What do you think?
Rate this book
Republican Rome
Excerpt from Republican Her Conquests, Manners and Institutions From the Earliest Times to the Death of CaesarRemovedfromthobookinitaptogreoothroughtheptmthe lby the author. Fortunately Mr. Havel! Was extremely theoelectionoftheilhstmtiomwaamtvuyfaradmeed.This book is a reproduction of an important historical work. Forgotten Books uses state-of-the-art technology to digitally reconstruct the work, preserving the original format whilst repairing imperfections present in the aged copy. In rare cases, an imperfection in the original, such as a blemish or missing page, may be replicated in our edition. We do, however, repair the vast majority of imperfections successfully; any imperfections that remain are intentionally left to preserve the state of such historical works.
- GenresHistoryNonfiction
563 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1914
2 people are currently reading
27 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
November 29, 2016
Havell elucidates well yet concisely on the seeding, growth, withering and death of the Roman Republic. Written in 1914, the book uses many outdated terms that were in vogue with many historians of his time, who saw history through a 'class-conscious' Marxist sort of lens. To provide a few examples:
On Consular Tribunes, pg. 58, chp. 3 -
"The plebeians resumed with fresh vigour the fight for full political and social equality", which might seem pedantic of me to pick out, but it did give me the impression while I was reading the book of a modern revised view of those events. Were the Plebeians then (or proletarians as he calls them multiple times later on in the book, another bad sign) conscious of a sort of social 'war' going on between themselves and the Patricians to achieve the "full political and social equality" that Havell speaks of? Much like the proles of his time were aware because they were then class-conscious, thanks to the teachings of Marx. But the Plebeians didn't have Marx; Havell, however, did.
On Spurius Maelius, pg. 61, chp. 3 -
"The experience of ages has shown that it is useless to apply a political remedy to an economic evil, and though all the barriers between class and class might be thrown down , this could not check the rapacity of the rich or relieve the wants of the poor"
"Rich Plebeian capitalists joined hands with the patricians in keeping a monopoly of the public lands and in opposing all measures for an equitable devision"
"How bitterly the moneyed class resented any sign of sympathy with the suffering poor".
All of this clearly smells of Marxism, though most is accurate enough, the phrasing used (pedantic again, sure) tells of some biases the author may have had, the last quote particularly, being some sort of stinging invective against the "moneyed class".
Havell also repeatedly defends men accused by their contemporaries and close contemporaries, the people we get our primary sources from like Livy and Cicero, accused of aspiring to tyranny and despotism by taking advantage of popular support garnered from Corn Laws, Agrarian agitation, repealing of debts, etc. To be fair the people he defends should be defended and we need to be critical of the biases of those who wrote the primary sources as well, but his support/defence of this men is telling to some degree. See Spurius Cassius and Maelius. Chp. 6 specifically.
pg.124, He first uses the word "Proletariat" to describe the mob at Rome. Fitting to an extent considering the 'mob' were out of work and disenfranchised small farmers driven to poverty by what Havell calls "capitalist" Patricians and Plebeians eating up Public Lands, in the future to become the vast Latifundia worked by slave labour.
As the book went on I was beginning to think he'd stopped looking through the Marxist lens despite the few allusions he made to similarities between his world in 1914 and America with the Republic of Rome, but this was mainly because he hadn't much of a chance for most of the book since it wasn't entirely concerned with Social issues. Finally at the end he strikes the hammer:
On Social Reconstruction, pg.527 -
"The same glaring contrast which meets us in Europe and America today was present in the Roman world of Caesar's time. On one side stood the wealthy few, who lavished their millions in tasteless luxury, and on the other side were the helpless and destitute many. The sources of the evil lay beyond the reach of reform , and Caesar, like all other statesmen, had to content himself with palliatives.", Again projecting his modern views and grievances on his subject. He dichotomizes the people in to the wealthy few (the 1% as people today might say) and the needy many, and implies (where I've put bold) that change for the better could only come about through means of violence, or revolution - perhaps as in 1917 in Russia?.
With that out of the way, the book was indeed a good summary of Republican Rome, that I'd recommend people read with a critical eye, however. Havell guides the reader from the birth of the young Republic in its native purity and its tribulations along the way to its death pangs in degeneracy by the end when the shepherds of Rome paying venerārī to their rustic gods of the soil were replaced by an effete multitude of freemen, strangers and slaves worshiping a motley crowd of indulgent Eastern idols. A good start for anyone interested in the Republic, though it could corrupt an uncritical and open mind with its biases that I've stated.
On Consular Tribunes, pg. 58, chp. 3 -
"The plebeians resumed with fresh vigour the fight for full political and social equality", which might seem pedantic of me to pick out, but it did give me the impression while I was reading the book of a modern revised view of those events. Were the Plebeians then (or proletarians as he calls them multiple times later on in the book, another bad sign) conscious of a sort of social 'war' going on between themselves and the Patricians to achieve the "full political and social equality" that Havell speaks of? Much like the proles of his time were aware because they were then class-conscious, thanks to the teachings of Marx. But the Plebeians didn't have Marx; Havell, however, did.
On Spurius Maelius, pg. 61, chp. 3 -
"The experience of ages has shown that it is useless to apply a political remedy to an economic evil, and though all the barriers between class and class might be thrown down , this could not check the rapacity of the rich or relieve the wants of the poor"
"Rich Plebeian capitalists joined hands with the patricians in keeping a monopoly of the public lands and in opposing all measures for an equitable devision"
"How bitterly the moneyed class resented any sign of sympathy with the suffering poor".
All of this clearly smells of Marxism, though most is accurate enough, the phrasing used (pedantic again, sure) tells of some biases the author may have had, the last quote particularly, being some sort of stinging invective against the "moneyed class".
Havell also repeatedly defends men accused by their contemporaries and close contemporaries, the people we get our primary sources from like Livy and Cicero, accused of aspiring to tyranny and despotism by taking advantage of popular support garnered from Corn Laws, Agrarian agitation, repealing of debts, etc. To be fair the people he defends should be defended and we need to be critical of the biases of those who wrote the primary sources as well, but his support/defence of this men is telling to some degree. See Spurius Cassius and Maelius. Chp. 6 specifically.
pg.124, He first uses the word "Proletariat" to describe the mob at Rome. Fitting to an extent considering the 'mob' were out of work and disenfranchised small farmers driven to poverty by what Havell calls "capitalist" Patricians and Plebeians eating up Public Lands, in the future to become the vast Latifundia worked by slave labour.
As the book went on I was beginning to think he'd stopped looking through the Marxist lens despite the few allusions he made to similarities between his world in 1914 and America with the Republic of Rome, but this was mainly because he hadn't much of a chance for most of the book since it wasn't entirely concerned with Social issues. Finally at the end he strikes the hammer:
On Social Reconstruction, pg.527 -
"The same glaring contrast which meets us in Europe and America today was present in the Roman world of Caesar's time. On one side stood the wealthy few, who lavished their millions in tasteless luxury, and on the other side were the helpless and destitute many. The sources of the evil lay beyond the reach of reform , and Caesar, like all other statesmen, had to content himself with palliatives.", Again projecting his modern views and grievances on his subject. He dichotomizes the people in to the wealthy few (the 1% as people today might say) and the needy many, and implies (where I've put bold) that change for the better could only come about through means of violence, or revolution - perhaps as in 1917 in Russia?.
With that out of the way, the book was indeed a good summary of Republican Rome, that I'd recommend people read with a critical eye, however. Havell guides the reader from the birth of the young Republic in its native purity and its tribulations along the way to its death pangs in degeneracy by the end when the shepherds of Rome paying venerārī to their rustic gods of the soil were replaced by an effete multitude of freemen, strangers and slaves worshiping a motley crowd of indulgent Eastern idols. A good start for anyone interested in the Republic, though it could corrupt an uncritical and open mind with its biases that I've stated.
February 23, 2019
The style of writing is engaging, it is neither too difficult nor over-simplified. The writer draws from the main historians of ancient Rome and quotes their most interesting narratives. Republican Rome starts with the founding of the republic and ends with Julius Caesar. The book focuses on the political developments of the senate and the wars the early republic endured. There are in-depth chapters on the first and second Punic wars. Reproduced maps and military strategies complement the battles and campaigns of Roman generals and others such as Hannibal. It was a great read.
February 5, 2014
Republican Rome by H. L. Havell.
Even though this book was written in 1914, it does not read like a ‘stodgy’ history book. It is very easy to read, is not biased to any line of history and is a very good book for those who are interested in the early Roman Republic. Havell is very good at bringing out a little character in his historical figures instead of just reciting fact, figures and their historical ‘claim to fame’. I would recommend this to anyone who wants to read up on the history of Rome.
Even though this book was written in 1914, it does not read like a ‘stodgy’ history book. It is very easy to read, is not biased to any line of history and is a very good book for those who are interested in the early Roman Republic. Havell is very good at bringing out a little character in his historical figures instead of just reciting fact, figures and their historical ‘claim to fame’. I would recommend this to anyone who wants to read up on the history of Rome.
March 17, 2013
OMG, OMG, I love the Romans. I don't believe in past lives, but if I did, I was a Roman (worshiped as a goddess, of course, or a Vestal Virgin-HA). This covers the time of Rome's founding until Julius Caesar.
September 15, 2010
Recommend it to anyone that has an interest in ancient rome, it's a really good overview of the 500 odd years of the republic. Not to heavy and flows really well.
June 15, 2013
Pretty comprehensive overview of the time before the Empire.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews