HomeGroupsTalkZeitgeist
Hide this

Results from Google Books

Click on a thumbnail to go to Google Books.

The Rise of the Roman Empire (Penguin…
Loading...

The Rise of the Roman Empire (Penguin Classics) (edition 1980)

by Polybius, Ian Scott-Kilvert (Translator), F. W. Walbank (Introduction)

MembersReviewsPopularityAverage ratingMentions
834410,806 (3.88)4
Member:OWSLibrary
Title:The Rise of the Roman Empire (Penguin Classics)
Authors:Polybius
Other authors:Ian Scott-Kilvert (Translator), F. W. Walbank (Introduction)
Info:Penguin Classics (1980), Paperback, 576 pages
Collections:Your library
Rating:
Tags:None

Work details

The Histories by Polibio

None.

Loading...

Sign up for LibraryThing to find out whether you'll like this book.

No current Talk conversations about this book.

» See also 4 mentions

English (3)  Dutch (1)  All languages (4)
Showing 3 of 3
Overview
Technically this is a book about the Roman Republic, not the Empire. The history of Roman antiquity can be divided into three phases: (1)the monarchy (753 B.C.- 509 B.C.), (2) the republic (509 B.C -27 B.C.) and (3) the Empire (27 B.C. -476 A.D. (West); -1453 A.D. (East)).

This book focuses on how the Republic rose from provincial city-state to become the superpower of its day. Author Polybius (~200 B.C.- 118 B.C.) was an educated Macedonian political prisoner living in Rome from 168 B.C. on. He wasn't quite a slave, but living in the enforced custody of a powerful ruling-class family, to which he was essentially a servant. He was granted leave to examine and chronicle the great question of his age: how Rome managed to become master of the Mediterranean universe in less than two hundred years. The events examined center around the conquest of Sicily, and Rome's showdown with its first major competitor, Carthage.

BOOK I
Shifting....er, confusing alliances in Sicily
Sicily was Rome's first big conquest, and the bounty of its rich agricultural output really gave Rome a taste for international expansion. Forget what you know about present-day Sicily. It has lately (1868) become politically and culturally integrated into Italy, but two thousand years ago, it was as foreign to the Romans as Greece. In fact, the island was populated with Greek colonists spreading Hellenist civilization from across the Ionian Sea. Unfortunately, the colonists were ill-prepared to defend their way of life. When the Mamertines in Regium (the tip of Italy's "boot") captured Messina, they appealed for Roman assistance to help them hold it. The Roman army instead took their home city of Regium! This book is filled with dickish maneuvers like that.


This caused nervous Mamertines to offer Carthaginians an alliance against Rome. It proved to be a defining historical moment, the first time Rome was brought into conflict with a major foreign power.

Punic War #1 (264 B.C.- 240 B.C.)
The entire first Punic War is a narrative of how Rome came to appreciate the value of a powerful navy, and how -by fits and starts- she came to dominate the local waters. Prior to this time, Roman power had always resided with her armies. Land forces had won Rome control of the Italian peninsula, so naturally the Roman military mindset was army-centric. When it came to Sicily, however, Rome couldn't seem to win a decisive victory over the Carthaginians. The African forces kept getting resupplied with fresh ships, which had the annoying habit of also cutting off Roman ships from supplying the Legions. It took Roman generals a while to appreciate the huge advantage the Carthaginians enjoyed with their advanced and well-trained navy. By chance, however, a Carthaginian ship ran aground in Roman waters. When they captured its crew and inspected the vessel, its superior design was apparent. The Romans adopted her design, and added a feature of their own: "the Raven"- a drop-bridge which enabled Roman marines to board enemy ships during close combat.
Suddenly Roman fortunes shifted. A string of successes beat back Carthage and gave Rome the advantage on Sicily. Over twenty years, Rome also learned some hard lessons about seamanship: She lost a fleet to insufficient protection from storms. She lost numerous humiliating defeats to the Carthaginians, owing to the initial poor training and disorganization of Roman sailors. Undaunted, Rome continued to improve her navy, until the efforts paid off. In an epic battle off the coast of Drapana (modern day Trapani), the Romans roundly defeated the Carthaginian navy, forcing the African empire to sue for peace. The first Punic War finally came to a close with Sicily becoming the first foreign territory to fall to Rome, and the Carthaginians limping home in humiliation.

BOOK II
Okay, this part was a little confusing...I didn't really get what Polybius was trying to do until the end of the book. He starts off describing how around 140 B.C. the Carthaginians were extending their power into Spain, but the Romans were reluctant to oppose them in battle, because Gauls kept threatening from the north, tying up Roman legions. All of the sudden, he's on this twenty-five page digression about how Rome met the Gauls in battle several times, nearly two hundred-fifty years ago, in 386 B.C...

Gauls
This is the best part and the worst part. On one hand, it contains overlong passages which are little more than lists (p.136) about how many garrisons were here, and how many cavalry were there, etc: "The men capable of bearing arms were supplied to the authorities as follows: Latins, 80,000 infantry and 5,000 cavalry; Samnites, 70,000 infantry and 7,000 cavalry; Iapygians and Messapians, 50,000 infantry...." My entire experience in high school Latin class was translating militaristic humdrum like this, and reading it is no more fun than translating it was. To spice things up, however, Polybius peppers the text with little surprises, like the Gaesatae legion deciding to fight Romans naked, because (p138) "...They believed that they would be better equipped for action in this state, as the ground was in places overgrown with brambles and these might catch in their clothes and hamper them in the use of their weapons."Yes, far better to proceed into the brambles nude, surrounded by 6,000 sword-wielding buddies, charging uphill into a barrage of enemy arrows. Normally I'd want some armor to go with that, but if there are brambles around for it to get caught on... better not to risk it.

Wait, it gets better: (p140)"...the movements of the naked warriors in the front ranks made a terrifying spectacle. They were all men of splendid physique and in the prime of life, and those in the leading companies were richly adorned with gold necklaces and bracelets. The mere sight of them was enough to arouse fear among the Romans..."Yeah, brambles be damned, I'm not going into battle without my good gold bracelets and necklaces. And who wouldn't be terrified by a surging army of bejeweled, battle-hardened, naked young men in the prime of life, their necklaces and bracelets shimmering in the sun, lunging into combat with splendid physique, their swords drawn and ready for action? In a stunning upset, the naked Celts were annihilated, and their bracelets captured for the glory of Rome.

Method to the Madness
After all that, Polybius summarizes that the Romans have met the challenge of the Gauls successfully in the past. Many times, in fact, so should not have let the Galic threat deter them from opposing Carthage in Spain. The reasoning seems a bit weak, but there you have it. In an almost incidental side note, he also mentions...

The Romans in Greece
Okay, the narration is back on track in 140 B.C., although Polybius doesn't actually extend the courtesy of telling us so. You have to figure that out for yourself, thank you very much. There was no Greek nation-state at this time, only a bunch of kingdoms and city-states loosely affiliated by a common language and culture. The last thirty pages of Book II laboriously catalogues their infighting. It is not a pleasure to read. Being so discordant, the Greeks were thus easily terrorized by the stronger, more unified kingdom of Illyria to the north (roughly covering the area occupied by the once Yugoslavia).


When Rome clashed with Illyria over the issue of Illyrian piracy in the Adriatic, Greeks rushed to Roman support. Thus Rome was drawn into Greek affairs -an association which would ultimately end poorly for the Greeks.

Overall, Book II was not as tight or focused as Book I. Long story short, Carthage expanded into Spain after the First Punic War, and Polybius thinks Rome should have done more to address that threat. If this were a modern text, I'd say Book II needed better editing, but since it's an ancient classic, who would dare? It's as if the Mona Lisa had a spot that needed touching up...

BOOK III
Polybius has this annoying habit of starting each book by telling me what he is going to tell me, once he gets around to actually starting the book. Then he laments that he doesn't know if the gods will bless him with long enough life to get all those things down on paper. Geez, Polybius! Just tell me! Then you won't have to worry about whether you live long enough to tell me!

Punic War #2 (218 B.C. -201 B.C.) -the "Hannibalic War"
Carthage is still smarting from their embarrassing defeat in the First Punic War, when Rome kicks them out of Sardinia as well. Carthaginian general Hannibal is fuming. He starts conquering territory in Spain, pillaging cities, collecting men and loot to go after Rome. Meanwhile, the Romans take notice, and order a stop to all this. In fact, they order the Carthaginians to surrender General Hannibal and his men, or else be taken as supporting his "outrageous" actions. Words are exchanged. Feelings are hurt. Naturally, Carthage does not turn Hannibal over, and he mobilizes forces and starts heading north to cross the Pyrenees Mountains.

But first, a word from our sponsors...
At this point, the narration is a gripping tale of two great forces squaring off for control of the known world. What a great time for Polybius to launch into a six page digression about what a great historian he is. Seriously, he trash talks like a rap star, telling us (p.208) ..."I wish to correct the misapprehension of those who think my work is hard to obtain and difficult to read..." OH SNAP!!!
Then later (p.210) ..."I need not be condemned as if I were imitating those historians who try to make their inaccuracies convincing." IN YOUR FACE, UNNAMED OTHER ANCIENT HISTORIANS!!! NOW WHO'S THE PUNK(S), BE-AH-CHES?!?? WHO NEED NOT BE CONDEMNED? -YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT!

CisAlpine Gaul
When Polybius gets a grip and returns us to the narration, Hannibal is already across the Alps. Whoa! I figured the story of that crossing could be a book unto itself... those poor elephants trudging through the snow... hostile Celtic and Germanic tribes attacking from all sides, trapping Hannibal and his troops in narrow mountain passages. I really thought Hannibal's epic journey through Spain, Southern France, and Switzerland was going to be a centerpiece of this book. No luck- Polybius glosses over this part. Has he no sense of drama?? I was able to get over my disappointment though, because Polybius tells the tale of CisAlpine Gaul well. "CisAlpine Gaul" translates as "Gaul, this side of the Alps". From the Roman perspective, there was no concept of the Italian peninsula being an integrated area. The region we know as northern Italy

was culturally Gaul, and not regarded as a geograpically integral part of Roman Italy. At the time of Hannibal's attack, one of the major CisAlpine Galic peoples were the Boii. They had recently been defeated and subsumed by Rome. When Hannibal and his magnificent elephants entered the area, they were regarded as liberators. To Roman horror, the Boii did not oppose the invaders, but took up arms and joined them against Rome. This is one of history's recurring punchlines: how Empires assume that the people they have vanquished and pillaged actually love their imperial overlords! Fast forward to the mid 20th century, and press statements from the British government towards rebelling subjects in India and Kenya repeatedly characterize independence movements as products of an "ungrateful native mind". The Celtic support gave Hannibal's forces a much-needed boost. Rome had dispatched their most accomplished general, Scipio, to address the problem, but hadn't factored the Celtic defectors into their calculations. After some stinging defeats, a second general, Longus, was sent to assist. Longus was not the great general Scipio was, and let his personal ambitions interfere with decisions in the field. He engaged the enemy at inopportune times, when Scipio's forces were not close by to support, figuring any victory would be his alone, rather than shared or absorbed by Scipio's reputation. Needless to say, planning battles around PR considerations does not make for great leadership, and Roman forces paid the price repeatedly. Much of the rest of Book III is devoted to decriptions of battlefield movements, tactics, and the like. It is interesting reading, but too detailed to include in this review.

BOOK IV
The entire point of Book IV is that the Greek city states fought with each other quite a lot, and the Byzantines inhabit a land which is bountiful and in an excellent strategic position. I could have said as much in less than twenty-two pages. In fact, I just did.

BOOK V
Now things get interesting. Greece is watching the ongoing conflict in Italy, and can't help thinking that regardless who wins, the victor will soonafter turn his attention to Greece and Illyria. King Philip of Macedon rallies fellow Greeks to band together for a strike at Rome in her homeland! It seems the docrine of preemptive war isn't so new after all.

BOOK VI
The books are getting shorter now; it isn't just my reveiws. This book breaks from the historical narration, and discusses Polybius' general observations that history appears cyclic in nature, and that diverse societies all seem to follow a similar dialectic from monarch to tyrrany (i.e. dictatorship) to aristocracy to oligarchy to democracy to mob rule, and then back to monarchy. The American founding Fathers were in general well-versed in classical literature, and it would be interesting to know whether Polybius, and this chapter specifically, informed their views.

UPDATE: Michael just made the following comment on my thread:
__________________________________________________​
Michael - rated it 4 stars 2 hours, 5 min ago

I took a foundational historical/political thought class in college, and actually yes, the Founding Fathers did read Polybius, and it's one of the intellectual underpinnings behind our Separation of Powers. The whole idea of a "mixed constitution" in Book VI is one of the more cogent pieces of classical rhetoric that get the US interested in a Republic very specifically as opposed to a democracy.

__________________________________________________​
Thanks, Michael!
...See? You really should read this book.

BOOKS VII-VIII
Sicily is inhabited by Carthaginians (around Trapani and Eriche), the kingdom of Syracuse (which is politically independent and culturally Greek), and Romans everywhere else. An uneasy peace remains intact so long as Syracuse keeps to itself. When she starts talking with Carthage about increasing trade, and maybe exchanging diplomatic envoys, Rome feels threatened and begins building up arms, as a show of force. Meanwhile, Carthage makes a broad alliance with the Greeks under the command of Philip of Macedon. Essentially Carthage and the Greeks agree to support each other in any attacks upon Rome, including Hannibal's ongoing efforts. Polybius takes some time in an aside to describe Philip of Macedon's gradual transformation from a just ruler to a tyrant. Rome, under the leadership of General Appius Claudius Pulcher ("Pulcher" just doesn't sound very Roman to me), makes repeated attempts to storm Syracuse, but the Syracusans are directed by the wise old man Archimedes, who figures out how to frustrate each Roman attack.

Meanwhile, Hannibal's forces are down at the arch of the "boot" in Taranto. Using an ingenius plan to sneak his operatives (posing as local peasants) into the city during a Roman festival when most of the legions are drunk, Hannibal bypasses the city's extensive fortifications. The Carthaginians open the city gates, and allow Hannibal's army to enter. Instead of demolishing the city, they quietly go about killing Roman soliers as they lay in a drunken stupor. Under strict order, they do not harm any of the native population. When the city's inhabitants wake in the morning, the Roman forces have been wiped out, and the Carthaginian army is peacefully occupying them, eager to buy food from Tarantan merchants. The Trantans, never big fans of Rome to begin with, embrace the well-behaved new army, and even help them to route out and destroy whatever Romans remain. This is how Hannibal- so far from home, and with no supply lines to speak of, manages to maintain momentum against Italy for so long. It turns out quite a few native Italians were eager to turn against Rome, given an opportunity with a reasonable chance of success. To his credit, Hannibal was able to recognize this and capitalize on it... until the fall of Capua (in the vacinity of Naples). Something about Capua, maybe its size, maybe its proximity to Rome, gave non-Roman Italians pause. When Hannibal managed to seize Capua, southern Italians seemed to realize that maybe they were trading domination by Rome for domination by Carthage. Hannibal had laid waste to much of the countryside, and subjected the citizenry to quite a lot of violence, after all. The fall of Capua must have raised questions in many Italian minds, including "What will life be like if Hannibal defeats Rome?" and "What do we really know about this Hannibal guy, anyhow?". Maybe the known evils of Rome weren't so bad next to the unknown evils of Carthage. Suddenly, Hannibal's allies in Campaignia, Umbria, and CisAlpine Gaul weren't such ardent supporters... and Hannibal must have recognized this. He started recalling garrisons he had stationed in townships throughout Italy, fearing his forces were too spread out, and too vulnerable to uprisings, should locals turn on him. Pulling forces out of many of these towns violated Hannibal's pledge to protect his allies from recapture by Rome... thus accelerating the growing doubts about him. This is how Hannibal's support crumbled, and the Roman General Scipio was able to marshal a massive attack and bring an end to his campaigns in Itay.

BOOKS IX-end
This part comprises a lot of Polybius' musings about what it takes to be a great General, etc, but does contain one really interesting anecdote:

Worst General Staff Aide EVER!
Back when Hannibal was planning to march his forces on their legendary trek from Spain to Italy, he delegated the logistic details of feeding the troops to one of his assistants: Monomachus. After several weeks attending to other affairs, he came back to check on Monomachus' progress. There had been none. Monomachus basically said "Oh, I just assumed you wanted the men to march to the point of starvation, and then have the remaining forces cannibalize them. We ought to be able to get to Italy on that plan!" Hannibal's response: "WTF!!!! I never said anything like that! You're fired!"

***
There's still more to tell, but I've run out of alotted characters for a review. If you've read this far, you should have a good sense of what this book is like. It can be slow going at times, but overall a good read, and well worth the effort, if you are interested in antiquity.

FIN ( )
1 vote BirdBrian | Apr 7, 2013 |
Edition: First Edition // Descr: xliv, 340 p. 18 cm. // Series: The Great Histories Call No. { 878 P76 1 } Series under the General Editorship of Hugh R. Trevor-Roper Newly Translated by Mortimer Chambers Edited and Abridged with an Introduction by E. Badian Contains Glossary and Index. // //
  ColgateClassics | Oct 26, 2012 |
THIS appears to be one of the books which will long do honour to the present age. It has been by some remarker observed, that no man ever grew immortal by a translation ; and undoubtedly translations into the prose of a living language must be laid aside whenever the language changes, because the matter being always to be found in the original, contributes nothing to the preservation of the form superinduced by the translator. But such versions may last long, though they can scarcely last always; and there is reason to believe that this will grow in reputation while the English tongue continues in its present state.

The great difficulty of a translator is to preserve the native form of his language, and the unconstrained manner of an original writer. This Mr. Hampton seems to have attained in a degree of which there are few examples. His book has the dignity of antiquity, and the easy flow of a modern composition.

It were, perhaps, to be desired that he had illustrated with notes an author which must have many difficulties to an English reader, and particularly that he had explained the ancient art of war; but these omissions may be easily supplied by an inferior hand from the antiquaries and commentators. To note omissions where there is so much performed, would be invidious, and to commend is unnecessary where the excellence of the work may be more easily and effectually shown by exhibiting a specimen. – Johnson in the Literary Magazine, 1756.
1 vote SamuelJohnsonLibrary | May 4, 2008 |
Showing 3 of 3
no reviews | add a review

» Add other authors (38 possible)

Author nameRoleType of authorWork?Status
Polibioprimary authorall editionsconfirmed
Möller, LenelotteEditormain authorsome editionsconfirmed

Reference guide/companion to

Has as a commentary on the text

You must log in to edit Common Knowledge data.
For more help see the Common Knowledge help page.
Series (with order)
Canonical title
Original title
Alternative titles
Original publication date
People/Characters
Important places
Important events
Related movies
Awards and honors
Epigraph
Dedication
First words
INTRODUCTION -- Polybius was born about 208 B.C. at Megalopolis in Arcadia.
THE HISTORIES OF POLYBIUS

BOOK I

1. Had previous chroniclers neglected to speak in praise of History in general, it might perhaps have been necessary for me to recommend everyone to choose for study and welcome such treatises as the present, since men have no more ready corrective of conduct than knowledge of the past.
Quotations
Last words
Disambiguation notice
Publisher's editors
Blurbers
Publisher series
Original language
Book description
Haiku summary

Amazon.com Product Description (ISBN 0140443622, Paperback)

The Greek statesman Polybius (c.200 - 118 BC) wrote his account of the relentless growth of the Roman Empire in order to help his fellow countrymen understand how their world came to be dominated by Rome. Opening with the Punic War in 264 BC, he vividly records the critical stages of Roman expansion: its campaigns throughout the Mediterranean, the temporary setbacks inflicted by Hannibal and the final destruction of Carthage. An active participant of the politics of his time as well as a friend of many prominent Roman citizens, Polybius drew on many eyewitness accounts in writing this cornerstone work of history.

(retrieved from Amazon Mon, 30 Sep 2013 13:22:43 -0400)

(see all 4 descriptions)

No library descriptions found.

Quick Links

Swap Ebooks Audio
25 wanted1 free
15 pay

Popular covers

Rating

Average: (3.88)
0.5
1
1.5
2 3
2.5
3 24
3.5 4
4 31
4.5 5
5 19

Penguin Australia

An edition of this book was published by Penguin Australia.

» Publisher information page

Is this you?

Become a LibraryThing Author.

 

Help/FAQs | About | Privacy/Terms | Blog | Contact | LibraryThing.com | APIs | WikiThing | Common Knowledge | Legacy Libraries | Early Reviewers | 94,366,781 books! | Top bar: Always visible