What do you think?
Rate this book
罗马和平：古代地中海世界的暴力、征服与和平
自从公元前27年建立元首制之后，一直到公元2世纪，罗马帝国再没有陷入长时间内战，境内相对安宁。然而，罗马人首先是征服者、帝国主义者，用武力夺取了一个从东部的幼发拉底河一直延伸到西部的大西洋海岸的庞大帝国。他们制造的和平是由军力和统治带来的，而不是与邻国共存。罗马人咄咄逼人，冷酷无情，在他们创建帝国的过程中，数百万人死亡或被奴役。
但罗马和平是真实存在的，不仅仅是皇帝们的夸耀。帝国的一些地区在很多代人的时间里再未经历过重大战争。那么，罗马和平到底是什么，对那些被罗马人统治的人来说，它意味着什么呢？
备受赞誉的历史学家阿德里安·戈兹沃西讲述了帝国创建的故事，揭示了罗马人是如何以及为什么开始控制世界上这么多地方的，并询问罗马和平的良好形象是否属实。通过作者全面的讲述，我们得以对罗马和平的性质有一个更加全面而中正的认识。
但罗马和平是真实存在的，不仅仅是皇帝们的夸耀。帝国的一些地区在很多代人的时间里再未经历过重大战争。那么，罗马和平到底是什么，对那些被罗马人统治的人来说，它意味着什么呢？
备受赞誉的历史学家阿德里安·戈兹沃西讲述了帝国创建的故事，揭示了罗马人是如何以及为什么开始控制世界上这么多地方的，并询问罗马和平的良好形象是否属实。通过作者全面的讲述，我们得以对罗马和平的性质有一个更加全面而中正的认识。
576 pages, Hardcover
First published August 11, 2016
946 people are currently reading
5859 people want to read
About the author
Adrian Goldsworthy
45 books1,549 followersAdrian Goldsworthy, born in 1969, is the author of numerous acclaimed books, including biographies of Julius Caesar and Augustus. He lectures widely and consults on historical documentaries for the History Channel, National Geographic, and the BBC. He lives in the UK.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 204 reviews
October 20, 2020
Even though Adrian Goldsworthy has been a noted historian for decades, my first encounter with his works was his enjoyable, fictional, Roman series Vindolandia. This book is an overview of Rome at peace, but even when they were at peace, because of the size of the empire, they were never totally at peace. There were rebellions, incursions by neighboring states, and coup attempts in the provinces. These disturbances were not war, but merely situations that required a show of strength by the Romans to reassert their dominance.
Because of the large scope of the book, a Keeten-style review to do it justice would be longer and more comprehensive than what anyone would want to read, so I’ve decided to share some of the best quotes from the book that really stood out for me and add just a dab of commentary.
”Like most imperial powers, the Romans felt that their domination was entirely right, divinely ordained and a good thing for the wider world. Emperors boasted that their rule brought peace to the provinces, benefiting the entire population.” They firmly believed that to live as a Roman should be the goal of every man, woman, and child. Certainly, there are parallels with how most Americans see things as well. They, too, believe that everyone should want to be an American, even as they do everything in their power to keep people from realizing that dream.
”When the empire was at its height, the greater part of the Roman army was stationed on its fringes in the frontier zones--a second-century AD Greek orator compared the soldiers to a protective wall surrounding the empire as if it were a single city.” I really liked the visual of a wall of soldiers surrounding the empire. It must have been very reassuring to Romans to know that this human wall stood between them and anyone who wished to invade. Anyone trying to do so would suffer a blood price if they attempted to push through this first line of defense.
”Rome was one of many aggressive, imperialistic states and kingdoms, unusual not because it was uniquely bellicose but because it proved so successful. Much of this rested on its capacity to absorb other peoples and tie them permanently to the Republic as loyal, if clearly subordinate, allies.” I can remember as a child when I was first reading about the Roman empire how impressed I was with their ability to absorb the very best of whatever cultures they conquered. This also applied to battlefield tactics. If an enemy defeated them, the Romans would either adopt the methods used to defeat them or find ways to counteract those winning tactics. They were never too proud to change their conducts of war.
”I am a Roman citizen!” Romans had the same hubris as Americans. When they traveled abroad, they believed that the power and influence of being a Roman gave them special protections. To an extent they were right. One did not behead or torture or even inconvenience a Roman citizen without knowing that there could be grave consequences. I won’t get into what it means to be an American traveling abroad these days, except to say that I generally try to fake a Canadian accent...very badly.
”Verres’ tenure in Sicily from 73-71 BC was marked by profiteering, extortion and abuse of power on a spectacular scale. Cicero claimed that the governor joked that his first year was devoted to making himself rich, the second to gathering money to hire the best advocate and the third to raising the cash to bribe judges and the jury at his inevitable trial.” The only reason that Roman aristocracy wanted to govern a province was to increase their influence in Rome and become filthy rich. There are some exceptions, but they did not go to the provinces on a mission of mercy or to make life better for the citizens. It was to squeeze every slender denari they could out of the population without inciting rebellion.
”Many agricultural workers produced crops on behalf of a landlord they never met for consumption by people in distant lands.” That was interesting to contemplate, growing all this beautiful grain that was promptly hauled to Rome to feed the ravenous maws, especially if the farmer was having difficulties feeding his own family.
”By AD 200, the nominal size of the army was at least 350,000 men, all sworn to serve the emperor, and paid and promoted by him. It was not until the French Revolution brought mass conscription that the army of any European state surpassed this total, and even then few maintained so many troops outside of the grand mobilisations of wartime.” Armies previously were mostly made up of farmer soldiers. These men, when not mobilized, were working in the fields. It is astounding to think that Rome in AD 200 could afford to have that many able bodied men devoted strictly to warfare and defense. They obviously deemed it necessary to keep the peace.
”The Roman army was a force best suited to direct confrontation with the enemy’s main strength--whether this was a field army or a stronghold--which meant that strategy and tactics at all levels were aggressive, pushing for a decisive result as soon as possible. This aggression was combined with a willingness to learn from mistakes and a stubborn determination to continue a struggle until victory was achieved.” Their adversaries just simply did not have the ability or the enthusiasm to keep fighting. There are several moments in history where a nation would hand the Romans a resounding defeat, but then they went back to their regular lives, little knowing that in very short order the Romans would return wanting payback. Romans never accepted defeat, which is admirable, but also somewhat psychotic.
”The Romans never attempted to invade a country with the intention of establishing a functioning democracy and then withdrawing. The Romans tended to stay, which in the end meant that most of the population had to make an accommodation with them.” I’ve had some controversial discussions about this aspect in regards to the United States. When we invaded Afghanistan, a decision I completely disagreed with, my first question for people was...well, are we going to keep it or are we going to set up a sham government that will take decades to achieve peace? One person said to me...we don’t want that shithole. My response. Okay, so why are we invading then? Revenge? Invading a country, toppling their leadership in the process, and then leaving makes no sense whatsoever. We can offer assistance to an existing government, but if our goal is regime change, it has always led to disaster. Make it part of the empire or leave it alone with a heavy lean towards...leave it alone.
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 and an Instagram account https://www.instagram.com/jeffreykeeten/
Because of the large scope of the book, a Keeten-style review to do it justice would be longer and more comprehensive than what anyone would want to read, so I’ve decided to share some of the best quotes from the book that really stood out for me and add just a dab of commentary.
”Like most imperial powers, the Romans felt that their domination was entirely right, divinely ordained and a good thing for the wider world. Emperors boasted that their rule brought peace to the provinces, benefiting the entire population.” They firmly believed that to live as a Roman should be the goal of every man, woman, and child. Certainly, there are parallels with how most Americans see things as well. They, too, believe that everyone should want to be an American, even as they do everything in their power to keep people from realizing that dream.
”When the empire was at its height, the greater part of the Roman army was stationed on its fringes in the frontier zones--a second-century AD Greek orator compared the soldiers to a protective wall surrounding the empire as if it were a single city.” I really liked the visual of a wall of soldiers surrounding the empire. It must have been very reassuring to Romans to know that this human wall stood between them and anyone who wished to invade. Anyone trying to do so would suffer a blood price if they attempted to push through this first line of defense.
”Rome was one of many aggressive, imperialistic states and kingdoms, unusual not because it was uniquely bellicose but because it proved so successful. Much of this rested on its capacity to absorb other peoples and tie them permanently to the Republic as loyal, if clearly subordinate, allies.” I can remember as a child when I was first reading about the Roman empire how impressed I was with their ability to absorb the very best of whatever cultures they conquered. This also applied to battlefield tactics. If an enemy defeated them, the Romans would either adopt the methods used to defeat them or find ways to counteract those winning tactics. They were never too proud to change their conducts of war.
”I am a Roman citizen!” Romans had the same hubris as Americans. When they traveled abroad, they believed that the power and influence of being a Roman gave them special protections. To an extent they were right. One did not behead or torture or even inconvenience a Roman citizen without knowing that there could be grave consequences. I won’t get into what it means to be an American traveling abroad these days, except to say that I generally try to fake a Canadian accent...very badly.
”Verres’ tenure in Sicily from 73-71 BC was marked by profiteering, extortion and abuse of power on a spectacular scale. Cicero claimed that the governor joked that his first year was devoted to making himself rich, the second to gathering money to hire the best advocate and the third to raising the cash to bribe judges and the jury at his inevitable trial.” The only reason that Roman aristocracy wanted to govern a province was to increase their influence in Rome and become filthy rich. There are some exceptions, but they did not go to the provinces on a mission of mercy or to make life better for the citizens. It was to squeeze every slender denari they could out of the population without inciting rebellion.
”Many agricultural workers produced crops on behalf of a landlord they never met for consumption by people in distant lands.” That was interesting to contemplate, growing all this beautiful grain that was promptly hauled to Rome to feed the ravenous maws, especially if the farmer was having difficulties feeding his own family.
”By AD 200, the nominal size of the army was at least 350,000 men, all sworn to serve the emperor, and paid and promoted by him. It was not until the French Revolution brought mass conscription that the army of any European state surpassed this total, and even then few maintained so many troops outside of the grand mobilisations of wartime.” Armies previously were mostly made up of farmer soldiers. These men, when not mobilized, were working in the fields. It is astounding to think that Rome in AD 200 could afford to have that many able bodied men devoted strictly to warfare and defense. They obviously deemed it necessary to keep the peace.
”The Roman army was a force best suited to direct confrontation with the enemy’s main strength--whether this was a field army or a stronghold--which meant that strategy and tactics at all levels were aggressive, pushing for a decisive result as soon as possible. This aggression was combined with a willingness to learn from mistakes and a stubborn determination to continue a struggle until victory was achieved.” Their adversaries just simply did not have the ability or the enthusiasm to keep fighting. There are several moments in history where a nation would hand the Romans a resounding defeat, but then they went back to their regular lives, little knowing that in very short order the Romans would return wanting payback. Romans never accepted defeat, which is admirable, but also somewhat psychotic.
”The Romans never attempted to invade a country with the intention of establishing a functioning democracy and then withdrawing. The Romans tended to stay, which in the end meant that most of the population had to make an accommodation with them.” I’ve had some controversial discussions about this aspect in regards to the United States. When we invaded Afghanistan, a decision I completely disagreed with, my first question for people was...well, are we going to keep it or are we going to set up a sham government that will take decades to achieve peace? One person said to me...we don’t want that shithole. My response. Okay, so why are we invading then? Revenge? Invading a country, toppling their leadership in the process, and then leaving makes no sense whatsoever. We can offer assistance to an existing government, but if our goal is regime change, it has always led to disaster. Make it part of the empire or leave it alone with a heavy lean towards...leave it alone.
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 and an Instagram account https://www.instagram.com/jeffreykeeten/
February 9, 2019
It probably seems odd that I’m starting a 5-star review with a criticism, but I would say that even for a history nerd like me, this wasn’t the quickest read. It’s worth it though for the level of insight provided. This isn’t a narrative history, rather a comprehensive look at the Roman Empire at its height, and an attempt to explain its success. The book concentrates on the period from the third century BC to the end of the second century AD, when the Pax Romana was at its height. From the third century AD the Empire was weakened by frequent civil wars and increased threats from outside.
Dr Goldsworthy argues that the Empire can be considered a success firstly for its longevity. Other empires have been bigger but few if any have lasted as long. Sicily was Rome’s first overseas province and remained under continuous Roman administration for more than 700 years. Britannia was one of the last provinces to be added and was one of the first to be lost, but even there Roman rule lasted around three and half centuries.
Many people of my vintage will be familiar with the “What have the Romans ever done for us?” sketch from the film “The Life of Brian”. “Well, peace and stability, that’s what” would be Dr. Goldsworthy’s reply. He argues that, “... the areas under Roman rule experienced considerably less war and organised violence than they did in the centuries before or since.” He highlights that rebellions against Roman rule were rare and, where they did happen, tended to occur within a generation of the arrival of the Romans. This was the case with the rebellions led by Boudicca in Britain and Vercingetorix in Gaul, and the successful revolt in Germany led by Arminius. (The exception was Judaea, which saw at least 3 major rebellions - the book contains a discussion about why Judaea was such an unusually turbulent province). Moreover, the Roman Empire did not collapse because of any desire for independence from its provinces. On the contrary, what evidence we have from the following centuries suggests a yearning for the days of the Empire.
Dr Goldsworthy is known as a specialist on the Roman military, and this book is full of insights on that subject. Although the Roman Army was huge the size of the Empire meant it was thinly spread. The legions were all deployed in the frontier provinces and others were only very lightly garrisoned with auxiliary troops. There was always the distant threat of the legions returning in the event of serious unrest, but on a day to day basis, governors of settled provinces were not in a position to impose their will through force of arms. The book suggests that the scene in the Gospels where Pontius Pilate gives way to the demands of the mob may well have been more common than most of us think. However, the author argues that it was this very concentration on the security of the frontier that made successful attacks on the Empire very rare, thereby maintaining the Pax.
The other great success of the Romans was their ability to absorb other cultures, reconciling them to Roman rule. This was especially the case with the leaders of the subject peoples. The Latin language spread through western Europe, and other aspects of Roman culture – public baths, toga wearing, the gladiatorial arena, and the circus for chariot racing, spread through the whole Empire. Tacitus’ book “The Life of Agricola” contains a particular reference to the way this happened in Britain.
It should be said that the author doesn’t attempt to gloss over the negative side of the Roman Empire. He notes that “we can confidently state that over the centuries millions died in the course of the wars fought by Rome, millions more were enslaved, and still more would live under Roman rule whether they liked it nor not.” For all that, he argues persuasively that the Romans created a long period of relative peace over the huge area they ruled. That achievement was “a glory greater than war.”
Dr Goldsworthy argues that the Empire can be considered a success firstly for its longevity. Other empires have been bigger but few if any have lasted as long. Sicily was Rome’s first overseas province and remained under continuous Roman administration for more than 700 years. Britannia was one of the last provinces to be added and was one of the first to be lost, but even there Roman rule lasted around three and half centuries.
Many people of my vintage will be familiar with the “What have the Romans ever done for us?” sketch from the film “The Life of Brian”. “Well, peace and stability, that’s what” would be Dr. Goldsworthy’s reply. He argues that, “... the areas under Roman rule experienced considerably less war and organised violence than they did in the centuries before or since.” He highlights that rebellions against Roman rule were rare and, where they did happen, tended to occur within a generation of the arrival of the Romans. This was the case with the rebellions led by Boudicca in Britain and Vercingetorix in Gaul, and the successful revolt in Germany led by Arminius. (The exception was Judaea, which saw at least 3 major rebellions - the book contains a discussion about why Judaea was such an unusually turbulent province). Moreover, the Roman Empire did not collapse because of any desire for independence from its provinces. On the contrary, what evidence we have from the following centuries suggests a yearning for the days of the Empire.
Dr Goldsworthy is known as a specialist on the Roman military, and this book is full of insights on that subject. Although the Roman Army was huge the size of the Empire meant it was thinly spread. The legions were all deployed in the frontier provinces and others were only very lightly garrisoned with auxiliary troops. There was always the distant threat of the legions returning in the event of serious unrest, but on a day to day basis, governors of settled provinces were not in a position to impose their will through force of arms. The book suggests that the scene in the Gospels where Pontius Pilate gives way to the demands of the mob may well have been more common than most of us think. However, the author argues that it was this very concentration on the security of the frontier that made successful attacks on the Empire very rare, thereby maintaining the Pax.
The other great success of the Romans was their ability to absorb other cultures, reconciling them to Roman rule. This was especially the case with the leaders of the subject peoples. The Latin language spread through western Europe, and other aspects of Roman culture – public baths, toga wearing, the gladiatorial arena, and the circus for chariot racing, spread through the whole Empire. Tacitus’ book “The Life of Agricola” contains a particular reference to the way this happened in Britain.
It should be said that the author doesn’t attempt to gloss over the negative side of the Roman Empire. He notes that “we can confidently state that over the centuries millions died in the course of the wars fought by Rome, millions more were enslaved, and still more would live under Roman rule whether they liked it nor not.” For all that, he argues persuasively that the Romans created a long period of relative peace over the huge area they ruled. That achievement was “a glory greater than war.”
August 12, 2016
Once again Goldsworthy reveals the incredible depth and breadth of his knowledge, focusing this time on the theme of Roman Peace. It is a fascinating book, on a theme I have not seen addressed in this manner before. Perhaps this is because the idea of Empire continues to hold negative connotations and Goldsworthy instead aims to show that a system based on simple brutality could never have retained control of such vast areas, varied peoples, and over such a long amount of time.
Peace here is not quite as we imagine it to be, full of qualifications and more than a few skirmishes. Yet Goldsworthy makes clear that the Romans did create a system of mutual benefit, of alliances, and of balance that allowed peace and prosperity to a greater extent than could otherwise have existed. The most important factor seems to be been the multitude of different types of relationships between Rome and its subject territories-Rome did not have the desire or the manpower to permanently garrison each and every controlled area-so it was in those connections that peace was maintained, or otherwise. Even within the ruling elites, the network of friendships and debts formed a real part of how the system of government was run. Many people wanted to become Roman citizens, it was an avenue of opportunity that offered numerous benefits. It is significant that Rome offered this to some, unlike the more insular Greece, and part of why, in the end, Rome was destroyed by outside forces rather than overwhelming internal revolt.
That is not to say the power politics based on fear were absent. Indeed, one significant factor in peaceful relations within the empire and around it seemed to be that Rome held the biggest stick, and could use that position as a deterrent or to broker relationships between other warring territories. Roman soldiers were not idle and violence remained a useful tool.
Overall, a genuinely compelling, well researched, and well argued book, a great addition to Goldsworthy's Roman series.
Many thanks to Adrian Goldsworthy, Yale University Press, and Netgalley for this copy in exchange for an honest review.
Peace here is not quite as we imagine it to be, full of qualifications and more than a few skirmishes. Yet Goldsworthy makes clear that the Romans did create a system of mutual benefit, of alliances, and of balance that allowed peace and prosperity to a greater extent than could otherwise have existed. The most important factor seems to be been the multitude of different types of relationships between Rome and its subject territories-Rome did not have the desire or the manpower to permanently garrison each and every controlled area-so it was in those connections that peace was maintained, or otherwise. Even within the ruling elites, the network of friendships and debts formed a real part of how the system of government was run. Many people wanted to become Roman citizens, it was an avenue of opportunity that offered numerous benefits. It is significant that Rome offered this to some, unlike the more insular Greece, and part of why, in the end, Rome was destroyed by outside forces rather than overwhelming internal revolt.
That is not to say the power politics based on fear were absent. Indeed, one significant factor in peaceful relations within the empire and around it seemed to be that Rome held the biggest stick, and could use that position as a deterrent or to broker relationships between other warring territories. Roman soldiers were not idle and violence remained a useful tool.
Overall, a genuinely compelling, well researched, and well argued book, a great addition to Goldsworthy's Roman series.
Many thanks to Adrian Goldsworthy, Yale University Press, and Netgalley for this copy in exchange for an honest review.
December 26, 2024
Pax Romana was a roughly 200-year period lasting from the rise of Augustus in the late first century BC to the early third century AD. The borders of the Roman Empire remained relatively stable, with conquered populations generally acquiescing and later habituating to their rule. Provincial revolts were rare and only occurred within living memory of Roman defeat. Even during times of civil war, Roman provinces remained loyal. Trade flourished within the empire, and with bordering tribes and kingdoms. Pax Romana, however, was underpinned by Rome's military and its willingness to use violence to maintain supremacy.
Adrian Goldsworthy illuminates this period, focusing primarily on governance in the provinces rather than the political machinations of the capitol. Goldsworthy relies on ancient sources like Tacitus, Cicero, and others, and augments gaps in the literature with contemporary archaeological evidence. He also engages in scholarly debates. For instance, the author challenges the view that this period was peaceful. It was instead a period of managed conflict concentrated on the frontiers. Goldsworthy also tacitly challenges the blanket denunciation of empire by contemporary scholars, encouraging readers to think about the benefits of imperial peace over internecine warfare.
I am not a fan of people comparing modern America to Ancient Rome. An egregious example is when someone compares the current political turmoil to Rome's Republic transforming into Empire. This period encompassed decades of bloody civil war and political murder; something that is essentially absent today. That said, there are echoes with Pax Romana and Pax Americana. The latter has experienced a long era of peace and prosperity within its sphere of influence. Like the Romans, America's dominance is underpinned by its military supremacy and conflicts on its imperial frontiers. It, too, can last for centuries, even if its democratic institutions are curtailed.
Adrian Goldsworthy illuminates this period, focusing primarily on governance in the provinces rather than the political machinations of the capitol. Goldsworthy relies on ancient sources like Tacitus, Cicero, and others, and augments gaps in the literature with contemporary archaeological evidence. He also engages in scholarly debates. For instance, the author challenges the view that this period was peaceful. It was instead a period of managed conflict concentrated on the frontiers. Goldsworthy also tacitly challenges the blanket denunciation of empire by contemporary scholars, encouraging readers to think about the benefits of imperial peace over internecine warfare.
I am not a fan of people comparing modern America to Ancient Rome. An egregious example is when someone compares the current political turmoil to Rome's Republic transforming into Empire. This period encompassed decades of bloody civil war and political murder; something that is essentially absent today. That said, there are echoes with Pax Romana and Pax Americana. The latter has experienced a long era of peace and prosperity within its sphere of influence. Like the Romans, America's dominance is underpinned by its military supremacy and conflicts on its imperial frontiers. It, too, can last for centuries, even if its democratic institutions are curtailed.
April 16, 2025
This is a fine account of the period of the late Republic and the first three centuries of the Empire by the prolific Roman historian Adrian Goldsworthy. He examines what life was like outside of Italy for the Romans who lived in the provinces and those locals who sometimes fought the Romans but mostly assimilated into the Empire.
Especially well illuminated is how the Governors in the Provinces functioned and the infrastructure that enabled the Empire to keep track of the doings of their far-flung territory. I liked the maps included in the book which gives the reader a better sense of the forts that were constructed by the army. The overreaching conclusion of Goldsworthy is that the Roman empire during the Pax Romana was indeed peaceful.
Especially well illuminated is how the Governors in the Provinces functioned and the infrastructure that enabled the Empire to keep track of the doings of their far-flung territory. I liked the maps included in the book which gives the reader a better sense of the forts that were constructed by the army. The overreaching conclusion of Goldsworthy is that the Roman empire during the Pax Romana was indeed peaceful.
August 11, 2022
Goldsworthy's "Pax Romana" was excellent. Using the most up to date records we are shown the inner workings of the period of Roman Peace.
The book looks at various conditions and factors that led to the creation of the Roman Empire. It then looks at the positives and negatives of Roman expansion. It is a superb look at how the Romans, both during the Republic and during the Empire, were able to create and run an Empire.
Looking at the development through two stages- Republic and Empire, we see how other nations and states interacted with the Romans, how they conducted war and field operations. There is also a detailed look at why the all pervading power of Rome was instrumental in the functioning of the Empire.
A superb book and highly recommended for fans of Roman history.
The book looks at various conditions and factors that led to the creation of the Roman Empire. It then looks at the positives and negatives of Roman expansion. It is a superb look at how the Romans, both during the Republic and during the Empire, were able to create and run an Empire.
Looking at the development through two stages- Republic and Empire, we see how other nations and states interacted with the Romans, how they conducted war and field operations. There is also a detailed look at why the all pervading power of Rome was instrumental in the functioning of the Empire.
A superb book and highly recommended for fans of Roman history.
September 30, 2023
I've always loved history. Be it ancient civilisations' political systems, architecture, mythology or warfare - it's alll fascinating. Especially when you look at really successful societies that "suddenly" crumbled (I use the term "suddenly" loosely, obviously). The Romans were one such fascinating civilisation that somehow declined without a real reason - one day, they were doing fine, the next, everything went downhill.
OK, that's not actually true, as the author nicely proved in this book. The fall of Rome was a gradual process over hundreds of years. Still. Why nobody saw and/or was able to reverse course, is a complete mystery to me.
So anyway, this book in divided into two parts:
1) Republic
2) Principate
The first part has 6 chapters telling us about the rise of Rome (how it became a republic), Rome's warfare, how they made friends and allies (as well as enemies), how their trade and settlement systems worked, the government structure (as far as the pecking order and money were concerned) as well as provincials and kings in Roman territories.
The second part then goes on to explain to us in 7 chapters what the role of an emperor was, how it came to numerous rebellions (and how they were broken up - or not), what the resistance looked like (riots and robberies), how the imperial governor system worked, what life under the rule of Rome looked like (enslavement vs. citizenship etc.), what the Roman army looked like and how the garrissons and raids were structured.
The author concluded with the 8th chapter Beyond the Pax Romana and then gave us the conclusion.
Basically, the overall question we start out with in the introduction was: What was the Pax Romana, was it good or bad or both and was it worth it?
Personally, I liked very much how the author started out putting many of the facts of life back then into context. He likened the deadliness and operation area of a gladius (Roman short sword) with an AK-47 amongst other things. He also gave a nice overview of life outside of Rome's influence because many seem to campaign for the POV that Rome was extra-aggressive when whilel taht isn't untrue, everybody back then was.
There is no right or wrong answer exactly to the question the author posed in his introdcution. It basically depends on your point of view. Well, to some degree. The bulk of the evidence falls into one specific category, which tells us one thing: !
No, this os not telling the complete story of Rome from rise to fall and about everything in between. How could it with so little a page count? If you want that, read Gibbons (thoughthe author has written other books that nicely go with this one).
This particular book has a very distinct and very defined subject that was highlighted and examined in detail but also in a very approachable way.
Definitely an author I need to look out for in the future and a book that I can recommend to any history lover.
OK, that's not actually true, as the author nicely proved in this book. The fall of Rome was a gradual process over hundreds of years. Still. Why nobody saw and/or was able to reverse course, is a complete mystery to me.
So anyway, this book in divided into two parts:
1) Republic
2) Principate
The first part has 6 chapters telling us about the rise of Rome (how it became a republic), Rome's warfare, how they made friends and allies (as well as enemies), how their trade and settlement systems worked, the government structure (as far as the pecking order and money were concerned) as well as provincials and kings in Roman territories.
The second part then goes on to explain to us in 7 chapters what the role of an emperor was, how it came to numerous rebellions (and how they were broken up - or not), what the resistance looked like (riots and robberies), how the imperial governor system worked, what life under the rule of Rome looked like (enslavement vs. citizenship etc.), what the Roman army looked like and how the garrissons and raids were structured.
The author concluded with the 8th chapter Beyond the Pax Romana and then gave us the conclusion.
Basically, the overall question we start out with in the introduction was: What was the Pax Romana, was it good or bad or both and was it worth it?
Personally, I liked very much how the author started out putting many of the facts of life back then into context. He likened the deadliness and operation area of a gladius (Roman short sword) with an AK-47 amongst other things. He also gave a nice overview of life outside of Rome's influence because many seem to campaign for the POV that Rome was extra-aggressive when whilel taht isn't untrue, everybody back then was.
There is no right or wrong answer exactly to the question the author posed in his introdcution. It basically depends on your point of view. Well, to some degree. The bulk of the evidence falls into one specific category, which tells us one thing: !
No, this os not telling the complete story of Rome from rise to fall and about everything in between. How could it with so little a page count? If you want that, read Gibbons (thoughthe author has written other books that nicely go with this one).
This particular book has a very distinct and very defined subject that was highlighted and examined in detail but also in a very approachable way.
Definitely an author I need to look out for in the future and a book that I can recommend to any history lover.
March 2, 2017
I loved this book, be aware tough it is not the most fast paced book, it deals with the daily goings of the running of the Roman Empire. In it you will learn that while the Roman Empire provided peace to the regions it conquered, it wasn't always permanent and while the term "Pax romana "calls to the time after Augustus , those years were not always free of conflict , the only difference was that the Roman Empire was strong enough to contain the threat and amortize the effects , this would change in the future .. highly recommend this book to anyone interested in classical history and anyone with an interest in the Roman Empire!
April 17, 2018
I liked this book. It seeks to get beyond the headlines of war and conquest, emperors and usurper, to understand what life was like in Rome and how it became perhaps the greatest empire the world has ever seen. It does this by exploring the themes of Roman life and the conditions which led a small hill town in central Italy to rule much of the world.
The basic idea is that the progressive extension of Roman citizenship allowed adjacent elites a stake in a successful state and provided an ideal than even the lowliest could aspire to, the Roman dream if you like. Combined with a refusal to admit defeat in war and a ruthless Darwinian political system this made Rome unbeatable for centuries.
I liked the idea that someone like Septimius Severus could rise from being minor African nobility to become ruler of a massive empire, dying in far away York on the fringes of the known world. And in all the vast distance between these two places there was a recognisable Roman culture and identity, albeit with local nuances.
Ultimately the power of Rome became it's undoing, as the extreme bounty available to the victors caused interminable civil wars over the spoils of empire, fatally weakening Rome from within. Failure to maintain static borders allowed outsiders to progressively raid, settle and usurp formerly peaceful provinces.
Rome fell, but it will always be a subject of wonder and fascination.
The basic idea is that the progressive extension of Roman citizenship allowed adjacent elites a stake in a successful state and provided an ideal than even the lowliest could aspire to, the Roman dream if you like. Combined with a refusal to admit defeat in war and a ruthless Darwinian political system this made Rome unbeatable for centuries.
I liked the idea that someone like Septimius Severus could rise from being minor African nobility to become ruler of a massive empire, dying in far away York on the fringes of the known world. And in all the vast distance between these two places there was a recognisable Roman culture and identity, albeit with local nuances.
Ultimately the power of Rome became it's undoing, as the extreme bounty available to the victors caused interminable civil wars over the spoils of empire, fatally weakening Rome from within. Failure to maintain static borders allowed outsiders to progressively raid, settle and usurp formerly peaceful provinces.
Rome fell, but it will always be a subject of wonder and fascination.
March 1, 2021
Pax Romana, by Adrian Goldsworthy, was a fun book detailing the idea of Pax Romana, or peace through Roman Imperialism. This is a concept that is often invoked or aped throughout history; we hear of Pax Americana, Pax Britannica and so forth, meaning that a global or regional hegemonic power has created a system of long-standing peace through a monopoly on violence. Goldsworthy looks at this idea in the Roman world. Rome, as we all know, was an Empire that ruled Southern Europe, Northern Africa, the Middle East, and parts of Britain, Germany and the Low countries for many hundreds of years. The blitz of Empire building for Rome lasted from the Republican era, into the first reign of the Principate, but then slowed to almost a stop, with only a few conquests of land in Britain, the Kingdom of Dacia, and some short lived border adjustments in the Middle East and Germany. Other than that, Roman imperial conquest mostly happened during the Republic.
Goldsworthy examines the concept of peace through Roman arms from multiple perspectives. He examines the theoretical concepts behind the expansion, from an administrative standpoint, as well as through the rationale of various actors (gleaned from writings). Conquest was prevalent in the Republic because the Senate would send one of their own to a province or territory to administer every few years. The Senator would have limited time to make an impact (and a fortune) in the province, and so would have to act fast to gain prestige (and maybe a Triumph!). One could administer a province competently, put its finances in order, fairly arbitrate justice and policy, OR... one could just invade a bunch of land and take plunder and bring it back for the glory of Rome!! This is often what happened. Goldsworthy does note that Rome during the Republican era was not always aggressive, and often responded to slights and raids as pretexts for war, but usually was tolerant of client kingdoms and tribes on its borders. Friends of Rome were treated quite well, and Rome would even send in troops to prop up allies and puppets on the borders, or more often arbitrate disputes between two different allies. Only when things got really rough, or when a particularly ambitious Senator was in charge of a few legions (think Pompey or Julius Caesar) was territory annexed. During the first reign of the Roman Principate - Augustus Caesar, territory was annexed for reasons of Imperialism. Most sources indicate that the borders were shored up for logistical reasons of Empire - the Balkans was consolidated to build land networks to Rome's Greek/Asian possessions, and Spain was consolidated as well. The borders of the Empire in Germany were pushed up to the Rhine, and so forth.
During the reign of the Emperors, Rome was mostly an Empire in holding. It rarely increased its territory - only on a few occasions. Goldsworthy notes that Emperors with an insecure legitimacy were often the ones to engage in this sort of conquest - the invasion and extension of Roman possessions in Britain, and the invasion of Dacia, as well as the failed campaigns extending the German frontier to the Elbe, or moving deeper into Parthia, are all examples. Goldsworthy examines the concept of Imperial limits in Rome, in terms of the ability to raise, finance and fund legions, border posts and the like. He also looks at it from the perspective of legitimacy - Roman emperors were more secure in their legitimate power then an elected Senator, and only needed to prove themselves on particular occasions. This, Goldsworthy posits, is a key reason why Rome stopped its aggressive campaigns into foreign lands.
Goldsworthy also looks at internal peace. Civil conflict was common during the end of the Republic, but this conflict did not lead to a pause in further annexations. On the contrary - the acquisition of Gaul, Turkey and much more came about during the end of Republic, when powerful Senators and families squabbled for ultimate power. Goldsworthy then compares this to the centuries leading up to Rome's final collapse. Civil conflict was ripe in the Empire, but this did not lead to territorial acquisition. Rome suffered from rebellion in many of the recently annexed territories- notably Gaul, Spain, Judea and in Germany, where it actually lost provinces permanently for the first time. Rome's existing provinces for much of their Roman history were garrisoned if they were rebellious (usually close to its point of annexation), but as time went on, legions would be pulled away, and sometimes disbanded, to support frontier garrisons. During its peak, Rome has a string of forts and walls across its entire frontier, controlling defensive points like the Rhine and Danube, or building features like Hadrian's Wall, to create stable points of static defense and border control to deter raids, armed migrations, and smuggling and banditry. This was a time of economic stability for most Roman citizens, and a world where violence was rare, homesteads secure, and social life was stable. Roman women, slaves and foreigners did not possess full rights, and could not (for the most part) break free from there socially constructed places within society. Even so, this was an era of stability for many within (and sometimes without) the Roman Empire - the Pax Romana, if you will.
Goldsworthy examines (posits) the reasons why Pax Romana came about, and by extension, how Imperial rule can often lead to stability. It is stability enforced by a monopoly on violence, and one that is often not tolerant of social mobility, but it is Pax nonetheless. The social situation, garrison life, politics and policy, administration and so forth are all examined. If I had a criticism of this book, it would be that it doesn't fully offer a compelling examination of the concept of Pax Romana, but instead historical perspective on the birth of Roman imperialism, and some refutation of both the Roman Admirers in schools of history, and the more recent influx of anti-Imperialist scholarship that examines Rome. Goldsworthy acknowledges the benefits of both concepts, but tries to keep the history firmly in line with what a Roman politician or statesperson, or average citizen for that matter, might think, feel and how they would interact with the concept. This is a pretty solid read on the subject nonetheless, and I would certainly recommend it to those interesting in reading up on Ancient Rome.
Goldsworthy examines the concept of peace through Roman arms from multiple perspectives. He examines the theoretical concepts behind the expansion, from an administrative standpoint, as well as through the rationale of various actors (gleaned from writings). Conquest was prevalent in the Republic because the Senate would send one of their own to a province or territory to administer every few years. The Senator would have limited time to make an impact (and a fortune) in the province, and so would have to act fast to gain prestige (and maybe a Triumph!). One could administer a province competently, put its finances in order, fairly arbitrate justice and policy, OR... one could just invade a bunch of land and take plunder and bring it back for the glory of Rome!! This is often what happened. Goldsworthy does note that Rome during the Republican era was not always aggressive, and often responded to slights and raids as pretexts for war, but usually was tolerant of client kingdoms and tribes on its borders. Friends of Rome were treated quite well, and Rome would even send in troops to prop up allies and puppets on the borders, or more often arbitrate disputes between two different allies. Only when things got really rough, or when a particularly ambitious Senator was in charge of a few legions (think Pompey or Julius Caesar) was territory annexed. During the first reign of the Roman Principate - Augustus Caesar, territory was annexed for reasons of Imperialism. Most sources indicate that the borders were shored up for logistical reasons of Empire - the Balkans was consolidated to build land networks to Rome's Greek/Asian possessions, and Spain was consolidated as well. The borders of the Empire in Germany were pushed up to the Rhine, and so forth.
During the reign of the Emperors, Rome was mostly an Empire in holding. It rarely increased its territory - only on a few occasions. Goldsworthy notes that Emperors with an insecure legitimacy were often the ones to engage in this sort of conquest - the invasion and extension of Roman possessions in Britain, and the invasion of Dacia, as well as the failed campaigns extending the German frontier to the Elbe, or moving deeper into Parthia, are all examples. Goldsworthy examines the concept of Imperial limits in Rome, in terms of the ability to raise, finance and fund legions, border posts and the like. He also looks at it from the perspective of legitimacy - Roman emperors were more secure in their legitimate power then an elected Senator, and only needed to prove themselves on particular occasions. This, Goldsworthy posits, is a key reason why Rome stopped its aggressive campaigns into foreign lands.
Goldsworthy also looks at internal peace. Civil conflict was common during the end of the Republic, but this conflict did not lead to a pause in further annexations. On the contrary - the acquisition of Gaul, Turkey and much more came about during the end of Republic, when powerful Senators and families squabbled for ultimate power. Goldsworthy then compares this to the centuries leading up to Rome's final collapse. Civil conflict was ripe in the Empire, but this did not lead to territorial acquisition. Rome suffered from rebellion in many of the recently annexed territories- notably Gaul, Spain, Judea and in Germany, where it actually lost provinces permanently for the first time. Rome's existing provinces for much of their Roman history were garrisoned if they were rebellious (usually close to its point of annexation), but as time went on, legions would be pulled away, and sometimes disbanded, to support frontier garrisons. During its peak, Rome has a string of forts and walls across its entire frontier, controlling defensive points like the Rhine and Danube, or building features like Hadrian's Wall, to create stable points of static defense and border control to deter raids, armed migrations, and smuggling and banditry. This was a time of economic stability for most Roman citizens, and a world where violence was rare, homesteads secure, and social life was stable. Roman women, slaves and foreigners did not possess full rights, and could not (for the most part) break free from there socially constructed places within society. Even so, this was an era of stability for many within (and sometimes without) the Roman Empire - the Pax Romana, if you will.
Goldsworthy examines (posits) the reasons why Pax Romana came about, and by extension, how Imperial rule can often lead to stability. It is stability enforced by a monopoly on violence, and one that is often not tolerant of social mobility, but it is Pax nonetheless. The social situation, garrison life, politics and policy, administration and so forth are all examined. If I had a criticism of this book, it would be that it doesn't fully offer a compelling examination of the concept of Pax Romana, but instead historical perspective on the birth of Roman imperialism, and some refutation of both the Roman Admirers in schools of history, and the more recent influx of anti-Imperialist scholarship that examines Rome. Goldsworthy acknowledges the benefits of both concepts, but tries to keep the history firmly in line with what a Roman politician or statesperson, or average citizen for that matter, might think, feel and how they would interact with the concept. This is a pretty solid read on the subject nonetheless, and I would certainly recommend it to those interesting in reading up on Ancient Rome.
September 16, 2017
Arrggh. Adrian Goldsworthy.
This is the third book of his I've read, which normally would indicate that I think rather well of the author. Yeah, normally that's the case. But it's not the case with Goldsworthy. I mean, I liked the first book of his I read - The Punic Wars. His tome on the Fall of the Roman Empire was .... well, it was informative, but it was less than the sum of its parts.
But this one? Notice how the first word in the review is "Arrggh"? Yeah.
Here's what separates a Goldsworthy book from one I'd normally appreciate. Take the other book, and throw out its intro and conclusion. Then go to each chapter, and throw out the intro and summary sections of each chapter. Then go to each part of the chapter, and get rid of anything which makes the key point for each portion. What's left is just a giant pile of info, without any real context or clear point it's making. It's just information. That's a Goldsworthy book.
And there's value in knowing about stuff. Clearly, that's the foundation upon which we build all other knowledge. But it's just the foundation. Most books worth a damn realize you build on that foundation and make a point out of it. You have a central idea you try to convey. Not our man Goldsworthy. He just piles shovel-ful after shovel-ful of stuff at you.
For much of the book, I found myself wondering - "OK, that's nice, but why is that important? What's your point? Why is that worth noting?" And ..... (cricket sounds). This wasn't a big deal with the Punic Wars book because that had a clear narrative which the stuff centered around. The Decline book also had a narrative (though it wasn't very clear until the end why he thought Rome fell). Here? Nah, there really isn't any narrative at all. And with neither a clear narrative nor a clear point, it's hard to really give a damn.
Also, it takes soooooo long for this damn book to even get to the Pax. I've traditionally heard of the Pax Romana being from when Augusts took power (ending the era of Roman civil wars) until the death of Marcus Aureilius. This book is 40% of the way in before Augustus shows up. So, it's stuff without a narrative or point that isn't even about the Pax.
As for Goldsworthy's points, to the extent they even exist, he is pro-Rome. He thinks they ushered in an era of unparalleled peace in the Mediterranean world. Sure, they were ruthless and bloody in conquering it, but Goldsworthy contends that didn't separate the Romans from everyone else. They were just better at it. Other groups constantly fought and did atrocities, and no one was really bothered by Rome doing it because they all did. Early on there were revolts and rebellions. Usually a big one happened a generation after an area's conquest. But then people got used to it. Things settled down. There would be banditry in the outlying, mountainous areas, but that was about it. The Jews had the longest tradition of resistance (in the 60s, then again from 115-117, and 132-135), but even they settled down. And because the Pax lasted so damn long - everyone got acclimated to Rome. In fact, when Rome had its problems in the 3rd century, it's worthy noting there were virtually no rebellions breaking out against them.
Under Augustus, there was constant war. More territory was taken by him than by anyone else: he finished up Iberia, took to the Alpa, and in the Balkans went up the Danube. His forces crossed the Rhine (it didn't take), and went down the Nile (to minimal gains). The Druids were disliked because they had an alternate judicial system in which locals saw legitimacy. Often the rebellions against Rome were led by Rome's allies during the wars of conquest. (Those allies didn't expect conquest. They expected Rome to help them beat their old traditional enemies, but ended up hoisted by their own petard). The provinces rarely thought of themselves as a singular people in that province. Governors were supposed to look for Christians - but if they didn't want to, no one worried about it. The local elite were gradually given citizenship. The pace of change was slower in the countryside. Rome had the biggest professional army in European history until the French Revolution. It gained this size under Augustus. The merchants would often follow the army on its campaigns. There was a deep longing to be Roman across much of the empire into the 5th century.
So, yeah, there is information here. But it's often frustrating to figure out what point (if any) Goldsworthy is trying to make.
This is the third book of his I've read, which normally would indicate that I think rather well of the author. Yeah, normally that's the case. But it's not the case with Goldsworthy. I mean, I liked the first book of his I read - The Punic Wars. His tome on the Fall of the Roman Empire was .... well, it was informative, but it was less than the sum of its parts.
But this one? Notice how the first word in the review is "Arrggh"? Yeah.
Here's what separates a Goldsworthy book from one I'd normally appreciate. Take the other book, and throw out its intro and conclusion. Then go to each chapter, and throw out the intro and summary sections of each chapter. Then go to each part of the chapter, and get rid of anything which makes the key point for each portion. What's left is just a giant pile of info, without any real context or clear point it's making. It's just information. That's a Goldsworthy book.
And there's value in knowing about stuff. Clearly, that's the foundation upon which we build all other knowledge. But it's just the foundation. Most books worth a damn realize you build on that foundation and make a point out of it. You have a central idea you try to convey. Not our man Goldsworthy. He just piles shovel-ful after shovel-ful of stuff at you.
For much of the book, I found myself wondering - "OK, that's nice, but why is that important? What's your point? Why is that worth noting?" And ..... (cricket sounds). This wasn't a big deal with the Punic Wars book because that had a clear narrative which the stuff centered around. The Decline book also had a narrative (though it wasn't very clear until the end why he thought Rome fell). Here? Nah, there really isn't any narrative at all. And with neither a clear narrative nor a clear point, it's hard to really give a damn.
Also, it takes soooooo long for this damn book to even get to the Pax. I've traditionally heard of the Pax Romana being from when Augusts took power (ending the era of Roman civil wars) until the death of Marcus Aureilius. This book is 40% of the way in before Augustus shows up. So, it's stuff without a narrative or point that isn't even about the Pax.
As for Goldsworthy's points, to the extent they even exist, he is pro-Rome. He thinks they ushered in an era of unparalleled peace in the Mediterranean world. Sure, they were ruthless and bloody in conquering it, but Goldsworthy contends that didn't separate the Romans from everyone else. They were just better at it. Other groups constantly fought and did atrocities, and no one was really bothered by Rome doing it because they all did. Early on there were revolts and rebellions. Usually a big one happened a generation after an area's conquest. But then people got used to it. Things settled down. There would be banditry in the outlying, mountainous areas, but that was about it. The Jews had the longest tradition of resistance (in the 60s, then again from 115-117, and 132-135), but even they settled down. And because the Pax lasted so damn long - everyone got acclimated to Rome. In fact, when Rome had its problems in the 3rd century, it's worthy noting there were virtually no rebellions breaking out against them.
Under Augustus, there was constant war. More territory was taken by him than by anyone else: he finished up Iberia, took to the Alpa, and in the Balkans went up the Danube. His forces crossed the Rhine (it didn't take), and went down the Nile (to minimal gains). The Druids were disliked because they had an alternate judicial system in which locals saw legitimacy. Often the rebellions against Rome were led by Rome's allies during the wars of conquest. (Those allies didn't expect conquest. They expected Rome to help them beat their old traditional enemies, but ended up hoisted by their own petard). The provinces rarely thought of themselves as a singular people in that province. Governors were supposed to look for Christians - but if they didn't want to, no one worried about it. The local elite were gradually given citizenship. The pace of change was slower in the countryside. Rome had the biggest professional army in European history until the French Revolution. It gained this size under Augustus. The merchants would often follow the army on its campaigns. There was a deep longing to be Roman across much of the empire into the 5th century.
So, yeah, there is information here. But it's often frustrating to figure out what point (if any) Goldsworthy is trying to make.
March 31, 2018
A well paced and clearly written piece on the existence of such a thing as Pax Romana - Roman Peace - under the rule of the Empire. Filled with many bits of interesting information and painting at times a detailed picture of the lives of Roman citizens (or not so citizens), it's a worthy read for anyone interested in the period.
September 2, 2020
Really informative read. Very enjoyable.
July 12, 2023
Pax Romana is another masterpiece of Roman history by Adrian Goldsworthy! 🌿
Goldsworthy takes you on a journey through the Ancient Roman world during its golden age of peace. Highlighting all the corners of its success and eventual failings, taking a step by step look at the road Rome took to become the super power it became!
The book was broken up extremely well for excellent pacing! And the information wasn’t over bearing especially on how in depth this topic of history is.
Pax Romana is a staple if you are a Roman history buff like myself but it’s also a great book for newcomers into this period of history! Goldsworthy proves yet again why he’s the master of his craft in this period of history. 🍃🍃
Goldsworthy takes you on a journey through the Ancient Roman world during its golden age of peace. Highlighting all the corners of its success and eventual failings, taking a step by step look at the road Rome took to become the super power it became!
The book was broken up extremely well for excellent pacing! And the information wasn’t over bearing especially on how in depth this topic of history is.
Pax Romana is a staple if you are a Roman history buff like myself but it’s also a great book for newcomers into this period of history! Goldsworthy proves yet again why he’s the master of his craft in this period of history. 🍃🍃
July 10, 2016
I cannot give less than four stars to this book. The amount of research and thus knowledge it holds is huge.
I studied latin for seven years at school and most of the names mentioned by the author ring a bell. But while Caesar is associated with clear memories, some other ones belong to the half-forgotten realm of long lost memories. I still know that Verres was corrupted and was governor of Sicily; I did not associate him with Asia Minor (understand Turkey in today's words). Mithridates in my mind was the weirdo who, for fear of being poisoned, absorbed regularly smidgens of dangerous substances to acclimate his body to them, the way we try today to desensitize allergic kids with microscopic amounts of the product creating hives on their skin. But I never knew he was involved in a big rebellion against Rome.
So, I learned a lot through this book and regretted it was written with the seriousness historians use. It is lacking the sociological anecdotes many would use to make such matters more fun. I know, history cannot be re-written. But some have tried to write it differently, so that people would be enthused by their description of ancient battles, old lifestyles or mores long extinct.
In other words, a very good book which would have been great with a touch of humor. It is just missing what Alain Decaux or Andre Castelot added on their television shows -the capacity of making people feel with their heroes of one night, laugh with them, fear with them, learn about the events but cheer with the characters, get acquainted with them, know the heroes as if they were your friends.
I understand it is getting out of the historian's work and gets closer to the tabloids. But for the reader, it is fun and enjoyable, and helps memorize the events better. Obviously, the book insists on the conquest of England about which I know very little.
I studied latin for seven years at school and most of the names mentioned by the author ring a bell. But while Caesar is associated with clear memories, some other ones belong to the half-forgotten realm of long lost memories. I still know that Verres was corrupted and was governor of Sicily; I did not associate him with Asia Minor (understand Turkey in today's words). Mithridates in my mind was the weirdo who, for fear of being poisoned, absorbed regularly smidgens of dangerous substances to acclimate his body to them, the way we try today to desensitize allergic kids with microscopic amounts of the product creating hives on their skin. But I never knew he was involved in a big rebellion against Rome.
So, I learned a lot through this book and regretted it was written with the seriousness historians use. It is lacking the sociological anecdotes many would use to make such matters more fun. I know, history cannot be re-written. But some have tried to write it differently, so that people would be enthused by their description of ancient battles, old lifestyles or mores long extinct.
In other words, a very good book which would have been great with a touch of humor. It is just missing what Alain Decaux or Andre Castelot added on their television shows -the capacity of making people feel with their heroes of one night, laugh with them, fear with them, learn about the events but cheer with the characters, get acquainted with them, know the heroes as if they were your friends.
I understand it is getting out of the historian's work and gets closer to the tabloids. But for the reader, it is fun and enjoyable, and helps memorize the events better. Obviously, the book insists on the conquest of England about which I know very little.
April 25, 2024
A really great read about the Pax Romana. I’ve been meaning to read more books about Ancient Rome, and lately I’ve been having trouble finding a book I want to read, so I picked this up and read it and enjoyed it.
July 4, 2016
I received an ARC of this book from Netgalley in exchange for an honest review. I enjoyed reading Pax Romana. It brought me back to my classics classes I took during my BA and it re-taught me about a lot of events and people from Roman times( with a focus on the Roman Peace). Goldsworthy's approach is fair and balanced. he does not simply view the Romans as evil conquerors but also intelligent and well planned. He discusses that not all peoples they conquered suffered under them and in fact some prospered. This book is an interesting read for fans of Ancient History and would be a great textbook in any ancient roman history or classics class.
April 13, 2025
An excellent review of how ancient Rome related to the world of its time.
In this meticulously researched volume, Goldsworthy delves deep into the nuanced era of Roman Britain, illuminating the complex interactions between Roman colonizers and indigenous populations. His scholarly examination reveals how the Pax Romana transformed the social, architectural, and administrative fabric of the British Isles, transcending mere military conquest to create a profound and enduring cultural metamorphosis. While not an era of absolute tranquility, this period represented a remarkable epoch of relative stability that enabled unprecedented development and cross-cultural exchange. Goldsworthy's narrative is both scholarly and engaging, offering readers a compelling window into a pivotal moment of historical transformation.
In this meticulously researched volume, Goldsworthy delves deep into the nuanced era of Roman Britain, illuminating the complex interactions between Roman colonizers and indigenous populations. His scholarly examination reveals how the Pax Romana transformed the social, architectural, and administrative fabric of the British Isles, transcending mere military conquest to create a profound and enduring cultural metamorphosis. While not an era of absolute tranquility, this period represented a remarkable epoch of relative stability that enabled unprecedented development and cross-cultural exchange. Goldsworthy's narrative is both scholarly and engaging, offering readers a compelling window into a pivotal moment of historical transformation.
December 26, 2016
This is another excellent volume on ancient Rome by Adrian Goldsworthy. His vast knowledge is put to work here examining the Pax Romana. He clearly shows that the Pax Romana was very real and long lasting. Some highlights:
1. Rome was an aggressive, warrior society, but it only differed from other ancient societies in its level of success and its unique "philosophy" of how it managed conquered peoples.
2. The overwhelming majority of people conquered by Rome did not rebel, even during those times when Rome was weakened by foreign wars or by civil wars brought on by men competing to rule the empire.
3. The majority of people under Roman rule experienced hundreds of years of unprecedented peace and greater economic prosperity. Granted, this "greater economic prosperity" meant vastly different things to the poor and the rich, but most benefited.
One point that cannot be stressed strongly enough is that the ancient world was a horrendously brutal place where raiding was endemic, people were enslaved, women raped, and violent death was a constant possibility. The Pax Romana made the world a much safer place for most of its people.
1. Rome was an aggressive, warrior society, but it only differed from other ancient societies in its level of success and its unique "philosophy" of how it managed conquered peoples.
2. The overwhelming majority of people conquered by Rome did not rebel, even during those times when Rome was weakened by foreign wars or by civil wars brought on by men competing to rule the empire.
3. The majority of people under Roman rule experienced hundreds of years of unprecedented peace and greater economic prosperity. Granted, this "greater economic prosperity" meant vastly different things to the poor and the rich, but most benefited.
One point that cannot be stressed strongly enough is that the ancient world was a horrendously brutal place where raiding was endemic, people were enslaved, women raped, and violent death was a constant possibility. The Pax Romana made the world a much safer place for most of its people.
December 20, 2021
Buy.
Ancient Rome + Goldsworthy = Perfection.
Always.
Ancient Rome + Goldsworthy = Perfection.
Always.
January 26, 2019
Reviewed for The Bibliophibian.
Pax Romana is a popular history style examination of the peace imposed by the Roman Empire, and how peaceful it actually was, as well as how it benefitted or oppressed the lands and peoples that fell under Roman sway. Although I called it popular history, it’s not super popularised: the evidence is meticulous, and the pace slow. It’s popular history in the sense of being perfectly comprehensible to the interested outsider to the field, rather than being simplistic.
The overall theory of the book is that the Pax Romana really was, in general, beneficial — and that Rome’s rule really was relatively peaceful and benign, with exceptions being just that rather than the overall rule. A lot of the time the evidence suggests that benignity was due to basically ignoring local squabbles and leaving places to govern themselves with minimal interference, while the legions only marched in for serious matters.
How far do I agree with Goldsworthy’s views, based on the evidence presented? Well, he definitely makes a good case for it, though I think he takes the long view to a great degree and I think there were likely people within the Roman Empire who felt oppressed by it, as well as people who were relatively unaffected by it. I do agree with his view that the Roman Empire wasn’t ruled simply through brutality: it certainly wouldn’t have had the longevity it did, if that were the sole basis, and it wouldn’t have been something people actively wanted to be part of — and it was something people wanted to be part of, more often than not.
It’s definitely a worthwhile look at whether the Roman Empire is really so degenerate as its painted.
Pax Romana is a popular history style examination of the peace imposed by the Roman Empire, and how peaceful it actually was, as well as how it benefitted or oppressed the lands and peoples that fell under Roman sway. Although I called it popular history, it’s not super popularised: the evidence is meticulous, and the pace slow. It’s popular history in the sense of being perfectly comprehensible to the interested outsider to the field, rather than being simplistic.
The overall theory of the book is that the Pax Romana really was, in general, beneficial — and that Rome’s rule really was relatively peaceful and benign, with exceptions being just that rather than the overall rule. A lot of the time the evidence suggests that benignity was due to basically ignoring local squabbles and leaving places to govern themselves with minimal interference, while the legions only marched in for serious matters.
How far do I agree with Goldsworthy’s views, based on the evidence presented? Well, he definitely makes a good case for it, though I think he takes the long view to a great degree and I think there were likely people within the Roman Empire who felt oppressed by it, as well as people who were relatively unaffected by it. I do agree with his view that the Roman Empire wasn’t ruled simply through brutality: it certainly wouldn’t have had the longevity it did, if that were the sole basis, and it wouldn’t have been something people actively wanted to be part of — and it was something people wanted to be part of, more often than not.
It’s definitely a worthwhile look at whether the Roman Empire is really so degenerate as its painted.
October 13, 2024
Interesante libro sobre la Pax Romana, que da título al libro. Hoy muy de moda denostarla como la actividad de otros imperios y es que si eres español y se acerca el 12 de octubre te pitarán los oídos por propios y extraños.
Goldsworthy, al que hay que reconocer que escribe como ya quisieran algunos novelistas reputados, no juzga a Roma, pero tampoco le baila el agua. Lo que si hace es describir los hechos y poner en contexto los mismos, trabajo ya de por si arduo, y que al final, da al César lo que es del César (lo siento, pero me lo pusieron a huevo). Vamos un libro no apto para los amantes de los extremos ya lo sean de uno o del otro.
Goldsworthy, al que hay que reconocer que escribe como ya quisieran algunos novelistas reputados, no juzga a Roma, pero tampoco le baila el agua. Lo que si hace es describir los hechos y poner en contexto los mismos, trabajo ya de por si arduo, y que al final, da al César lo que es del César (lo siento, pero me lo pusieron a huevo). Vamos un libro no apto para los amantes de los extremos ya lo sean de uno o del otro.
December 24, 2016
The book concludes with a few reflections on the "pax Romana," Roman peace as it existed over centuries. The author, Goldsworthy, says that "it took the domination of an empire like Rome to establish peace over such a wide area." He follows up: ". . .this was a remarkable acdhievement and one deserving admiration, whether or not it balances distaste for the savagery of Roman conquest."
Goldsworthy has written other magisterial works. I have read two of those--biographies of Julius Caesar and Augustus. The works are exemplary and give us much detail and reflections on the outcomes of rule by both. This, too, is not just a rendering of what happened and when. There is that, but more as well. Goldsworthy steps back from time to time and reflects on the Pax Romana.
Some of the more interesting findings:
a. The Empire would leave a fair amount of administration of a newly conquered area to local rulers--if they were willing to submit to Rome and perform in accordance with the Empire's dictates and interest. It is interesting to see how many conquered peoples were willing to accept this state of affairs.
b. The Empire cut also decide to "cut and run" if the cost-benefit calculus was not attractive. For instance, withdrawing from some Germanic lands, because of the difficulty of subduing these people.
c. A willingness to be savage of an opponent resisted and the Romans had the strength to overcome them.
d. Many of the subject nations were willing to work within the Roman parameters, because they received benefits, such a better communication and economic health.
e. The surprsingly thin administrative resources of Rome. Governors were sent from Rome to exercise authority in the varios parts of the Empire. But they did not have much Roman bureaucratic infrastructure.
Goldsworthy can also assess the strengths and weaknesses of the Pax Romana. All in all, a really fine work. If you want to understand the nature of Pax Romana, this is a very fine resource.
Goldsworthy has written other magisterial works. I have read two of those--biographies of Julius Caesar and Augustus. The works are exemplary and give us much detail and reflections on the outcomes of rule by both. This, too, is not just a rendering of what happened and when. There is that, but more as well. Goldsworthy steps back from time to time and reflects on the Pax Romana.
Some of the more interesting findings:
a. The Empire would leave a fair amount of administration of a newly conquered area to local rulers--if they were willing to submit to Rome and perform in accordance with the Empire's dictates and interest. It is interesting to see how many conquered peoples were willing to accept this state of affairs.
b. The Empire cut also decide to "cut and run" if the cost-benefit calculus was not attractive. For instance, withdrawing from some Germanic lands, because of the difficulty of subduing these people.
c. A willingness to be savage of an opponent resisted and the Romans had the strength to overcome them.
d. Many of the subject nations were willing to work within the Roman parameters, because they received benefits, such a better communication and economic health.
e. The surprsingly thin administrative resources of Rome. Governors were sent from Rome to exercise authority in the varios parts of the Empire. But they did not have much Roman bureaucratic infrastructure.
Goldsworthy can also assess the strengths and weaknesses of the Pax Romana. All in all, a really fine work. If you want to understand the nature of Pax Romana, this is a very fine resource.
November 19, 2023
I'd compare this book to good nutrituous porridge. It is rich in detail and information, but it lacks structure or a clear red thread.
The book is split into thematic chapters dealing with governance, banditry, garrisons, raids and so on. The first third of the book deals with the Republic, ostensibly as a case study to compare against the Principate, but in my opinion he never succeeds in drawing those parallels. Overall the first 150 pages feel disjointed and their relevance questionable. On their own some of these chapters are interesting, but they don't really succeed at forming a greater whole - they give the impression of being notes that he has scribbled down and organized while researching. I found the later chapters actually describing the period of the Pax Romana to be more coherent and more interesting, especially the ones detailing how preexisting conflicts still simmered under roman overlordship, how the Limes and other border-fortifications functioned, and the nature of roman-barbarian relations before and after conquest.
But yet the Pax Romana is elusive. We are treated to borders, and raids, and warfare. As the borders and conflicts move, the focus of the book follows - the focus is almost always on war, conflict and borders. But where is the peace? Inter-city war was endemic in Greece until suddenly it wasn't, the same being true in Spain and Gaul where raiding and tribal war was commonplace - until it suddenly wasn't. Goldsworthy tries to explain this by arguing that people only raid if there are economic motivations to do so, and that they turn docile once settled - and that disenfranchised leaders generally could muster a single attempt at revolt before bowing to roman power. I feel a vital bit of the puzzle is missing. Why exactly did locals, both poor and wealthy, decide to tie themselves so firmly to Rome? One large omission I feel is missing is the discussion of archaeological remains - how did the material culture of subdued provinces change?
Details are plentiful, but the macro perspective is missing. I think the book would have benefitted from stronger editing, or a change of title.
The book is split into thematic chapters dealing with governance, banditry, garrisons, raids and so on. The first third of the book deals with the Republic, ostensibly as a case study to compare against the Principate, but in my opinion he never succeeds in drawing those parallels. Overall the first 150 pages feel disjointed and their relevance questionable. On their own some of these chapters are interesting, but they don't really succeed at forming a greater whole - they give the impression of being notes that he has scribbled down and organized while researching. I found the later chapters actually describing the period of the Pax Romana to be more coherent and more interesting, especially the ones detailing how preexisting conflicts still simmered under roman overlordship, how the Limes and other border-fortifications functioned, and the nature of roman-barbarian relations before and after conquest.
But yet the Pax Romana is elusive. We are treated to borders, and raids, and warfare. As the borders and conflicts move, the focus of the book follows - the focus is almost always on war, conflict and borders. But where is the peace? Inter-city war was endemic in Greece until suddenly it wasn't, the same being true in Spain and Gaul where raiding and tribal war was commonplace - until it suddenly wasn't. Goldsworthy tries to explain this by arguing that people only raid if there are economic motivations to do so, and that they turn docile once settled - and that disenfranchised leaders generally could muster a single attempt at revolt before bowing to roman power. I feel a vital bit of the puzzle is missing. Why exactly did locals, both poor and wealthy, decide to tie themselves so firmly to Rome? One large omission I feel is missing is the discussion of archaeological remains - how did the material culture of subdued provinces change?
Details are plentiful, but the macro perspective is missing. I think the book would have benefitted from stronger editing, or a change of title.
April 15, 2019
Pax Romana: War, peace and Conquest in the Roman World sets out to examine the Roman Pax Romana that existed across the Empire! :D Pax Romana being of course used in much the same context as we us Democracy! :D Pax Romana: War, peace and Conquest in the Roman World and serves as a great introduction for the Roman Empire as a whole as Goldsworthy takes the POV on trips around the empire examining to what extent Pax Romana can be seen, as well as the impact on the peoples if the Empire! :D We dart around the Empire and at the same time the comparisons that are drawn are telling! :D The examination of the disparate peoples and how Rome integrated them all into their culture neatly are shown as well! :D This illustrates clearly the different strategies the Empire had to undertake in their observation! :D The book does a great job of comparing these and showing the different circumstances that developed! :D
Pax Romana: War, peace and Conquest in the Roman World does a great job of giving the background to the events of the parts of the world not only in the Empire but in its borders as well! :D This makes for a better balanced approach that rally shows the not only the differences between the Roman territories but also explains the activities of the people outside the state! :D The book also compares what was there before Rome arrived and the difference Roman abortion made to the people! :D The makes for a great examination as well as a balanced approach! :D For people already clued up in events then the arguments made will result in head nodding but for those new to the Empire the introduction is balanced assessing the Empire from both sides of the argument about how beneficial it was! :D The book also covers the extent that raiding, civil war, population movement etc took its toll on the Empire! :D This is all shown as well in relation to the Empire's foreign policy as well as in how it handled it own provinces! :D
The book also examines the other Mediterranean cultures, and those of Europe, Asia and Africa! :D This gives us an overview as of the people that the Romans encountered! :D I t illustrates the differences in the cultures, at the same time showing that once absorbed the situations that developed in the these areas of the world required different approached! :D The examination of the governorships of the provinces is also covered! :D While Roman Law was very individuals could go beyond their mandate and how this was revolved and it impacts on the province in question are examined! :D The book also does a great job of examining the differences between the Republic and the Empire! :D This is more subtle that you would reckon but at the same time the differences are there and ultimately were a recipe for many of the issues later in the Empire! :D Throughout the balanced approach comes through though and it up you to see which side of the argument you fall on, whether Rome was justified or not in its actions! :D Though it is worth noting that as the book points out of that internal conflict usually involved more that meets the eye, or was a squabble for the Imperial purple, which was a competition that would bring huge rewards for the inevitable victor! :D At the same time the book does examines how actually fluid Roman society really is, how someone could go all the way from the bottom to the top in their society! :D The book really bring to the fore the debates about the Empire and does a incredibly well in presenting them! :D A great introduction book which is still great for others more informed! :D
The book does not allow itself to get quagmired on any particular argument and bounds along at a great pace! :D It also captures that people were still human within and without the Empire and the people involved and their actions are clearly portrayed! :D We get not only a real sense of the characters involved but also their reactions to situations will have you gasping, wincing, fist pumping and ribs hurting in equal measure! :D Pax Romana: War, peace and Conquest in the Roman World is insightful, informative, a great introduction and presented with fast pacey looks at the Empire and beyond! :D Brilliant and highly recommended! :D Crisp High Five! :D Go and get it! :D
Pax Romana: War, peace and Conquest in the Roman World does a great job of giving the background to the events of the parts of the world not only in the Empire but in its borders as well! :D This makes for a better balanced approach that rally shows the not only the differences between the Roman territories but also explains the activities of the people outside the state! :D The book also compares what was there before Rome arrived and the difference Roman abortion made to the people! :D The makes for a great examination as well as a balanced approach! :D For people already clued up in events then the arguments made will result in head nodding but for those new to the Empire the introduction is balanced assessing the Empire from both sides of the argument about how beneficial it was! :D The book also covers the extent that raiding, civil war, population movement etc took its toll on the Empire! :D This is all shown as well in relation to the Empire's foreign policy as well as in how it handled it own provinces! :D
The book also examines the other Mediterranean cultures, and those of Europe, Asia and Africa! :D This gives us an overview as of the people that the Romans encountered! :D I t illustrates the differences in the cultures, at the same time showing that once absorbed the situations that developed in the these areas of the world required different approached! :D The examination of the governorships of the provinces is also covered! :D While Roman Law was very individuals could go beyond their mandate and how this was revolved and it impacts on the province in question are examined! :D The book also does a great job of examining the differences between the Republic and the Empire! :D This is more subtle that you would reckon but at the same time the differences are there and ultimately were a recipe for many of the issues later in the Empire! :D Throughout the balanced approach comes through though and it up you to see which side of the argument you fall on, whether Rome was justified or not in its actions! :D Though it is worth noting that as the book points out of that internal conflict usually involved more that meets the eye, or was a squabble for the Imperial purple, which was a competition that would bring huge rewards for the inevitable victor! :D At the same time the book does examines how actually fluid Roman society really is, how someone could go all the way from the bottom to the top in their society! :D The book really bring to the fore the debates about the Empire and does a incredibly well in presenting them! :D A great introduction book which is still great for others more informed! :D
The book does not allow itself to get quagmired on any particular argument and bounds along at a great pace! :D It also captures that people were still human within and without the Empire and the people involved and their actions are clearly portrayed! :D We get not only a real sense of the characters involved but also their reactions to situations will have you gasping, wincing, fist pumping and ribs hurting in equal measure! :D Pax Romana: War, peace and Conquest in the Roman World is insightful, informative, a great introduction and presented with fast pacey looks at the Empire and beyond! :D Brilliant and highly recommended! :D Crisp High Five! :D Go and get it! :D
January 18, 2020
Chyba nic tak dobrze nie wpływa na pełniejsze zrozumienie procesów dziejowych i roli jednostki, jak dobra książka historyczna. Imperium Rzymskie, jako jeden z kluczowych etapów prowadzących do współczesnego rozumienia relacji państwo-obywatel często, nawet przez zawodowych historyków, jest mitologizowany. Czasem wybiela się to imperium, jako prawodawcę i źródło stabilizacji, czasem autorzy skupiają się przesadnie na militaryzmie i bezwzględności w dążeniu do hegemonii. Brytyjski historyk, Adrian Goldsworthy w "Pax Romana. Wojna, pokój i podboje w świecie rzymskim" zapolemizował z takimi skrajnymi stanowiskami, pokazując świetnym językiem i przykładami z okresu późnej republiki i pryncypatu (głównie między II w. p.n.e. a II w. n.e.), że dominacja rzymska była pod pewnymi względami wyjątkowa, pod innymi zupełnie typowa, a tak ogólnie była wytworem świetnie funkcjonującej biurokracji i nieokiełznanej motywacji Rzymian do wojskowej dominacji.
Praca Goldsworthego skupia się przede wszystkim na odtworzeniu klimatu i mechanizmów budujących codzienność imperium z punktu widzenia prowincji. W jaki sposób administracja namiestników, legatów i legionów formowała rubieże rzymskich włości? Odpowiedź jest dość skomplikowana, zniuansowana i wielopoziomowa, choć można i krótko zawrzeć sporo prawdy. Tak właśnie należy rozumieć słowa Cycerona, który celnie podsumował dewizę typowego namiestnika podczas sprawowania urzędu: "pierwszy rok poświęcił na zdobycie majątku dla siebie, drugi na gromadzenie pieniędzy na wynajęcie najlepszego adwokata, a trzeci na zebranie środków dla przekupienia sędziego i trybunału podczas nieuchronnego procesu". Mimo korupcji, cynizmu i bezwzględności w tłumieniu buntów czy rewolt, ostatecznie biurokracja rzymska pozwalała nawet na odwołanie się wprost do senatu czy cesarza.
W ostatecznym rozrachunku, z lektury książki wyłania się bardzo 'kolorowy' obraz imperium tętniącego zawiścią, zachłannością, cynizmem, oddaniem dla idei republiki czy cesarstwa, etosem życia wojskowego, pożądaniem władzy i pieniędzy czy troską o dobro wspólne. Tytułowy 'Pax Romana' to sztuka balansu między kilkoma elementami - przewagą militarną Rzymu nad innymi ludami, pewną dozą kontrolowanej niezależności ofiarowanej podbitym ludom a budowaną powszechną świadomością o przewadze rzymskiej z wszechobecną biurokracją. Ostatni czynnik, dzięki temu, że z reguły funkcjonował bardzo sprawnie, to w połączeniu z mobilnością i karnością legionów, zbudował na kilka stuleci stabilny świat w basenie Morza Śródziemnego. Elitom podbitych ludów zależało na awansie w strukturach rzymskich, na spokoju i pożądanym dobrobycie. Z reguły poddali się modelowi życia importowanemu z Kwirynału. Ostatecznie tak bardzo się z nim utożsamili, że nie podjęli z reguły walki o odzyskanie niezależności w dobie upadku pryncypatu. Docenili stabilność i względny spokój. Mityczna agresywność rzymskich podbojów nie była niczym wyjątkowym; choć pod skrzydłami 'centrali z Lacjum' być może nie było szczęśliwiej, ale przynajmniej bardziej przewidywalnie.
Auto nie wybiela Rzymian. Jasno daje do zrozumienia, że nim politycy rzymscy przystępowali do negocjacji, agresją dowodzili swojej wyższości wysyłając legionistów, jako argument siły. Stawanie się prowincją wiązało się z podatkami, utratą niezależności, dawało jednak szansę zaradnym. Imperium oferowało legiony do obrony przed zewnętrznymi agresjami, wspólny rynek gospodarczy, prawo do sądu. Główna dewiza rzymska brzmiała (str. 468):
"szczędzić poddanych, wojną poskramiać zuchwałych"
Militaryzm, wojskowość i historia wojen nie są moimi ulubionymi tematami narracji historycznej. Goldsworthy, choć wielokrotnie opisywał wojskowe manewry taktyczne, to wplótł je ciekawie w szeroki kontekst. Sprawił, że mnie nie przytłoczył i nie zniechęcił 'oskrzydleniami, taktycznymi odwrotami', itd. Przeciwnie - opisał sporo z codzienności legionowej, mechanizmy awansu, nieuchronną utratę siły bojowej w okresie pokoju przygranicznego, potrzebę luksusu i przyjemności cielesnych.
"Pax Romana" jest, tak formalnie, pewnym ogólnym opisem społeczno-gospodarczo-militarno-administracyjnej codzienności w rozległym imperium rzymskim. Ponieważ kluczowe procesy działy się na jego obrzeżach, autor zamieścił kilkanaście ciekawych mapek kluczowych granic prowincji, które dopełniają obrazu skomplikowania tego wielokulturowego organizmu, który rzymianie stworzyli i z sukcesami utrzymali w jednym kawałku przez kilka stuleci.
Ponieważ źródłowego materiału i monografii o historii Rzymu jest sporo, to kolejna książkowa rekapitulacja musiała mieć uzasadnienie. Jak wspomniałem na początku, Goldsworthy chciał zapolemizować z pewnymi trendami odczytania historii. Zrobił to bardzo przekonująco i zajmującym językiem. Książka ma dodatkowo walor nowości (wydanie angielskie z 2016). Stąd pojawiło się sporo najnowszych ustaleń archeologicznych o dziedzictwie materialnym, które istotnie zmienia narrację historyczną późnych okresów epoki żelaza (i które pierwszy zaakcentował mocno w piśmiennictwie McCormicka w "Narodzinach Europy"). Książkę, którą zakwalifikowałbym, jako popularną monografię, czyta się świetnie za sprawą zrównoważenia przytoczonych faktów z bogatej kwerendy tekstów z epoki i ogólnych opisów zjawisk. Uwikłanie Rzymu w tarcia miedzy podbijanymi plemionami z cynicznym wykorzystywaniem lokalnego poparcia, historyk pokazał poprzez dzienniki galijskie Cezara. Relacje namiestnika z mieszkańcami prowincji i lokalnymi problemami odległych od stolicy obszarów, dostaliśmy w listach Cycerona z Azji Mniejszej. Stopień zaangażowania cesarza w codzienność prowincji, problemy sądownicze i sensowność inwestycji lokalnych, odtworzył autor poprzez przykłady korespondencji Pliniusza Młodszego z Trajanem. Całość przytoczonych źródeł została zgrabnie wpleciona w spójny wywód nie przytłaczając czytelnika detalami.
Gorąco zachęcam do lektury "Pax Romana". To nieszablonowa i urokliwa lektura pobudzająca do refleksji, oferująca przy okazji sporą dawkę wiedzy poukładanej w odpowiednie przegródki.
BARDZO DOBRA - 8/10
Praca Goldsworthego skupia się przede wszystkim na odtworzeniu klimatu i mechanizmów budujących codzienność imperium z punktu widzenia prowincji. W jaki sposób administracja namiestników, legatów i legionów formowała rubieże rzymskich włości? Odpowiedź jest dość skomplikowana, zniuansowana i wielopoziomowa, choć można i krótko zawrzeć sporo prawdy. Tak właśnie należy rozumieć słowa Cycerona, który celnie podsumował dewizę typowego namiestnika podczas sprawowania urzędu: "pierwszy rok poświęcił na zdobycie majątku dla siebie, drugi na gromadzenie pieniędzy na wynajęcie najlepszego adwokata, a trzeci na zebranie środków dla przekupienia sędziego i trybunału podczas nieuchronnego procesu". Mimo korupcji, cynizmu i bezwzględności w tłumieniu buntów czy rewolt, ostatecznie biurokracja rzymska pozwalała nawet na odwołanie się wprost do senatu czy cesarza.
W ostatecznym rozrachunku, z lektury książki wyłania się bardzo 'kolorowy' obraz imperium tętniącego zawiścią, zachłannością, cynizmem, oddaniem dla idei republiki czy cesarstwa, etosem życia wojskowego, pożądaniem władzy i pieniędzy czy troską o dobro wspólne. Tytułowy 'Pax Romana' to sztuka balansu między kilkoma elementami - przewagą militarną Rzymu nad innymi ludami, pewną dozą kontrolowanej niezależności ofiarowanej podbitym ludom a budowaną powszechną świadomością o przewadze rzymskiej z wszechobecną biurokracją. Ostatni czynnik, dzięki temu, że z reguły funkcjonował bardzo sprawnie, to w połączeniu z mobilnością i karnością legionów, zbudował na kilka stuleci stabilny świat w basenie Morza Śródziemnego. Elitom podbitych ludów zależało na awansie w strukturach rzymskich, na spokoju i pożądanym dobrobycie. Z reguły poddali się modelowi życia importowanemu z Kwirynału. Ostatecznie tak bardzo się z nim utożsamili, że nie podjęli z reguły walki o odzyskanie niezależności w dobie upadku pryncypatu. Docenili stabilność i względny spokój. Mityczna agresywność rzymskich podbojów nie była niczym wyjątkowym; choć pod skrzydłami 'centrali z Lacjum' być może nie było szczęśliwiej, ale przynajmniej bardziej przewidywalnie.
Auto nie wybiela Rzymian. Jasno daje do zrozumienia, że nim politycy rzymscy przystępowali do negocjacji, agresją dowodzili swojej wyższości wysyłając legionistów, jako argument siły. Stawanie się prowincją wiązało się z podatkami, utratą niezależności, dawało jednak szansę zaradnym. Imperium oferowało legiony do obrony przed zewnętrznymi agresjami, wspólny rynek gospodarczy, prawo do sądu. Główna dewiza rzymska brzmiała (str. 468):
"szczędzić poddanych, wojną poskramiać zuchwałych"
Militaryzm, wojskowość i historia wojen nie są moimi ulubionymi tematami narracji historycznej. Goldsworthy, choć wielokrotnie opisywał wojskowe manewry taktyczne, to wplótł je ciekawie w szeroki kontekst. Sprawił, że mnie nie przytłoczył i nie zniechęcił 'oskrzydleniami, taktycznymi odwrotami', itd. Przeciwnie - opisał sporo z codzienności legionowej, mechanizmy awansu, nieuchronną utratę siły bojowej w okresie pokoju przygranicznego, potrzebę luksusu i przyjemności cielesnych.
"Pax Romana" jest, tak formalnie, pewnym ogólnym opisem społeczno-gospodarczo-militarno-administracyjnej codzienności w rozległym imperium rzymskim. Ponieważ kluczowe procesy działy się na jego obrzeżach, autor zamieścił kilkanaście ciekawych mapek kluczowych granic prowincji, które dopełniają obrazu skomplikowania tego wielokulturowego organizmu, który rzymianie stworzyli i z sukcesami utrzymali w jednym kawałku przez kilka stuleci.
Ponieważ źródłowego materiału i monografii o historii Rzymu jest sporo, to kolejna książkowa rekapitulacja musiała mieć uzasadnienie. Jak wspomniałem na początku, Goldsworthy chciał zapolemizować z pewnymi trendami odczytania historii. Zrobił to bardzo przekonująco i zajmującym językiem. Książka ma dodatkowo walor nowości (wydanie angielskie z 2016). Stąd pojawiło się sporo najnowszych ustaleń archeologicznych o dziedzictwie materialnym, które istotnie zmienia narrację historyczną późnych okresów epoki żelaza (i które pierwszy zaakcentował mocno w piśmiennictwie McCormicka w "Narodzinach Europy"). Książkę, którą zakwalifikowałbym, jako popularną monografię, czyta się świetnie za sprawą zrównoważenia przytoczonych faktów z bogatej kwerendy tekstów z epoki i ogólnych opisów zjawisk. Uwikłanie Rzymu w tarcia miedzy podbijanymi plemionami z cynicznym wykorzystywaniem lokalnego poparcia, historyk pokazał poprzez dzienniki galijskie Cezara. Relacje namiestnika z mieszkańcami prowincji i lokalnymi problemami odległych od stolicy obszarów, dostaliśmy w listach Cycerona z Azji Mniejszej. Stopień zaangażowania cesarza w codzienność prowincji, problemy sądownicze i sensowność inwestycji lokalnych, odtworzył autor poprzez przykłady korespondencji Pliniusza Młodszego z Trajanem. Całość przytoczonych źródeł została zgrabnie wpleciona w spójny wywód nie przytłaczając czytelnika detalami.
Gorąco zachęcam do lektury "Pax Romana". To nieszablonowa i urokliwa lektura pobudzająca do refleksji, oferująca przy okazji sporą dawkę wiedzy poukładanej w odpowiednie przegródki.
BARDZO DOBRA - 8/10
January 20, 2022
The Romans didn't create their Empire the way that Alexander created his, by quickly fighting their way to sweeping victories that gave them massive territorial gains in a few years. They did it slowly, piece by piece, and in fits and starts over several generations. They didn't have any grand plan for conquest, they simply kept getting into wars, winning those wars, and then adding to the empire relatively slowly. Backed by the Roman genius for administration and war, the Empire proved extremely durable.
In Pax Romana, Adrian Goldsworthy argues that, generally speaking, the Romans did not "make a desert and call it peace." Although their initial conquest of a new territory was always bloody and resulted in large numbers of people being enslaved, on the whole the people in the conquered territories gained greater levels of peace and prosperity once the initial wave of violence (and often a second and final wave of violence) had finished rolling over the land. Large parts of the world that had known constant tribal warfare since time immemorial flourished with commerce and peace once the Romans took over.
I happened to be reading The Better Angels of our Nature, by Stephen Pinker, side by side with this book, and Pax Romana almost felt like a case study in support Pinker's argument that powerful leviathan-type governments lead to a reduction in violence.
In Pax Romana, Adrian Goldsworthy argues that, generally speaking, the Romans did not "make a desert and call it peace." Although their initial conquest of a new territory was always bloody and resulted in large numbers of people being enslaved, on the whole the people in the conquered territories gained greater levels of peace and prosperity once the initial wave of violence (and often a second and final wave of violence) had finished rolling over the land. Large parts of the world that had known constant tribal warfare since time immemorial flourished with commerce and peace once the Romans took over.
I happened to be reading The Better Angels of our Nature, by Stephen Pinker, side by side with this book, and Pax Romana almost felt like a case study in support Pinker's argument that powerful leviathan-type governments lead to a reduction in violence.
October 1, 2021
Adrian Goldsworthy tells you that there was a Roman peace and that it was a good thing. His thesis is that the Romans were fierce imperialist conquerors who killed millions but once that was done, there was relative peace for long periods of time in most provinces, with violence confined to the borderlands. There were few revolts, and if there were, they were usually within a generation or two of conquest. When the Western Roman Empire crumbled, it wasn’t because of internal ethnic revolt, but because civil wars for control of the Empire weakened it and led to barbarian conquest. There is every indication that the people in the provinces considered themselves Romans and that it was a good thing. They mourned the loss of empire. In the East, the Greeks at Constantinople considered themselves Romans for another thousand years.
Many scholars disagree. There was banditry in the countryside and riots in the cities and some historians claim that revolts were endemic, Also, the whole idea of supporting any kind of imperialism is very out of fashion in the universities these days. It is no surprise to me that Goldsworthy doesn’t teach any more. He would have demonstrations in his classes. He wants to keep his analysis confined to Rome and says explicitly that modern European empires were very different and it is difficult to make comparisons, but then of course everyone does. I recently read Jonathan Israel’s Democratic Enlightenment, and one of the things he points out is that many of the important philosophers and thinkers at the time were outside the university system. People like Voltaire and Rousseau were far too freethinking for the religiously controlled universities. Maybe something similar is happening now. You can’t get a job at a university unless you agree to a certain ideology and anyone who challenges that must stand outside the system.
Rome was not the only imperialistic, aggressive state at the time. The Romans faced down and beat Carthage and the Macedonians. Why? Polybius claimed that the Roman Republic was remarkably stable over a long period of time, compared to other city states. He said that the Greek states tended to cycle through democracy, aristocracy, tyranny, etc, but Rome’s constitution was better balanced between democracy, aristocracy and kingship. The Republic lasted almost 400 years and only broke down in the 1st Century BC civil wars that ended in the Empire. Also, the structure of the Republic was such that men were in office for a short period of time and needed military glory to further their careers to hold even higher offices. Citizen soldiers submitted to harsh military discipline but elected their officers and volunteered for longer and longer periods as they fought further afield. They received small pay but a share of the booty. Was the Roman army better organized or were the soldiers better disciplined than others? Probably but maybe not.
Finally, the Republic of Rome grew because it was generous in granting Roman citizenship or Latin status to people in other cities, or whole cities, an innovation that over time made it the largest city in Italy. Greeks were jealous of their citizenship, so that Athens at the height of its power had about 60,000 male citizens. However, by 225 BC Rome had about 275,000 citizens who could be mobilized for war, plus about 100,000 Latin allies, plus other allies for a total of about 700,000 soldiers. They could take a lot of casualties and keep going. Hannibal killed 60,000 Romans at Cannae and ravaged Italy for ten years, but the Romans didn’t surrender.
It seems to me that the nature of the book makes empirical, comparative history almost impossible, and so much of the book is more of a description than a formal argument. Goldsworthy does a good job of, for example, discussing how Roman traders acted, or how the legions were dispersed, or how the Empire dealt with peoples beyond its borders, but there really isn’t enough data to prove conclusively that there wasn’t more to the story than that. The way that he organized his chapters thematically to illustrate his points is helpful and informative. He shows you how the empire changed over time, from a time of less formal influence during the Republic, to how Julius and Augustus Caesar conquered huge swathes of territory and brought them into a more formal Empire under an Emperor. He discusses how the composition and use of the army changed over time. There is a good comparison of the governorships of Cicero under the Republic and Pliny the Elder under the Empire to show continuity and change.
According to Goldsworthy, the Western Roman Empire collapsed because of decades of civil war that made it vulnerable to barbarian incursions. On the other hand, Gibbons thought that Christianity had made the Romans soft. Azar Gat says that widespread commercialization and urbanization did the same thing, making Rome too dependent upon barbarians for soldiers. Others have mentioned the plagues that depleted the Empire of manpower. However, be that as it may, Goldsworthy points out that the Roman civil wars were not ethnic secessionist movements. They were contests about who was to become Emperor. Until the very end, citizens all through the Empire wanted to remain Roman. The barbarians who took over the Empire also wanted to share in its glory and riches. Goldsworthy doesn’t discount the ruthlessness, self-interest or bloodthirstiness of the Romans, but he does try to put it into a context of the Ancient World in which these attributes were normal rather than exceptional. What was also exceptional was the Pax Romana, the peace the Romans imposed throughout their empire first through force and then through self-interest, which made it very different from the time before it or after it or in the areas outside its borders.
Many scholars disagree. There was banditry in the countryside and riots in the cities and some historians claim that revolts were endemic, Also, the whole idea of supporting any kind of imperialism is very out of fashion in the universities these days. It is no surprise to me that Goldsworthy doesn’t teach any more. He would have demonstrations in his classes. He wants to keep his analysis confined to Rome and says explicitly that modern European empires were very different and it is difficult to make comparisons, but then of course everyone does. I recently read Jonathan Israel’s Democratic Enlightenment, and one of the things he points out is that many of the important philosophers and thinkers at the time were outside the university system. People like Voltaire and Rousseau were far too freethinking for the religiously controlled universities. Maybe something similar is happening now. You can’t get a job at a university unless you agree to a certain ideology and anyone who challenges that must stand outside the system.
Rome was not the only imperialistic, aggressive state at the time. The Romans faced down and beat Carthage and the Macedonians. Why? Polybius claimed that the Roman Republic was remarkably stable over a long period of time, compared to other city states. He said that the Greek states tended to cycle through democracy, aristocracy, tyranny, etc, but Rome’s constitution was better balanced between democracy, aristocracy and kingship. The Republic lasted almost 400 years and only broke down in the 1st Century BC civil wars that ended in the Empire. Also, the structure of the Republic was such that men were in office for a short period of time and needed military glory to further their careers to hold even higher offices. Citizen soldiers submitted to harsh military discipline but elected their officers and volunteered for longer and longer periods as they fought further afield. They received small pay but a share of the booty. Was the Roman army better organized or were the soldiers better disciplined than others? Probably but maybe not.
Finally, the Republic of Rome grew because it was generous in granting Roman citizenship or Latin status to people in other cities, or whole cities, an innovation that over time made it the largest city in Italy. Greeks were jealous of their citizenship, so that Athens at the height of its power had about 60,000 male citizens. However, by 225 BC Rome had about 275,000 citizens who could be mobilized for war, plus about 100,000 Latin allies, plus other allies for a total of about 700,000 soldiers. They could take a lot of casualties and keep going. Hannibal killed 60,000 Romans at Cannae and ravaged Italy for ten years, but the Romans didn’t surrender.
It seems to me that the nature of the book makes empirical, comparative history almost impossible, and so much of the book is more of a description than a formal argument. Goldsworthy does a good job of, for example, discussing how Roman traders acted, or how the legions were dispersed, or how the Empire dealt with peoples beyond its borders, but there really isn’t enough data to prove conclusively that there wasn’t more to the story than that. The way that he organized his chapters thematically to illustrate his points is helpful and informative. He shows you how the empire changed over time, from a time of less formal influence during the Republic, to how Julius and Augustus Caesar conquered huge swathes of territory and brought them into a more formal Empire under an Emperor. He discusses how the composition and use of the army changed over time. There is a good comparison of the governorships of Cicero under the Republic and Pliny the Elder under the Empire to show continuity and change.
According to Goldsworthy, the Western Roman Empire collapsed because of decades of civil war that made it vulnerable to barbarian incursions. On the other hand, Gibbons thought that Christianity had made the Romans soft. Azar Gat says that widespread commercialization and urbanization did the same thing, making Rome too dependent upon barbarians for soldiers. Others have mentioned the plagues that depleted the Empire of manpower. However, be that as it may, Goldsworthy points out that the Roman civil wars were not ethnic secessionist movements. They were contests about who was to become Emperor. Until the very end, citizens all through the Empire wanted to remain Roman. The barbarians who took over the Empire also wanted to share in its glory and riches. Goldsworthy doesn’t discount the ruthlessness, self-interest or bloodthirstiness of the Romans, but he does try to put it into a context of the Ancient World in which these attributes were normal rather than exceptional. What was also exceptional was the Pax Romana, the peace the Romans imposed throughout their empire first through force and then through self-interest, which made it very different from the time before it or after it or in the areas outside its borders.
July 12, 2020
Goldsworth in his classic style: facts to the front with just a touch of musing on the side. The main downside is that my friends are now being subjected to the ancient Roman anecdotes I found amusing in this book. Examples include the Roman governor who made up two extra months in order to extort more taxes and the Roman soldiers who three times were almost burned to death only to be saved by lucky die rolls.
January 27, 2020
This one is more of an overview of the Roman World more or less from caesar and Augustus time until the civil wars of the 200's AD, though it touches on the Republic and the later Empire. Split into thematic chapters, there are lots of cool tidbits, but the book is kind of disjointed and doesn't stand that well on its own as it tries to cover almost all the aspects of life under the Principate and show that indeed the Pax Romana was a golden age unsurpassed for the regions covered by it until modern times (and for some, maybe not even today) despite modern revisionistic history
Overall not for a novice in Roman History and not a book to read like a novel, but more of a longer reading project with lots of cool tidbits that make worth the effort
Overall not for a novice in Roman History and not a book to read like a novel, but more of a longer reading project with lots of cool tidbits that make worth the effort
Displaying 1 - 30 of 204 reviews