Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.28 AVERAGE
4.28 AVERAGE
adventurous
informative
inspiring
medium-paced
The perfect history book. If you’re on the fence about getting into reading history, this is the jumping off point.
adventurous
informative
reflective
slow-paced
informative
relaxing
medium-paced
adventurous
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
The best of AG. Fantastic trip to the Republic of Roma.
Engrossing and fascinating biography of one of the world's most important individuals. Most people know Caesar vaguely as the guy who conquered Gaul and crossed the Rubicon, but not much beyond that. Here, we get to find out how Caesar became Caesar, and Goldsworthy places him within the context of his time. It mixes a good overview of his life, the life of the Roman Republic, and his military achievements (with specific descriptions of key battles he fought in his life).
One of the best parts about rereading books from my younger days is confronting the same "formative" texts with the increased awareness that they helped spawn in the first place. My old love for history and the classics led me to Goldsworthy's Caesar, while now my newer, more mature love for history and the classics brings me back to critique it.
In narrative style Goldsworthy is unmatched by any living classical historian. In his use of sources he is familiar with the remaining primary sources, and familiar with modern scholarship as well. He does some excellent military analysis namely his belief of the use of the pila in a Legionnaire's kit, but politically he falters.
The pressure in this book is against Caesar for his actions that led to the destruction of the Roman Republic. To an extent that is true. Caesar was not the sole cause which Goldsworthy correctly shows, but the problem is the tone. The paradigm since Tacitus has been the wagging finger bemoaning the destruction of the Republic in favor of the Empire. Goldsworthy falls right in line here. That is not to fault Goldsworthy for that stumble, as I mentioned, that's been the stance for nearly two millenia and I can hardly critique Goldsworthy without passing judgment on down. Why I fault Goldsworthy is that he states throughout the text the truth about the Roman Republic: its political setup was largely based as it was on a ruling moneyed aristocracy who had a near total monopoly over not just political office, but even the act of voting, there was rampant and hideous corruption-even by modern standards, while the profit motive-strongly encouraged here-was pursued to its obvious end: the raising of private armies, and the waging of wars abroad and eventually at home as well. But, while his finger circles the button so temptingly, he pulls it back to the same wagging mantra: virtuous Republic, devastating loss. The reality of course is that not only was the empire better for the provinces-as these previously rapacious governors were reigned in, and the Roman Army at least centralized, plus the courts were placed under the jurisdiction of the Emperor. Was it just? By no means. But, it was "better" shall we say than the Republic. If classics are to have a continuing relevant meaning then the paradigm of Tacitus must end. We, the heirs of the Roman Republic, for better or for worse must kill this paradigm for there is a very good lesson contained in it about Republics and we have not been listening.
In narrative style Goldsworthy is unmatched by any living classical historian. In his use of sources he is familiar with the remaining primary sources, and familiar with modern scholarship as well. He does some excellent military analysis namely his belief of the use of the pila in a Legionnaire's kit, but politically he falters.
The pressure in this book is against Caesar for his actions that led to the destruction of the Roman Republic. To an extent that is true. Caesar was not the sole cause which Goldsworthy correctly shows, but the problem is the tone. The paradigm since Tacitus has been the wagging finger bemoaning the destruction of the Republic in favor of the Empire. Goldsworthy falls right in line here. That is not to fault Goldsworthy for that stumble, as I mentioned, that's been the stance for nearly two millenia and I can hardly critique Goldsworthy without passing judgment on down. Why I fault Goldsworthy is that he states throughout the text the truth about the Roman Republic: its political setup was largely based as it was on a ruling moneyed aristocracy who had a near total monopoly over not just political office, but even the act of voting, there was rampant and hideous corruption-even by modern standards, while the profit motive-strongly encouraged here-was pursued to its obvious end: the raising of private armies, and the waging of wars abroad and eventually at home as well. But, while his finger circles the button so temptingly, he pulls it back to the same wagging mantra: virtuous Republic, devastating loss. The reality of course is that not only was the empire better for the provinces-as these previously rapacious governors were reigned in, and the Roman Army at least centralized, plus the courts were placed under the jurisdiction of the Emperor. Was it just? By no means. But, it was "better" shall we say than the Republic. If classics are to have a continuing relevant meaning then the paradigm of Tacitus must end. We, the heirs of the Roman Republic, for better or for worse must kill this paradigm for there is a very good lesson contained in it about Republics and we have not been listening.
informative
tense
A very satisfying account of Julius Caesar's life with a heavy emphasis on his military campaigns. It was especially informative on how he was overthrow a republican plutocracy using populist programs targeting the lower and middle class (and soldiers especially) which is exactly what I was curious about!
Early last year a friend, an ancient history buff, loaned me this book. After 11 months of hestistancy, I looked past it's imposing size and took hold of it, and ravaged it over 2 weeks.
Goldsworthy has written a marvelous timeline of Caesar's life. Several times he sets limits on his writing, not wanting to bend to conjecture or even soft assumptions. Looking over the bibliography, it is amazing just how many sources and books he dissected.
Goldsworthy fundamentally change the way I looked at Caesar. Consider the 10 year span of dictorial rule, the chain reaction of several wars sparking at once, the civil discord between Pompey's forces and Caesar's before the passing of the Rubicon. I became to really appreciate the compressed events and blind luck involved in some of these events.
I think this book works best for someone who has a significant interest in Caesar, and a strong background in Roman history. Goldsworthy is so narrowly limited in his subject matter, he never writes much about how Caesar had much of an effect on other aspects of Roman Life. The writing style is a bit much too, it can be wearing because the book reads as so factually based, that there is little room for reviewing, summarizing, or insight into Caesar's actions.
Maybe I just want every novel to be like "Team of Rivals" haha.
Anyone, worth checking out, but might be better as a fact checking resource than a straight through read.
Goldsworthy has written a marvelous timeline of Caesar's life. Several times he sets limits on his writing, not wanting to bend to conjecture or even soft assumptions. Looking over the bibliography, it is amazing just how many sources and books he dissected.
Goldsworthy fundamentally change the way I looked at Caesar. Consider the 10 year span of dictorial rule, the chain reaction of several wars sparking at once, the civil discord between Pompey's forces and Caesar's before the passing of the Rubicon. I became to really appreciate the compressed events and blind luck involved in some of these events.
I think this book works best for someone who has a significant interest in Caesar, and a strong background in Roman history. Goldsworthy is so narrowly limited in his subject matter, he never writes much about how Caesar had much of an effect on other aspects of Roman Life. The writing style is a bit much too, it can be wearing because the book reads as so factually based, that there is little room for reviewing, summarizing, or insight into Caesar's actions.
Maybe I just want every novel to be like "Team of Rivals" haha.
Anyone, worth checking out, but might be better as a fact checking resource than a straight through read.