The Rise of Rome

by Plutarch, Ian Scott-Kilvert (Translator), Christopher Pelling (Translator)

Romulus, Numa, Publicola, Coriolanus, Fabius Maximus, Marcellus, Philopoemen, Titus Flaminius, Elder Cato, Aemilius Paulus,

The biographies collected in this volume bring together Plutarch's Lives of those great men who established the city of Rome and consolidated its supremacy, and his Comparisons with their notable Greek counterparts. Here he pairs Romulus, mythical founder of Rome, with Theseus, who brought Athens to power, and compares the admirable Numa and Lycurgus for bringing order to their communities, while Titus Flamininus and Philopoemen are portrayed as champions of freedom. As well as providing an illuminating picture of the first century AD, Plutarch depicts complex and nuanced heroes who display the essential virtues of Greek civilization - courage, patriotism, justice, intelligence and reason - that contributed to the rise of Rome.

These new and revised translations by W. Jeffrey Tatum and Ian Scott-Kilvert capture Plutarch's elegant prose and narrative flair. This edition also includes a general introduction, individual introductions to each of the Lives and Comparisons, further reading and notes.

The Rise of Rome is the penultimate title in Penguin Classics' complete revised Plutarch in six volumes. Other titles include Rome In Crisis, On Sparta, Fall of the Roman Republic, The Age of Alexander and The Rise and Fall of Athens (forthcoming 2014).

Genres: History, Classics, Nonfiction, Biography, Ancient History, Roman History, Ancient

784 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 100

About the author

Plutarch (later named, upon becoming a Roman citizen, Lucius Mestrius Plutarchus; AD 46–AD 120) was a Greek historian, biographer, and essayist, known primarily for his Parallel Lives and Moralia. He is classified as a Middle Platonist. Plutarch's surviving works were written in Greek, but intended for both Greek and Roman readers.

Reviews

[Paul Haspel · Rating 5 out of 5]

The rise of one nation often involves the fall of another. As King George III observes in a song from the musical Hamilton, “Oceans rise – empires fall.” And the Plutarch biographies excerpted for this collection titled The Rise of Rome capture not only Rome’s beginnings as an up-and-coming republic, but also the final and simultaneous fall, of Greek states like Macedon, from the prominence that they had once enjoyed.

We all know that Plutarch, a Roman citizen of Greek descent, composed a series of parallel biographies of eminent Greeks and Romans, with the goal of showing his readers how the choices that one makes set the course of one’s life, and affect how one will be remembered after death. Commentator Jeffrey Tatum, from Victoria University of Wellington, sets forth in a perceptive manner the paradoxes involved in Plutarch’s work: on the one hand, Plutarch seems to identify with the Greek culture that is his heritage, and to feel that it was a higher and nobler culture than that of the Romans; on the other hand, his religious faith compelled him to believe that the Roman hegemony within which he grew up was somehow the will of the gods.

This collection starts with Plutarch’s life of Romulus (reigned from 753-716 B.C.), the legendary founder of Rome. Plutarch, who pairs Romulus’ life with that of Theseus, knows that he is on shaky historical ground when discussing the life of a mythic figure like Romulus, and therefore he is appropriately tentative in discussing the stories about Romulus.

When it comes to Romulus’ birth, Plutarch concedes that there are stories to the effect that “Aemilia, Aeneas’ daughter, bore Romulus to Mars”, and that when the tyrannical Tarchetius of Alba Longa ordered that Romulus and his twin brother Remus be killed, the babies were left on a river bank where “a she-wolf watched over them and suckled them” (p. 11). But he makes clear that there are other, less mythological explanations for Romulus’ parentage and early life as well.

Plutarch adverts to the well-known, Cain-and-Abel-style story of Romulus’ murder of his brother Remus, stating that while Romulus was digging a trench to mark part of the boundary of the new city of Rome, “Remus ridiculed some of these works, others he obstructed”, until “he was struck down – by Romulus himself, according to some authorities; by Celer, one of Romulus’ companions, according to others” (p. 20).

That hedging-of-bets approach to stories that are told in many different versions is characteristic of Plutarch’s treatment of Romulus’ life. Plutarch takes the same approach to stories like the Roman men’s abduction of the Sabine women, as well as the way in which, at the end of his life, “Romulus vanished suddenly, nor did a single part of his body remain to be seen” (p. 41). Was Romulus assumed into heaven, to become one of the Olympian gods? Maybe, Plutarch says. Was Romulus murdered by disgruntled patrician senators who then cut up his body and carried it away in pieces in order to avoid detection? Could be, Plutarch tells us.

Numa (reigned from 715-674 B.C.) was Romulus’ successor. He is known for having encouraged religious practice among the Romans, adding to the new nation’s already-well-known valour a reputation for piety. Plutarch appreciates how Numa, once he had been asked to assume the Roman throne, “proceeded to bring about major reforms strictly through persuasion, maintaining his mastery over a reluctant and demurring city without recourse to arms or violence” (p. 98).

Publius Valerius Publicola, who died in 503 B.C., was remembered by the Romans for what he did six years before his death: he and others overthrew the tyrannical rule of Lucius Tarquinius Superbus (“Tarquin the Proud”), and established a new Roman Republic on the ruins of the old monarchy. A grateful Roman people gave Publius Valerius the name Publicola as an honour, to commemorate his public-spiritedness. Publicola always put service to the Roman people before his own ambitions, and it is for this reason that Plutarch states that Publicola led “a life characteristic of the best and noblest men” (p. 128).

Coriolanus, who achieved his greatest heights of historical importance around 490 B.C., is probably best-known because William Shakespeare wrote a play about him. He is a difficult and paradoxical figure. Originally named Gnaeus Marcius, he gained his battle name “Coriolanus” by winning a great victory over the Volscians, an Italic tribe hostile to Rome, at the battle of Corioli in 493 B.C. Later, however, once he felt Rome had turned against him, Coriolanus took the side of the Volscians he had once fought against, and led a Volscian army to the very gates of Rome!

For Plutarch, Coriolanus’ “energy of mind and strength of purpose” were unfortunately “combined with a violent temper and an uncompromising self-assertion, which made it difficult to cooperate with others” (p. 146).

Of Shakespeare’s Coriolanus, another character in the play says that

His nature is too noble for the world.
He would not flatter Neptune for his trident
Ir Jove for his power to thunder. His heart’s his mouth;
What his breast forges, that his tongue must vent…

This passage from Shakespeare’s play is certainly consistent with Plutarch’s description, and it demonstrates how Plutarch was one of the writers on whom Shakespeare depended most whilst looking for a good story to tell. Plutarch, for his part, sees the life of Coriolanus as proving “that a naturally generous and noble disposition, if it lacks education, will produce both good and evil fruits at once” (p. 146).

The story of Camillus (c. 448-365 B.C.) is at least partially legendary, but it sets forth classically Plutarchian themes of a great person showing character in the face of adversity. As Plutarch tells it, Camillus achieved great success in early campaigns like one against the Etruscan city of Veii in 396 B.C. When there was change in the political winds, however, Camillus was prosecuted and exiled from Rome.

But the Roman people found themselves calling upon Camillus for help once again, after the young republic suffered one of its greatest disasters. A force of Gauls inflicted a catastrophic defeat upon a Roman army, on Roman soil, at the Battle of the Ailia in 387 B.C. -- and then the Gauls went on to sack Rome itself! As Plutarch tells it, the Gauls “slaughtered everyone they captured, men and women, young and old alike”, and “pillaged and plundered the private homes of the city, at length setting them on fire and burning them to the ground” (p. 221). It was a calamity that would loom large in the Roman mind throughout the rest of Roman history.

Camillus, restored to command, revived the morale of the discouraged Romans, raised a large army, and proceeded to the relief of the captured and devastated capital. The Gauls found themselves under siege in the city that they had taken and despoiled, and Camillus out-thought and out-fought his Gallic adversaries, leading to this outcome:

For a long time a fierce battle raged, but in the end the enemy were struck down in a terrible slaughter and their camp was seized. Some of the Gauls who fled were chased down and killed immediately, but most of them dispersed, only to be set upon and killed by men in the surrounding villages and cities. Thus was Rome captured unexpectedly, and even more unexpectedly rescued, after seven full months of barbarian occupation… (p. 228)

Fabius Maximus (275-203 B.C.) received the nickname Cunctator (“The Delayer”) because, during the Second Punic War (218-201 B.C.), he responded to the slashing attacks of the Carthaginian general Hannibal not by launching major frontal attacks in response, but rather by avoiding open battle and delaying Hannibal’s army through actions against Carthage’s supply lines.

As Plutarch puts it, Fabius, after the Romans had suffered a disastrous defeat under another commander, “was determined not to fight a pitched battle, and since he had time and manpower and money on his side, his plan was to exhaust his opponent’s strength, and gradually to wear down his small army and meagre resources” (p. 260). Many of the Romans, who wanted to see a more aggressive response to Hannibal’s depredations, “became contemptuous of these time-killing tactics” (p. 260). Yet Fabius’ cautious tactical approach, which ultimately proved to be the correct way to bring about Hannibal’s defeat, gave the world the term “Fabian tactics” – and general officers around the world have been utilizing Fabian tactics ever since.

Marcus Claudius Marcellus (270-208 B.C.) was a consul who also served as a general during the Second Punic War (218-201 B.C.). But what he is probably best known for nowadays – thanks in no small part to the recent film Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (2023) – is his involvement in the death of the great Greek mathematician Archimedes.

The fates of Marcellus and Archimedes came together during the siege of Syracuse in 213-212 B.C. The city-state of Syracuse, on the island of Sicily – once the site of a decisive Spartan victory over Athens during the Peloponnesian War two centuries earlier – was culturally Greek, and wanted nothing to do with either Rome’s or Carthage’s side in that war. But Rome wanted to use Sicily as a base for the invasion and subjugation of Carthage, and therefore Marcellus intended to reduce the city by direct attack.

But Marcellus “had reckoned without Archimedes” (p. 318), whose ingenious mechanical devices forced Marcellus to call off his direct-assault plans and adopt siege tactics instead. The city did eventually fall, but for Marcellus, his triumph was compromised by the death of Archimedes. Plutarch, who emphasizes Marcellus’ respect and admiration for Greek culture, points out that Marcellus had given specific orders that Archimedes’ life was to be spared; but a Roman soldier, angry that Archimedes was in the midst of a mathematical calculation and “refused to move until he had worked out his problem and established his demonstration” (p. 324), unsheathed his sword and killed Archimedes. In response, Marcellus “was deeply affected by [Archimedes’] death [and] abhorred the man who killed him as if he had committed an act of sacrilege” (p. 325).

Aratus of Sicyon (271-213 B.C.) is one of the Greek adversaries whose lives are presented in The Rise of Rome. He was a skilled general, a prominent leader of the Achaean League that represented the last major Greek resistance to Roman hegemony. Plutarch praises Aratus as a man who “hated tyrants bitterly and yet always regulated his enmities and friendships on the basis of what was best for the public good” (p. 363). Aratus’ career came to an end when he made the fateful decision to ally with Philip of Macedon – “an abominable man, marked by insolence and cruelty alike” (p. 403). The selfish and cowardly Philip is frequently a foil in these Lives.

Philopoemen (c. 253-182 B.C.) is, like Aratus, a Greek enemy of Rome whose life story is included in The Rise of Rome. Like Aratus, he showed skill on the battlefield, and in leadership of the Achaean League – and he won the respect of the Romans, who called him “the last of the Greeks.” Plutarch’s enduring theme – that the way in which a person is remembered says much about the person’s life – comes forth in his account of how, decades after Philopoemen’s death, “a certain Roman tried to remove” all of the honours put up in Philopoemen’s memory, stating that “Philopoemen was Rome’s bitter enemy, he needed to be driven out – it was all just as if he were still alive.” Yet other leading Romans refused to allow “the destruction of the honours of so famous a man, even though he had mounted considerable opposition to [Roman armies]. They were able to distinguish between human excellence and the needs of the time, and between honour and advantage” (pp. 436-38).

Of Titus Flamininus (c. 229-174 B.C.), a Roman general and politician who was instrumental in Rome’s final conquest of the Greek states, Plutarch says that Titus’ “ambition for honour and glory was unsurpassed; he aspired to perform the noblest and greatest of deeds by his own efforts, and so he took more pleasure in those who wanted help than in those who could do him favours” (p. 450). Such a way of thinking sounds laudable – but Plutarch makes clear that Titus’ ambition for glory may have misled him at a crucial point in his life.

Plutarch suggests that, once Titus had won the last of his great military victories and had no more battlefield enemies left to conquer, his “lust for glory” may have contributed to “the vigour with which he hounded Hannibal, something which made him very unpopular” (p. 469). The defeated Carthaginian general had fled Carthage and taken refuge in Bithynia (now a region of northern Turkey), and “Everyone at Rome knew this perfectly well, but all turned a blind eye on this weak old man, and felt that he was a sort of victim of destiny” (p. 469).

Yet Titus “was infuriated that [Hannibal] should still be alive”, and sought to have Hannibal executed. Hannibal foiled Titus’ designs by taking his own life, and “When the news reached the Senate, a fair number were appalled by what they saw as Titus’ excessiveness and brutality. Hannibal had been like an old bird, wingless and docked, allowed to live as a tamed animal; now Titus had killed him. No one had been pressing him to do this; it was just for his own glory, to gain his own place in history as Hannibal’s killer” (pp. 469-71).

Here, Plutarch indicates that the wish for honour and glory, which can lead ambitious people to do great things, can also mis-lead people to act excessively in the pursuit of a famous name. And it is perhaps a fitting historical irony, in that regard, that Hannibal’s name is still universally known, while the only people who are likely to know the name of Titus Flamininus are those who take up a copy of Plutarch’s Lives.

Cato the Elder (234-149 B.C.) was known for many things, including his dedication to Roman cultural traditions and his opposition to Hellenistic tendencies among some Romans who self-consciously adopted Greek ways because they thought Greek ways seemed more “civilized.” But what he is probably best known for nowadays is his attitude toward rival Carthage, at a time when Rome had already fought and won two Punic Wars against the Carthaginians.

At a time of renewed tension between Rome and Carthage, Cato developed a new way of conveying to his fellow senators his belief that the fight against Carthage was not yet finished – “whenever his opinion was called for on any subject, he invariably concluded with the words, ‘And furthermore, it is my opinion that Carthage must be destroyed!’” (p. 521).

Cartago delenda est – Cato’s fiery words have become a sort of cultural short-hand for all-out, uncompromising, no-holds-barred hostility toward a political enemy. Plutarch does not approve – he calls Cato’s “method of driving home his point…excessively brutal” (p. 521) – but he points out that “Cato is said to have brought about the third and last war against Carthage”, and adds that “Some people consider that the last of his political achievements was the destruction of Carthage” (pp. 520, 521). For Rome and Carthage did indeed fight a third Punic War, from 149-146 B.C.; and at that war’s end, Carthage was indeed destroyed.

Lucius Aemilius Paullus gained the name “Macedonicus” after he oversaw Macedon’s final defeat in the Third Macedonian War of 171-168 B.C. But what seems most important to Plutarch is not Aemilius Paullus’ military success but rather the way he comported himself in the process of gaining that success. When Aemilius Paullus died in 160 B.C., Plutarch emphasizes, his life was celebrated with “goodwill and honour and gratitude…not exclusively on the part of his fellow-citizens but also on the part of his enemies.” His erstwhile Macedonian enemies took care to note that “it had not been only on those occasions when he made conquests that he had treated them all mildly and humanely; rather, for the rest of his life, he had always been busy doing something good for them, and had cared for them as though they were his relations” (p. 585).

For Plutarch, Aemilius Paullus seems to epitomize what a Roman leader should be – successful in war, of course, but never losing his moral compass in the process. Plutarch may well have felt that a number of the emperors of his own day – Nero and Domitian, for instance – had fallen a long way from the high standards that Aemilius Paullus had set.

It is good that, where possible, this Penguin Books edition provides, along with the lives of these eminent Greeks and Romans, the follow-up essays in which Plutarch would offer in-depth comparison of a Greek and a Roman statesman – Theseus and Romulus, for example, or Solon and Publicola – to see what readers of the two lives, in parallel, could learn about how to live, or how not to live. The Rise of Rome gives the reader valuable insights into Plutarch’s skills as a biographer and historian. One also learns a great deal about how great nations rise and fall.

[Brandon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Romulus: Plutarch lists many theories about the origins of Rome and its name. The story of Romulus and Remus is just one of them, and even their story has many different versions. But I was surprised by how detailed the most accepted storyline was. Apparently the names of both Romulus and Remus, and therefore of Rome, were based off of the Latin word for nipple, ruma. My favorite story from this Life is when Romulus, to prove his strength, hurled a cornel-wood spear from the Aventine hill. It sank so deep into the ground that no one could pull it out, and it grew into a huge cornel tree that existed until the time of Caligula, when workers repairing some steps around it dug too close to the tree and killed it. Probably the most important event of Romulus's reign was the "Rape of the Sabine Women," when the Romans, in need of wives, abducted a bunch of Sabine women. This caused a war between the Romans and the Sabines, which the wives ended by begging their brothers and fathers to not murder their husbands and vice versa. The Romans and Sabines ended up merging, giving rise to the three 'tribes' (tri) of the city, Romans, Sabines, and asylum-seekers (or maybe Etruscans depending on who you ask).

Numa: Numa was the 2nd king of Rome and a Sabine. He was very honorable and religious, which is why the Romans chose him to be king. Apparently Rome fought no wars during his long reign, and he instituted many religious customs that defined Roman religious and spiritual life for centuries to come. He claimed to be in direct correspondence with a god who told him what new traditions to create. To ease tensions between Romans and Sabines, he make even more divisions among the people, but based on trades and crafts rather than ethnicity. He reformulated the Roman calendar to give it 12 months (Plutarch has a long and great digression on the etymologies of the month names).

Publicola: One of the founding fathers of the Roman Republic. This era seems to be historical enough that there aren't many legends, but legendary enough that there isn't much history. I didn't really get a good impression of what Publicola was like except that he was an upstanding guy. He helped to thwart a Tarquinian conspiracy involving the sons of Brutus, the main hero of the republican revolution. When his sons are on trial, Brutus asks, "‘Come, Titus, come, Tiberius, why do you not defend yourselves against this charge?’ When they did not respond, although he put the question to them three times, Brutus turned his face to the lictors and said, ‘It is now your duty to do what remains to be done.’... No one could bear to look upon this spectacle, but Brutus, we are told, did not remove his gaze, nor did any pity soften his angry and severe countenance as he watched the dreadful punishment of his sons. Finally, the lictors threw them on the ground and, with their axes, cut off their heads." Horatius Cocles guarded the Pons Sublicius with two other men against the army of Lars Porsena until the retreating Romans tore the bridge down. He then supposedly swam across the river in full armor and lost an eye (Cocles means 'one-eyed'). Mucius Scaevola infiltrated the camp of Lars Porsena to kill him; he couldn't tell which one was Lars and killed the wrong man. While he was being interrogated, he held out his right hand over a brazier for so long that Lars told him to stop and released him (Scaevola means left-handed); Lars decided to come to terms with the Romans. Plutarch says that Publicola died happier than even Solon's Tellus, since he experienced great success in war, was foremost among his people, and was the progenitor of illustrious families.

Coriolanus: A controversial hero of the early Republic. Coriolanus was an exceptionally strong, brave, and intelligent soldier who performed some extraordinary deeds of courage. When the Romans were fighting against the Volscians, he led the Romans on a charge into the city of Corioli (earning his name), making it in with only a handful of soldiers. But he fought so ferociously that he routed the enemy in their own city and allowed the rest of the Romans to come in. While most of the army took to sacking the city, Coriolanus gathered as many men as he could (not many) and went to another battle occurring at the same time, fighting heroically again and routing the Volscians. Although Coriolanus was a fearsome warrior and was also incorruptible and apathetic to wealth and luxuries, he was unfortunately an equally fierce partisan, fighting ferociously in the political arena for the patricians against the plebeians. He was eventually exiled for being a jerk, and he defected to the Volsci. As their general he devastated Rome's allies and led his army to the gates of Rome. The only thing that turned him back was his mother Volumnia (apparently he was extremely dedicated to her), who begged him to not betray his country and his family. He gave in and was soon killed by some Volscians.

Camillus: Three things defined Camillus's life: his conquest of Veii; the sack of Rome by the Gauls; and the Conflict of the Orders. Veii was a nearby city and one of Rome's most powerful early opponents. The Romans supposedly besieged the city for 10 years (like Troy), and Camillus was the one who finally defeated them and sacked the city. One memorable scene came afterwards when he was besieging Falerii, an ally of Veii. A schoolteacher betrayed Falerii and delivered many of their children to the Romans. But Camillus returned the children - "The truly great general... wages war in the confidence of his native valour: he does not rely on another man’s baseness." (This won the city to his side). However, Camillus was banished from Rome due to his unpopular patrician politics (not wanting to populate Veii with poor Romans). Shortly afterwards, the Gauls sacked Rome, an event presaged by the Alban Lake mysteriously overflowing and pouring into the ocean. When the Romans were paying the Gauls to leave the city, Brennus, the leader of the Gauls, tampered with the scales. "Suplicius then asked, ‘What is this?’ ‘What else’, replied Brennus, ‘but woe to the conquered!’" Good stuff. Camillus supposedly came to the rescue after this and drove off the Gauls. Afterwards there was a debate about whether to rebuild Rome or move to Veii. Camillus insisted on rebuilding Rome and is hence credited as the "Second Founder of Rome." Camillus was also semi-success at mitigating party strife in Rome. He used wars as a tool to unite the people and distract them from divisive topics, and he attempted to negotiate compromises between the patricians and the plebs.

Fabius Maximus: "The Delayer", one of Rome's more effective generals against Hannibal. Even as a child he was quiet and thoughtful but also "docile" and "almost submissive." "It was only a few who could see beyond these superficial qualities and discern the greatness of spirit, the lion-like temper and the unshakeable resolution which lay in the depths of his soul." After the disastrous Battle of Lake Trasimene, Fabius was appointed dictator. He calmed the panicked population by asserting his authority and paying honors to the gods. His tactics of extreme caution and delay were unpopular at Rome, and his aggressive Master of Horse, Marcus Minucius, was eventually made co-dictator. "Fabius began to be despised in his own camp, while the enemy – with one exception – were convinced that he was a nonentity who was utterly devoid of warlike spirit. The exception was Hannibal. He, and he alone, perceived his opponent’s shrewdness and understood the strategy which Fabius had laid down for the war." Fabius said of his detractors, "I should be an even greater coward than they say I am, if I were to abandon the plans I believe to be right because of a few sneers and words of abuse... the man who allows himself to be frightened by the opinions of others, or by their slanders or abuse, proves that he is unworthy of such a high office as this, since he makes himself the slave of the very men whom it is his duty to restrain and overrule when they go astray and their judgement deserts them." Minucius was lured into a trap by Hannibal and saved only by Fabius's arrival on the battlefield. Hannibal "brought into play all the arts and stratagems of war and tried every one in turn, like a skilful wrestler who watches for his first opportunity to secure a hold on his adversary. First he would attack Fabius’ army directly, then try and throw it into confusion, then draw him from one place to another, all in the effort to lure him away from the safety of his defensive tactics." One memorable battle was when Fabius had trapped Hannibal in a valley - Hannibal tied torches onto the horns of oxen to fool Fabius and escape. After Cannae, the Romans turned to Fabius again. He took Tarentum by treachery but seems to have been uncharacteristically cruel. After this he also vigorously opposed Scipio's expedition to Africa, which seems stupid in retrospect. All in all, though, I think Fabius had one of the more principled and inspiring lives.

Marcellus: Fabius and Marcellus were called the shield and sword of Rome. Marcellus was the quintessential Roman. He was only the third Roman to win the spolia opima - awarded to a general for killing an enemy general in combat - when he killed the Gaul Viridomarus. He fought successful offensive actions against Hannibal at a time when the Romans were terrified of him, and most famously, he led the siege on Syracuse (something that the Athenian Nicias disastrously failed at). Plutarch vividly narrates the terror of Archimedes' defensive measures: "all the rest of the Syracusans merely provided the manpower to operate Archimedes’ inventions, and it was his mind which directed and controlled every manoeuvre...the Romans were reduced to such a state of alarm that if they saw so much as a length of rope or a piece of timber appear over the top of the wall, it was enough to make them cry out, ‘Look, Archimedes is aiming one of his machines at us!’ and they would turn their backs and run." Marcellus finally found a weak point in Syracuse's walls and sacked the city. Archimedes was tragically killed. Marcellus then took the city's vast quantity of famous art and brought it to Rome, thereby supposedly introducing Greek culture to Rome. Marcellus became obsessed with defeating Hannibal. Hannibal said of him, "This is the only general who gives his enemy no rest when he is victorious, nor takes any himself when he is defeated. We shall never have done with fighting him, it seems, because he attacks out of confidence when he is winning, and out of shame when he is beaten." Marcellus was overly aggressive though and died on a scouting mission.

Aratus: A great leader of the Achaean league. He overthrew the tyrant of Sicyon when he was 20, and his lifelong hobby became overthrowing tyrants. Later in an impressive work of intrigue he took the Acrocorinth, one of Antigonus's 'fetters of Greece.' He made many attempts to liberate Argos and even killed its tyrant Aristippus who was succeeded by his brother Aristomachus, who was eventually persuaded to relinquish his crown and join the league. He also persuaded Lydiades of Megalopolis to relinquish his tyranny and join the league. Aratus also made many attempts on Athens' Piraeus. Unfortunately when Cleomenes took the Peloponnese by storm, Aratus turned to Antigonus for help and handed Corinth over to him. Antigonus defeated Cleomenes, but the independence of the Achaean League was forever compromised. Aratus became a trusted adviser of Antigonus and then his heir Philip V (who supposedly eventually poisoned him).

Philopoemen: A leader of the Achaean League. "It was as if Greece had borne him in her old age as a late-born brother to those great leaders of old, and Greece consequently loved him greatly, bestowing power on him which grew along with his glory. A Roman once praised him as ‘the last of the Greeks’: never again... did Greece bear a man who was truly great, and worthy of her past." "He certainly reproduced a powerful version of Epaminondas’ energy, his insight and his incorruptibility. But he could not retain his mildness ... for his anger and contentiousness were simply too strong." From his youth he devoted himself to soldierly pursuits, and as strategos of the league he modernized its military. In one battle, "he was wounded, with both his thighs pierced through by a single javelin... No one even dared to touch it. But the battle was reaching its critical point, and Philopoemen was chafing with eagerness to return to the fight. By moving his legs backwards and forwards he managed to break the javelin in the middle, and he immediately gave orders to pull each half outwards." He killed the regent of Sparta in hand-to-hand combat, and later he crushed Sparta's tyrant Nabis and incorporated Sparta into the league. He death was sadly pathetic. As an old man he set off to put down a revolt in Messene but was injured and captured. He was put into a dungeon and forced to drink poison.

Titus Flaminius: 'Greece's (Roman) liberator.' "He is said to have been swift and sharp in his responses to people, and this came out both in the way he showed anger and in his granting of favours... When it was a question of punishment, his decisions were light ones, and he readily abandoned them; when it came to acts of favour, he would carry them through." After Fabius took Tarentum, he appointed the very young Titus to administer the city. He did this well, which led to more responsibilities and honors, culminating in him being elected to the consulship before he was 30 (the min age was 42...). He was assigned to fight the Second Macedonian War against Philip V. "It was a stroke of luck for the Romans that this issue and this people fell to him. They did not call for a commander whose hallmark was always war and violence, but were more susceptible to persuasion and to charm." He enchanted the Greeks with his learning and good manners and won them over to his side. He defeated Philip at Cynoscephalae and arranged a truce with him. The only thing Plutarch criticizes him for is for hounding Hannibal to death.

Cato the Elder: A controversial figure. He was regarded as being the epitome of Republican austerity and morality. He was also kind of a disgusting hypocrite and I hate him. He said that Greek culture was corrupting, yet his speeches contained many Greek quotes and allusions. He was extremely severe and violent towards his slaves. He was unstinting in praise of himself. When he was old he had an affair with a slave girl then married an extremely young woman. He praised simple living but invested in many businesses and made a lot of money. He was elected censor and ran an aggressive anti-corruption campaign that made him unpopular. He convinced the Romans to destroy Carthage.

Aemilius Paullus - experienced luck in defeating Perseus of Macedon but lost 2 sons

[Jay · Rating 4 out of 5]

This can more or less be thought of as a series of mini-biographies. In its original format Plutarch took a Roman figure and found a Greek equivalent to compare him with. The Rise of Rome however is more squarely focused on Roman leadership (in both the political and military sense). Compared to his original work ("Plutarch's Lives") this is a heavy extrapolation and furthermore a rearrangement. The original message however, remains fundamentally intact.

What's fascinating about this is the approach taken. The Rise of Rome attempts to explain how Rome came to be and ultimately rose to prominence. Given Plutarch's reputation as a hard hitting historian you would expect something similar to the job done by Thucydides -- powerful, exacting, critical, exclusive of religious explanations and focused squarely on hard evidence or the closest thing to it. Instead Plutarch hits on major Roman leadership. Leaders that seemed to be active at critical times in Roman history, on the cusp of total annihilation or extinction.

These are the founders of Rome, the saviors, the sustainers, the defenders, the aggressors, and yes, even the villains that all contributed to the furtherance of history's greatest super power.

We begin with Romulus. The controversial founder that may or may not have existed. The man who rescued his twin brother from captivity and then killed him over a minor dispute. Who found himself with an overwhelmingly male population and so stole the women of a neighboring tribe. The violent warlord yet protypal Alexander, fighting from the front yet grand-strategizing. The steady handed king that birthed political and military offices/structures that were still in place when Caesar came around. And, the arrogant noble who was said to have been violently murdered and dismembered by jealous aristocrats. OR, ascended one day -- not killed -- as the God Quirinus.

Romulus forms the spirit of all things Romans. And yet we learn something shocking as the text continues onward. The Romans were not always Romans. The Romans were not always brave. The Romans did not always possess virtue and tenacity. In fact, they were downright cowardly. They were easily sent into a panic and ready to give up at the slightest setback. They would worship a hero one day and betray him the next. And in the midst of all that weakness they never stopped trying to degrade their political institutions. They ostracized the generals that saved them. They opposed common sense legislation for vapid reasons. And cried for direct democracy as Greece descended into Mob Rule and later on dictatorship -- right next door to them. No, Rome was created by individual men. Men whose characters were so much larger than life that they became symbolic torches, lighting the way forward in the midst of uncertainty. And over time, the qualities that allowed them to save and further Rome, became canon. They began raising their children to be like Roman leaders. Roman Pride became an amalgamation of their personalities, dispositions and deeds.

Some of them, like Publicola and Paullus, aggressively fought for Rome and expanded it, smacking down emerging empires for supremacy. Then you have Fabius and Marcellus. Two generals that were active in The Second Punic War against perhaps, the greatest strategist in history; Hannibal. The Romans wept at the gates believing themselves to be conquered as these two struggled mightily taking loss after loss but refusing to give up. Then you have Coriolanus. The wrongly exiled commander / politician who went to the enemy and proceeded to smash Rome in several battles. Intent on destroying the country he once loved and sacrificed for, he got all the way to the gates. Only to be dissuaded by his weeping mother who came running out at the last second.

The Rise of Rome is an epic tale of struggle and power, rises and falls, virtue and corruption, ascension and eclipse. Violently thrashing from start to finish; its ghosts gathered behind the backs of present leaders, pushing them ever forward.

[Oakley C. · Rating 5 out of 5]

“When Hannibal saw Fabius showing a vigour far beyond his years, as he forced his way through the thick of the battle up the hill towards Minucius, he knew that the battle had turned against him. He therefore broke off the action, signalled a retreat and led the Carthaginians back to their camp, and for their part the Romans were equally grateful for a respite. It is said that as Hannibal marched back, he spoke jokingly to his friends about Fabius in some such words as these: 'Haven't I kept telling you that the cloud
we have seen hovering over the mountain tops would one day burst into a furious storm?'”—from the Life of Fabius Maximus

[Reginald · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent primer on virtue, as well as its correlation with excellent accomplishments and an early devotion to education, via biographies of eminent leaders in Ancient Rome & Greece. Plutarch, quite simply, pushes into the reader a desire to become a better person. Highly recommended.

[Jasmine · Rating 5 out of 5]

The first king/founder Romulus and the story of the Sabine women which led to the tradition of carrying the bride over the threshold. And this addition also includes the extraordinary story of Coriolanus which led to Shakespeare's inspired play.

[Richard Anderson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fine new translation.

[James Carrigy]

See my review of The Rise And Fall Of Athens (2023)

[Kurishin · Rating 3 out of 5]

This can be a tough go. Requires patience for a reward that perhaps is not worth the price paid.