The Roman Revolution

Here's not a biography of Augustus. Here's an expose of how the Roman Republic ended (or did it?) and how a young man greedy for power would establish a new autocratic regime which would define Rome for about three hundred years. This is a political narrative, where the author focus intensely on the political factions, rivalries, families feuds, clash of personalities that would serve a brutal change of government; a change which, also, had been profound indeed. Echoing Tacitus, the author's conclusion about the emergence of the Principate, though, is actually blunt and uncompromising:

'it may be regarded merely as the legalization, and therefore the strengthening, of despotic power.'

One could accuse him of being politically influenced. show more After all, this was first published in 1939; in an international context which was witnessing the rise of totalitarian regimes all across Europe (fascistic rulers ridding their countries of inadequate regimes, in the name of law and order when civil unrests where threatening...). One could also accuse him of being cynical too. For him indeed, such Roman Revolution was not done out of political ideal, but, self-serving interests from selfish factions of all sorts -the corruption and greed of adventurers, financiers, and feuding families, who all saw in Augustus the defender of their privileges. One could accuse him to do so, yet...

Taking an original approach, the historian tackles his subject using prosopography. This not only allows him to show that, yes indeed, the Republic was inadequate and Julius Caesar a dictator, but, also and above all, that the volatiles factions then fighting each others were so intricately linked by common interest that the oligarchy was too strong to be easily overthrown... should one wish to overthrow it! Augustus, despite all the political slogans, knew better. He just had to tap into it to assert full power, his own coup; and, ruthless and ambitious as he was, he will not hesitate to do just that. Politicians putting self-interest before the common good may (*cough*) sound shocking (well…) but let's not forget how alien Roman politics was to ours. Taking the time to outline key political concepts, the historian also points in fact to a mindset ripe for dictatorship:

'Debauched by demagogues and largess, the Roman people was ready for the Empire and the dispensation of bread and games.'

With such view in mind, it becomes clearer why the likes of Mark Anthony, too conciliant perhaps, were doomed to fail anyway. The rot had already nested within long ago, and so they had to be rid off too. Ronald Syme, here, does a good job in debunking the silly justifications put forward for a war to be declared against him -for, of course, Cleopatra was no threat to Rome! But the propaganda machine had been oiled and fully worked: Actium (not the glorious and grandiose battle you may think it was) had been well exploited.

That is not to say Augustus' triumph wasn't revolutionary. It was, for it would change the constitution of the ruling class forever. But, such drastic changes were more the by-products of the civil wars and their consequences than the result of a clear and intended revolutionary will. Indeed, Augustus the populist would well reward his cronies and, as 'nobiles' had been decimated through intestine wars, the 'novi homines' would rise from all over (from the whole of Italy -newly united- to, later on, the barbarians Provinces). Roman citizenship was on the path of massive change indeed...

Is this a enlightening read on troubled events? Oh yes! Here's brilliant scholarship and a massive opus on one of the focal point in Roman history. It can be daunting too, though. Prosopography might be the most relevant and persuasive approach to deal with the subject, considering Roman society and politics, but, the whirlwind of names and volatiles factions parading in here surely can be confusing and mystifying too! Here is, undeniably, a long and challenging book to go through. Yet, the core argument of it all remains powerful. In fact, Augustus might be here exposed for who he, and his regime, might truly have been about. Was Tacitus right, then? Whatever: this has become a classic on the period! show less

First of all, this book was a total slog to get through. I put it down several times, and when I eventually resumed, I had to push myself through forced-march reading of 20 pages a day to finish it.

The prose is dense with proper names and details of the lives and careers of minor figures. The author assumes enormous prior knowledge by the reader, so he never explains anything, not even the locations of lesser-known provinces or cities. There are no maps. It is filled with un-translated citations in both Latin and Greek.

Want to know the major events of Augustus’ reign, with analysis of their causes and effects? You won’t get it here. Consider the Battle of Teutoburg Forest in 9 CE, when the Germans wiped out the Roman legions that show more had been trying to pacify German lands with an eye towards eventual conquest or settlement. This is the most geopolitically significant event during Augustus’ decades-long rule, with deep and long-lasting implications for Roman policies and behavior across the borders of its empire. What does Syme say about it? What led to it? How did it affect Augustus emotionally, and how did it change his management of the army and the borders? Did it weaken his popularity or political support? From Syme: nothing but silence. This major defeat gets a bare mention, and not even a paragraph of analysis. And this in a 500-page book.

Syme doesn’t draw conclusions, so you’re unclear why he’s going into so much detail about which families Augustus used for this or that type of appointment. Other reviewers talk about Syme’s overall thesis, but to me those comments are not fully supported in the text. What’s Syme’s main point? That Augustus brought big changes in Rome? Not exactly news. That he kept the forms and formalities of the Republic? We already knew that, and don’t need hundreds of pages of insignificant supporting details.

Others have seen this book as a condemnation of Augustus. I don’t think that’s warranted. Syme presents him as brutal at times, but also shows him as flexible, compromising and statesmanlike. He was serious about building a stable structure for the government that would let Rome rebound from the instability of the civil wars. And he more or less succeeded. Yes, he established a monarchy, an authoritarian regime, and held power in his hands - but he was not a murderous ideologue like Hitler or Stalin.

How did Augustus go from a green teenager who had the luck to be adopted by his great-uncle Julius Caesar to a 40-year monarch and founder of a new era of Rome? It’s a great story, but this isn’t the book to read to find it. show less

The "Roman Revolution" was more of years of civil war that seen a military despot (Julius Caesar) traded for August the autocrat; the war-like Roman city-state emerged from its bloody throes a domineering empire with a monarchy with not really much in the way of republican ideals.

Octavius was named in Caesar's will as his adopted son and heir, then known as Octavianus (Anglicized as Octavian). This author eschews that Anglicization even to the point of calling Mark Antony Marcus Antonius. All those -ius suffixes this Anglicized reader found wearying. Surely, the author is in the right here, as he obviously knows his Roman history in detail. He speeds through it like a fanboy reeling off Marvel Comics back stories of minor characters. show more Before I even absorb the fact there were 800 to a thousand senators at any one time during this period, he is off on the available details of the nearly lost career of some of them.

The story is told in three acts. Act I, Octavian, Mark Antony, and Marcus Lepidus formed the Second Triumvirate to defeat the assassins of Caesar. Act II: War! My copy has extensive marginalia from the previous reader, often about place names. It makes me realize this book needs some maps for the years of conflict about the Mediterranean.

Following their victory at the Battle of Philippi, the Triumvirate divided the Roman Republic among themselves and ruled as military dictators. The Triumvirate was eventually torn apart by the competing ambitions of its members. Lepidus was driven into exile and stripped of his position, and Antony committed suicide following his defeat at the Battle of Actium by Octavian in 31 BC. Actium, here, is shown to have nationalistic impact on developing the Roman identity like Yorktown for us. Because, this is as much about the unification of Italy and an identity for the entire peninsula as hub to the provinces.

Act III: Consolidation and establishment. After the demise of the Second Triumvirate, (now named) Augustus restored the outward façade of the free Republic, with governmental power vested in the Roman Senate, the executive magistrates, and the legislative assemblies. (So much for the rewards of revolution, but the weary populace and subjugated peoples were ready for a new godhead on the throne.) Princeps Civitatis ("First Citizen of the State") oversaw a constitutional framework became known as the Principate, the first phase of the Roman Empire. show less

Sir Ronald Syme's analysis of the rise of Octavian/Augustus is comprehensive and breathtaking (though, I've since discovered, lacking in certain small ways: for instance, Syme never names the Arval Brotherhood as one of the priesthoods that Augustus revived as part of his efforts to "purify" the Roman people); Syme examines the Augustan Revolution through the lens of contemporary events in Europe (remember, the original date of publication was 1939), and it is this vantage point, left largely unremarked but lurking always in the background, that gives the book its urgency and, I suspect, its controversy. Syme relies almost exclusively on ancient sources; his statement of purpose in his introductory chapter ("The present inquiry will show more attempt to discover the resources and devices by which a revolutionary leader arose in civil strife, usurped power for himself and his faction, transformed a faction into a national party, and a torn and distracted land into a nation, with a stable and enduring government" [p. 4]) doubtless caused many of Roman Revolution's original readers many a disquieting moment: could Germany's self-proclaimed "Thousand Year Reich" really be a'borning? And what about the Soviet Union..? If I had to sum up this book in 15 words or less, I'd say "Faction is everything:" while Syme doesn't promote the fuzzy and paranoid thinking that goes by the label of "conspiracy theory," conspiracies were rife in those days, and what you did often counted for far less than who you knew. Rom. Rev. has changed the way that I look at politics in general; for that alone, it is well worth the time and effort I spent reading it. show less

This original master work by a craftsman of Roman history is superb. The primary lesson of the Roman Revolution for us is the classic warning of a powerful leader who came to power in the midst during a time of chaos or disruption. Syme relates the final years of the ancient Roman Republic and the creation of the Roman Empire by Caesar Augustus. A momentous warning, in 1939, it was immediately controversial although timely in light of World War II. Its thesis is that the structure of the Republic and its Senate were inadequate to the needs of Roman rule, and that Augustus was merely doing what was necessary to restore order in public life. This was a situation not unlike the contemporary events in Nazi Germany and the other fascist show more regimes.

Syme relies on prosopography, as described by Friedrich Münzer, to demonstrate Augustus' covert but undisputed power. His manipulation of the Roman client system and the development of personal relationships into a "Caesarian" faction then eliminated the competition. The inexorable process culminated in the exploitation of his relationship as a relative of Julius Caesar to pursue Caesar's assassins, then over a period of years to gradually incorporate his personal power and prestige while all the while nominally restoring the Republic in name only. Augustus then appears as a crafty politician in Rome's constitutional crisis.

His conclusion of inevitability is less strongly supported than his elucidation of the usurpation process and the major challenge to his view appears in The Last Generation of the Roman Republic, where Erich Gruen argued that the traditional view of the Republic's decay is not actually supported by the objective evidence. show less

A college text, I recall. A clear presentation of the ferment of the period preceding the Augustan Empire. Syme was using the material to advance the idea that Octavian was a man with a totalitarian bent, and program that he gradually shaped and implemented. I rather agree. though there has been two revisions since the original publication in 1939, the book is still to be found.

Pesado, académico pero genial.

La lección que me llevo? No te preocupes mucho por los calificativos y nombres que usan tus políticos para el régimen que manejan. Mirá un poco más y te darás cuenta que detrás de tus repúblicas y democracias hay siempre una oligarquía que lleva la batuta.

Y que una revolución es simplemente el cambio de una oligarquía por otra. No importa como quiera llamarse.