Scan barcode
marielaabrown's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
funny
informative
slow-paced
3.75
Kept losing attention but was a comprehensive and well written account of the House of Caesar. From the the crude to political this was a great follow up to the Nero Exhibition at the British Museum.
readerstephen86's review against another edition
4.0
SUMMARY - It cuts corners, but still make space in your hand luggage. This populist history comes with layers, and it's morish.
‐------------------------
Tom Holland's books have that WH Smith's Bestseller airport display feeling. Like the toblerone you guiltily stuff into your backpack (squashing the toothbrush to the bottom in the process), you know it's going to be all too easy just to keep devouring it. It reads like a gossip magazine and like the glinting gold of its cover art - which I do like - it's designed to catch the eye of the reader with a sweet tooth for an undemanding read.
But as other reviewers have said, I think the easy reading belies hard writing. This isn't just a biography of men-made-into-monsters, however much the portraits stand out from the page (Caligula, Nero, Claudius, Augustus, Germanicus, and not to mention the women such as Agrippina et al.). We get the politics or empire, which manages to outline the local terrain of the Germanic tribes, Gaul, British colonisation and Welsh/Icenic rebellions, Syria, Greece, and Egypt. More, we get an elaboration of the problems of governance within Italy and Rome set out so well in Holland's first book, Rubicon. The erosion of idealised civic 'virtue' and with it democracy and its institutional counterbalances is set out with a more-than-impressionistic sweep of the brush.
I didn't feel there was quite such a clearly articulated narrative thrust on any of these, perhaps because the hideous fascination of the emperors proves too compelling to ignore. Each chapter is framed around the man (and their wives and mothers) who cast mesmeric power, and perhaps even more mesmeric weaknesses that often lead to their downfall. I liked that Holland doesn't give total credence to the rumours or incest and other forms of debauchery, not least because smear tactics and grudges were the mainstays of Roman power politics. The writer (or rumour-monger) controls the message. Yet the rumours, like that lovely sugar-packed Swiss chocolate, are hard to put down.
For readability this is a five, in a way that few histories manage. Even if I didn't rate this quite as highly as Rubicon, it's a deft feat to combine unputdownable storytelling with the range of scope and scholarship that underpins the footnotes.
The shortcuts make this book as readable as it is, and yes, passing WH Smiths in the airport I'd absolutely reach up for my fourth installment of a Holland-penned history. There are certainly devils in the detail. One of the pictures is credited to Wikipedia, which made me wonder how many other liberties Holland might have taken to make his task easier. Similarly slapdash, quotes are chucked whole into paragraphs without any context or analysis; they spash into the water of words purely to make waves. So too, the sources are there to see at the end, but their relative reliability are moored to the sidelines, and too rarely examined. This is Popular, capital 'P', and history small 'h'. Don't necessarily trust everything that's said as being at face value, but if like me you want a carnivalesque introduction to ancient history full of life, human interest and broader scene-setting, go and make space alongside that toblerone - you won't regret it.
‐------------------------
Tom Holland's books have that WH Smith's Bestseller airport display feeling. Like the toblerone you guiltily stuff into your backpack (squashing the toothbrush to the bottom in the process), you know it's going to be all too easy just to keep devouring it. It reads like a gossip magazine and like the glinting gold of its cover art - which I do like - it's designed to catch the eye of the reader with a sweet tooth for an undemanding read.
But as other reviewers have said, I think the easy reading belies hard writing. This isn't just a biography of men-made-into-monsters, however much the portraits stand out from the page (Caligula, Nero, Claudius, Augustus, Germanicus, and not to mention the women such as Agrippina et al.). We get the politics or empire, which manages to outline the local terrain of the Germanic tribes, Gaul, British colonisation and Welsh/Icenic rebellions, Syria, Greece, and Egypt. More, we get an elaboration of the problems of governance within Italy and Rome set out so well in Holland's first book, Rubicon. The erosion of idealised civic 'virtue' and with it democracy and its institutional counterbalances is set out with a more-than-impressionistic sweep of the brush.
I didn't feel there was quite such a clearly articulated narrative thrust on any of these, perhaps because the hideous fascination of the emperors proves too compelling to ignore. Each chapter is framed around the man (and their wives and mothers) who cast mesmeric power, and perhaps even more mesmeric weaknesses that often lead to their downfall. I liked that Holland doesn't give total credence to the rumours or incest and other forms of debauchery, not least because smear tactics and grudges were the mainstays of Roman power politics. The writer (or rumour-monger) controls the message. Yet the rumours, like that lovely sugar-packed Swiss chocolate, are hard to put down.
For readability this is a five, in a way that few histories manage. Even if I didn't rate this quite as highly as Rubicon, it's a deft feat to combine unputdownable storytelling with the range of scope and scholarship that underpins the footnotes.
The shortcuts make this book as readable as it is, and yes, passing WH Smiths in the airport I'd absolutely reach up for my fourth installment of a Holland-penned history. There are certainly devils in the detail. One of the pictures is credited to Wikipedia, which made me wonder how many other liberties Holland might have taken to make his task easier. Similarly slapdash, quotes are chucked whole into paragraphs without any context or analysis; they spash into the water of words purely to make waves. So too, the sources are there to see at the end, but their relative reliability are moored to the sidelines, and too rarely examined. This is Popular, capital 'P', and history small 'h'. Don't necessarily trust everything that's said as being at face value, but if like me you want a carnivalesque introduction to ancient history full of life, human interest and broader scene-setting, go and make space alongside that toblerone - you won't regret it.
travisantoniog's review against another edition
5.0
I've read a few fictional and non fictional accounts of the rise of Rome but I must say that Tom Holland's book Dynasty: The rise and fall of the House of Caesar is a natural sequel to his previous book Rubicon. The book is both entertaining and informative of the early days of Imperial age of Rome. The introduction of the book sets the scene brilliantly and I wish there was an epilogue after the suicide of Nero as well. Apart from that the book proceeds to effectively shed light on the inner workings of the House of Caesar while debunking some of the myths surrounding that it period.
It's quite amazing how so many incidents in history that are embedded in our collective psyche may in fact be purely rumours and have no historical basis. This is particularly true for the the reign of the House of Caesar's at the beginning of Rome's imperial age. The famous claims that Nero played the Lyre while Rome burned or Caligula unable to invade Britain had his soldiers collect sea shells may in fact be nothing more than malicious gossip.
However the main objective of the book is not to debunk everything we know about early days of Imperial Rome but instead highlights the a healthy dose of skepticism is essential when reading into the history of the house of Caesar which for the most part was penned many years later by people who sought its downfall. In fact some events were in fact stranger than fiction such as Nero killing his mother Agrippinia with a booby-trapped yacht and Caligula making his horse a Senator did in fact take place.
The book is also not an attempt to promote a particular approach to history as encapsulated in the approach taken by Herodotus writing which mixes fact with myth and the more no nonsense fact based approach of Thucydides in his account of the Peloponnese war. Tom Holland seamlessly combines these two approaches by on the one hand providing evidence to assess the validity of a rumour/gossip while on the other hand portraying the affairs on earth being mirrored as a struggle of the Gods and the role prophesy plays in it. For example, the conflict between Octavius and Mark Anthony and Nero having his mother killed has an attempt
I like how the book briefly digresses to the past or jumps ahead into the future to connect the story with socio political developments that took place over Rome's history. Was particularly interested to learn the Utopian ideal and the Martial tradition of the Roman people that was promoted with stories about Romulus which was viewed as a golden age of Rome. Was also quite surprised to learn about the conservative attitude Romans had towards sexuality and on the importance of tradition and values. The novel shows how the progress of the House of Caesar mirrored the changes in the social attitude over time beginning with the conservative Augustus and his obsession with purity to the flamboyance of Nero's reign. As Nero rightly pointed out "Everything we now believe to be the essence of tradition, was a novelty once"
Favourite Quotes
"The best cure for a civil war is to forget that t ever happened" - Seneca The Elder
For someone like Nero, scandal was corrosive to the authority of a natural showman if there was an attempt to cover it up
So perished the line of Caligula: Dead of a Joke taken too far
"No matter how many people you put to death, you can never kill your successor" - Seneca
"The surest punishment was not death but to be consigned to Oblivion"
"Time erodes both steel and stone" .."The written word defines the Years"
It's quite amazing how so many incidents in history that are embedded in our collective psyche may in fact be purely rumours and have no historical basis. This is particularly true for the the reign of the House of Caesar's at the beginning of Rome's imperial age. The famous claims that Nero played the Lyre while Rome burned or Caligula unable to invade Britain had his soldiers collect sea shells may in fact be nothing more than malicious gossip.
However the main objective of the book is not to debunk everything we know about early days of Imperial Rome but instead highlights the a healthy dose of skepticism is essential when reading into the history of the house of Caesar which for the most part was penned many years later by people who sought its downfall. In fact some events were in fact stranger than fiction such as Nero killing his mother Agrippinia with a booby-trapped yacht and Caligula making his horse a Senator did in fact take place.
The book is also not an attempt to promote a particular approach to history as encapsulated in the approach taken by Herodotus writing which mixes fact with myth and the more no nonsense fact based approach of Thucydides in his account of the Peloponnese war. Tom Holland seamlessly combines these two approaches by on the one hand providing evidence to assess the validity of a rumour/gossip while on the other hand portraying the affairs on earth being mirrored as a struggle of the Gods and the role prophesy plays in it. For example, the conflict between Octavius and Mark Anthony and Nero having his mother killed has an attempt
I like how the book briefly digresses to the past or jumps ahead into the future to connect the story with socio political developments that took place over Rome's history. Was particularly interested to learn the Utopian ideal and the Martial tradition of the Roman people that was promoted with stories about Romulus which was viewed as a golden age of Rome. Was also quite surprised to learn about the conservative attitude Romans had towards sexuality and on the importance of tradition and values. The novel shows how the progress of the House of Caesar mirrored the changes in the social attitude over time beginning with the conservative Augustus and his obsession with purity to the flamboyance of Nero's reign. As Nero rightly pointed out "Everything we now believe to be the essence of tradition, was a novelty once"
Favourite Quotes
"The best cure for a civil war is to forget that t ever happened" - Seneca The Elder
For someone like Nero, scandal was corrosive to the authority of a natural showman if there was an attempt to cover it up
So perished the line of Caligula: Dead of a Joke taken too far
"No matter how many people you put to death, you can never kill your successor" - Seneca
"The surest punishment was not death but to be consigned to Oblivion"
"Time erodes both steel and stone" .."The written word defines the Years"
skitch41's review against another edition
4.0
(Reviewer's Note: I just wrote a more in depth review of this book on my weekly book blog. If you like this review and would like to read more, click on the following link: https://tobereadnow.blogspot.com/2017/06/a-show-of-liberty-lessons-from-tom.html)
I loved Mr. Holland's Rubicon when I read it in high school and I've had my eye on this sequel for some time now. And while not as memorable as his previous book, Mr. Holland does not fail to deliver in this history of the Julio-Claudian line of Roman emperors.
Starting with a quick recap of the events leading up to the death of Julius Caesar covered in Rubicon, Mr. Holland follows the lives and rules of the Caesars from Augustus through to Nero. Like his previous book, he synthesizes multiple ancient sources into one exciting historical narrative. This is history told by the hand of a well practiced novelist. Mr. holland doesn't mince words either. He talks about violence and sex with a casualness worthy of his Roman subjects. This is definitely not a book for readers younger than high school.
However, there are some problems with this book. Mr. Holland has a tendency, particularly in the middle chapters, to bounce around the timeline in his narrative. This wouldn't be so bad if the Romans didn't have a nasty habit of naming their kids the same over every generation, particularly the women. Honestly, there are so many Agrippinas and Livias and Drusillas that I doubt anyone can keep their characters straight.
Still, this is a great book about the first decades of the Roman Empire that I would,highly recommend to anyone interested in the period.
I loved Mr. Holland's Rubicon when I read it in high school and I've had my eye on this sequel for some time now. And while not as memorable as his previous book, Mr. Holland does not fail to deliver in this history of the Julio-Claudian line of Roman emperors.
Starting with a quick recap of the events leading up to the death of Julius Caesar covered in Rubicon, Mr. Holland follows the lives and rules of the Caesars from Augustus through to Nero. Like his previous book, he synthesizes multiple ancient sources into one exciting historical narrative. This is history told by the hand of a well practiced novelist. Mr. holland doesn't mince words either. He talks about violence and sex with a casualness worthy of his Roman subjects. This is definitely not a book for readers younger than high school.
However, there are some problems with this book. Mr. Holland has a tendency, particularly in the middle chapters, to bounce around the timeline in his narrative. This wouldn't be so bad if the Romans didn't have a nasty habit of naming their kids the same over every generation, particularly the women. Honestly, there are so many Agrippinas and Livias and Drusillas that I doubt anyone can keep their characters straight.
Still, this is a great book about the first decades of the Roman Empire that I would,highly recommend to anyone interested in the period.
rbkegley's review against another edition
4.0
A good follow-on to his earlier "Rubicon", in this book Holland traces the stories of the first five Roman emperors: Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and finally Nero. If your view of Roman history has been largely informed by Robert Graves' "I, Claudius" (book or excellent BBC TV series), get ready for some surprises. It's hard to imagine how villainous these men were. While the cadence of his writing is strange at first (almost like Mark Twain's characterization of German), you get used to it quickly, and simply enjoy the lively telling of their stories.
fivetilnoon's review against another edition
4.0
I listed to the Audible version of this book. The book tells the story of the rise of the Empire and the reigns of Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero. The author does a good job of clearly explaining how Rome transitioned slowly but surely from Republic to Empire and why they never could (or even wanted to) go back to the Republic. The book contains a lot of vulgarity as it describes very graphically the sex lives of ancient Romans and the emperors. I thought I was prepared for the depravity of the emperors (Caligula and Nero in particular) but I was still surprised by their complete lack of morals.
megami's review against another edition
4.0
Yet another fantastic book from Holland (I am yet to find something written by him that is less than excellent), this one is a history of the end of the Roman Republic and a biography of the 'emperors' (and if you read the book you will understand what that is in quote marks) from Augustus to Nero.
As with his other book Holland manages to include just enough detail to keep you engaged without feeling the need to cram every bit of research in to show how clever he is or how much work he did researching his book. It is a detailed and informative piece but is still an easy and entertaining read. Everything you could want.
As with his other book Holland manages to include just enough detail to keep you engaged without feeling the need to cram every bit of research in to show how clever he is or how much work he did researching his book. It is a detailed and informative piece but is still an easy and entertaining read. Everything you could want.
sharon4d046's review against another edition
4.0
Engaging, very readable account of the Julio-Claudians. A great read, perfect non-fiction holiday read, you can count on the Romans for shock value and sensation, the ultimate soap- opera. Holland does move beyond the old stereotypes and tries to bring greater understanding to the behaviour of those most notorious Romans.
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.