Scan barcode
A review by socraticgadfly
Dynasty: The Rise and Fall of the House of Caesar by Tom Holland
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.