The Roman Revolution

This was required reading for a graduate course in Roman history. Ronald Syme's book The Roman Revolution was originally printed in 1939. My report is on the book's fourth printing of 1960, which incorporated minor revisions. Syme was an Oxford professor of ancient history for most of his adult life. He is primarily remembered for this book, which was hailed as a groundbreaking analysis of Roman political life after the assassination of Julius Caesar. Syme also wrote an excellent analysis of the works of the Roman historians Tacitus and Sallust. When this book was published, many historians detected that current events of the time; such as, the rise of Fascism in Europe, had an enormous influence on Syme's book. Specifically, he ominously observed the cult hero worship of Mussolini and Hitler in Italy and Germany where he had traveled on numerous occasions in the 1930's. The excuse Caesar Augustus used to seize power was that the political structure of the Republic and the Senate became inadequate to rule Rome; thus, he was only doing what was necessary to restore public order. Syme found that the Dictators in Italy and Germany were eerily repeating this excuse some two thousand years later. In the introduction to his book, Syme stated that the new government which Caesar Augustus instituted "was the work of fraud and bloodshed, based upon the seizure of power and redistribution of property by a revolutionary leader." The book covers the political and social structure of the Roman state between 60 BCE and 14 CE; essentially the domination of Pompeius Magnus through the Principate of Augustus. Syme correctly theorized that leading up to this turbulent period of Roman history the government was really an oligarchy, which was conveniently masked behind the façade of a republic. Syme wrote in his chapter on "The Roman Oligarchy:" "The political life of the Roman Republic was stamped and swayed,not by parties and programmes of a modern and parliamentary character, not by the ostensible opposition between Senate and People, Optimates and Populares, nobiles and novi homines, but by the strife for power, wealth, and glory. The contestants were the nobiles among themselves, as individuals or in groups, open in the elections and courts of law, or marked by secret intrigue. As in the beginning, so in its last generation, the Roman Commonwealth,`res publica populi Romani', was a name; a feudal order of society still in a city-state and governed an empire." Noble families determined the history of the Republic. Thus, Syme wrote that the true history of Rome could not be understood without knowledge of the noble families and clans, who provided the men that comprised the oligarchy. Men from the noble families comprised the different competing political factions in Rome. The machinations of Rome's political factions, coupled with the inefficiency of the oligarchy to rule a large empire and the rise of a professional army, all contributed to

This great work of scholarly history was first published in June 1939. In his brief foreword Sir Ronald Syme speaks cryptically about its publication being a matter of some urgency. From that we have to infer that he saw it as having contemporary relevance. From a slow and careful reading I would add that we ought to be very careful and circumspect in how we draw parallels and apply lessons. I don't dispute for a moment that a thorough and precise examination of what was done over the turbulent transition from the later Roman republic to the principate gives deep insight into human motivations and political processes. However if one particular lesson comes over loud and clear to me it is how terminology can be distorted for political ends, deliberate or even unperceived. Those prone to assert that `reading history' will in some inevitable way support some cherished preconception of their own will, if intelligent and attentive, gain a salutary insight into what history really consists of, and with that a perception of the pitfalls of dealing in glib generalisations and citing as convenient parallels things that are no parallels at all. The first job of the historian is to clarify what really, or probably, happened and to interpret accurately or at least rationally what the sources for the period tell us. This is rarely a matter of simple fact in the sense that multiplication tables are simple fact. Syme's reasoning is bold and forthright, and while he has no claim to be taken as gospel he never seems to me perverse or unreasonable. I personally doubt that Antony was the straightforward and honest type portrayed by Syme - Syme himself can't get away from the part Antony played in the proscriptions. On the other hand he has every reason to ridicule Octavian's propaganda concerning the nonexistent threat posed to Rome from Antony's Egyptian queen and Octavian's official party line that elevated the naval skirmish at Actium into some mighty turning-point of history. The story I read from Syme is as follows. The Roman republic was always part-sham. Its official mode of governance was by the senate and people, with the consuls as chief officers of government chosen at stated intervals by the people. Real power was exercised by shifting coalitions of nobles together with the unseen influence of the moneyed equestrian class. The values that weighed with both nobles and plebs were tradition and `authority', there being no written constitution. There was certainly some flexibility, but it was rare for the plebs to choose as consuls anyone lacking aristocratic status. There was no concept of progress whatsoever, and democracy on the Athenian model was despised. `Liberty' was largely theoretical, except in the sense that free speech was untrammelled to a degree we would never tolerate now. There was no pressure from any class for reform let alone revolution, but the knights and bankers were provoked at the peril of any who did so (as Catiline found to his

This is without doubt Syme's masterwork. The praise has been lavish. A.J.P. Taylor said it was a "work of brilliant scholarship which can be enjoyed by the expert and the layman alike". Sir Maurice Bowra said "his work is extraordinarily persuasive and interesting, it is the best book on Roman History that has appeared for many years." The Classical Review wrote that is the "one of the most important books on Roman history since Mommsen.Need more reasons to read it? Well, I'll try. I'll start by saying that this is one of the top 25 books I have read - though I by no means agree with everything Syme believes.What Ronald Syme has done is to lay bare the workings of the late Republic and early Empire. To do this required an effort of scholarship and synthesis on a gargantuan scale. And yet Syme manages to render the story in a lucid, straightforward, compelling manner. His arguments are often ineluctable. You find yourself drawn along, at times unwillingly, to conclusions you thought far-fetched.The period under scrutiny is 60 BC to AD 14. Thus he covers the last generation of the Republic and the first two or three of the Empire. In a nutshell his hypothesis is that the Republic simply was not equipped to manage what had become an empire. He believes that Rome was inevitably drawn to the rule of one.He writes of Caesar: "The rule of the nobiles, he [Caesar] could see, was an anachronism in a world-empire; and so was the power of the Roam plebs when all Italy enjoyed the franchise. Caesar in truth was more conservative and Roman that many have fancied; no Roman conceived of government save through an oligarchy."Augustus, however, was a different matter. And it was Augustus, believes Syme, who wrought the revolution that forever changed the Roman way of life. To suggest, as has some have done, that there was no true revolution, almost defies sense and logic. And Syme ably makes the case.But aspects of the Syme's theory remain controversial. He writes: "The nobiles by their ambition and their feuds, had not merely destroyed their spurious republic: they had ruined the Roman People. There is something more important than political liberty; and political rights are a means, not an end in themselves. That end is security of life and property: it could not be guaranteed by the constitution of Republican Rome. Worn and broken by civil war and disorder, The Roman people was ready to surrender the ruinous privilege of freedom and submit to strict government as the beginning of time....So order came to Rome. "Acriora ex eo vincula", as Tacitus observes."Wow. This is breath taking and highly controversial. He might as well have been writing about pre-Nazi Germany (and note that Syme wrote "The Roman Revolution" in 1939). And, frankly, I must tell you I do not agree with his condemnation of the nobiles. Nor do others.The most important voice in opposition remains that of Erich Gruen's. "The Last Generation of the Roman Republic" MUST be read alongside "The Rom

this is one of the best books i have ever read, i am only 15 years old and by far not an expert in roman history (yet). but regardless i can say thet this book is an excelllent one, it describes, in an amazing style, the end of the republic and the rise to power of Augustus one of the greatest and first of the roman emperors. it will not be an exageration to say thet this book has changed my life, and i suggest anyone that has the option to read it!

Syme wrote this, his first work, in 1939. He both challenged prevailing views of Augustus and demonstrated how family ties and allegiances affected the politics of the late republic. Above all, however, "The Roman Revolution" is a study in politics and power and the story of an adventurer subverting a declining system and seizing control. The sequel, The Augustan Aristocray, was published nearly 50 years later. Syme's style deliberately echoes that of his hero, Tacitus, and he is a difficult but rewarding read.