What do you think?
Rate this book
El triunfo romano: una historia de Roma a través de la celebración de sus victorias
Cada gran victoria militar acababa en la antigua Roma en un desfile por las calles de la ciudad hacia el templo de Júpiter, en la colina del Capitolio, en que el general vencedor y sus soldados iban acompañados por los más importantes de los dignatarios derrotados y por el botín que habían capturado, desde barcos tomados al enemigo y estatuas preciosas hasta animales y plantas del territorio conquistado, en un cortejo de tal magnitud que en ocasiones podía durar hasta dos o tres días. Mary Beard, catedrática de la Universidad de Cambridge, analiza la magnificencia del triunfo romano, pero nos muestra también el lado oscuro de esta celebración del imperialismo que iba a servir de modelo para los monarcas y los generales de épocas sucesivas. «En algunas raras ocasiones -ha dicho Robert Harris- nos encontramos con un libro de historia que ilumina una época entera como con la luz de un relámpago. El libro de Mary Beard pertenece a esta rara y valiosa categoría.»
512 pages, Paperback
First published October 30, 2007
53 people are currently reading
1784 people want to read
About the author
Mary Beard
74 books4,155 followersWinifred Mary Beard (born 1 January 1955) is Professor of Classics at the University of Cambridge and is a fellow of Newnham College. She is the Classics editor of the Times Literary Supplement, and author of the blog "A Don's Life", which appears on The Times as a regular column. Her frequent media appearances and sometimes controversial public statements have led to her being described as "Britain's best-known classicist".
Mary Beard, an only child, was born on 1 January 1955 in Much Wenlock, Shropshire. Her father, Roy Whitbread Beard, worked as an architect in Shrewsbury. She recalled him as "a raffish public-schoolboy type and a complete wastrel, but very engaging". Her mother Joyce Emily Beard was a headmistress and an enthusiastic reader.
Mary Beard attended an all-female direct grant school. During the summer she participated in archaeological excavations; this was initially to earn money for recreational spending, but she began to find the study of antiquity unexpectedly interesting. But it was not all that interested the young Beard. She had friends in many age groups, and a number of trangressions: "Playing around with other people's husbands when you were 17 was bad news. Yes, I was a very naughty girl."
At the age of 18 she was interviewed for a place at Newnham College, Cambridge and sat the then compulsory entrance exam. She had thought of going to King's, but rejected it when she discovered the college did not offer scholarships to women. Although studying at a single-sex college, she found in her first year that some men in the University held dismissive attitudes towards women's academic potential, and this strengthened her determination to succeed. She also developed feminist views that remained "hugely important" in her later life, although she later described "modern orthodox feminism" as partly "cant". Beard received an MA at Newnham and remained in Cambridge for her PhD.
From 1979 to 1983 she lectured in Classics at King's College London. She returned to Cambridge in 1984 as a fellow of Newnham College and the only female lecturer in the Classics faculty. Rome in the Late Republic, which she co-wrote with the Cambridge ancient historian Michael Crawford, was published the same year. In 1985 Beard married Robin Sinclair Cormack. She had a daughter in 1985 and a son in 1987. Beard became Classics editor of the Times Literary Supplement in 1992.
Shortly after the 11 September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center, Beard was one of several authors invited to contribute articles on the topic to the London Review of Books. She opined that many people, once "the shock had faded", thought "the United States had it coming", and that "[w]orld bullies, even if their heart is in the right place, will in the end pay the price".[4] In a November 2007 interview, she stated that the hostility these comments provoked had still not subsided, although she believed it had become a standard viewpoint that terrorism was associated with American foreign policy.[1]
In 2004, Beard became the Professor of Classics at Cambridge.[3] She is also the Visiting Sather Professor of Classical Literature for 2008–2009 at the University of California, Berkeley, where she has delivered a series of lectures on "Roman Laughter".[5]
Mary Beard, an only child, was born on 1 January 1955 in Much Wenlock, Shropshire. Her father, Roy Whitbread Beard, worked as an architect in Shrewsbury. She recalled him as "a raffish public-schoolboy type and a complete wastrel, but very engaging". Her mother Joyce Emily Beard was a headmistress and an enthusiastic reader.
Mary Beard attended an all-female direct grant school. During the summer she participated in archaeological excavations; this was initially to earn money for recreational spending, but she began to find the study of antiquity unexpectedly interesting. But it was not all that interested the young Beard. She had friends in many age groups, and a number of trangressions: "Playing around with other people's husbands when you were 17 was bad news. Yes, I was a very naughty girl."
At the age of 18 she was interviewed for a place at Newnham College, Cambridge and sat the then compulsory entrance exam. She had thought of going to King's, but rejected it when she discovered the college did not offer scholarships to women. Although studying at a single-sex college, she found in her first year that some men in the University held dismissive attitudes towards women's academic potential, and this strengthened her determination to succeed. She also developed feminist views that remained "hugely important" in her later life, although she later described "modern orthodox feminism" as partly "cant". Beard received an MA at Newnham and remained in Cambridge for her PhD.
From 1979 to 1983 she lectured in Classics at King's College London. She returned to Cambridge in 1984 as a fellow of Newnham College and the only female lecturer in the Classics faculty. Rome in the Late Republic, which she co-wrote with the Cambridge ancient historian Michael Crawford, was published the same year. In 1985 Beard married Robin Sinclair Cormack. She had a daughter in 1985 and a son in 1987. Beard became Classics editor of the Times Literary Supplement in 1992.
Shortly after the 11 September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center, Beard was one of several authors invited to contribute articles on the topic to the London Review of Books. She opined that many people, once "the shock had faded", thought "the United States had it coming", and that "[w]orld bullies, even if their heart is in the right place, will in the end pay the price".[4] In a November 2007 interview, she stated that the hostility these comments provoked had still not subsided, although she believed it had become a standard viewpoint that terrorism was associated with American foreign policy.[1]
In 2004, Beard became the Professor of Classics at Cambridge.[3] She is also the Visiting Sather Professor of Classical Literature for 2008–2009 at the University of California, Berkeley, where she has delivered a series of lectures on "Roman Laughter".[5]
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 41 reviews
June 7, 2015
Description: It followed every major military victory in ancient Rome: the successful general drove through the streets to the temple of Jupiter on the Capitoline Hill; behind him streamed his raucous soldiers; in front were his most glamorous prisoners, as well as the booty he'd captured, from enemy ships and precious statues to plants and animals from the conquered territory. Occasionally there was so much on display that the show lasted two or three days.
A radical reexamination of this most extraordinary of ancient ceremonies, this book explores the magnificence of the Roman triumph--but also its darker side. What did it mean when the axle broke under Julius Caesar's chariot? Or when Pompey's elephants got stuck trying to squeeze through an arch? Or when exotic or pathetic prisoners stole the general's show? And what are the implications of the Roman triumph, as a celebration of imperialism and military might, for questions about military power and "victory" in our own day? The triumph, Mary Beard contends, prompted the Romans to question as well as celebrate military glory.
Her richly illustrated work is a testament to the profound importance of the triumph in Roman culture--and for monarchs, dynasts and generals ever since. But how can we re-create the ceremony as it was celebrated in Rome? How can we piece together its elusive traces in art and literature? Beard addresses these questions, opening a window on the intriguing process of sifting through and making sense of what constitutes "history."
Opening: Pompey’s Finest Hour? BIRTHDAY PARADE September 29, 61 bce, was the forty-fifth birthday of Pompey the Great. It was also—and this can hardly have been mere coincidence—the second and final day of his mammoth triumphal procession through the streets of Rome. It was a ceremony that put on show at the heart of the metropolis the wonders of the East and the profits of empire: from cartloads of bullion and colossal golden statues to precious specimens of exotic plants and other curious bric-à-brac of conquest.
See also, the lovely Mary Beard doing good work for her online attacker.
Caligula with Mary Beard BBC Documentary 2013
A radical reexamination of this most extraordinary of ancient ceremonies, this book explores the magnificence of the Roman triumph--but also its darker side. What did it mean when the axle broke under Julius Caesar's chariot? Or when Pompey's elephants got stuck trying to squeeze through an arch? Or when exotic or pathetic prisoners stole the general's show? And what are the implications of the Roman triumph, as a celebration of imperialism and military might, for questions about military power and "victory" in our own day? The triumph, Mary Beard contends, prompted the Romans to question as well as celebrate military glory.
Her richly illustrated work is a testament to the profound importance of the triumph in Roman culture--and for monarchs, dynasts and generals ever since. But how can we re-create the ceremony as it was celebrated in Rome? How can we piece together its elusive traces in art and literature? Beard addresses these questions, opening a window on the intriguing process of sifting through and making sense of what constitutes "history."
Opening: Pompey’s Finest Hour? BIRTHDAY PARADE September 29, 61 bce, was the forty-fifth birthday of Pompey the Great. It was also—and this can hardly have been mere coincidence—the second and final day of his mammoth triumphal procession through the streets of Rome. It was a ceremony that put on show at the heart of the metropolis the wonders of the East and the profits of empire: from cartloads of bullion and colossal golden statues to precious specimens of exotic plants and other curious bric-à-brac of conquest.
See also, the lovely Mary Beard doing good work for her online attacker.
Caligula with Mary Beard BBC Documentary 2013
July 14, 2015
This book is at once a study of the Roman triumph and a critical examination of the evidences for that phenomenon--and, by implication, much of what passes for historical 'fact'. The result is inconclusive to the extreme: there were 'triumphs', a thousand years' worth of them, but we aren't very clear as to how exactly they developed. The sources are almost, but not entirely, at a remove from the events described--often at a remove of centuries--and they are not in agreement as regards details. Often, in fact, our 'evidence' consists of a single source and that transmitted to us through generations of copyists.
September 21, 2014
I read a review somewhere complaining that this is not a book on Roman History. Well, no. If anyone had any doubts, this is a book on the Roman triumph, which was a very specific type of ceremonial parade carried out after a great victory on the field of battle. How specific, how ceremonial, how much of a parade, what the intention was, who could celebrate one and where, what kind of victory should have been obtained to merit it and how the whole thing started are some of the subjects examined throughout the book (also discussed, if more incidentally, are the origins of Roman realism in art, the advantages of having friends in high places such as the Senate, why you should not hitch elephants to your chariot, and why the first task of the censors was to renew the contract for the supply of cinabrium to the City). Meticulously researched, at some points extremely funny, and I won't say it reads like a novel but the style is much easier than a lot of other technical literature on classical antiquity that you will find out there.
In terms of critical content, this book constitutes a stake through the heart of the sheer concept and previously accepted history of the Roman triumph. I can't help thinking maybe the book (and definitely myself) would have benefited of a more complete exposition of the theories it is trying to debunk. The bibliography and notes are so thorough I don't anticipate trouble in finding the opposing views, but the work as a whole would have been more balanced. As it stands, it sweeps down to slaughter any other opinion to affirm the utter ignorance we have on any number of points regarding this most Roman of ceremonies (or not, as the case may be).
In terms of critical content, this book constitutes a stake through the heart of the sheer concept and previously accepted history of the Roman triumph. I can't help thinking maybe the book (and definitely myself) would have benefited of a more complete exposition of the theories it is trying to debunk. The bibliography and notes are so thorough I don't anticipate trouble in finding the opposing views, but the work as a whole would have been more balanced. As it stands, it sweeps down to slaughter any other opinion to affirm the utter ignorance we have on any number of points regarding this most Roman of ceremonies (or not, as the case may be).
June 20, 2025
Mary Beard.. girl, you did it again! This was a great, if very dense at times (the never ending lists of names, and trying to keep track, it was worse than a Russian novel) exploration. Most of my M.B. reading has been her more general histories, and her one, more focused, that I did a few years back (Laughter in Ancient Rome), I found dull. But this was much more focused and it was a great read. Laying out the disputed origins of the triumph was a highlight, that I am glad she kept till the end. The constant reminders of how little we know, how little we can take on its face, and the necessity (and joy!) of wallowing in the ambiguity reminds me why ancient history is so fun to engage with.
August 1, 2025
Mary Beard… brilliant as always, inspiring interest in ancient history with her humour and style.
July 20, 2025
The writting in the book was a bit dry for my taste, but the information and everything else about the truimph was so interesting that I remained hooked throughout the whole thing.
January 2, 2016
Beard begins by discussing how other historians have examined the Roman Triumph's misty origins, the careers before and after of generals who had a Triumph, the effect the Triumph had Renaissance art, how it was copied by 19th and 20th century politicians, and other parts surrounding the Triumph.
So, she tells us, this begs the question - has anyone bothered to examine the actual Triumph itself? Anyone? Anyone? No? OK, guess I will. And she does.
She examines what went into the Triumphs, the length, the routes, the people who marched in them, how the seating might have been arranged, if food and drink was involved, the people and treasure on display, the construction of the wagons, the animals pulling the wagons, the clothes worn - all of the brass tracks, practical considerations involved when throwing the parade of the decade.
Beard also gets into how little we actually know about the Triumphs, but does an excellent job dissecting the evidence to see what they may have been like.
July 8, 2010
The subject of the Roman Triumph is probably a little recherche for some, and if it doesn't grab you, then this probably isn't quite the book for you. But Mary Beard's book works on a completely different level as well, exploring the intense problems of epistemology in the study of ancient history. Beard promises us, at the start that, like a good math student, she will "show her work," and she does, quietly exposing a lot of what goes on in classical history in the process. Much of what we "know" or suppose about the Triumph rests on extremely shaky evidence, and even raw conjecture. I emerged from reading this book knowing less about the Roman triumph than I thought I did going in, but much more about the nuts and bolts of how classical historians work. To put it another way, this book weakens false knowledge, but promotes deeper understanding.
September 19, 2022
I expected to have a much more enjoyable time reading this book than I actually did. After being delighted by SPQR I thought other Roman books from Mary Beard would have the same simplicity, but this wasn’t the case.
This is a very dense and over-detailed book that didn’t keep me hooked. Although it is about an interesting topic I felt the text loses too much time trying to break Triumph myths and extends too much into points that are already clear.
Overall, I felt this could be very useful for an history student that wants to understand all the details from the tradition. Not at all for a reader like me that just wanted to know more about it on a light way.
This is a very dense and over-detailed book that didn’t keep me hooked. Although it is about an interesting topic I felt the text loses too much time trying to break Triumph myths and extends too much into points that are already clear.
Overall, I felt this could be very useful for an history student that wants to understand all the details from the tradition. Not at all for a reader like me that just wanted to know more about it on a light way.
July 30, 2019
Fundamentally altered my perception of Roman historiography, and in particular the interpretation of primary sources. Wholeheartedly recommended to any students of Classical history and archaeology.
August 26, 2023
I liked the previous book (SPQR) a little better. Here is everything Beard intents to share about the Roman Triumph in a very roundabout way, she is very knowledgeable gives proper sources, separates between opinion and fact and constructs proper argument chains, which are all good things for this type of not quite scientific not quite popular literature type of book. On the other hand it's a little bit like Grandpas stories with lots of detours loosing and re-finding a non existing story threat just to get derailed by another thing. The book is full of her opinions about the Roman Triumph and also the whole research community around it, including a few direct mentioned names and how they are wrong. In the end it's ok the lack of a "story threat" and the extreme focus on one specific topic makes this one a little hard to read at times.
Read
September 2, 2023¿Qué era el Triunfo romano? ¿Fue siempre lo mismo a lo largo de los siglos? ¿Tuvo la misma significación en la República que en el Imperio o en el tardo imperio? Todas estas y más preguntas se plantea, y ofrece una respuesta Mary Beard, en esta monumental obra en la que la historiadora analiza uno de los ritos a los que todo general romano aspiraba.
September 24, 2018
El libro más académico (de los que he leído) de Mary Beard. Demuestra la dificultad de saber algo concreto de las civilizaciones antiguas, la cantidad de extrapolaciones, inexactitudes y fuentes claramente contradictorias
November 13, 2019
Extremely interesting and very well-written . . . but only for those who are VERY, VERY interested in the subject. My overall takeaway: virtually nothing can be identified as the "rules" for a Roman triumph, and everything offered as one of the "rules" is based on very flimsy evidence.
December 22, 2024
I found this book hard to get into and follow but that might partly have been the audiobook narrator, who I just found difficult to follow. That said, it was a really interesting insight into this one facet of Roman life.
June 6, 2018
Leer a Mary Beard siempre es un placer.
December 23, 2018
Really, really good, and interesting. A window into how Romans thought about one of their most confusing traditions, as well as what the more recent world has thought of it.
February 3, 2019
I found this one hard going. Whew! Interesting, but what a lot of detail. Basically, everything I was taught in school about Roman triumphs is more debatable than my teachers implied.
May 5, 2021
I feel like ancient historians have to do so much more history. Like pure, proper history. Either way, Mary Beard is fab and I had to google, "what does ____ mean?" a whole lot while reading this
June 25, 2021
Brilliant historian!
December 12, 2024
the type of dry niche material my inner academic loves
January 27, 2025
Very informative and narrowing in on a specific tradition though a bit dry for those inherently interested in Roman stuff
February 5, 2017
I came to this book with really high hopes. I'd previously read Beard's book SPQR and thought it was the best thing I've ever read about ancient Rome. I was hoping for another great book.
Well, this was disappointing. It's not that she doesn't know her stuff. It ain't that she doesn't know what she's talking about. But her aim is more narrow and academically parochial. Simply put, this isn't meant for the general reader.
It looks at the Roman ceremony called the triumph. This is when a victorious general was given a day of celebration in the streets of Rome in his honor. The centerpiece was traditionally a parade. Beard looks at the triumph to challenge how Roman culture is studied. She argues rather than just at the sources straightforwardly, we should see the ceremony as a procession that allowed for multiple interpretations - not just by us, but by the Romans themselves. It was intended as a simple, "Rome: Hell, Yeah!" thing, but the procession itself opened up discussions about what it all meant. At the end Beard goes back to the question of why did Rome have triumphs, and concludes that the question itself is too limiting.
She spends a lot of time early on looking at Pompey's third triumph, as that's the one we have the most written about. That forms our model for how these things worked (though they did change over time). They were reenactments of victories. Triumphs weren't just about what happened, but how they were remembered, embellished, argued over, decried, and made part of the wider mythology of Rome. For instance, Pompey's big triumph led to criticism of his grandiousity and some were cynical and disproving.
The triumph was one of the only public ceremonies in Rome itself. They served as markers for the city's rise, as early triumphs were over essentially suburbs. The last one in Rome was for Diocletian in 303, but there were more in Constantinople later. By then, it was no longer in the interests of the leaders to have triumphs. Some lore of the triumphs could be invented. Entire triumphs may be made up. Lesser triumphs could still be written up as a blockbuster. The famous story of a slave telling a general, "Remember, you are but a man" is based on combining (garbling?) multiple accounts written centuries apart. Sometimes the captives in a triumph could upstage the general. They were often used to emphasize their foreignness. They were sometimes executed after the triumph, though that wasn't done early on. There was often the display of the defeated monarch.
We don't even know who the war booty officially belonged to. To the city? To the general to hand out as he wanted? Some, including Cicero, tried to arrange to have a triumph for themselves - but you didn't want to look like you were angling for one. It was a competition for public status. To that end, it could wise to decline a triumph - to look that high-minded. There was always a debate over what made a victory triumph-worthy. The best way was the get approval from the Senate.
Chariots were used in them, even after they weren't used much in war. The chariot ride itself could be bumpy. The dress of the general often linked him to the gods, which was the point. Rome increasingly tolerated ever more extravagent honors. There were banquets for the triumph. There was an increasing "Helenization" of the triumph over the years. Beard notes the idea of the invention of tradition and says the triumph's strength came from its sense of tradition. After Augustus, they became rarer, part of the dynastic cycle.
The idea of the origin of the triumph is a cultural trope, she writes. How you consider its origins means when you consider Rome developed enough to have a sense of its own history and institutions. Similarly, what is the dividing line for the end/transformation of the triumph depends on what you consider the main dividing line in Rome's changing history. Would it be the rise of the empire? The conversion to Christianity? Something else? Belisarius had a big triumph in 534, but even the written account from the time notes it wasn't a traditional triumph in many ways. Hey - you can see traces of Rome's triumphs in a celebration by Haile Salessi's troops in Abyssina over rebels in 1916.
There is good info here, but it focused on an element of Rome that I wasn't all that interested in myself. It happens.
Well, this was disappointing. It's not that she doesn't know her stuff. It ain't that she doesn't know what she's talking about. But her aim is more narrow and academically parochial. Simply put, this isn't meant for the general reader.
It looks at the Roman ceremony called the triumph. This is when a victorious general was given a day of celebration in the streets of Rome in his honor. The centerpiece was traditionally a parade. Beard looks at the triumph to challenge how Roman culture is studied. She argues rather than just at the sources straightforwardly, we should see the ceremony as a procession that allowed for multiple interpretations - not just by us, but by the Romans themselves. It was intended as a simple, "Rome: Hell, Yeah!" thing, but the procession itself opened up discussions about what it all meant. At the end Beard goes back to the question of why did Rome have triumphs, and concludes that the question itself is too limiting.
She spends a lot of time early on looking at Pompey's third triumph, as that's the one we have the most written about. That forms our model for how these things worked (though they did change over time). They were reenactments of victories. Triumphs weren't just about what happened, but how they were remembered, embellished, argued over, decried, and made part of the wider mythology of Rome. For instance, Pompey's big triumph led to criticism of his grandiousity and some were cynical and disproving.
The triumph was one of the only public ceremonies in Rome itself. They served as markers for the city's rise, as early triumphs were over essentially suburbs. The last one in Rome was for Diocletian in 303, but there were more in Constantinople later. By then, it was no longer in the interests of the leaders to have triumphs. Some lore of the triumphs could be invented. Entire triumphs may be made up. Lesser triumphs could still be written up as a blockbuster. The famous story of a slave telling a general, "Remember, you are but a man" is based on combining (garbling?) multiple accounts written centuries apart. Sometimes the captives in a triumph could upstage the general. They were often used to emphasize their foreignness. They were sometimes executed after the triumph, though that wasn't done early on. There was often the display of the defeated monarch.
We don't even know who the war booty officially belonged to. To the city? To the general to hand out as he wanted? Some, including Cicero, tried to arrange to have a triumph for themselves - but you didn't want to look like you were angling for one. It was a competition for public status. To that end, it could wise to decline a triumph - to look that high-minded. There was always a debate over what made a victory triumph-worthy. The best way was the get approval from the Senate.
Chariots were used in them, even after they weren't used much in war. The chariot ride itself could be bumpy. The dress of the general often linked him to the gods, which was the point. Rome increasingly tolerated ever more extravagent honors. There were banquets for the triumph. There was an increasing "Helenization" of the triumph over the years. Beard notes the idea of the invention of tradition and says the triumph's strength came from its sense of tradition. After Augustus, they became rarer, part of the dynastic cycle.
The idea of the origin of the triumph is a cultural trope, she writes. How you consider its origins means when you consider Rome developed enough to have a sense of its own history and institutions. Similarly, what is the dividing line for the end/transformation of the triumph depends on what you consider the main dividing line in Rome's changing history. Would it be the rise of the empire? The conversion to Christianity? Something else? Belisarius had a big triumph in 534, but even the written account from the time notes it wasn't a traditional triumph in many ways. Hey - you can see traces of Rome's triumphs in a celebration by Haile Salessi's troops in Abyssina over rebels in 1916.
There is good info here, but it focused on an element of Rome that I wasn't all that interested in myself. It happens.
July 22, 2024
A surprisingly interesting book. A part of its task is to convince the public that the ancient Roman triumph is something that merits such a long scholarly meditation, and if anyone can do that it would be Mary Beard. As in her other books, such as the excellent SPQR, Beard does an excellent job at pulling apart layers of history that have been added by intermediary historians, especially ancient Roman historians that do not always understand what they are describing. Thus, the study of the triumph, which emerges as a kind of state celebration of Roman-ness itself, profits from the Romans' own attempts to understand this strange and enduring custom.
April 17, 2016
Be careful, this isn’t pop-history and it isn’t a quick and dirty examination of a Roman tradition lasting hundreds of years, it’s a scholarly work. There’s a lot of text here and some of it is very dense. And by a lot, I mean three hundred plus pages of scholarly examination of the Triumph backed up with a hundred more of footnotes, sources, and bibliography.
I remember thinking of the Roman Triumph as an honour given to conquering generals to celebrate victories and show off the plunder of foreign nations. Well yes, but also no. That brief description entirely misses the point, if we can know what the point actually is or was.
Professor Beard undertakes an examination of the Triumph at a level of detail that most of us wouldn’t think possible fifteen hundred years or so after the fact. Not just celebrants and contents and routes, but seating arrangements, food, parallel and associated activities, the actual treasure involved (and what the Romans considered treasure that we might not today), the vehicles involved, animals, logistics, and on and on.
She also spends a great deal of time demonstrating just how little we actually “know” and that most of what we do know sits on a fairly shaky foundation of assumptions and guesses. With every kick at the foundation of some part of the common triumphal knowledge, she then gives us a great deal of actual historical source material and evidence and tries to synthesize what it may really mean or be.
Fundamentally, she shatters the previous concept of the Triumph and builds the pieces back into a somewhat different shape that admits to how much we don’t really know and how much of what we do is still shaped by assumptions and the lens of history we look through.
Very gently, through the course of the book, the reader may start to realize that a lot of what we know about Roman history and culture sits on a similarly shaky foundation.
Overall rating: 3.5 stars. There’s so much detail here that some of the chapters are easy to get lost in. It’s important for me to admit that my Roman history knowledge wasn’t nearly up to par to go into this with a real understanding of what I might be getting out with it. At the same time, that means I probably had a lot fewer preconceptions.
It was tough for me to read at times, but I really enjoyed the attitude of healthy skepticism that permeates the book. We need to question what we know frequently. When we don’t, the result is something far less than the truth, and Professor Beard definitely shows that where the Romans are concerned.
I remember thinking of the Roman Triumph as an honour given to conquering generals to celebrate victories and show off the plunder of foreign nations. Well yes, but also no. That brief description entirely misses the point, if we can know what the point actually is or was.
Professor Beard undertakes an examination of the Triumph at a level of detail that most of us wouldn’t think possible fifteen hundred years or so after the fact. Not just celebrants and contents and routes, but seating arrangements, food, parallel and associated activities, the actual treasure involved (and what the Romans considered treasure that we might not today), the vehicles involved, animals, logistics, and on and on.
She also spends a great deal of time demonstrating just how little we actually “know” and that most of what we do know sits on a fairly shaky foundation of assumptions and guesses. With every kick at the foundation of some part of the common triumphal knowledge, she then gives us a great deal of actual historical source material and evidence and tries to synthesize what it may really mean or be.
Fundamentally, she shatters the previous concept of the Triumph and builds the pieces back into a somewhat different shape that admits to how much we don’t really know and how much of what we do is still shaped by assumptions and the lens of history we look through.
Very gently, through the course of the book, the reader may start to realize that a lot of what we know about Roman history and culture sits on a similarly shaky foundation.
Overall rating: 3.5 stars. There’s so much detail here that some of the chapters are easy to get lost in. It’s important for me to admit that my Roman history knowledge wasn’t nearly up to par to go into this with a real understanding of what I might be getting out with it. At the same time, that means I probably had a lot fewer preconceptions.
It was tough for me to read at times, but I really enjoyed the attitude of healthy skepticism that permeates the book. We need to question what we know frequently. When we don’t, the result is something far less than the truth, and Professor Beard definitely shows that where the Romans are concerned.
August 18, 2015
Mary Beard’s “The Roman Triumph” plays to a very specific audience: it isn’t for newcomers to Roman history and culture, but it is definitely not a book directed (exclusively) at the academics. The book is reaching out to the hobbyist lover of antiquity and that audience will not be disappointed with this book.
Interestingly enough, Beard is using this most famous and iconic Roman cultural tradition to make a point about our lack of knowledge about the Romans more generally and to suggest that the history is richer and more complicated than would be presented in a ‘definitive’ description of what the Triumph was based on a patchwork of contradicting and non-contemporary sources.
Initially, for this reader (and a member of that middle ground audience she is seeking), it was a frustrating path for her to take and I met it with some concern. Why, I may have asked myself, am I reading a book with nothing but ambiguity and hesitation? Soon enough, however, she won me over. I began to slide comfortably into her world of doubt and skepticism, and intuit more about the period of the various classical historians from what they wrote about the triumph than about the ritual itself. There is a rich history, as complicated and ungeneralizable as our own, that Beard successfully leads the audience to see beneath the false veneer.
Well-written, if a bit dry at times, this book is worth the time of the experienced casual Roman history fan looking to go a bit further.
Interestingly enough, Beard is using this most famous and iconic Roman cultural tradition to make a point about our lack of knowledge about the Romans more generally and to suggest that the history is richer and more complicated than would be presented in a ‘definitive’ description of what the Triumph was based on a patchwork of contradicting and non-contemporary sources.
Initially, for this reader (and a member of that middle ground audience she is seeking), it was a frustrating path for her to take and I met it with some concern. Why, I may have asked myself, am I reading a book with nothing but ambiguity and hesitation? Soon enough, however, she won me over. I began to slide comfortably into her world of doubt and skepticism, and intuit more about the period of the various classical historians from what they wrote about the triumph than about the ritual itself. There is a rich history, as complicated and ungeneralizable as our own, that Beard successfully leads the audience to see beneath the false veneer.
Well-written, if a bit dry at times, this book is worth the time of the experienced casual Roman history fan looking to go a bit further.
June 25, 2016
This is not a book which sets out to describe or explain the institution of the triumph, but rather to interrogate how we 'do' history, especially when all the sources that we rely upon have an agenda of their own. The triumph, then, is used here as an example of the slippery nature of reconstructing an alien culture, which can only be done through others' previous reconstructions.
Beard can be quite eccentric but this is a fascinating book which follows up on some of the discussions she sketched out in her Classics: A Very Short Introduction. I wonder if the negative reviews on Amazon are the result of a mis-targeting of this books for a 'general' audience when it actually engages with, and is sited within, academic arguments that are of pressing interest to history and classics scholars?
This does include a detailed description of Pompey's great triumph but then goes on to question all the things that we think we know, as much from Hollywood representations as from classical texts.
In sum, then, this is an intelligent and enlightening engagement with the idea of the triumph and what it might mean, and be made to mean, at various points in history. But, as one would perhaps expect from a Classics professor, this is far more than a descriptive 'history' book. Excellent for older undergraduates and postgraduates or anyone interested in the construction of history. But perhaps a bit hollow for anyone looking for the 'reality' or unproblematic facts of the past.
Beard can be quite eccentric but this is a fascinating book which follows up on some of the discussions she sketched out in her Classics: A Very Short Introduction. I wonder if the negative reviews on Amazon are the result of a mis-targeting of this books for a 'general' audience when it actually engages with, and is sited within, academic arguments that are of pressing interest to history and classics scholars?
This does include a detailed description of Pompey's great triumph but then goes on to question all the things that we think we know, as much from Hollywood representations as from classical texts.
In sum, then, this is an intelligent and enlightening engagement with the idea of the triumph and what it might mean, and be made to mean, at various points in history. But, as one would perhaps expect from a Classics professor, this is far more than a descriptive 'history' book. Excellent for older undergraduates and postgraduates or anyone interested in the construction of history. But perhaps a bit hollow for anyone looking for the 'reality' or unproblematic facts of the past.
November 23, 2016
"The Roman Triumph" was good...but not as good as I'd thought it would be.
The positives: Mary Beard is obviously a first-rate historian, and the depth of her research and analysis is quite astounding. She provides some very interesting insights, and a number of nice factoids; probably my favorite is the story of Publius Ventidius Bassus, who was both in another's triumphal parade as a captive as a child, then years later he celebrated his own triumphal parade as the conquering general.
The negatives: I was not a fan of Beard's style. Basically, her whole emphasis was far less about saying what happened, but by picking apart the theories of other historians (including the ancient ones--it's a bit much when a modern historian spends so much time confidently asserting how little the actual Romans knew about themselves). Beard would spend about 2 pages describing some aspect as it is usually understood, and then 10 pages on why that may not be correct. Obviously it is good to get alternative theories, but I would have liked a little more information and a little less un-information. For example, I don't need to be "proven" over a dozen pages that the Romans didn't literally use the exact same route for every single triumph over a thousand years, I understand that by simple logic, spend some more time describing the route as it was probably or likely.
The positives: Mary Beard is obviously a first-rate historian, and the depth of her research and analysis is quite astounding. She provides some very interesting insights, and a number of nice factoids; probably my favorite is the story of Publius Ventidius Bassus, who was both in another's triumphal parade as a captive as a child, then years later he celebrated his own triumphal parade as the conquering general.
The negatives: I was not a fan of Beard's style. Basically, her whole emphasis was far less about saying what happened, but by picking apart the theories of other historians (including the ancient ones--it's a bit much when a modern historian spends so much time confidently asserting how little the actual Romans knew about themselves). Beard would spend about 2 pages describing some aspect as it is usually understood, and then 10 pages on why that may not be correct. Obviously it is good to get alternative theories, but I would have liked a little more information and a little less un-information. For example, I don't need to be "proven" over a dozen pages that the Romans didn't literally use the exact same route for every single triumph over a thousand years, I understand that by simple logic, spend some more time describing the route as it was probably or likely.
October 20, 2016
Having now read a good deal of her work, the word I keep coming back to when I describe Cambridge Professor Mary Beard and her work is, "indispensable." When you read her historical writings you are not only enjoying her lucid prose but also her keen eye for spotting historical elaborations and misinformations and her particular ability to unravel them without at any point seeming petty or in any way spiteful to other authors. In this work she focuses on the spectacle of the Roman Triumph and its societal and political uses in ancient Rome. Where several generals, politicians, and emperors lobbied for these proceedings (Cicero, Nero, etc...) others were granted it for genuine military success, thus securing their place among the Roman elite. The grandeur of this ceremony has been somewhat exaggerated through the centuries and Beard does a wonderful job breaking the issues down in coherent and easily readable prose. Highly recommended for Roman history buffs!
February 16, 2015
"I have come to read the Roman Triumph in a sense that goes far beyond its role as a procession through the streets. Of course it was that. But it was also a cultural idea, a "ritual in ink", a trope of power, a metaphor of love, a thorn in the side, a world view, a dangerous hyperbole, a marker of time, of change, and continuity. "Why?" questions do not reach the heart of those issues. It is more pressing to understand how those meanings, connections, and reformulations are generated and sustained." (p. 333)
This is very much a 'how'-book, more than a 'why'-book, and even the 'how' is far from always answered, because a lot of time is spent on deconstructing what we might think we know. Because what we have are snippets (in writing and art), how these reflect the reality must be examined and re-examined - but also if that reality always looked the same.
This is very much a 'how'-book, more than a 'why'-book, and even the 'how' is far from always answered, because a lot of time is spent on deconstructing what we might think we know. Because what we have are snippets (in writing and art), how these reflect the reality must be examined and re-examined - but also if that reality always looked the same.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 41 reviews