Learning About Ancient Rome

A List of Books that Bring the Ancient Empire to Life

By Richard Carriero, published Aug 31, 2007
Published Content: 147  Total Views: 50,975  Favorited By: 24 CPs
Rating: 4.6 of 5
One reason for the astronomical success of the HBO series Rome (a television series that may be the best ever made) is creator Bruno Heller's consideration of the world view of the ancient Romans and his ability to bring that perspective to life in his characters. Ordinarily when we hear the sordid tales of the Caesars, senators and common citizens we think to ourselves, well that figures, how else would you expect Romans to behave?, as though the Romans were no better than spoiled children. We never stop to think that the men and women who were born and died in Rome had the same basic physical and psychological equipment as modern human beings. What accounts for the startling difference between ancient Romans and modern Americans is the absence of two perspectives in the ancients: Judeo-Christian morality and the Enlightenment concepts of modern democracy espoused by men like Rousseau, Locke and Montesquieu. Bruno Heller is perhaps the first director to treat Roman history as more than Shakespeare in togas. Heller stripped off the varnish of modern thinking to reveal the characters as human beings whose often horrific actions make sense within the context of their own society. Heller's ideas in creating Rome are laid bare in the free podcasts available on i-tunes that detail the making of the BBC-HBO collaboration.

"The Death of Caesar."

Credit: Vincenzo Camuccini

Copyright: Public Domain

Takeaways
  • Suetonius' "Lives of the Twelve Caesars" may be the best collection of imperial gossip.
  • Procopius, Byzantine chronicler, compiled two histories of Justinian's life, only one authorized.
  • Julius Caesars' commentaries, while propaganda, contain much useful description.
Did You Know?
Caesar's "Commentaries on the Gallic Wars" are one the most important sources we currently have on the lives and religion of the ancient Druid priests.
Comments
Showing Comments 1 - 10 of 10
 
 
Oh, right, Holland, ha. Though I was simply comparing Tom Holland's absurd antics to the same self gratifying idiocy of our illustrious Senate Majority Leader.

Posted on 09/04/2007 at 1:09:00 AM

 
I know Tacitus was a contemporary of the Roman (if only from the fact that we refer to him by one name), I was referring to Harry Reid and Tom Holland.

Posted on 09/04/2007 at 12:09:00 AM

 
led history of Rome. Tacitus likewise was a contemporary.

Posted on 09/03/2007 at 5:09:00 PM

 
Ah but Polybius was a 3rd century Greek contemporary who was trying to convince Greeks that Rome wasn't that bad and gave a detai

Posted on 09/03/2007 at 5:09:00 PM

 
I'm not a huge fan of reading modern histories about the Romans because, I said in the article, modern political thinking and ethics pollute the author's perspective. Give me Roman history by Romans every and any time. Gibbon is too monumental a work to ignore, but even he was a product of the enlightenment. I did enjoy your piece about Caesar's assassination. Its funny that Mark Antony is so heavily romanticized in modern fiction. In reality he was a piece of garbage...but there I go again with my Judeo-Christian ethics.

Posted on 09/03/2007 at 4:09:00 PM

 
On that, unless you're interested in the Harry Reid edition of Roman politics, I highly recommend avoiding Tom Holland. Too many amateur Roman enthusiasts pick up his book because of its appealing cover and frank language, and get sucked into his idiotic view of history - appealing to him as an authority based only on the fact that he was their first. Read him because he offers interesting insight with the touch down upon specific details not usually highlighted, but don't take any of his opinions with anything but 90 pounds of salt.

Posted on 09/02/2007 at 4:09:00 PM

 
I could be mistaken, I have to read them again, but I'm almost one hundred percent certain he refers to his own foolishness at least on a handful of occasions. Though it's also important to point out that most of the time, if people had *just* listened to him, or not carried out their own stupidity, they would have worked. You have to consider that a guy who conquered from Britannia to Egypt, mistakes must have been few in his plans. I highly recommend Polybius and Tacitus - two of the most important writers on Roman works.

Posted on 09/01/2007 at 6:09:00 PM

 
Well I have two problems with your comments, Chad. One - I only wrote about the writers that I have read and what I have read. I have not read Tacitus or Polybius. I plead ignorance. Secondly, If Caesar's works were not propaganda, why does he never admit a single mistake in his writing? He always blames subordinates for misfortune in battle. Don't get me wrong, I love Caesar, but I feel like he was anticipating an audience when he wrote these works. It is true that he did not publish them himself, nor did he finish the Civil War or write the last book of the Gallic Wars.

Posted on 09/01/2007 at 11:09:00 AM

 
Though I'm also perplexed, you omitted or neglected two of the most important sources: the works of Tacitus and the works of Polybius.

Posted on 09/01/2007 at 7:09:00 AM

 
Calling the works of Caesar "propaganda" is kind of damning to this entire article, primarily because of why they were written. It's hardly propaganda when they were largely written so that he could read over them and figure out his own mistakes, appraise his own abilities, and basically have a documented history of himself for himself. They weren't meant for wide distribution in the hopes of getting people to legitimize his claim - he had far better ways to legitimize his conquest of Gaul *and* the civil war against the Optimates (which, of course, was as much necessary as much as it was illegal).

Posted on 09/01/2007 at 7:09:00 AM

Type in Your Comments Below
Your name:

Submit your own content on this or any topic. Get started »
Showing Comments 1 - 10 of 10
 
Most Commented On