but Octavian et al broke them by playing to a new power base – one that remade Octavian into Augustus.

He spends a few chapters on the background, going as far back as the Gracchi. That’s a good place to start the Republic’s fall. In the old days (393 to 177 BC) Rome established at least 40 colonies, giving land to maybe 160,000 male settlers. But then they stopped doing it as much for a stretch. Gaius Gracchus’s reforms included giving cheap grain to Rome, and relaunching colonization, among other things. Alston thinks Marius’s innovation of buying his soldiers’ gear is an overrated fact among historians. He and Sulla both had their ideas how to make Rome work, but Sulla focused on the Senate. Caesar is an overrated historical figure as when you look at him, it’s hard to see any real massive sea change. He did extend Roman citizenship to northern Italy. He raised military pay. He secured the grain supply. He embarked on colonization. When he crossed the Rubicon, he wasn’t embarking on any war to change war. It was to save himself. It was an accidental war. The Senate killed him, crying out the name Cicero, even though Cicero wasn’t involved. But he’d stopped Catalina’s conspiracy and they felt this would be the same. They felt killing Caesar would restore the Republic. Nope.

A war broke out instead, and at one point you had six different militaries in Italy (Antony, Pompey’s son, Lepidus, the Republic’s, Octavian, and another one serving the Republic). Octavian was actually working with the Senate, and Antony lost a battle. The Senate did a victory dance, figuring the war was over. But it wasn’t. Antony was still a threat. And Octavian, upset (and more importantly, with upset troops) marched on Rome. Many senators were killed by him. He soon formed an alliance with Antony, which Lepidus backed into. They killed a bunch of Senators, including Cicero, with a reign of terror. It was really important to keep the troops happy, and that was a main concern for Octavian in his rise in these years. He sided with soldiers over senators. The army of Brutus and Cassius was defeated and the three of them reigned supreme.

Alston compares the styles and innovations of Antony and Octavian. He doesn’t think people were horrified with Antony’s association with Hellenistic kingship while nodding their head easily to Octavian’s association with gods in golden statues, so the traditional Octaivian PR line is rubbish. There was an eastern tradition of ruler cults that Octavian tapped into. He won the war.

He portrayed himself as the pleb’s proctor. The title “princeps” meant first man. (The triumph is the word that became emperor, because during Octavian’s lifetime it became associated only with the emperor, and would remain so for Rome). The army was huge: 28 legions, a total of 140,000 men. They served for 16 years. They had regular pay and irregular bonuses (that Augustus regularized). Maybe 11% of Rome’s manpower served in legions. And he had to take care of them. So more colonies and conquests.

The Senate didn’t like the new arrangement, but couldn’t oppose him. But when he went away from Rome for a bit, they maybe hoped that his star would dim. Instead, theirs did. (This was around 22 BC). A food shortage led to pleb rioting. Augustus put himself in charge and the food was back in under a week. He paid them money, too. And he did lots of building projects, that gave the plebs jobs. Maybe 10-18% of Rome worked in construction. Without him, would they still have those jobs? Augustus improved the water supply by maybe over 50%. This wasn’t “bread and circus” as far as Alston’s concerned. This was serious aid. Octavian bought the grain and distributed it to them. Augustus kept the people content and in doing so made the Senate aware that they depended on him – otherwise the plebs might revolt against them, with the army siding with the plebs. The senate was housebroken. Augustus thus became the clear top man in Rome. He established over 60 colonies, that included maybe 300,000 to 600,000 male settlers (though not all were citizens).

And he tried a moral revolution as well. He promoted good morals in art. He wanted women of his family to make his own clothes. He regulated conspicuous luxury, the types of clothing worn, and even sexual relations. His sexual laws were about having many kids. He encouraged marriages. A woman was to remarry within 6 months (later 18 months) after a divorce. It was a year (later 2) in case of widowhood. Men were punished for not marrying. Penalties for not doing so in either case was a limited inheritance right. Women who had 3-4 kids were made legally independent and could conduct business without a male representative. All that was for the elite. But for commoners, he gave 1,000 sesterces (their currency) to fathers for each child. Mind you, a solider’s annual salary was 900. The legislation was deeply controversial, but he stood by it.

He had trouble with a successor, as he outlived most of them. He expanded Rome’s empire, but then suffered the massive loss east of the Rhine. Between that and an uprising in Dalmatia, it became hard to man and fund the army, which helped put a halt to expansion. Tiberius was last heir standing and the most prominent military man, so he became the next emperor, though he tried to defer to the Senate. The senate had lost its leading role. They no longer had control over armies, over the wealth of the empire, or over the plebs. It had become a monarchy.

[Amanda Mekdessi · Rating 4 out of 5]

A must-read for anyone passionate about ancient history. Richard Alston expertly navigates the complex transition from the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire, shedding light on the political and social upheaval that shaped the course of history.
The book is well-researched and provides a detailed account of the key events, figures, and ideologies that led to the fall of the Republic and the rise of the Empire. Alston’s analysis is both accessible and insightful, making it a great resource for history enthusiasts and scholars alike.

If you’re a lover of ancient history or fascinated by the rise and fall of empires, Rome's Revolution is an essential read.

[Tabitha Perkins · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read for class.

[C. J. · Rating 4 out of 5]

In this book Alston also covers the hierarchies involved in Roman society which were tightly integrated into Roman politics. Much of the book is based on how the hierarchies actually influenced the way politics was swayed, focusing on how the "freedom" was actually a luxury possessed by the higher levels of society.

He goes into the explanation of the word "revolution" and what it means today as opposed to what it meant at the time. Similar to what Philip Parker did in his World History book (on Goodreads), where he included a section on the exact definition of the word "history". It presents a refreshing take on how the reader approaches is this the section, as their own knowledge of what the word means may be very different from what the word may have met at the time, changing the context and upgrading the accuracy of the reader's understanding of the author's point.

The hierarchal analysis combined with Alston's explanation of the word revolution, makes it's clear for the reader to see that the Roman revolution wasn't one of our familiar experience of poor classes being fed up with the abuses and neglect of their rulers and nobility, but one where the higher classes, within themselves, were concerned with the method of politics and set about to change it.

Most of my updates (read notes below) were regarding the actual writing style used in this book. Alston tends to give into a lot of sentence repetition. The book is written in a conversational tone, which is a style known for having this same issue among its writers. However, the body of this book presents a refreshing look at the subject, and Alston makes it a priority to let his readers understand the concepts he is covering.

Although, this book is written with the assumption that its reader has some basic knowledge of the subject, its not so unforgivably advanced that new comers to Roman history may not be able to follow it.

Part of what makes a book interesting is the amount of excitement exuded by the author through the pages of his work, Alston appears to have been truly interested and passionate about this topic which makes the reader want to know more, granting the book the privilege of their attention and time. Some writers write for the sake of just writing, with no real interest in the subject, which makes it hard for the reader to justify spending their precious time reading their production.

Would I recommend this book: yes I would. Why, because it is well written in the sense that his explanatory style is exceptional; not leaving any reader behind in unknown concepts. Alston was extremely interested in the writing of this book which is clearly visible while reading, making it an exciting story for anyone interested in Roman history. "Alston has taken the known and recycled and turned it into a classic work of its own with a fresh take on the subject"- C.J. Leger.

NOTES: 

I received this book as an advanced copy from the publisher, Oxford University Press, and was very excited to read it. I tracked all of my updates and comments on Goodreads, as I do with all my books, and on CJLeger.com at the respective book post found on the Currently Reading Tab.

[Julie Dawson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Just before I began reading Rome’s Revolution: Death of the Republic and Birth of the Empire, I had been reading a news article about a senator that wanted to encourage people to spy of food stamp recipients at the supermarket. That article fresh in my mind, the following statement from author Richard Alston’s introduction struck me as very pertinent: “If politics seem not to matter to many in the West, for billions of poorer people politics is profoundly important. Food, money, and violence are the realities of power, and this book reconnects to those realities.”

This connection between food, money, violence, and power is the heart of Rome’s Revolution. In the book, the author chronicles the years leading up to, and immediately following, the revolution that transformed the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire. Traditionally, this transition is often presented through the sanitized eyes of the elite of the time; the great historians and philosophers whose eloquent and stately treatises are considered the foundations of politics in the West. Alston instead attempts to discuss this pinnacle point in history through the eyes of the soldiers, merchants, farmers, and other non-elite.

Alston’s work assumes that the reader has a baseline understanding of ancient Rome, but that doesn't mean the book in inaccessible to those lacking any previous knowledge of the time period. The author has a clear, concise, and conversational style that makes the sometimes weighty subject matter easy to digest. He also manages to present the information in a way that is relevant to current politics in the West without directly referring to modern politics. Intelligent readers will see the similarities between the politics of Rome before and after the Revolution and the politics of today.

Rome’s Revolution is an intriguing look at one of the most influential moments in ancient history not through the eyes of the elite, but the common citizen. Alston gives voice to those that history left silent, and the end result is an insightful reminder of the real nature of power.

Reviewer Note: I was given an advanced review copy of this title for review.

[Bill · Rating 4 out of 5]

Alston's book is a very readable and enjoyable account of the transition of Rome from Republic to Empire. Based on having studied Roman history and culture, I find it very accurate. He main people are brought to life. Legends and facts and biases are clearly distinguished. A common problem with Roman history books is that the names are presented in confusing detail due to similarity. Alston artfully avoid this problem. I highly recommend this book to newcomers and experts.

[Perpetua · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fun how different countries can teach roman history differently! A great read, good summary to clear your mind before class!

[Martin · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've always been interested in the Roman transition from republic to monarchy. This was an excellent look at that time. Answered some questions, and just as important, gave me more to ask

[Patrick Shrier · Rating 5 out of 5]

A refreshing look at the events and causes of the fall of the Roman Republic

[Hank Cox · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a fairly straightforward account of the end of the Roman Republic and the ascendancy of Augustus.