Anthony Everitt

In this newer biography of one of history's most well-known names, Everitt provides a sweeping narration of Alexander's life, from his birth as the son of Macedonian King Philip and coming into his own power upon Philip's murder, to what he is best known for: vanquishing Darius, the Great King of Persia, and subsequently conquering all peoples from the Mediterranean to India.

I became concerned during the first few chapters that this was going to be partly a work of speculative nonfiction, show more which I struggle with, but it eventually found more or less stable footing in the historical record. (I'm also willing to be more forgiving when the time period we're talking about is 2000+ years ago.) The writing is effective and strives to provide balance in areas of uncertainty. As someone not naturally drawn to military history, I found the narrative just engaging enough to keep me interested. I'm not sure any new conclusions can be drawn surrounding his puzzling death at only thirty-three years of age, but Everitt lays out multiple plausible scenarios. Understandably, Alexander's staggering military finesse and accomplishments take center stage in this comprehensive history, though occasionally my eyes would glaze over keeping individual battles and their locations straight. To have completely dominated the known world by the age of thirty is an incredible feat, and it's incredible that we know as much as we do about this enigmatic leader. All that said, it's eye-opening and sobering how perspective changes through time. Today, we would consider Alexander a war criminal. show less

When this book came out initially I was tempted by it, but wanted to wait to see how the reviews went. I never heard anything really bad about it, so when I noticed it on audible.com I bought it. As an audio it was ok, but the reader used strange pronunciation with about ½ of the personal and place names. This constant needling pulled me out of the story a lot and lessened my enjoyment of the tale.

As a history and biography it doesn’t suffer from a case of hero worship, but I get the show more impression the author had to make himself find and point out Augustus’s flaws and foibles. Also like most treatments of Augustus’s life, this one takes fully ½ of the book to tell about his dealing with Antony, the Triumvirate and his rise to sole power. Granted it is the most interesting part, but I was already familiar with these events and wanted to know more about his actions and motivations once he became princeps. Eventually the author gave me that, but not in as much detail as I had hoped. Maybe this isn’t Everitt’s fault due to the fact that he said most of the direct documentation of this period has been lost. There are some anecdotes surviving in a few places, but a lot of it is conflicting and probably colored by rumor, innuendo or other emotional factors. What’s left is writing after the fact, in some cases centuries after.

While reading I got the feeling that Everitt wanted to deliberately go against the popular opinions of Antony, Cleopatra and Livia. He even seems to champion Cato in all his zero-tolerance glory. In a sense it helps build a more restrained tale, but it just seemed argumentative for the sake of being so. In the end, with no direct and reliable sources, a lot of this biography is shrewd guesswork. Given the type of man it took to get and control this much power we can deduce Augustus was no saint, but at the same time Everitt took pains to portray him as not a total sinner either.

The overall impression I have now of Augustus is that of a man of resignation. Starting with his plan to have revenge on Julius Caesar’s murderers and ending with the failure to continue the Julian dynastic rule, he just seems to crumple under it. Was it really ambition that drove him? It doesn’t seem so. It’s more like some kind of compulsion. He doesn’t act like a man bent on achieving total control; he doesn’t seem ruthless enough. Everitt states that Livia kept all of Augustus’s letters to her, but they must be lost after all since they don’t seem to come into play to help us understand why Augustus did what he did. I can’t point to any specific examples that make me feel this way, it’s just an overall impression that Everitt gives. That Augustus is driven by forces outside his will.

Although his name is not as world-renowned as his adoptive father Julius Ceasar, his mark on civilization is larger and more deeply cut and it’s too bad that Everitt didn’t frame the lasting impact he had in a more definitive way. He talks about Augustus’s policies living on, mostly intact, for centuries, but doesn’t give specifics. Other than the obvious repercussions of expanding the Roman Empire to its fullest extent, and therefore ‘westernizing’ a large population, Everitt doesn’t show anything else. What of the laws that came as a result of Augustus’s actions? The court cases he settled? His religious policies? The social ones? How did those help create western civilization? I guess I’ll have to find the answers in someone else’s book. show less

This is a very well written biography of the great Roman orator, lawyer and statesman. I read this straight after finishing the final volume of Robert Harris's excellent trilogy of novels about his life. Cicero was at the centre of the great events of the middle part of the 1st century BC, the critical two decades which saw the demise of the Roman Republic whose values of (by the standards of the time, and sometimes more theoretical than practical) democracy, checks and balances and the rule show more of law he held so dear. As a principled pragmatist, he stood in mostly consistent opposition to the growing tendency towards one man rule in the times of Caesar, Pompey, Mark Antony and finally Octavian. His writings betray a humanism which is rare by the standards of his contemporaries. Many of his speeches, hundreds of his letters and a number of philosophical and political works survive and provide a rich trove of classical thought to which we should be indebted two millennia after their author lived and died. His final demise, hunted down and killed on the run by soldiers hired by Octavian, is ignominious, but his name rightly lived on and still does as one of the greatest and best figures of his time. show less

3.5

"The city's constitution had served it well for centuries. A lawmaking citizens' assembly balanced a small ruling class of nobles. But for the system to work effectively, a capacity for compromise was essential--- and now this capacity had been lost."

The Rise of Rome traces Rome's history from its origins through the Civil War between Sulla and Marius in the 1st century BC, documenting the evolution of the democratic Roman Republic and the gradual transition that laid the groundwork for show more the autocratic empire. Anthony Everitt's lively, clear writing makes for an accessible text for the general reader. Based on the amount of historical evidence available for a given period, he divides the book into three sections: legend, story, and history.

Legend refers to the "Age of Kings," the period of Rome's beginning as depicted in literature, myth, and art but for which little historical evidence exists--- the founding tales that people believe to be true. Here Everitt describes Rome's origin myths: its Trojan genesis through Aeneas a la Virgil, Romulus, and Remus, the rape of the Sabines, and the Tarquinn Kings.

Story falls into the 50/ 50 camp ( half legend and half historical evidence.) This section examines the conquest of the neighboring areas on the Italian peninsula, as well as the class struggles surrounding the constitution and the power of the three branches of government: executive (2 consuls), senate (nobles), and assembly (people). Everitt claims that the events are primarily evidenced-based but include stories of many protagonists that appear exaggerated or mythologized. His analysis of the contradictions in both Legend and Story is often illuminating.

Based on evidence, the third section, History, chronicles Rome's expansion and conquest throughout the Mediterranean. It demonstrates how its imperialist agenda rooted in a desire for personal glory (gloria) led to the erosion of democracy at home. Although Everitt includes a chapter on Social History, this section's primary emphasis is military history and its internal consequences. While military history is not generally an area of personal interest, I felt that Everitt's examination of the three Punic Wars provided a fascinating lens into Roman and Catheginian societies. However, I found his depictions of the Roman military campaigns in the aftermath of the Third Punic War confusing, overly detailed, and lacking an analytic lens.
This lengthy text segment detracted from an overall interesting and well-designed introductory history. Despite this glitch, I recommend The Rise of Rome for anyone looking for a thoughtful general overview of this historical period. show less