The Storm Before the Storm: The Beginning of the End of the Roman Republic

by Mike Duncan

The creator of the award-winning podcast series The History of Rome and Revolutions brings to life the bloody battles, political machinations, and human drama that set the stage for the fall of the Roman Republic. The Roman Republic was one of the most remarkable achievements in the history of civilization. Beginning as a small city-state in central Italy, Rome gradually expanded into a wider world filled with petty tyrants, barbarian chieftains, and despotic kings. Through the centuries, Rome's model of cooperative and participatory government remained remarkably durable and unmatched in the history of the ancient world. In 146 BC, Rome finally emerged as the strongest power in the Mediterranean. But the very success of the Republic proved to be its undoing. The republican system was unable to cope with the vast empire Rome now rising economic inequality disrupted traditional ways of life, endemic social and ethnic prejudice led to clashes over citizenship and voting rights, and rampant corruption and ruthless ambition sparked violent political clashes that cracked the once indestructible foundations of the Republic. Chronicling the years 146-78 BC, The Storm Before the Storm dives headlong into the first generation to face this treacherous new political environment. Abandoning the ancient principles of their forbearers, men like Marius, Sulla, and the Gracchi brothers set dangerous new precedents that would start the Republic on the road to destruction and provide a stark warning about what can happen to a civilization that has lost its way.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Ancient History, Audiobook, Roman History, Politics, Historical

286 pages, Kindle Edition

First published October 24, 2017

About the author

Mike Duncan is one of the most popular history podcasters in the world. His award-winning series, The History of Rome, narrated the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, and remains a beloved landmark in the history of podcasting. His ongoing series, Revolutions, explores the great political revolutions driving the course of modern history.

Duncan is author of Hero of Two Worlds: The Marquis de Lafayette in the Age of Revolution, forthcoming Aug 24, 2021. He is also the author of the New York Times bestselling book, The Storm Before the Storm: The Beginning of the End of the Roman Republic.

Reviews

[Jeffrey Keeten · Rating 5 out of 5]

”By simultaneously destroying Carthage and Corinth in 146 the Roman Republic took a final decisive step toward its imperial destiny. No longer one power among many, Rome now asserted itself as the power in the Mediterranean world. But as Rome’s imperial power reached maturity, the Republic itself started to rot from within. The triumph of the Roman Republic was also the beginning of the end of the Roman Republic.”


The Burning of Carthage and the beginning of the Roman Empire.

Mike Duncan first came to my attention while I was watching the Netflix series Roman Empire. He is one of the commentators during season 2 and 3. Usually when historians of any note appear on a show, I know who they are, so I was surprised to discover someone I’d never heard of before. Imagine my further surprise when I discovered that he is one of the most popular historical podcasters in the world.

I had the chance, on a recent trip, to listen to to some of his The History of Rome episodic series and thoroughly enjoyed it. I’m not much of a podcast listener because the time I would devote to that is devoted to reading, but if I was still traveling, like I used to, I could see how they would become a pleasant diversion from boredom.

After listening to his astute observations, I was not surprised to discover that he writes in clear, precise language and has a good nose for the sensational aspects of history. I’m currently suffering from an overexposure of the Romans from Julius Caesar to Nero, so this earlier history from 146-78 BC covers a period I am less familiar with. This period is no less sensational than the post-Julius Caesar era.

I was struck by the gritty determination of these early Romans. They took some heavy hits, starting with the legendary Carthagean Hannibal, who handed them several humiliating defeats until Scipio Africanus found a way to defeat him in 202 at the Battle of Zama. That wasn’t the end of Carthage being a problem, and in 146 the Romans burned Carthage to the ground. To them, annihilation was finally the only solution to permanently defeating their ancient enemy.

Greed is always twined with power, and the Romans soon learned that it took a lot of money to maintain the lifestyle and prestige they needed to exude to be successful in Rome. To a guy like King Jugurtha of Numidia, greed was something he was quite willing to exploit. ”As he departed, Jugurtha looked back at Rome and issued his famous judgement: ‘A city for sale and doomed to speedy destruction if it finds a purchaser.” To keep Rome from invading and to keep Rome supporting his claim to the throne, he bribed his way through a long list of senators, and for a while it worked. He proved to be a wily opponent and slippery ally. He was a thorn in the side of Roman politics for many years, and several Roman generals left Numidia with their reputations in tatters.

The Cimbri, a nomadic tribe of Danes who wandered down into Northern Italy, proved to be ferocious fighters. Shocking right? Viking stock long before the word Viking existed. The battles between the Romans and Cimbri were catastrophic in loss of life. Between 60,000 and 80,000 Romans and 40,000 camp followers were slaughtered at the Battle of Arausio. This was a devastating loss of life that could have led to the end of the Republic. The road to Rome was open to the Cimbri, but bafflingly, they had what they wanted in Northern Italy and had no desire to conquer the rest of the Roman Empire.

That was a decidedly unRoman way to think.

Finally, General Gaius Marius came along and proved to be one of the greatest generals in Roman history. He found a way to defeat the Cimbri in ways that his predecessors could not. Another great example of Rome taking its hits, licking its wounds, but continuing to evolve its tactics until it found a way to win. Romans didn’t like to lose battles, but they were patient enough to know that it didn’t matter how many battles they lost as long as they ended up winning the war.

Another fascinating aspect of this era was the number of progressive reformers who periodically attempted to reshape Roman politics. Tiberius Gracchus led a movement to give Republic held lands to returning soldiers. Needless to say, this was very popular with the Roman people, well the Roman people who weren’t part of the aristocracy. Passage of a bill, called Lex Agraria, enraged the wealthy segment of Romans who were benefiting from leasing those lands at very advantageous prices. Tiberius was brutally murdered, beaten to death with the legs of benches. His brother Gaius later took up his older brother’s cause, and he was decapitated.

Roman aristocracy saw progressive ideas as a threat to their stranglehold on the purse strings of Rome. I couldn’t help but think of the deaths of JFK, RFK, MLK, and Malcolm X in our country, where progressive ideas have also been seen as a threat to the wealthy accumulating more and more...well... wealth.

Duncan wrapped things up with the dictatorship of Sulla, where an enemy of his was seen as an enemy of the state. He posted proscription lists which declared who he considered an enemy of the state. Any Roman citizen was obligated to kill these people on sight. Their properties were then confiscated by the state. These lists came in waves, and no one knew when they would end. The terror this must have inspired is unimaginable. You feel relief from not finding your name on one list, only to have it appear on a new list several weeks later.

Me? Well, I’d have packed up my scrolls and left Rome as fast as my donkey cart could carry me.


Mike Duncan

Even if you are well versed in this period, you will enjoy the way Mike Duncan presents the material. If you are someone just beginning to venture into the waters of the Tiber, you will emerge from these pages with a solid background in early Roman history, and you will be hungry for more.

If you wish to see more of my most recent book and movie reviews, visit http://www.jeffreykeeten.com
I also have a Facebook blogger page at:https://www.facebook.com/JeffreyKeeten

[Mike · Rating 5 out of 5]

We truly live in an amazing age when someone can go from releasing a podcast about history before people really knew what podcasts were (2007) to getting a book publishing deal on the subject. If you have not been clued into Mike Duncan's amazing Roman History podcast series The History of Rome or his current one on various Revolutions you are truly missing out on some of the best audio experiences out there (and for the low, low price of free). Ever since he announced he was getting a Roman History book published I have been extremely excited to get my hands on the book, and it does not disappoint in the least.

The Storm before the Storm (TSbtS) tells the history of everything that went wrong with the Roman Republic before it came crashing down in Julius Caesar's generation (or as I call it the Hollywood generation since it is much more famous and has much wider public awareness). But the downfall of the Republic in that generation was preceded by a great corroding of the Republic the previous generations. This book examines that corrosion of the Republic in these lesser know but vitally important generations, the people behind it, the decisions they made in the moment that opened the door for more bad decisions, and how the course of history changed for these decisions.

I have never understood why so few people enjoy reading history books. The sort of personalities, epic span of events, and intricate social narratives are just as (if not more) compelling and interesting as the best fantasy and sci-fi out there. TSbtS delivers all of these in spades, conveying both historical insights to personalities of the time, how the circumstances of the times drove key decisions, and how the cumulative effect of these changes brought about several significant crisis to the Republic. Duncan does all this in a way that is both accessible but still conveys the complexity of the Republican period.

Duncan's main thrust of this book is that breakdown of mos maiorum (literally "way of the ancestors") resulted in the collapse of the Republican system. Mos maiorum was the unspoken rules of the Republic governing such things as when people could stand for certain public offices, how often they could hold a position, the protections granted to those office holders, and the general way political business was handled. These rules regulated how Republican politics behaved and generally provided for a stable political environment

After the defeat of the Carthiginians at the end of the Second Punic War Rome and the conquest of Greece shortly thereafter Rome was riding high. It was the preeminent power in the Western Mediterranean and the immense wealth of those conquests flowed like rivers of gold, silver and slaves back to Rome. Sounds pretty great to be Roman, right?

Wrong.

"As early as 195, Cato the Elder warned his colleagues, “We have crossed into Greece and Asia, places filled with all the allurements of vice, and we are handling the treasures of kings... I fear that these things will capture us rather than we them.”

The austere days of the early Republic were gone and prominent displays of riches became more accepted. On top of that the great wealth that accrued to Rome was concentrated at the top of society (sound familiar?) with the common Roman citizen probably worse off for all the glory that Rome gained.

You see up until this point most of Rome's wars were local affairs where citizen soldiers would be called up after the spring planting and return to their fields for the harvest. But the Second Punic War (and the subsequent efforts to pacify Spain) saw Roman soldiers away from home for years on end. The result was fallow and ruined fields. Many of the soldiers who brought wealth and glory to Rome returned to financial ruin, forced to sell of their land to the wealthy landowners and either move to cities to serve as free labor (labor which was in serious competition with slave labor, slaves that they had help seize for the Republic) or work as sharecroppers on their old lots for the new landowners. This was just one of the many economical challenges the Republic faced in this period.

Reforms to fix this problem were proposed but through a combination of political brinksmanship, narrow economic self-interest, and downright stubbornness they were defeated. Populist reforms and reactionary Senator began chipping away at mos maiorum, circumventing traditional legislative procedures, using the threat of violence to pass legislation, using actual violence to suppress the reformers. It was a big mess and a harbinger of things to come. Ambitious people saw the power of taping into underclass resentment and problems as a way to give themselves power (fixing the problems they railed against to gain that power often fell to the wayside). More and more unspoken norms were broken for the goal of political gain:

"It is this spirit which has commonly ruined great nations, when one party desires to triumph over another by any and every means and to avenge itself on the vanquished with excessive cruelty." -Sulla

There were also a ton of other problems the Romans handled spectacularly terribly: citizenship for Italian tribes (took a war to figure that one out), raising of armies when the citizen landowner pool shrank drastically (now armies were loyal to the generals who brought them spoils of war instead of to the Republic), bribery of public officials, and land redistribution to name but a few. Narrow political self interest and downright pettiness were significant barriers to fixing these problems, all contributing the weakening of the Republic. Some leaders would block legislation that previous years they supported simply because a political opponent proposed it and might gain more political influence if it was successful. The goal of governance was accruing and retaining power instead of providing for the common good.

This was not a sudden transformation of the Republic, but occurred over the span of decades with each decision to break mos maiorum seeming to make sense at the time to the people breaking the code (be it to end fighting on the peninsula, overcome enemies abroad, bring about social order, to effectively raise an army, etc). But the cumulative effect was the complete destruction of these norms and violence becoming the political currency of Rome. It eventually got to the point where the ruling power convened tribunals to punish and kill political opponents. When it was pointed out to these tribunals that they were operating outside the rule of law a very young Pompey retorted ”Cease quoting laws to us that have swords.” Yeah, it got that bad. Like Civil War bad. Even after the formal structures of the Republic were reinstated by the end of the book with further positive reforms enacted the degradation of respect for the Republic made these changes a doomed rearguard action that failed to persist.

At the end of the day it may seem like the fall of the Republic was inevitable but that is simply not the case. It takes effort to sustain representative governments. Citizens and politicians must be willing and able to rein in the baser impulses of themselves. The unspoken rules of behavior are often more important than the formal structures of government even today. Without them we risk devolving to a system where political power secured by any means (up to and including violence) becomes the status quo. And that isn't good for anybody.

People have long compared Rome to America and Duncan addresses this idea in the Author's Note at the beginning of the book. While he doesn't come out and say that America right now is Rome during this post-Second Punic War period, there are numerous echoes of that period today. Every generation within a democracy must reaffirm and strengthen the unspoken norms that keep our democracy form devolving into a contest between armed gangs. We must work to incorporate all peoples into society, not leave them on the outside looking in and detached from the political decisions that impact them. We must work towards a most equitable economic system lest demagogues exploit this to give themselves power (shit, this already happened didn't it). Personally I think American should read this book and reflect upon what we can do to maintain our own Republic's mos maiorum and strengthen it.

So if you like history (or just a really engrossing, epic story chocked full of hubris, tragedy, and scheming) you will find this book extremely interesting and enjoyable. I know I did.

The first chapter of the audio book is available here.

[Anthony · Rating 3 out of 5]

Frustrating View on Ancient Rome

The author of this book Mike Duncan is a historian and a podcaster, who using his passion for history began the wildly popular series The History of Rome in 2007. The Storm before the Storm is a book about the slow decay of the republic and beginning of the empire. This style is highly readable and it is clear Duncan has used many of his discussions and notes from the Podcast in the writing of this book. In some ways this is very good for a causal reader, or anyone who looking for an introduction into Ancient Rome. It is a stripped back version of history, allowed the reader to not be overburdened with the ancient Latin, or texts from Plutarch, Suetonius or Tacitus. It stays true to the narrative allowing the reader to follow a narrow historical path.

However, there are problems. For me, a lot of Duncan’s views are misleading. He first starts with a strange comparison between the United States and Rome, asked rhetorical questions on where the US may be in its story compared to Rome. This is not useful and may feel harmless, Duncan is trying to shoehorn two entirely different cultures, times and countries into the same box. Each have their unique set of circumstances which will determine their own path and although some of the institutions are based on the Roman models, for example The Senate, the functions are entirely different. The US is not Ancient Rome, nor is any other state. Furthermore, Duncan makes a huge deal of the tragedy of the fall of the republic and birth of empire. This is something modern scholars are known to do. But to ancient Romans they were not as sentimental. It was corrupt, plagued by civil wars, extremely violent and full of competing military dictators pushing for their own glory. As Adrian Goldsworthy has written, when Augustus took power, it was never known as the empire in his lifetime, it was know as the Principate, with him as Princeps or ‘First Citizen’. The lines between ‘good republic’ and ‘evil empire’ cannot be clearly drawn, nor should any credible historian attempt to do so.

Having said that, this is an enjoyable book to read once it’s gets going and the unhelpful political commentary is left behind. This is a fascinating period of history and Duncan, when dealing with events tells it well. It also helps to fill gaps with less written elements of this period, The Gracchii for example are extremely important to Ancient Rome and almost always they are the footnote in other stories. The Romans themselves considered them to be huge. Marius and Sulla also face the same treatment, however Duncan manages to bring this long duel to life. The reformation of the army and perhaps the development of the Pilum (it’s still under debate whether it was meant to bend after throwing) are two major things Marius did for Ancient Rome, if you listen to Plutarch. For me overall, The Storm before the Storm was okay and I would say read it if you want a quick overview of Rome in the Republic (the Romans actually called it ‘the public thing’, so has a different meaning anyway). But take with a pinch of salt, I don’t think there’s much to offer for more learned Rome historians. It is almost as if he felt he add to add some depth or analysis, or couldn’t decide how to make it relevant, so threw in his introduction.

[Michael Perkins · Rating 4 out of 5]

The author has an excellent podcast about Rome.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?app=...

You can also get it through Apple.

=======

An hourglass class structure is not sustainable. It will eventually collapse.

How did such massive inequality come about in Rome? As Rome became more involved in foreign wars and defeated the likes of Carthage and other enemies, huge spoils were reaped and appropriated by the Roman oligarchy back home. Meanwhile, the farmers who were sent off to fight these wars were gone much longer than before. Their farms lay fallow. The oligarchy used its new found wealth to snatch up that land, leaving the returning soldiers homeless and penurious. The Lex Agraria movement was an attempt by the populist tribunes to restore land to the bankrupt farmers. But the oligarchy was too greedy and blind to see the justice of this, as well as its importance in saving the Republic. Instead the tribunes who led the movement were assassinated.

The next era would bring the rise of Caesar and the virtual elimination of the middle class, with the reduction of most of the Roman population to plebeian status.

Analogies to ancient Rome are popular. But we have experienced two eras like this in U.S. history, the late 19th century era, known as the Gilded Age, and our era, a new Gilded Age in which the income gap is as high as it was in the original one. Meanwhile, the labor participation rate continues to plummet, especially in states where manufacturing and retailing jobs have disappeared or are disappearing quickly. People in their prime working age have given up. They are becoming a modern plebeian class, even as the leadership of both parties revel in their own riches and power.

---------

From the book....

But as he stood watching Carthage burn, Scipio reflected on the fate of this once great power. Overcome with emotion, he cried. His friend and mentor Polybius approached and asked why Scipio was crying. 

"A glorious moment, Polybiius; but I have a dread foreboding that some day the same doom will be pronounced on my own country." Scipio then quoted a line from Homer: "A day will come when sacred Troy shall perish, And Priam and his people shall be slain."

Scipio knew that no power endures indefinitely, that all empires must fall.

==========

The labor participation rate is the most important economic metric.

https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment...

"Because it accounts for people who have given up looking for work, this makes the labor force participation rate a more reliable figure than the unemployment rate, which is often criticized for under-counting true joblessness, as it fails to take into account those who have unwillingly dropped out of or been forced out of the workforce." (Stanford Investopedia)

==========

The modern epic dilemma.....

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/05/op...

"When it comes to people whose lives aren’t going well, American culture is a harsh judge: if you can’t find enough work, if your wages are too low, if you can’t be counted on to support a family, if you don’t have a promising future, then there must be something wrong with you. When people discover that they can numb negative feelings with alcohol or drugs, only to find that addiction has made them even more powerless, it seems to confirm that they are to blame. We Americans are reluctant to acknowledge that our economy serves the educated classes and penalizes the rest."

=================

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...

[Hilary Scroggie · Rating 5 out of 5]

"These echoes could be mere coincidence, of course, but the great Greek biographer Plutarch certainly believed it possible that 'if, on the other hand, there is a limited number of elements from which events are interwoven, the same things must happen many times, being brought to pass by the same agencies."

"But this was an age when a lie was not a lie if a man had the audacity to keep asserting the lie was true."

I'm not nervous you're nervous.

[Doug · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is so far, without a doubt, the best secondary source I've read on the civil wars and political and social unrest that plagued the last century and a half of the Roman Republic. Duncan writes in an entertaining yet not too sensational style. Basically, the ideal way you'd want any good pop history book written. It's a supremely accessible work about one of the most dramatic (and influential, especially if you're one of those butterfly-effect types of history fans) moments in the history of European civilization and politics.

And boy oh boy, what a time it was. Figures like Tiberius Gracchus, Sulla, Saturninus, and Marius all jump out on the pages as truly larger than life figures.

Primary sources of this period, such as those written by Plutarch and Appian, should always be taken with a grain of salt. However, it's hard to argue that these historical figures, especially Sulla and Marius, were not truly larger than life.

Take Marius for instance. Born in relative poverty and obscurity, he somehow rises through the ranks in Rome and serves as Consul not once but six times (I'd argue it's easier to become President of the United States being born in poverty, than what Marius did). Then, lo and behold, he finds himself on the losing side of a war and literally becomes homeless in the woods, but he clings to hope that he will yet again serve as Consul for a seventh time, all because as a boy he found a Hawk's nest with seven eggs.

And, of course, he does end up making his way out of defeat and homelessness and becomes Consul again.

Truly wild and epic times, these were.

[Dan Lutts · Rating 5 out of 5]

Many people are familiar with how the Roman Republic ended when Gaius Julius Caesar formed the First Triumvirate in 60 B.C. with Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus and Marcus Licinius Crassus. That informal alliance led to a civil war that destroyed the republic and resulted in Caesar’s nephew, Gaius Octavius, gaining control of the state and becoming Augustus Caesar, the first emperor of Rome. But the civil war and Augustus’ rise to power didn’t happen overnight. They were a long time in coming, fueled by changes in Roman politics and society that began decades before in 146 B.C. Mike Dunan’s well written and highly readable The Storm Before the Storm recounts the events that led up to the First Triumvirate and Augustus’s takeover of Rome.

By 146 B.C., Rome was at the height of its power yet it also was falling apart because its political structure couldn’t handle its vast empire, huge gaps had developed between rich and poor citizens, violent disagreements had developed over who should be granted citizenship and be allowed to vote, corruption ran rampant among the powerful, and two ruthless men—Gaius Marius and Lucius Cornelius Sulla—rose to power and fought bloody wars against each other to gain control of the state. They also created a ruthless, bloody precedent that inspired the next generation of ambitious men like Caesar, Pompey, and Augustus to destroy the Roman Republic for their own personal gain.

[Zaphirenia · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is why when people ask "If you could choose to live in another era, when would you choose to live?" I immediately answer "I am very comfortable with this era, thank you very much". Because today you can listen to a podcast (in this case the podcast "Revolutions" by Mike Duncan) that I could have never had access to otherwise from this small corner in the world, and then discover a great book like this. So now I got to enjoy a fine historical read and support one of the best podcasters I know of. And I even got to enjoy it in audio, just as I would listen to one of his podcasts. Well, there's also the possibility that as a woman I would not exactly thrive if I lived even 100 years ago, but that's another story.

Mike Duncan knows his Roman history for sure. The book is a very well narrated story of the failings of the Roman Republic which led to the rise of the Roman Empire. It starts with the efforts of the Gracchi brothers up to the death of dictaror Sulla and the rise of the first Roman emperor Augustus. It is very fun and educational, very far from dry historic books full of details which are very hard to digest and process.

[Andrew · Rating 5 out of 5]

*4.5 stars*

At the time, everyone thought that just one more push for their personal agenda would win the day. Collectively, they ended up pushing the republic over the edge.

Oh, I'm sorry. This is Ancient Rome, not modern America. But here is the story of the fall of a republic as it gallops towards oblivion. The threads of the constitution fray and fray and fray and snap as simple reform bills turn into battles for personal glory which turn into riots in the forum which turn into civil war.

This book is best paired with On Tyranny . And followed up by its academic elder brother, The Roman Revolution .

[Sud666 · Rating 4 out of 5]

"The Storm Before the Storm" was an enjoyable read. Oft times the discussion surrounding the events that led to the Fall of the Roman Republic begins and ends with Julius Caesar and Octavian. But, it is fair to say those two individuals comprise the latter "the Storm" in the title. This book looks at the precursor to their coming. This is a look at the first generation of Romans to have to deal with the fact that their Republic had grown into an Empire.

Appropriately enough the book starts with Proconsul Publius Scipio Aemilianus standing before the devastated and burning city of Carthage, while at the same time, seven hundred miles to the east, another Roman Consul, Lucious Mummius, stood before a similarly burning city of Corinth. The date is 146 BCE. This was Rome's first step towards seizing its Imperial destiny.

The fallout of these conflicts caused a huge upheaval in the politics of Rome. Populists like the Gracchi brothers were motivated by the dislocations of the war to seek Italian enfranchisement and this eventually will lead to the First Social War. As these wars begin to pile up, the changes in the traditional power structure cause huge shifts in power.

Duncan is able to lead us from the events of 146 BCE to 78 BCE. During this momentous period, wars and social conflicts will lead to the rise of many famous Romans- from Gaius Marius and Lucius Sulla, to men like Saturninus and Pompey Strabo. This is the generation that will sow the seeds of Empire that will be germinated by Julius Caesar and harvested by Octavian.

Well written and easy to read, this is a book that can be appreciated for telling a wonderful story and describing complex legal and social concepts without ever becoming dry or boring. The cast of characters is complex and shows that the system was broken long before Julius Caesar stuck a fork in it.

If you are interested in the events leading to the rise of men like Caesar, then start with this wonderful book. A pleasure to read and very informative.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mike Duncan's History of Rome podcast remains one of my favorites, and his new podcast, Revolutions, is quite good also. I was happy to see he wrote a book and the subject is fascinating. Everyone knows a bit about ancient Rome, with names such as Julius and August Caesar still in our consciousness. We Americans even wonder if we've crossed the border from Republic to Empire yet. Duncan argues if there is any time in Roman history parallel to our own, it is the century before the end of the Republic. From the defeat of Carthage, when Rome reigned supreme, a series of events changed Rome which set up the shattering of the Republic.

This book tells that story, beginning with the Gracchi brothers and moving through Marius and Sulla. So much happened here - all Italians gain citizenship, the office "dictator for life" is given (though Sulla lays down the office after one year, which Caesar later called a mistake), more and more people ignore the ancient traditions. If you like history, especially the history of Rome, definitely read this book.

A few questions popped into my head which I assume lay outside the purpose of this book, but I am curious.

1. How did people know each others' language - at one point we meet the Cimbri who began in the North, near Denmark, and migrated to Roman land. Duncan simply says they spoke to the Romans. How? Who translated?

2. I am also curious on populations. It is staggering to read of war after war and the numbers of dead. Italy is a small place. What was the population? Who filled these armies? Who was left? If 100 people were killed during a purge, or 10,000 on a battlefield, would this be noticed? He talks about the economy suffering, but I am curious for more.

Neither of these questions are unique to this book. They just popped up as I read. This book is great!

[Omar Ali · Rating 4 out of 5]

A relatively short (265 pages), fast paced and lively account of the Roman Republic from 146 BC (the fall of Carthage and Corinth) to 78 BC (the death of Sulla), covering the period in which the Republic saw major social upheaval, conflict and civil war and in which many of the constitutional checks and balances of the Republic fell by the wayside, setting the stage for the final overthrow of the Republic by Julius Ceasar and his grand nephew, Augustus Ceasar. Duncan makes the case that the decline of the mos maiorum (the "mores") of the Roman Republic in this period of crisis was the crucial factor that led to the final fall a few decades later. WHY the mos maiorum fell apart is a big question, and it is not really answered in this book (a book that really tries to answer that question would probably be much denser and longer than this book) , but is beautifully described, and that is enough to earn 4 stars.
This period of Roman history and its main characters are not as prominent in popular memory as the final crisis of the Republic. Almost every educated person has heard of Julius Ceasar, the ides of March, Antony and Cleopatra, and Augustus, but relatively few people are familiar with characters such as the Gracchus brothers, Gaius Marius and Sulla, which is a tragedy, because their stories are as fascinating (if not more fascinating) than anything that happened in the final crisis of the Republic. if you are not a Roman history nerd and are not already familiar with these compelling characters, then this is a great introduction to the era and its most famous personalities. Colleen McCollough's historical fiction (the "Masters of Rome" series) is far more detailed and richer in texture because in historical fiction she can fill in details where the historical record is silent (she is very careful to stay faithful to the historical record as far as it is known), but if you just want the story that is in the history books, this is a great place to start. Its all in here, the increasing immiseration of the peasant proprietors who were the base of the ancient Republic; the corruption that came with increasing wealth; the fight to extend citizenship to all Italians; the rise (and violent fall) of the Gracchi, aristocrats who championed the cause of the downtrodden; the incredible (and incredibly long) career of Gaius Marius, the "new man" (novus homo) who rose from outsider to outstanding general, savior of Rome and 7 time consul but just could not bear to retire; and last but not the least, the life of Lucius Cornelius Sulla, impoverished aristocrat, brilliant general, harsh conqueror and even harsher dictator, who tried to reform and re-animate the ancient Republic and actually managed to retire at the height of his power, but whose reforms failed to prevent (and whose personal example probably aggravated) the final crisis of the Republic. As you read, you cannot help wondering why 20 famous movies and TV serials have not been made about these people. Marius's escape from Rome alone is worth at least one great movie, with more hair-raising chases, captures, escapes, betrayals and last minute twists of fortune than any fictitious adventure movie could possibly squeeze into one character's life.
Overall, a great read, well worth a look.

[Ruben · Rating 4 out of 5]

4,5

This book covers the 70-year period from the rise of Tiberius Gracchus (around 146 BC) until the death of Sulla (78 BC).

As the title suggests, the aim is describe the period prior to the fall of the Republic with a special focus on the origins of the ingredients that ultimately led to that fall such as the rise of populists, the increasing disrespect for social norms or ‘mos maiorum’, the increasing dissatisfaction with inequality between nobles and plebs and between citizens and non-Romans.

Analogies with the United States are easily drawn and coincidentally I read the first chapters on the day the US Capitol was stormed by an angry mob and blood flowed in the Senate: there could not have been a more appropriate time.

The book is full of great characters (Scipio Aemilianus and Marius), and is a great way to refresh one's memory of a period that is much less known than the generation that experienced the actual fall.

I listened to the audiobook and I fear that was not the best way: there are many names and I found myself constantly winding back trying in vain to find out where a certain name had come up before. I also found Edward J. Watts’ ‘Mortal Republic’, that covers largely the same theme and period, slightly more readable.

Nevertheless, highly recommended for anyone with an interest in the Roman republic and politics in general.

[Graeme Newell · Rating 3 out of 5]

When I curled up with Mike Duncan's “The Storm Before the Storm,” I was eager to immerse myself in the tumultuous history of the Roman Republic's last days. For anyone unfamiliar with Duncan, he's got a knack for taking historical events and making them digestible for the average reader. The book's promise? To unpack the complex sequence of events leading up to the Roman Republic's downfall.

To Duncan's credit, there are parts of the book that genuinely shine. The end, for instance, was my favorite bit. There, Duncan zeroes in on the underlying causes and issues of Rome's decline, and I couldn't help but wish that this context had been sprinkled more generously throughout the entire work. This nuanced dive into the heart of the Republic's troubles is insightful, helping readers see beyond mere events to the deeper, underlying currents that spelled doom for one of history's most illustrious empires.

There's no denying it: the era Duncan chose to explore is dripping with intrigue. If you think of a spicy political drama, multiply its intensity by a hundred, and you get this chaotic phase of Rome's history. It's a period brimming with out-sized personalities, cunning betrayals, unbridled hope, and enough palace intrigue to put any soap opera to shame. With all these captivating elements at play, you'd expect a book that keeps you glued to its pages.

But here's the rub: Duncan's approach is, at times, too scholarly for its own good. Rather than taking these juicy ingredients and whipping up a tantalizing historical feast, the narrative sometimes feels like it's plodding through a dense academic paper. Instead of a gripping tale that pulls you into the heart of Rome's political maelstrom, some sections of the book can feel like a dry recitation of facts.

For those who thrive on academic rigor, this won't be an issue. But for readers like me, who yearned for a story, not just an account, it was a challenge. This isn't to say the entire book was a slog - far from it. At his best, Duncan can make history feel alive and electric. But there were more than a few times when I found my attention wandering, wishing he'd spice things up a bit.

Perhaps the most salient point is that “The Storm Before the Storm” feels like a missed opportunity. With such a rich tapestry of events at his fingertips, Duncan had the chance to weave a narrative that was both informative and utterly beguiling. Instead, the end result is a book that's definitely enlightening but occasionally lacks the narrative thrust to keep you fully engaged.

All in all, if you're a history buff or someone who enjoys a deep dive into the annals of the past, “The Storm Before the Storm” is worth your time. Duncan's extensive research and understanding of the era are evident, and he provides insights that will undoubtedly enhance your appreciation of Rome's final days as a republic. Just be prepared for a read that's more academic than anecdotal, and if you're anything like me, you'll probably find yourself wishing for a bit more storytelling flair.

[Jesse Morrow · Rating 4 out of 5]

Starting with the end of the Third Punic War and covering until the death of Sulla, Duncan covers the political and military battle between the populares and optimates of Rome. Duncan creates a narrative that follows not only the political history of the time but also a political science review of not only the political maneuvering within Polybian constitution (see Book 6 of Polybius' history) but also the formation of political alliances through coalition building and creating cleavages.

The book is well written and enthralling. It is clearly meant to explain the history of Rome from its moment of Empire until the part "everyone knows about" - Caesar, Augustus, etc. However, the clarity and understanding gained from this book - along with its short page count - makes me sad that Duncan did not continue to cover the next 50 years. A 500 page book covering The fall of Carthage to the rise of Augustus would have been a great addition to the lay historian's collection.

As is, this is still a must have - right next to Beard's SPQR) for those interested in Roman history.

[Dorin Lazăr · Rating 5 out of 5]

Mike Duncan's dive into the civil wars before Caesar's (the period between the Gracchus brothers and the end of Sulla's reign) is quite insightful. It's not an exhaustive treatise, but it catches the key events of the era in a beginner-friendly, easy to digest manner.

Generally, Mike Duncan's interpretation of events seems reasonable - he generally tries to look also at the way the historical sources might relate towards the events and he's not so quick to draw parallels between current day events and the beginning of the end of the Roman Republic. He also doesn't seem to have an agenda like criticizing today's faults and explaining the glory of socialism, like most writers about the Gracchus brothers generally have. He even tries to tone down the interpretation of the primary sources he uses, trying to keep a cool head instead of jumping to conclusions.

It's definitely the best introduction to the Late Roman Republic, and I heartily recommend it.

[Brian · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mike Duncan’s The Storm Before the Storm is a very readable, fairly concise history of the Roman Republic from 146 BC (the destruction of Carthage and Corinth) to 78 B.C. (the death of Sulla). Duncan describes the significance of these decades in Roman history as follows: “By simultaneously destroying Carthage and Corinth in 146, the Roman Republic took a final decisive step toward its imperial destiny. No longer one power among many, Rome now asserted itself as the power in the Mediterranean world. But as Rome’s imperial power reached maturity, the Republic itself started to rot from within. The triumph of the Roman Republic was also the beginning of the end of the Roman Republic.”

According to Duncan, this period of Roman history has not been studied or written about nearly to the extent that the subsequent fall of the Republic has been (I’m not knowledgeable enough to know, so I take his word for it). Part of his reason for writing the book was to fill in the gap in our knowledge of Roman history. But he also explicitly wanted to explore this era of the Roman Republic in order to illuminate potential analogues to our current social and political conditions.

And in fact, for anyone paying attention, there are indeed numerous echoes of the problems that plagued Rome: “rising economic inequality, dislocation of traditional ways of life, increasing political polarization, the breakdown of unspoken rules of political conduct, the privatization of the military, rampant corruption, endemic social and ethnic prejudice, battles over access to citizenship and voting rights, ongoing military quagmires, the introduction of violence as a political tool, and a set of elites so obsessed with their own privileges that they refused to reform the system in time to save it.” It sounds like every day’s newspaper or my Twitter feed.

For me, seeing how these factors that led to the demise of the Roman Republic bear such a strong resemblance to conditions in 21st century America was the primary benefit I derived from reading the book. That’s not to say I didn’t learn a lot about the Roman Republic itself. I did. But I’m not very conversant at all with ancient history, and I sometimes found it difficult to remember who was who in the continuing dog-eat-dog struggle for dominance in Rome. Certain personages, such as the Gracchi, Marius, and Sulla, do stand out for me, and I expect that I’ll remember at least some details of the parts they played in this drama. I’ll also remember Scipio Aemilianus, not so much because he was the first to raise a personal army and use it against his political opponents, but because, on a more mundane level, he was also the man who introduced the habit of shaving one’s face daily, which, according to Duncan, became the standard custom of aristocratic Roman men for the next 300 years.

Despite the mass of facts, most of them previously unfamiliar to me as a non-expert reader, the narrative moved along at a comfortable pace. Duncan’s writing is clear and lively, with some humorous touches. One of my favorites was the description of an incident in the Social War when the Italians “caught the Romans with their togas down.” I don’t know how well the book holds up for professional historians, but I can certainly recommend it to history buffs and those readers who want to deepen their historical perspective on current events.

[Richard · Rating 4 out of 5]

There are two good reasons to read this book.

First, if you want to know the history of this particular period of the Roman state, there’s apparently a dearth of books on that. Plenty on the changeover to an Imperial state, and on the later collapse, but not so much on the collapse of the republic. And this is a very easy and enjoyable book to read, although at times it’s just a tiny bit clumsy. If you want an authoritative book written by an actual historian, this isn’t the one for you, however. [Note: definitely not my field of expertise; if someone wants to say “there are plenty of books on that topic!” I’d welcome the correction. I’d welcome even more a pointer to the most accessible of those.]

The second reason is was the key for me, and probably has already occurred to many of those reading this. Many countries that were considered fairly “safe” democracies seem to be sliding towards authoritarianism — including, shockingly, the United States.

I already knew about the theory of anacyclosis (although I’d forgotten that name) from long-ago reading of some Greek classic or other. So while I’m dismayed that the U.S. is trending this way, I’m not among the excessively shocked. We’ve always liked our populists, so it shouldn’t be too surprising that we’re increasingly swayed by demagogues. I’m personally quite interested in why this happens to be happening at this moment in the U.S.A., but this book is more about seeking and examining the parallels that we might be facing.

I’d recommend the book for either or both reasons.


Original “preview”:

The Lawfare podcast interviewed the author, and asked him to compare and contrast the subject of his book with the current United States situation, as well as a sampling of other “storms before” that did or did not lead to critical “storms”.

The podcast blurb:

Political polarization, inequality, and corruption during the period 146 to 78 BC gravely weakened the Roman Republic in the years before its collapse. In his new book The Storm Before the Storm: The Beginning of the End of the Late Republic, podcaster Mike Duncan explores this period and how Rome’s politics, which emerged from Rome’s success, subsequently led to the republic’s downfall. Benjamin Wittes interviewed Duncan on his new book to discuss ancient and modern populisms, the parallels between the late Roman Republic and current American politics, and the impact of demagoguery on government.

­

[April Cote · Rating 3 out of 5]

I found this book to be all narrative. This seemed like one long podcast, which the author is famous for, and is fine, in a podcast, not a book. I think this is just too much history to cover, and why it was more narrative, with the facts only touched upon.

I do think I see his point in this book. People who want power will take it, no matter the cost. And no matter how big and mighty a government thinks they are, someone, someday, will come along and destroy it.

[Christopher · Rating 5 out of 5]

In 146 BC, the Roman Republic stood atop of the Mediterranean world with no peers to match it. But, within 100 years, this great republic would fall into the hands of iron fisted autocrats that the Romans themselves had always feared? How they got from one point to another is a tale that often revolves around Julius Caesar, Pompey the Great, Mark Antony and Augustus Caesar. However, that is only half the story and the second half at that. The story that is rarely told is the first half starting in 146 and moving forward about 70 years or so. This book beautifully fills in that gap in the popular knowledge and makes the tale of the Graccchi brothers, Marius, Sulla, and others just as interesting as anything about the Caesars and with eerie lessons for the present age.

Having honed his storytelling craft over his years of historical podcasting, Mr. Duncan tells a good tale without ever losing the plot and with enough with and action to fill most political thrillers today. It is a testament to his storytelling skill that Mr. Duncan's narrative never gets boring and only occasionally gets confusing. Indeed, this is the best book of Roman history I have read since Rubicon: The Last Years of the Roman Republic by Tom Holland first came out when I was in college. I will say that things moved a little too fast towards the Sullan Civil War and those not familiar with Roman history may find it difficult to follow such a wide range of characters, but I feel that most readers should have no trouble finding this book to be as readable and enjoyable as anything else out there.

Whether your a fan of history or not, of Mr. Duncan's previous or current history or podcasts or not, you owe it to yourself to read this book. I highly recommend it to both hardcore history buffs as well as casual history readers alike.

[B Sarv · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book touched so many chords with me. I was in what was probably one of the last groups of students to study Latin in my public school district in high school. This book reminded me of those days as a Latin student. I imagined all of these characters speaking Latin to one another and to the public when making speeches. I am also one who enjoys learning about events in history and this book does not just cover the big shots and the big battles but gives the perspectives of the ordinary person to a fair extent.

I first came across Mike Duncan when I listened to his "Revolutions" podcast - specifically his coverage of the Haitian Revolution - which I found quite detailed and well done. So I wasn't surprised by the quality of this work.

Finally, although he does not have an agenda underlying this book, there are plenty of parallels between what has been happening in the past decades in the North American republic and the Roman Republic right before it's demise - for those who have eyes to read.

I strongly recommend this book.

[Jerome Otte · Rating 4 out of 5]

A vivid, engaging and balanced work.

Duncan roughly covers the period 145-75 BC, from the destruction of Carthage to the death of Sulla. He covers Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus, the slave revolts, the Social War, and the careers of Marius and Sulla and their war. He ably shows how the actions of pretty much every major player violated Roman laws and traditions. Some readers may worry that Duncan will draw clumsy parallels between then and now, but he simply lets his narrative do the talking. The narrative is clear, insightful and occasionally witty if a bit dry, and you can tell Duncan is an enthusiast. The cast of characters is pretty large, and if you’re new to the subject it might feel a bit daunting.

The book is lively, though some better maps would have helped. Some readers may find the book superficial, or wish the themes were expanded on more. Duncan also sometimes writes about certain people’s thoughts and feelings (always tricky for this era of history) At one point Duncan writes that Caesar destroyed the Republic “through sheer force of ambition,” which might be true, but he certainly lived in an ambitious society. Once could also argue that the ambition of Caesar’s enemies was equally responsible. The narrative includes quotations, but it’s not always clear from the endnotes where these came from. At one point Duncan mentions a “king of Egypt.” The writing is also breezy at times (the tribunes are called “these guys,” so-and-so was “the perfect guy for the job,” etc.) There’s also a few typos.

Still, a concise, fast-paced and informative work.

[Shawn · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was an exceptionally well written and concise outline of the history of the Roman Republic from the period of the Gracchi brothers to the death of Lucius Sulla. The author did a masterful job of describing to the reader in an organized fashion the myriad of events, personalities and issues. The Roman Republic was an extremely bloody, dynamic and complicated place where political questions were often settled through assassination and war. It would be very easy for a reader to get lost especially with many similar names reappearing over multiple generations. The author brings us along with sufficient detail so I never felt that I did not have a grasp what was going on.
I did not quite follow how one of his opening themes fit into his theories. In the beginning, Duncan stated that rising income inequality contributed to the political upheavals. I was interested in this assertion but I failed to see much support throughout the book. It seemed to me the question of Italian citizenship was far more consistent and divisive within the warring factions. I also did not understand the alternative type set in certain words such as "technically" and "ethnic". I was not sure why that was done but it appeared often enough that I know it was intentional.
In sum, I would recommend this book.

[Liviu · Rating 5 out of 5]

While the story (146 - 78 BC, so from the fall of Carthage and Corinth to the death of Sulla with a little afterword summarizing what happened next) is familiar, the exposition is fairly concise, based on the classical sources and very entertaining. Of course one still should read Colleen McCullough fictionalized versions of the same events (the first 2 1/2 novels in her 7 book series) for an awesome reimagination

[Haley Annabelle · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5

If you're looking for a book about Rome's history leading up to the Roman Empire, this is a good overview. I'm not big on overviews as I like to zoom in on a specific person. But you don't always have time to do that.
I now understand much more about the political issues leading up to Julius Caesar, and why the Pax Romana was so needed.

[Jess]

I am very "WE DID IT, JOE" about this book. I have saved this book for years, because I didn't want to read it until I finished The History of Rome and then I did that last year and I didn't immediately start this after and that was a mistake. The writing itself was clear and concise and this just didn't hold my attention at all. I didn't remember who everyone was and that's my own fault, maybe if I had read it within a couple of weeks instead of stretching it out over seven months, I'd have felt differently. But I finished and I can put on my Mike Duncan completion hat at long last, and that's something good to take into 2023.

[Bonnie_blu · Rating 2 out of 5]

First my credentials: I have a Master Degree in History and have studied Ancient Rome, with an emphasis on the Late Republic, for decades (including primary sources).

While the book is an okay introduction to this period in Roman history, it has too much misinformation and superficiality to raise it to the level of reliable history. For example:
- The author cannot possibly know what individuals were thinking or feeling without concrete data, yet he assigns thoughts and feelings to subjects throughout the book.
- In the "Author's Note" he states that much less has been written about the years before Julius Caesar, Pompey the Great, and the rise of Octavian. While it is true that less has been written, there is still a great deal of information about this time period. Therefore, intimating that he is exploring new ground, is disingenuous.
- Also in the "Author's Note," Duncan states that Julius Caesar destroyed the Republic "through sheer force of ambition." It is true that the fiasco Caesar faced with the Senate after his conquest of Gaul resulted in the Civil War that finally ended the Republic. However, Caesar was no more ambitious than what the social/political system of the time had trained male elites to be. It was the ambition of Pompeius Magnus, Cato, Cassius, et. al., and their desperate attempts to hang onto power and not honor their promises to Caesar that caused the conflict.
- Numerous quoted sentences and phrases are not annotated; therefore, it's impossible to know the origin.
- pg. 17, Cornelia Gracchus turned down a proposal "from the king of Egypt." Most people associate Ancient Egypt with pharaohs, not kings. However, there were kings at various times and locales in Egypt's history, including at the time of Cornelia Gracchus. Even so, Duncan should have explained why he used "king" and not "pharaoh" in an effort to be clear.
- pg 135, Duncan's description of Marius's changes to the legions is not correct. He states that legionary formation was largely unchanged until 146 B.C.E., however, research has shown that the legions were not uniform in the 100s, or even the 200s B.C.E. Their formation shifted and changed as required by the forces and terrain they were facing. Sometimes the legions were in a phalanx formation, and at other times they were in a manipular or cohort formation.
- pg. 135, Marius's adjustment to the pilum (making it bend when impacting an object) was not as revolutionary as Duncan depicts, and was not adopted as a standard piece of equipment. It has been found in archeological digs, but pila with hardened metal shafts greatly outnumber them.

And on formatting:
- Too many sentences start with "But." This is a sign of a less-than-skilled writer, and makes the text read as though it was developed from a bullet list.
- The book needs a thorough edit. There are numerous instances of double words, subject/verb disagreements, and more.

[Michael Burnam-Fink · Rating 4 out of 5]

Everybody know the story of the Fall of the Roman Republic. Julius Caesar, Mark Antony, Cicero, Cato, Octavian, Brutus, civil war, assassination, the last grasp of liberty, and the foundation of both tyranny and centuries of peace and prosperity. Roman politics are a common metaphor for our own times. In The Storm Before the Storm, veteran history podcaster Mike Duncan (Revolutions, The History of Rome), writes about one of his favorite periods, the Roman Republic between the Second Punic War and Caesar's Civil War.

As expected, Duncan ably brings weaves together the lives of his protagonists and their events, to describe a gradual degradation of Roman political norms to mob violence and military force, as the sclerotic Senate proved unable to decisively deal with concerns like corruption in the provinces, the lack of civil rights for Italian allies, transformation of the countryside from yeoman farmers to slave estates, and the ambitions of 'new men' without noble pedigrees. The abortive Gracchian agricultural reforms, Gauis Marius's remaking of the army, and Sulla's dictatorship are the centerpieces of this book.

Duncan ably uses primary sources (the Romans wrote a lot of history) to provide detail and spice to his world. He'll admit he's biased in favor of the Populares and against the Optimates. This is a well-sourced popular history, which is both its strength and weakness. Duncan doesn't have much theory about the collapse of political norms, and the lives of the figures eclipses some questions I had about how Roman politics normally operated, and the balance between formal bureaucracy, networks of patronage, and the ability of oratory to shift the mob at the right moment.

[Tony · Rating 2 out of 5]

The Storm Before the Storm is very similar in pacing, style, and overall feel to Duncan's podcast, The History of Rome. However, while these elements made for a truly outstanding podcast, they meld far less felicitously in this longer work. The narrative moves at breakneck speed and offers virtually no analysis on the events covered. This works well for something one listens to in 45 minute increments approximately once per week. However, in a book--which is consumed in larger and more frequent portions--the warp-speed tempo and lack of reflection yield a confusing jumble of facts and individuals.

[Charles Haywood · Rating 4 out of 5]

How the Roman Republic ended is well known, even in these undereducated days, but all the attention focus goes to Julius Caesar. True, he was the pivot of the actual end of the Republic, but what came before and after was more important. What came after, during the long reign of Augustus, may not be as thrilling as story, but it dictated much of the later history of the West (and of the Roman East, now temporarily in thralldom). This book covers the other side of the transition, what came before—a period that nowadays is nearly forgotten, but is perhaps more critically important in what it can teach us today.

The author, Mike Duncan, explicitly claims that this period echoes ours, which is true, though echoes should not be thought deterministic. In his Introduction, he cites “rising economic inequality, dislocation of traditional ways of life, increasing political polarization, breakdown of unspoken rules of political conduct, the privatization of the military, rampant corruption, endemic social and ethnic prejudice, battles over access to citizenship and voting rights, ongoing military quagmires, the introduction of violence as a political tool, and a set of elites so obsessed with their own privileges that they refused to reform the system in time to save it.” This phrasing implies more exact parallels than really exist, since Roman society was very different than ours, so that, for example, “ethnic prejudice” is a lot different in their context than ours. And these various factors are by no means equal in their impact, in Roman times or ours. But overall Duncan isn’t wrong, and the rest of his book is an expansion on this basic theme—although he ultimately doesn’t draw any specific parallels to today, perhaps wisely, since that is bound to annoy some of his readers, and he is a popularizer.

It’s not that the time period covered by this book (roughly 145 B.C. to 75 B.C.) offers explicit instructions to us; it’s that it teaches us the lesson that certain types of turmoil are not easily addressed or their causes fixed, and that the slide from shouting at each other to shooting at each other can be very quick, especially when combined with the classic human emotions of ambition, fear, and greed. Naturally, since this is a popular history (Duncan achieved fame as a podcaster), much of the book is taken up with explanation and descriptions that would be lacking in an academic work (and in any work of the relatively recent past, when people were better educated). That’s just the nature of the beast, and not a criticism of the book. If I had criticisms, they would be that it needs better maps, and also that Duncan is not all that engaging a writer, though he seems to think he is. On the other hand, an extremely positive facet of the book is that it spends zero time on ideological history. You will not find any commentary on Roman treatment of women or other supposedly oppressed groups; history is offered straight up, no chaser. This is refreshing when today most academics make such silly sidelines the main focus of their histories, or at least feel required to genuflect in the direction of oppression theory and other stupidities. Nor does Duncan waste time focusing on the lives of common people, which after all don’t matter for history, except occasionally in their aggregate actions.

Duncan begins with the final defeat and destruction of Carthage, in 146 B.C., which he identifies as the height of the Republic. Critically, he identifies the Republic’s strength not as mere military or economic power, but that “the Romans surrounded themselves with unwritten rules, traditions, and mutual expectations collectively known as mos maiorum, which means ‘the way of the elders.’ ” It was the breakdown of the mos maiorum, not the erosion of the letter of Roman law, that most showed the breakdown of the Republic itself. This focus on the mos maiorum, while the traditional lens through which the Republic’s virtue and death has been viewed for many centuries, has not been fashionable for the past hundred years. Marxists hate it, and they are very prominent among historians. More recently, they have been joined by more modern ideologically driven historians, from feminists to Critical Theory devotees, in claiming that the mos maiorum is either irrelevant or overstated in importance. But as with most traditional views of history, it’s undoubtedly the correct lens. Duncan’s focus on it highlights the difference between him and some other historians—he’s not an academic, and he draws for his sources almost exclusively on primary sources (in translation), used for what they state, not for some hidden meaning. I’m sure academics sneer at this, and also hate that Duncan’s podcasts and their book get vastly more exposure than their tedious screeds, but it makes Duncan’s book both more interesting and more accurate.

Duncan also offers a description of the traditional political system of the Republic, as it existed in 146 B.C. This sketch is necessarily elided in some areas; Duncan notes, for example, that he refers to the “Assemblies,” when there were three different popular, “democratic” assemblies—but they are commonly not specifically identified by ancient historians, so it is hard to say which is at issue in a given instance. Essentially, as everyone knows, the Romans had a mixed system, with elements of oligarchy, monarchy, and democracy (the latter being viewed by all political theorists until recently as the worst possible unmixed system). Still, by the late Republic, the Senate had gained the most power, and so most political conflicts revolved around the Senate. Many different fracture lines existed, few ideological, but the biggest was the general conflict between the optimates and the populares—between those who wanted to preserve aristocratic control of the Senate, and those who wanted to gain power from, and give power to, those farther down the social scale.

Having laid the outlines, Duncan’s first major focus is Tiberius Gracchus. As with all good popularizers of history, Duncan writes well, if a bit floridly, and does a good job of conveying the feeling of the times, or at least what it seems like the times must have felt like. Gracchus’s main focus was land reform, since the old Roman ideal of yeoman farmers had decayed and the ancient equivalents of modern tech barons and lords of finance had monopolized all the sources of money, turning former yeoman farmers into wage slaves, or, in many instances, actual slaves. Partially this was just the result of their having more money so as to buy up land, but there was also a great deal of corruption, ignoring of the letter of the law (such as evading caps on landholding size), and of the mos maiorum. Combined with these economic matters was the question of full Roman citizenship for the Italian allies, so the major set of proposed reforms, the Lex Agraria, pushed by Gracchus’s political faction, was potentially of far-ranging impact (and of great benefit to his political faction). Tiberius Gracchus was opposed by an important faction in the Senate, who used procedural maneuvers to block approval by the Assembly. Gracchus’s response was to paint his opponents as malefactors of great wealth and whip up popular animus, among other things deposing another tribune through popular vote and running for consecutive terms as tribune himself (which allowed him veto power and made his person, supposedly, inviolable), both not technically against the law but grossly violating the mos maiorum, the first time such violations had occurred. The response of the opposing faction, in 133 B.C., after the passage of the Lex Agraria and therefore the relaxation of Tiberius’s support because his initial supporters had gotten what they wanted, and Tiberius’s subsequent turning to the urban masses for fresh support, promising radical carrots, was for a mob of senators (including the pontifex maximus) and their clients to kill Tiberius, along with hundreds of his supporters, in front of the Temple of Jupiter, using improvised clubs because bringing weapons to those precincts was forbidden. This was, needless to say, an even greater breach of the mos maiorum, and the beginning of the regularization of political violence.

Duncan continues with the Sicilian slave revolt, the First Servile War, of 135–132 B.C., and the unrelated gain by Rome of the wealthy province of Asia. The former greatly unsettled the Romans, the latter brought a massive, continuing flow of riches, further corrupting the upper classes and increasing the prizes to be gained by being assigned to govern provinces. Next comes the career of Gaius Gracchus, the brother of Tiberius, another radical popularizer, who also ended up dead, in 121 B.C., also killed by a mob, but unlike the mob that killed his brother, this mob had legal sanction in the form of a new Senatorial decree—the senatus consultum ultimum, an instruction to a consul to do “whatever thought necessary to preserve the State.” This radical departure was a harbinger of the future, since the decree was used repeatedly during later unrest, until the Empire was fully established by Augustus. Duncan also adds color by, for example, noting that the mob was promised an equal weight of gold in exchange for Gaius Gracchus’s head, so a former supporter who found his body cut off the head, removed the brain, and poured in lead before turning in the head. Good times.

The Gracchi have been a beacon for various modern revolutionaries; Duncan treats them as neither wholly good nor wholly bad, but most definitely contributors to the erosion of the conventions and traditions that had safeguarded the political peace for hundreds of years. But, as Duncan shows, everyone was responsible for the erosion of the mos maiorum. And the Gracchi were merely a warm up for the Roman Civil Wars, to which the story next turns. Duncan relates the background and career of Gaius Marius, a man of meager birth (novus homo, as the Romans referred to such men) who, in those unsettled days, still managed to rise through military success (especially the reduction of the Numidian king Jurgurtha) and attaching himself to the right optimate political faction, though he ultimately got much of his power from the populares. Marius parlayed this into the consulship, or rather an unprecedented (and highly non-traditional) seven consulships, along the way introducing various pernicious innovations, such as recruiting soldiers from among the landless poor. Duncan quotes Sallust on Marius, “[T]o one who aspires to power the poorest man is the most helpful, since he has no regard for his property, having none, and considers anything honorable for which he receives pay.” Hey, isn’t that what Mitt Romney said is the governing principle of the modern Democratic Party?

Next is Lucius Sulla, the great opponent of Marius, who was in essence a representative of the optimates, and who similarly had military success (serving initially under Marius and critical to the capture of Jurgurtha), but whose path to the top was eased by his patrician status and connections. He was also notoriously dissolute. Plutarch, who loathed him, claimed two hundred years later that Sulla “consorted with actresses, harpists, and theatrical people, drinking with them on couches all day long.” Moreover, also according to Plutarch, Sulla had a male lover, a transvestite Greek actor named Metrobius, as well as innumerable female companions, although the Romans were notorious for making up nasty stories about people they disliked, and Plutarch is the only source for this, so it’s not clear whether Sulla was really as dissolute as Plutarch claims. But it makes him more interesting than Sulla, who mostly seems grumpy.

Duncan covers the continued degradation of the political process toward the year 100 B.C., where political violence, the ignoring of many traditional limitations, and pandering toward the lower classes for votes all became commonplace. “A [tribune’s] veto had once been enough to grind the entire Republic to a halt; now it was simply wadded up and tossed aside.” So it wasn’t just the mos maiorum breaking down, it was the rule of law itself. In 100 B.C., Marius crushed former allies of his, the populares Lucius Saturninus and Gaius Glaucia, again by the simple expedient of killing them (though they were guilty of killing their political opponents first, to be sure—things were really deteriorating fast by this point). The basic conflict, still, continued to be that between the insular, corrupt rich and the degraded poor.

Then came the Social War, the war with the Italian allies (actually, with only some of them, since there were different grades with different privileges of citizenship), from 91–88 B.C., in which both Sulla and Marius distinguished themselves, especially the former, but which devastated Italy, contributing to the erosion of order. Given that the Roman alliance with other parts of Italy had been the basis for the entire growth of the Republic, this must have been an existential shock to the Romans, changing their perceptions, and one of which it’s hard for us to grasp the impact. It also had follow-on effects, such as a monetary crisis, further unsettling life for the average Roman. Following the successful conclusion of the war, Sulla and Marius fell out, when the aging Marius succeeded in having the Senate’s award to Sulla of a military command, to the east to fight Mithradates VI of Pontus (roughly northeast Turkey), withdrawn and given to him. Like Julius Caesar, Sulla was a gambler who believed that Fortune favored him, something that encouraged throws of the dice (this seems to be characteristic of a lot of men critical to history; Napoleon is another example), so instead of taking this sitting down, given that he still had six legions handy and was extremely popular with his soldiers, he marched on Rome in 87 B.C., an unprecedented and catastrophic break with tradition. Sulla, naturally, claimed that his opponents were the ones who had spat on the mos maiorum and he was just acting to restore it.

When he had gained control of Rome, which he did easily, Sulla proceeded to introduce another innovation—proscriptions of his enemies, through posting lists of men who could be killed with impunity, with the killer rewarded with gold and the dead man’s property going to Sulla. At the same time, he continued claiming, not without accuracy, that he just wanted things to go back to the way they used to be. But after establishing full control, Sulla left Rome, to proceed against Mithradates, who had arranged the massacre of every Italian resident in Pontus, about eighty thousand people. Marius returned, aided by the enigmatic Lucius Cinna, who played a crucial role as consul in this period, but about whose earlier life almost nothing is known. After slaughtering various enemies, ratcheting up the new habit of political killing, Marius promptly died, leaving Cinna in control. Meanwhile, Sulla sacked Athens (ruled by Mithradates through an agent), and spent two years fighting Mithradates, winning but ending up with a negotiated peace. He marched back to Italy in 83 B.C. and engaged in a full-scale civil war with the forces of Cinna and his allies, ending in the Battle of the Colline Gate, just outside Rome, which killed fifty thousand men and which Sulla won decisively.

Sulla proceeded to revive the office of dictator, rarely used and dormant for over a hundred years—but made it unlimited in time, whereas it had always been strictly limited to six months. He used this to proscribe all his enemies, not just a few like the first time he had marched on Rome, resulting in the killing of thousands—largely because once all the enemies were gone, the proscriptions were extended to those who had a lot of property, so it could be confiscated to Sulla’s benefit. It was at this time that Julius Caesar was nearly killed (he was Cinna’s son-in-law and his family was associated with Marius), but he had Sullan friends, and so Sulla spared him (an action he later supposedly said he regretted, though his twenty-two volume autobiography is sadly lost). Surprisingly, perhaps, a year later Sulla resigned his dictatorship, disbanded his legions, and was elected consul for one year, during which he walked around without bodyguards, telling anyone who would listen he was happy to explain all his past actions. Then he retired to his estate, dying in 78 B.C.

Pretty much everyone’s major actions in all this were both completely illegal and in violation of all the traditions of Rome. Sulla’s main program was reform through rollback—restoring the senatorial aristocracy of the optimates, and restoring virtue in general (always a thankless and unlikely task, if attempted through legislation). But, as Duncan says, it wasn’t just mindless rollback—Sulla “believed that he was building a regime to address specific problems of the present that had plagued the Republic, and with his reforms they might not plague the Republic in the future.” And Sulla had the courage of his convictions, to give up his own power. Still, the net effect of Sulla was pernicious—“The facts of Sulla’s career spoke louder than his constitutional musings. As a young man he had flouted traditional rules of loyalty and deference to spread his own fame. When insulted, he marched legions on Rome. When abroad, he ran his own military campaigns and conducted his own diplomacy. When challenged back in Rome, he launched a civil war, declared himself dictator, killed his enemies, then retired to get drunk in splendid luxury. The biography of Sulla drowned out the constitution of Sulla, and the men who followed him paid attention to what could be done rather than what should be done.”

Thus, Sulla was the template for Julius Caesar, along with lesser lights such as Pompey involved in the destruction of the Republic. All this used to be a commonplace because the ruling classes were educated; now that knowledge is no longer common knowledge, so a book like this serves a purpose. Duncan’s project is really to resurrect what used to be known to everyone—that erosion of traditional methods of government necessarily takes on a life of its own, and that each dubious change or outrage becomes the pattern and springboard for worse to follow. Certainly, in the erosion of the rule of law we’ve seen over the past several decades, and especially in the past decade, we see the groundwork being laid for the rise of new men of an opportunistic bent, although as of yet private armies are not on the horizon, at least. And whatever you may think of Trump, he certainly spends a lot of time furthering the decay of the American mos maiorum; this may be inevitable or even necessary, but the consequences will be, as this book shows, unpredictable and unlikely to be pleasant, at least in the short and medium term.

[Review finishes as first comment.]