Scan barcode
mike_baker's review against another edition
4.0
A nice alternative to the dusty, ponderous academic tomes I ploughed through when studying this stuff at University. Those books held no brief to entertain, and yet the story they told is about as thrilling as literature can ever get, and it was all true. Holland writes for the reader who doesn't have a degree riding on the material, and weaves a hell of a yarn. Everything's here for a superb romp - dysfunctional family dynamics, matricide, regicide, suicide, other things ending in -cide, pomp, games of thrones, and the overarching theme of absolute power corrupting absolutely. Some of it will come across as almost unbelievable, and yet it was the reality of Rome in the first cycle of its Emperors, the self-destructive and in-fighting cohorts of the Julio-Claudian family, a more self-serving and loathsome group of characters it would be difficult to meet.
socraticgadfly's review against another edition
4.0
Good overall ... until Nero.
How the Julian and Claudian families blended, the larger issues of adoption and intermarriage into "neighboring" families and more all get good coverage.
In addition?
Holland paints a realistic not-totally-sympathetic view of Augustus, a realistic generally sympathetic view of Tiberius, a realistic view of Caligula, and a realistic generally sympathetic view of Claudius.
In all of these, especially with those after Augustus, whom these historians commented on more, he avoids most of the scurrilousness of Suetonius, Tacitus and Dio. He even mentions this as an issue before starting his chapter on Augustus.
But, he partially jumps the shark on Nero.
First, contra a pretty plausible explanation by John Drinkwater in his new book, Holland repeats the story that Nero booby-trapped a boat to kill Agrippina. Other rumors also get the light of day.
Then — and on this, Drinkwater is wrong, too — he takes Tacitus at face value on the Great Fire, namely that their were enough Christians in Rome to be identified as a group, to identify themselves as separate from Jews, and to have been the cause of the Great Fire. As I indirectly told Drinkwater himself via email, and said more directly in my review of his book?
Tosh.
Christians were most likely no more than 1/10th of 1 percent of Rome's population at this time, which was still under 1 million. Even if at 900,000, that means that, if Jerome's suspiciously precise number of Christian deaths at the hand of Nero were true — a number Holland reports with a straight face and without comment — Nero would have had to have found, then killed, every Christian in Rome.
Tosh.
This cost the book a star.
One other niggling issue, like Drinkwater?
His book is not as academic, but it's deep enough that BCE/CE would be better than BC/AD.
In short, this is 4.5 stars for everything up to Nero, but 2.5 on the chapter about him.
How the Julian and Claudian families blended, the larger issues of adoption and intermarriage into "neighboring" families and more all get good coverage.
In addition?
Holland paints a realistic not-totally-sympathetic view of Augustus, a realistic generally sympathetic view of Tiberius, a realistic view of Caligula, and a realistic generally sympathetic view of Claudius.
In all of these, especially with those after Augustus, whom these historians commented on more, he avoids most of the scurrilousness of Suetonius, Tacitus and Dio. He even mentions this as an issue before starting his chapter on Augustus.
But, he partially jumps the shark on Nero.
First, contra a pretty plausible explanation by John Drinkwater in his new book, Holland repeats the story that Nero booby-trapped a boat to kill Agrippina. Other rumors also get the light of day.
Then — and on this, Drinkwater is wrong, too — he takes Tacitus at face value on the Great Fire, namely that their were enough Christians in Rome to be identified as a group, to identify themselves as separate from Jews, and to have been the cause of the Great Fire. As I indirectly told Drinkwater himself via email, and said more directly in my review of his book?
Tosh.
Christians were most likely no more than 1/10th of 1 percent of Rome's population at this time, which was still under 1 million. Even if at 900,000, that means that, if Jerome's suspiciously precise number of Christian deaths at the hand of Nero were true — a number Holland reports with a straight face and without comment — Nero would have had to have found, then killed, every Christian in Rome.
Tosh.
This cost the book a star.
One other niggling issue, like Drinkwater?
His book is not as academic, but it's deep enough that BCE/CE would be better than BC/AD.
In short, this is 4.5 stars for everything up to Nero, but 2.5 on the chapter about him.
souljaleonn's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
dark
informative
slow-paced
4.5
tartancrusader's review against another edition
4.0
This should have been 5 stars, it really should. When it was good (and this was 80% of the time) it was unwaveringly excellent. Unfortunately there were times that I got the distinct impression that Holland was positively revelling (in an oily, rubbing-together-of-hands, way that left me feeling vaguely soiled) in all the sordidness and iniquity perpetrated at the extremes of House of Caesar's behavior.
So, then, there was much to be admired and respected in this work, but so too was it shot through with darkly gleaming veins of ghastliness. Much like the House of Caesar itself, I suppose.
So, then, there was much to be admired and respected in this work, but so too was it shot through with darkly gleaming veins of ghastliness. Much like the House of Caesar itself, I suppose.
mick_travel's review against another edition
informative
reflective
slow-paced
2.75
Content Warnings
Graphic: Body horror, Misogyny, and Sexism
Moderate: Body horror, Torture, Suicide, Infidelity, Sexual content, and Slavery
Minor: Rape, Murder, Miscarriage, and Physical abuse
naomisbookshelf's review against another edition
challenging
dark
informative
tense
slow-paced
4.0
Content Warnings
Graphic: Pedophilia, Rape, Sexual assault, Sexual violence, Violence, Death, Hate crime, Incest, Kidnapping, Sexual content, Suicide, Suicide attempt, Murder, and Misogyny
penstarling's review against another edition
4.0
I think this a great, very accessible history for anyone who doesn't know a lot about the period. Good for people who know about it too.
I'm really amused by other reviewers complaining of the author's depiction of Augustus. I'm sure Augustus would be thrilled his hype machine is still working 2000 years later. Though I admit my opinions on this era in history are pretty strong. I've read what I assume are many of the sources for this book--Livy, Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus, Plutarch, Sallust, Ammianus, and the autobiographies of Julius Caesar and Augustus--(though I don't know for sure because I had the audiobook and couldn't see the citations) and have certainly formed my own opinions from other commentary, historians, and professors. And while I agree with the author's assessment of Augustus the book was still fresh and challenging to me. His depiction of Caligula reads as positive in places, though the book never shies away from the really gruesome aspect of any of the Julio-Claudians. In fact one of my favorite parts of this book is the explanations of Roman morals, and the cultural backgrounds that explain which parts of the emperor's actions were actually scandalous in the time (as opposed to scandalous to our modern views).
Also his book made me think about an alternate history where Germanicus lived and we never had Tiberius or Caligula. I was actually a little frustrated by this because I didn't really have anyone to talk to about it who would understand without me having to explain too much. But wow what an interesting speculative novel that would make. Yeah, great book all around, really got me thinking on a bunch of different fronts. I liked the tone and the way information was presented, with sort of sidebars when background was needed, making easier to piece it all together. Overall enjoyed very much, would recommend to anyone interested in the Julio-Claudians.
I'm really amused by other reviewers complaining of the author's depiction of Augustus. I'm sure Augustus would be thrilled his hype machine is still working 2000 years later. Though I admit my opinions on this era in history are pretty strong. I've read what I assume are many of the sources for this book--Livy, Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus, Plutarch, Sallust, Ammianus, and the autobiographies of Julius Caesar and Augustus--(though I don't know for sure because I had the audiobook and couldn't see the citations) and have certainly formed my own opinions from other commentary, historians, and professors. And while I agree with the author's assessment of Augustus the book was still fresh and challenging to me. His depiction of Caligula reads as positive in places, though the book never shies away from the really gruesome aspect of any of the Julio-Claudians. In fact one of my favorite parts of this book is the explanations of Roman morals, and the cultural backgrounds that explain which parts of the emperor's actions were actually scandalous in the time (as opposed to scandalous to our modern views).
Also his book made me think about an alternate history where Germanicus lived and we never had Tiberius or Caligula. I was actually a little frustrated by this because I didn't really have anyone to talk to about it who would understand without me having to explain too much. But wow what an interesting speculative novel that would make. Yeah, great book all around, really got me thinking on a bunch of different fronts. I liked the tone and the way information was presented, with sort of sidebars when background was needed, making easier to piece it all together. Overall enjoyed very much, would recommend to anyone interested in the Julio-Claudians.
librarianonparade's review against another edition
5.0
We are so used to thinking of the Roman Empire in those very terms, as an empire with an emperor at its head, that it is easy to forget that it wasn't always so. Rome was a republic once, and those republican virtues were greatly cherished and defended. Indeed, Julius Caesar was murdered for even daring to presume to raise himself above his fellow citizens. And yet scant years after his death, this king-hating republic was to all intents and purposes dead, although few would acknowledge this then or later, and its death throes were prolonged.
And this all thanks to Caesar's heir and successor, Augustus, the founder of the 'House of Caesar' of the title, more appropriately the House of Augustus. For it was Augustus who stabilised the empire after the years of civil war in the wake of Caesar's death, Augustus who bit by bit chipped away at the independence of the Senate, of the traditional rights and privileges of the elite, who took on titles, eminences and positions, who established the Pax Romana and brought peace and prosperity to the city of Rome, who walked a fine line between soothing the Senate and pandering to the plebs - and it must be said, set the precedent for dynastic manoeuvrings and occasional assassinations. All of his successors - Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius and Nero followed consciously in his footsteps, and each killed off a little bit more of the republican heritage of Rome - not to mention their own relatives.
This is vivid, juicy and murderous history, and Tom Holland tells it with real dash and flair - although it would take a historian of some real skill (and not in a good way) to make this boring! This is not boring history, and this is not a boring read. I could hardly put it down. It's very much narrative history, told with a certain wry detached tone that suits the glamour and excesses of these personalities. He makes the tangled politics of the time seem simple and draws intriguing parallels with our own time - the concept of placating the masses with bread and circuses has hardly faded, after all. He takes some artistic liberties as a result of the storytelling process and it isn't overly-burdened with extensive sources and notes - I would imagine genuine historians of the periods and academicians would gnash their teeth somewhat reading this. But as a lively and fast-paced introduction to a truly breathtaking period in history, this can't be beat.
And this all thanks to Caesar's heir and successor, Augustus, the founder of the 'House of Caesar' of the title, more appropriately the House of Augustus. For it was Augustus who stabilised the empire after the years of civil war in the wake of Caesar's death, Augustus who bit by bit chipped away at the independence of the Senate, of the traditional rights and privileges of the elite, who took on titles, eminences and positions, who established the Pax Romana and brought peace and prosperity to the city of Rome, who walked a fine line between soothing the Senate and pandering to the plebs - and it must be said, set the precedent for dynastic manoeuvrings and occasional assassinations. All of his successors - Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius and Nero followed consciously in his footsteps, and each killed off a little bit more of the republican heritage of Rome - not to mention their own relatives.
This is vivid, juicy and murderous history, and Tom Holland tells it with real dash and flair - although it would take a historian of some real skill (and not in a good way) to make this boring! This is not boring history, and this is not a boring read. I could hardly put it down. It's very much narrative history, told with a certain wry detached tone that suits the glamour and excesses of these personalities. He makes the tangled politics of the time seem simple and draws intriguing parallels with our own time - the concept of placating the masses with bread and circuses has hardly faded, after all. He takes some artistic liberties as a result of the storytelling process and it isn't overly-burdened with extensive sources and notes - I would imagine genuine historians of the periods and academicians would gnash their teeth somewhat reading this. But as a lively and fast-paced introduction to a truly breathtaking period in history, this can't be beat.
jvan's review against another edition
4.0
Very nearly 5 stars; the early portion about Augustus was 5 stars, easy; Tiberius could be 5 stars; Caligula was 5 stars. But Claudius and Nero were a little less good, and overall, I'd call it closer to 4 than to 5.
That said, this is a really well written book that looks at the Julio-Claudians in a narrow focus, paying attention to all the twists and turns of the dynasty and only glancingly looking to the rest of Roman history; where that history impacts or is impacted by the House of Caesar, it features (and much of it was, of course) but when history doesn't feature them, it doesn't really feature in the book. The focus does the narrative very well. Holland knew what he was doing when he made that choice, and it pays off.
So then, very nearly 5 stars. Maybe it should be 5? Well, I'm leaving it as 4 for the moment.
That said, this is a really well written book that looks at the Julio-Claudians in a narrow focus, paying attention to all the twists and turns of the dynasty and only glancingly looking to the rest of Roman history; where that history impacts or is impacted by the House of Caesar, it features (and much of it was, of course) but when history doesn't feature them, it doesn't really feature in the book. The focus does the narrative very well. Holland knew what he was doing when he made that choice, and it pays off.
So then, very nearly 5 stars. Maybe it should be 5? Well, I'm leaving it as 4 for the moment.