A steady diet of death and destruction, enlivened only by debauchery and dishonesty. Gripping read for all that. I would expect the real ancient Rome was probably not quite so bad as the judgmental Tacitus would have it, largely on the evidence that the empire lasted another 400 years past the events described. A good read for anyone interested in Roman history, and for anyone who enjoys watching the soaps. ( )

A. J. Woodman's translation is excellent: superbly literal, it succeds in sounding, as far as I can tell with my nonexistent knowledge of Latin, very much like Tacitus. Its only flaw is an inconsitency in the translation of certain words in favor of "localized considerations" (xxiv); libertas, for example, is translated sometimes as "liberty", sometimes as "freedom", but occasionally (and frustratingly) as "license".

As for Tacitus himself, he is the subtlest ancient historian I have read, topping Herodotus and even Thucydides (and certainly, a fortiori, Livy). A close study of his depiction of Tiberius will bear fruit.

I managed to plough through The Annals of Imperial Rome by Tacitus, which details the history of Rome from (roughly) 15AD to 66AD, across a few emperors and a hell of a lot of history.

I say that I ploughed through it, but that’s not strictly true. The initial chapters were a bit of a slog, but once I got used to the style and how events were described, it became thoroughly enjoyable. There’s detail where you want detail, but equally Tacitus seemed to know a slow year when he saw one, and barely gave it more than a couple of pages.

Tacitus seemed to take great pleasure in detailing how the imperial family were basically corrupt and despicable, for the most part, and were heavily influenced by advisers who were only interested in their own ends. Maybe this was because of the time when he wrote, with Rome firmly in decline, and transposing his contemporary views onto history. But I can see why someone like Nero drew contempt from Tacitus: he basically gorged and copulated his way through his time as Emperor, to the detriment of the Empire.

I don’t know Roman history particularly well, and I’ve no idea why I picked this book off of the shelves. My knowledge of Roman culture and history comes from one of those Horrible Histories books back when I was in school, and even then it’s concentrated around things like the army, its conquests and the many odd gods they worshipped.

[Sidenote: weren’t Horrible Histories the best series of books? I swear that my entire interest in history, especially British monarchs, stemmed from those books. They knew exactly how to make history interesting and how to make it appeal to children/young teens. I believe there was even a TV show developed at one point.]

So to go into this book a little blind was a bit daunting. Thankfully, the appendices were multiple and explanatory, and the introduction from its translator also gave the setting for the rest of the text. Usually I skip introductions when I read classics, and just go straight into the novel/text itself, but in this case it was almost necessary to read it.

It’s not an easy read, and it’s not exactly light, but I think it’s worth picking up if you’ve got a vague interest in the gradual downfall of the Roman Empire, and particularly the personalities which brought it to its knees. Whether I go so far as to pick up The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is another matter whatsoever. ( )