Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by elliottzink
Caesar: Life of a Colossus by Adrian Goldsworthy
4.0
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.