A really good survey that is presented ac little more topically. A nice read that provides an excellent overview by a modern expert. ( )

I've barely read anything about the Romans since I studied for Classical Civilisations A-level back in 2002, so decided to give Mary Beard’s extensive history a try. She covers an impressive and somewhat dizzying timescale, from Rome’s foundation myths to 212 CE. Her writing style is engaging yet pleasingly non-sensationalist. She continually makes clear the uncertainties historians must deal with when interpreting surviving evidence on what Roman society was like. I definitely found her discussion of daily life among the less well off in chapters 8 and 11 most interesting. For example, little is known about the Roman financial system. There may have been paper or other perishable money, as well as metal coinage. Millionaires probably did not buy their new estates with wheelbarrows of coins. As with other ancient societies, borrowing and debt were common, albeit at capped interest rates. These chapters also covers housing, work, bar culture, and marriage. Probably the most memorably horrifying detail concerns infant mortality rates: ‘Simply to maintain the existing population, each woman on average would have needed to bear five or six children’. Fucking hell. If you survived to the age of ten, though, a further forty years were usual.

Beard balances these societal trends with thoughtful discussion of political change over the centuries. The evolving institutions from Republic to Empire emerge from a confusing tangle of male names. She acknowledges the complex detail while bringing out the underlying meanings, insofar as we can discern them millennia later. Although it’s all a little overwhelming when you read 500 pages within 36 hours on long train journeys, I feel much better informed about the Romans. ‘SPQR’ makes sense of a huge topic without imposing rigid structure upon events. Debates amongst archaeologists and historians are noted without the narrative getting bogged down. The use of illustrations and examples is excellent. My interest in the ancient world has been rekindled; I should read further in this area. ( )

This book has lots of good information discussing the Rise and fall of the Roman Empire. Some parts of this is quite dense. The part I enjoyed the most was women’s lives during this time. Mary Beard discusses how there are part in Roman views were similar to some of todays views. I also enjoyed that she brought in plays that were popular at the time and how that plays in to what was happening in their world. ( )

The author reconstructs a lot of what ancient Rome was like from a mix of sources. But what is special about this work is the awareness it brings into the process of reconstruction itself, how evidence leads to expanded views of what society was like for different groups.

In practical terms the story of Roman society and politics serves as a reminder in contemporary politics 2020. ( )

This was a nice summary of some aspects of a period of Roman history, built on the latest scholarship. It was well written and informative, but also a bit of a skim across the Roman world, never taking the time to really dive into any aspect, which left me a bit unsatisfied. ( )

Richly deserving of the kudos it has earned, therefore well worth a read if the topic interests you: Mary Beard is one of the world's great historians.

I went into this with a pretty fragmentary knowledge of the history of Rome - some events, some names, some dates, but nothing coherent and mostly scraps from Wikipedia etc. So I can't judge this on how well this matches scholarly consensus or whatever. I can say from my perspective it was a very entertaining, easy to read introduction that still talks on an academic level about important issues without being impenetrable.

The timescale is from Rome's founding (both mythical in 753BC and what we know of what actually happened) to the granting of citizenship to all inhabitants of the empire in 212AD. She sees that period as having a noticeable continuity, split between the republican era and the empire but with the emperor being legitimised through republican institutions like the senate. Afterwards things ruptured significantly more and the centre of the empire moved away from Rome itself, with new social divisions, far less stability, the East/West split etc. Her account isn't a straight retelling of history - only major events are really talked about in more than passing, some in pretty little detail and little care for chronology - but one about the culture, structure, the internal conflicts. Therefore there's far more attention paid to Cicero's life and letters than to the Punic Wars, because they give our best picture of what the Roman Republic was like.

The very first chapter is about the Catiline Conspiracy and Cicero's "foiling" of the plot. It gives her a chance to talk about how limited our sources are - we know so little about the motivations of those who were defeated past what the victors with an interest in smearing them put in their mouths. She gives a very good criticism of Cicero's self-promoting story with alternative explanations of what happened (eg trumped up conspiracy for Cicero's self gain, anger among the poor in an economic crisis) and she regularly reminds us of the need to be sceptical about taking Roman word for gospel. It's fascinating too seeing the same issues crop up then as now - she makes the parallels specifically.

The first half-ish of the book is about the Roman Republic, looking at how Romans themselves imagined their origins as well as how they saw themselves. There's discussion of the oddity of the founding myths - eg having 2 brothers, the fratricide, having a mass rape (of the Sabine women) as one of the major events, Romulus being a king and kings being responsible for the culture of the Roman republic yet kings being hated. Also comparison with what we know from archaeology - Republican commentators projected back the contemporary structure of the Republic on to the past, so eg saw the Conflict of the Orders as producing their complicated political structure when the Twelve Tables show a much more simple system with very little obvious governmental role. Also interesting is the talk about the possible real elements to Roman myth - the leftovers in their rituals, how Etruscans saw things etc.

The second halfish is about the Empire, with an interval for the period ~90BC-30BC when things were in flux and the political structures of the Republic were in crisis. To very inexpertly summarise she pins the fall of the Republic on the Marian reforms creating non-propertied soldiers that relied on their generals to provide for them, the ability of the top Romans to acquire massive wealth (both through trade/property and war) which they could use to raise their own private armies and the Republic's focus on overseas war and expansion with very poor administrative infrastructure, relying on compliant client states, generals and governors who cared little for the senate and saw opportunities to enrich or empower themselves. The conservative faction was willing to abandon Republican convention themselves with the assassination of Gracchus and the murders of his followers just to avoid any change in their wealth. The conquest of Rome by Sulla and his installation of his own dictatorship, backed by military force enriched by war and after ignoring the Senate's decision to remove his generalship, paved the way for the later emperors as it proved the failure of the Republic's structures. It's clear that afterwards there was no returning to the classic republican system. Even Brutus had coins with his own face on them minted after killing Julius Caesar, something that was previously considered taboo.

Augustus appears as a skillful politician who successfully appeases the senate by creating new privileges for them and giving them more power in name while constraining their power in fact. The senate mostly becomes an administrator implementing the emperor's desires but they're still wealthy, powerful within their own sphere and generally given respect by the emperor (except when they get killed for whatever reason). The emperor, through his massive wealth acquired through war, inheritance and personal possessions, acts as a major philanthropist who appeases the poor while putting his stamp on Rome through massive building projects. Augustus is seen as setting the template for the next 200 years - there's very little change in the system and even the borders don't expand much. Outside the couple of short periods of civil war life goes on pretty much the same, with the difference between emperors being very limited even with all their personal vices and virtues. It's an impressive feat of stability and it's hard to imagine how it was done - she admits it's not really clear because we're unable to see into the emperor's palace, which was incredibly private. One of the virtues of the book is making it clear when we really don't know something and explaining why while giving some possible suggestions.

There are a few things that I'd have appreciated being discussed more eg Roman slavery is a constant feature but she never really delves into like the legal/moral/economic basis of it, I don't know enough but it seems kind of important. However, I realise there's tons to cover in a short space and I think overall she did an excellent job. I highly recommend this as a fascinating, easy to read overview of the period. ( )

A great history of Rome from its supposed inception in the 8th century BCE to the extension of citizenship to all free inhabitants of the empire in 212 CE. Professor Beard avoids the part of the story that usually concerns us, its end, and instead discusses the development of the republic and its progression to imperial Rome. (Certainly, our concern for modern parallels is understandable; was Mr. Trump ever called "little boots"?) The author spends considerable time discussing not only what we know, but also how we know it. I found this aspect of the history fascinating, especially how she uses her extensive knowledge to interpret the possible motivations of the great ancient speakers, and why some are preserved and others lost to us. The chapter on the lives of common people is also very good, including, as evidence, Pompeian graffiti and the details of the tombs of various artisans.

My notes include:
The number 40,000 may have been used in ancient times to mean a very large number, as in our use of "millions".
The reminder that ancient peoples had no maps.
A reminder from Prof. Beard of the meaning of average life expectancy, i.e. that some people have always lived as long as they do today, and that the principal determining factor is infant mortality.
The working title of The Great Gatsby was Trimalchio at West Egg.
Caesar apparently never said, "Et tu, Brute?", it was an invention of Shakespeare.
I had mistakenly thought that the months of July and August were added, but they were renamed. August had been Sextilis.
Biscuits were handed out at Roman sacrifices and they were stamped with the emperor's likeness. [!]
The story in the Talmud that Emperor Titus had his brain devoured by a gnat after he destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem.
Why the Colosseum has its name.
In ancient Greece and Rome, slaves were only permitted to give testimony under torture.



( )

SPQR is one of those big books you see at the library or bookstore (who are we kidding?) and kind of just marvel at. Maybe I'm the only one. Who actually reads those, other than the retired? These felt insurmountable as a young teen, even as I kept impulsively thrift-store buying and storing them. When was I going to read them? Who knows. I guess when I was retired.

It makes some sense though. In our current nonfiction historical tastes, it seems that the Doctoral thesis-cum-book deal or even the bloated Medium-article microhistory is winning out more and more. These tombs seem stodgy as best, potentially dangerous at worst. My University library, of which it carries books for 60,000+ people, had only one complete copy of Edward Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire—and it was in storage. I'm not saying I'm reading it either—I'm just saying it says a lot, no?

This is not that: Beard charts the early, mythic history of Rome to the end of the Roman millennium, around 248 AD. Each chapter (until the last third of the book) is roughly chronological, with welcome revisionist asides that place this book in a refreshingly modern context without being trendy. I've noticed in my constant book-perusing that the field of Classical study has been in a bit of uncomfortable reckoning: no matter how you spin it, there's really nothing less institutional and "ism-y" than the study itself, and a slew of (frankly weird) publications attempting to pretend that isn't the case have come out in recent years. SPQR is far from that—It explores the role of free-women, slaves, and non-citizens without making excuses for the lack of evidence about them, while also constantly reminding the reader of the yarns ancient authors spun for a good story and acknowledging that much of the juiciest bits of these histories are most likely false. Overall, it's a wonderful tone that looks at the Roman ruling elite not as gods or villains, but as political realities tangible to criticisms and praise. To everyone else, it is a wonderfully human look at their lives without being maudlin.

My only real gripe with the book is the lack of structure and depth in anything post-Augustus. Beard structures a 50-page chapter to summarize the next 200 years of Roman political rule and organizes it by Emperors and their rule and then the Senate—which was an understandable distinction given the change of the role of both but nevertheless a bit off after the relative chronology of the previous 400 pages. The weakest point is generally this last third: it's a changing, declining, expanding (whatever you want to call it) state that is obviously difficult to summarize but I still felt rushed through those years to get to the end. Beard fluffs out the ending with chapters regarding a general overview of class, gender, and evidence of expansion/colonial efforts, which I truly appreciated but wish was interspersed with a stronger chronological backbone. I love social history, don't get me wrong, but the great value of big books like these tend to (for me at least) be it's grounding and (perhaps too optimistically) ubiquity of the timeframe it reports of.

Despite all that bitching, this is an almost-addictingly readable history of Rome and I absolutely recommend it. I had a few horribly taught Roman history classes in undergrad while I was studying Classics that turned me off to learning more and this book has somehow given me a better starting point than anything those teachers could muster. Perhaps I should blame myself: I exclusively studied Greek and so tended to stay with their history classes, but for the first time ever I'm actually a bit jealous of the Latin kids of my past. Oh well. I'm sure I'll wake up tomorrow in a cold sweat and remember my poor friends' Livy lamentations of yore, haha. Anyways, I have a lifetime ahead of me so I thank this book for getting me back into this stodgy, dusty, wonderful world of Ancient Rome. ( )

Not just a history of emperors and generals, Mary Beard tries to give us a glimpse of what it might have been like living in the Roman Empire. Fascinating.

A brave effort to dig a little deeper than usual into the workings of the Roman Empire, from the foundation of the Roman state, through the early periods of conquest and republic, and the dictators from Augustus to Caracalla (of the baths), with which the author decides to close the book (citizenship extended to all "free" inhabitants of the empire, which changed the meaning of what it meant to be a Roman). The author, an accomplished historian, tries to compare the usual stereotypes with results from archaeological studies, but the physical evidence is so little that her inferences may be open to debate. There is also a tendency in the earlier sections to draw conclusions on hypothetical arguments (that something so extreme would have been very unlikely), but such arguments again are not convincing given the extremes to which the individuals took their eccentricities. ( )

Takes the history of Rome from Remus and Romulus to the first 1,000 years of the common era. Managing to the keep the information entertaining and relevant. ( )

Although I do not doubt the credibility of this book’s various claims, this was a poor history. The chapters jump between periods and narratives so frequently that I found no use in attempting to form a conceptual sequence of events. A “history of Rome” is simply too great a task for any single publication to accomplish, and this book ends up disjointed and spread thin over many concepts. ( )

2 yıldız verme sebebim kesinlikle yazar ve eseri değil. bilakis eser gayet ufuk açıcı.
ancak pegasus yayınları eline yüzüne bulaştırmış. çeviri çok kötü, imla/noktalama hataları ziyadesiyle mevcut. haliyle kitap okunması zor durumda.
dileğim odur ki; bu güzel eser, başka bir yayınevi tarafından hakkı verilerek tekrar basılır.
ben kitabı alalı epey bir süre oldu. geçenlerde 70 tl gibi fahiş bir etiket fiyatının olduğunu gördüm. kitabın bahsettiğim sıkıntıları üzerine bu da cabası. (eskiden tübitak tarafından basılan, çok satan "tüfek mikrop ve çelik" mesela, şu an pegasus'ta etiket fiyatı 70 tl. dahası pegasus yayınları işi öyle abartmış ki 100 tl'ye ince kapak kitap satmaya kalkmış. )
neyse fazla uzatmadan kitabın içeriğine geleyim.
spqr, antik roma'nın ilk bin yılını anlatıyor. sıradan bir vatandaşın rutininden, imparatorların öykülerine, siyasi çekişmelere, hukuka, mimariye, edebiyata dair vesaire anlatacağı çok şeyi var yazarın. ayrıca bütün bunları anlatırken de sıkça antik metinleri referans gösteriyor.
benim açımdan aydınlatıcı bir eser olduğunu ifade edebilirim. satın almamanızı, ancak imkan bulursanız okumanızı öneririm. ( )

Possibly the best history book I've ever read - the author is a true scholar with a rare ability to communicate difficult and convoluted ideas in a very clear and coherent way. Proof positive of the adage "the more things change, the more they remain the same..." ( )

Something of a disappointment. A rather dry slog that I didn't make it through. ( )

Just wonderful.
One of the better history books I have ever read. It is amazing that one person can know so much about a topic and distill it in such a marvelous manner. Provides both a long-term arc of the thousand years of Rome covered by the book, but also a sense of the details that make it all more memorable and relatable. ( )

I appreciate how Beard didn't make this another dry recitation of ancient Roman successes, losses, and leaders. She's willing to point out how the things we think we know about Roman history come from skewed sources but are still useful sources even if there credibility is questionable in certain cases.

I also appreciate the humorous asides she adds which add color and funny commentary on a time in history that we really only learn about in books and archaeological finds. ( )

Listened on Audible. Interesting, engaging, and broad history of the rise of Rome. ( )

Excellent introduction to the history of Rome. Written for a popular audience without any background in Roman history. ( )

attention waned at times... lots to cover ( )

I loved this book!
I feel like the history of Rome - the city, the Republic, and then the Empire - is only glazed over in history classes because of the sheer immensity of its timeline.
Mary Beard deftly tells readers the history of Rome in the best way possibly with available information.
It is a well written, well told history of a city that turned into an empire. ( )

Excellent. Well written throughout. ( )

A very well-written introduction to the history of Rome. Most of the book is spent on the pre-imperial portions of Rome's history, a choice that serves to help explore the traditions, structures and peoples of Rome rather than listing 'fun facts' about the emperors. ( )

The Rooman Empire still holds quite a sway in modern imaginations and culture. Gladiator and the tv show Rome are only two examples of its pop culture hold, and we still quote what may, or may not be, actual Roman lines. Rome is still important to us, and in this book, covering the beginnings of the empire up to the death (roughly) of Commodus, Beard shows the reader what it was like to live in Rome. This is a book about Rome the empire, but also Rome the people. What did it mean to be a Roman citizen?

SPQR: A History of Ancient RomeIt is an overview of the period, and it covers a huge swath of time, so don’t expect to be reading about every detail in the life of Augustus, or Claudius. And I think it works well if you have some familiarity with the history. Its been years and years since I studied anything about Rome, but that knowledge, hiding somewhere in my brain, certainly helped with my reading of this book.

Which isn’t to say that it is an overly academic book, it isn’t, it is a popular history book. And it is very readable. Almost too readable in parts, because, I don’t know about you, but for me, sometimes have a complex read forces me to slow down and take in the facts better than something that doesn’t need to be translated into words my brain understands.

It is also a book that is full of quotable lines, such as

It is a dangerous myth that we are better historians than our predecessors. We are not.

If you have an interest in Roman history, then this is a very good place to start, or even to continue. Although a word of warning, if you are anything like me when you are reading about good old Augustus you’ll be picturing the TV version, not to mention James Purefoy when Beard is talking about Marc Antony.

That is actually one of the things I really enjoyed about the book, how Beard shows us that all we think we know about Rome may not be true. And this goes double when talking about their enemies, or indeed the Romans that ended up on the wrong side of history themselves. That line about victors writing the history certainly comes into play. ( )