Rubicon: The Last Years Of The Roman Republic (2005) - Plot & Excerpts
”Rather than gesture his men onward, Gaius Julius Caesar instead gazed into the turbid waters of the Rubicon, and said nothing. And his mind moved upon silence.The Romans had a word for such a moment Discrimen, they called it--an instant of perilous and excruciating tension, when the achievements of an entire lifetime might hang in the balance. The career of Caesar, like that of any Roman who aspired to greatness, had been a succession of such crisis points. Time and again he had hazarded his future--and time and again he had emerged triumphant. This, to the Romans, was the very mark of a man.” Julius CaesarIn 49 BC when Julius Caesar made the fateful decision to cross the Rubicon with his soldiers, and march on Rome this was the beginning of the end of the Roman Republic. This is considered the watershed moment of Roman history, but really the trouble all starts with Sulla. Just a few decades before Caesar’s march on Rome Sulla and Marius were embroiled in a battle for power.Everything culminates when Sulla wins the right to go East and fight Mithridates. Every patrician worth his salt prays to the gods for someone like Mithridates to come along to advance their careers. Marius, with political astuteness, manages to find enough senators to overturn Sulla’s appointment. Things quickly get out of hand. Sulla marched on Rome and demands his appointment back. There are riots, stonings, and general unrest among the Roman population. Sulla is granted his appointment again. SullaWhile Sulla is gone Marius is in charge of Rome, and promptly musters enough votes to exile Sulla. Now the trouble is if you are a senator existing under these circumstances with two very powerful men vying for your loyalty what do you do? If you back the wrong horse it isn’t just about your career. Potentially your life, your possessions, and the lives of your family are all on the line if your guy fails to keep power. While Marius is back home trying his best to destroy Sulla. Sulla is in the East kicking Mithridates rear end all over Asia. Just a quick word about Mithridates. This guy, when he comes to power, has his brother and sister killed, and his mother murdered as well. He gives himself doses of poison to build up his resistance for any future attempted assassinations. Even with his army in shambles he somehow escapes displaying that feral survival skill that will save him time and time again. Mithridates had a role to play in Roman politics.Of course Sulla is well aware of what has been going on back in Rome. He comes home triumphant, and promptly marches on Rome a second time. This time the senate declares him dictator, in an attempt in my opinion to give him what he wants, and hopefully spare their lives as well. It doesn’t work. Sulla, flushed with self-importance, and frankly pissed off sends out lists of enemies of the state i.e. people who opposed Sulla. This is where those who backed the wrong horse lose everything. Julius Caesar, a young lad and heir of the prestigious Julian family, finds himself on the run, hiding in the countryside, and avoiding, sometimes bribing, bounty hunters who were trying to collect the price on his head. It was to leave a lasting impression on Julius. Sulla in 81 BC steps down as dictator and returns Rome to the republican model they had been following in the past. Julius Caesar mocked Sulla for doing so. I’m sure from a properly safe distance away. During this period Romans were cuisine crazy and even more fish crazy. One of the richest among them, Lucullus split a mountain in two to bring salt water to his pond, so that he could raise the salt water creatures that he wanted to have readily available for his dining pleasure.By 60 BC Julius Caesar, Pompey the Great, and Crassus had formed what Tom Holland called a Triumvirate. Instead of fighting each other for ultimate power they decided to just carve up the empire between them, sharing power, and making it almost impossible for Cato the Younger and Cicero who opposed this powerful trio to have any chance in eroding their control. In 53 BC nature does what Cicero and Cato can not...Crassus dies. Julius Caesar meanwhile is invading Britain on the pretext that they had offered help to Rome’s enemies. He soon has to abandon his plans of conquest to put down a revolt in Gaul. Vercingetorix manages to unite the tribes of Gaul under one banner, and wins a couple of battles against Caesar. At the Battle of Alesia, Caesar is pinched between two Gaul forces, and manages to defeat both sides. He also captures Vercingetorix. The leader of the Gauls is thrown in chains and brought back to Rome to be publicly beheaded for the enjoyment of the Roman citizens. Vercingetorix is the cherry or rather the noggin to top off a very elaborate triumphal parade. Vercingetorix, defeated, but immortalized.All of Rome was following the exploits of Caesar, equivalent, as Holland says to the time of the moon landings when almost the entire United States population was glued to TVs and radios to hear Neil Armstrong utter those famous words. Even Cicero, sworn enemy of Caesar, was gleefully following the events in Britain and Gaul as they unfolded. The idea, even a glimmer of a thought, that Caesar would lose is preposterous. ”A Roman could no more conceive of the Republic’s collapse than he could imagine himself an Egyptian or a Gaul. Fearful of the gods’ anger he may have been, but not to the point of dreading the impossible.” Pompey the Great. I smile every time I see his smirk which adorns most of his sculptures.Pompey realizes that Caesar has become much more powerful and much more popular than even his own grand self. He aligns himself with the senate in an attempt to balance out this shifting of power with Caesar . They order Caesar to disband his army. Yeah right. A sub-story, that is absolutely fascinating, involves the more thuggish elements behind the scenes. Clodius (Claudius) and his sister Clodia (Claudia) are patricians who changed their names to more plebeian pronunciations to better identify with those that would become their main base of support. They were charming, beautiful, charismatic people who were both sexually attractive to men and women. Rumor has it, malicious maybe, that they were more attracted to each other than other people. The rumor grew to the point that Clodius is actually accused of incest. He is acquitted for lack of evidence, but his ability to spread cash among the jury probably didn’t hurt his cause either. He was a supporter of Crassus. His arch rival Milo, was a Pompey supporter, so along the lines of the enemy of my enemy is my friend he became more closely aligned with Caesar after Crassus died.This is a different kind of politics with Clodius and Milo having bands of thugs who fought epic gang style battle through the streets of Rome. He famously burns down the forum. It is easy to dismiss Clodius, as much of history has, as a man more interested in violence than in truly championing reform, but if we can set aside his flamboyant brutality he did support and sponsor legislation that was very progressive. Historians are in the process of reevaluating his possibly maligned image. Clodia was just as political and just as dangerous as her brother. ”Her eyes, dark and glittering, had the ox-like appearance that invariably made Roman men go weak at the knees.”When a humorist called her Lady Copper-Bit referring to the low-rent hookers who stood on street corners. He ”soon had the smile wiped off his face. Publicly beaten and gang-raped, it was he who had been used like a whore.”They were a sibling duo not to be messed with. Just ask Cicero.Cicero testified in yet another trial where Clodius stands accused. When all the dust settles Cicero is in exile, and his house has been bought by Clodius and razed to the ground. Caesar crosses the Rubicon and 460 years of Rome being a republic come to an end. Pompey raises an army that has no real chance against the battlefield hardened warriors that make up the Caesar legions. Pompey escapes to Egypt only to be murdered on the shore at the order of Ptolmey XIII, Cleopatra’s brother. ”A Roman renegade drew his sword and ran him through the back. More blades were drawn. The blows rained down. And Pompey, drawing his toga over this face with both hands, endured them all, nor, did he say or do anything unworthy, only gave a faint groan. And so perished Pompey the Great.”There is certainly something poignant about the death of Pompey. It has always bothered me that Ptolmey had Pompey’s head spiked and displayed as if he were a criminal or had been defeated in battle, when really he had been murdered most cowardly. To Caesar’s credit when he saw the head of Pompey displayed in such a manner he wept. There is no one left to oppose Caesar. Cato was asked nicely to commit suicide, and he did so. Cicero is murdered. Cicero, the great orator. I don’t know why, but I’ve just never warmed to him.”Trapped by his executioners at last, Cicero leaned out from his litter and bared his throat to the sword. This was the gesture of a gladiator, and one he had always admired. Defeated in the greatest and deadliest of games, he unflinchingly accepted his fate. He died as he would surely have wished bravely, a martyr to freedom and to freedom of speech.” Caesar lived happily ever after. Well not exactly. On March 15th 44 BC he is set upon by a group of senators and stabbed to death. Beware the Ides of March. There were so many men involved in the assassination that many of them were stabbed by fellow conspirators trying to plunge their knives into Caesar’s body. Brutus, son of Caesar’s mistress, was one of the main conspirators. Interesting enough knifing someone in the back runs in the Brutus family. One of his ancestors assassinated the last king of Rome. I’ve only skimmed the surface of what this book covers. Tom Holland’s breezy, novelistic style presents the information in such a palatable form that I feel this is a good introductory book to someone who wants to learn more about the beginning and ending of the Rome Republic. For those, like myself, who need a brush up on the period it serves that purpose as well. An interesting piece of trivia about Tom Holland is that I first encountered him as a novelist of...well...Vampire books. They are not listed in this book. I would guess that now that he has turned his pen to serious non-fiction books he considers that chapter in his life, writing of the undead, closed. I actually rather enjoyed his horror books. For those Byron fans, Lord Of The Dead takes the melancholy poet and turns him into a rather interesting blood sucking fiend.
Rubicon reads with all the taught pacing of a political and military thriller - more spectacular for the fact that it's true. Author Tom Holland manages to walk the very fine line between the objective scholarship and reporting that is classical history and the analysis, invention and narrative finesse of a master storyteller. Any book recounting events from antiquity suffers from a dearth of primary sources (especially when compared to the record keeping of the modern age) and while we may know the broad strokes of the major events of an era, the finer details such as famously uttered lines at pivotal moments are almost surely the inventions of subsequent generations immortalizing key moments in the recent past. Holland is quick to point out this fact and reiterates the problematic nature of pinning down the finer details with absolute certainty in his bibliography of "primary" sources at the end. There is a great deal that we take for granted in the story of the fall of the Roman Republic and much that we don't know. Holland writes with the authority of an author who has it all figured out, down to the mood and tenor of the time, a cultural post-mortem on an age based on the writings of a handful of men. There is almost certainly invention for the sake of storytelling, but it's invention without sophistry and in keeping with the general themes of the work; primarily, that the unbridled and free ranging ambition cultivated in Roman society was at once a blessing and a curse. It pushed individuals to achieve glory both for themselves and the Republic in the pursuit of personal ambition, but it simultaneously made citizens nervous and jealous about the heights to which their fellow citizens were elevated. As Rome's reach grew, so did it's wealth and power and the internecine rivalries and political competitions, benign and small-scale at first, took on more and more weight. While factions of hundreds of supporters may have fought in small civil brawls over policy at the dawn of the Republic, massive armies of legionaries and client warriors from Africa, Gaul and the Orient settled internal contests of ambition in its old age. Holland's narrative traces the downward spiral to a host of recurrent problems beginning with the Gracchus brothers in the second century B.C. Each new iteration of the championing and resurgence of some disenfranchised group (veterans, non-Roman Italian allies or the poor) created cults of personality, charges of demagoguery and divisions between "conservative" elites in Roman society who resented the fact that someone else was stealing the show and in the interest of preserving "freedom" champion a rival and entrust him with the power to bring down the upstart. Over the ensuing decades, traditions were violated, precedents established and the fracturing of the Republic once and for all became irreversible like cracks forming and spreading in a pristine sheet of ice. It's a rather brilliant conceptualization of the decline of the Republic, a spiraling freefall rather than the deliberate machinations of single vainglorious men who wished to destroy liberty out of a compulsion for control or unchecked ego. This work definitely falls in the Trends and Forces interpretive category of history, but it reads with all the compelling decisiveness of Great Man history for there were indeed great men (and women!) who were integral to the story. While one gets the feeling that the fate of the Republic was unavoidable from the culture that the Romans themselves bred in their society, it's hard to imagine it playing out as dramatically as it did without characters like Cato, Caesar, Pompey or Crassus to give it that special texture. Of course it might be argued that Roman society was engineered to produce Catos and Caesars, so even if they went by other names, the implosion of "democratic" government in Rome by the machinations of other men would have been just as spectacular and dramatic. Thoroughly researched and scholarly, but designed for a lay audience who might find reading and comparing accounts from Plutarch and Tacitus rather dry, there's certainly a lot within the pages of Rubicon to recommend it to history buffs and casual readers alike. The more nitpicky historians might wish for more thorough footnoting or a presentation of multiple interpretations at some of the more critical junctures of the story by presenting the conflicting accounts and letting the reader draw conclusions, but I found Holland's assertive style and his willingness to make judgment calls about the likelihood of events rather refreshing. With all the ambiguity from antiquity one set of explanations is just as valid as about any other. It certainly saves space in the narrative of a complex series of events, keeping the book light (just 370 pages) and the story moving along. More inquisitive readers interested in alternative accounts can certainly get a push in the right direction from the bibliography of sources and there are bound to be more inquisitive readers by the time they wrap with this volume on Roman history. A great introductory text to spur curiosity and invite further exploration into a remarkable time period in world history.
What do You think about Rubicon: The Last Years Of The Roman Republic (2005)?
This historical period is so fascinating that writing a History that reads like a novel doesn't sound like a big deal. But where many provide dry accounts, Holland excels with his sterling prose. Even if you already know the story, this book will give you new insights and a fast paced account of the Roman Republic that is always fun to read. The narrative is structured in a zoom in/out fashion. The author quickly covers in the first part of the book from the beginnings of the republic until the Gracchi brothers. At this point the focus starts to zoom in, and we dive into Marius and Sulla civil wars. What follows in detail is the core of the book; the emergence of Pompey, the biography of Caesar, and the struggle of Cato, Cicero, and others during this complex revolutionary period. The climax arrives, as expected, when the 13th Legion crosses the Rubicon. After this the focus zooms out again through the civil war between Caesar and Pompey, Alexandria, Mark Anthony and Octavian (Augustus). The story fades out with Caesar Augustus' death. But the book also covers political, social, religious, and cultural topics. Through these you get lots of insights into the Roman World, how they thought, how they perceived their society, and ultimately Holland's thesis of why the Republic collapsed. A great read that whets the appetite to learn more.
—Juan-Pablo
Roman history is well documented and this book does a great job of retelling their superb history. Marius the retired Military hero is appointed commander to fight Rome’s enemy Mithridates. This angered his former deputy Sulla who had campaigned for that job. Sulla then challenged Marius for the job which caused a civil war in Rome. Unfortunately Marius died before he could campaign. Without his leadership Sulla’s forces defeated the remainder of Marius’s soldiers. Then he marched on Rome and became its dictator. Sulla established peace with Mithridates, in the kingdom of Pontus, but made a list of proscriptions and exterminated most of his enemies. He is not regarded as a great Roman Ruler due to his extreme violence and his unpopular and peculiar relaxation activities. And he was the first Military leader to march on Rome itself in Rome’s history. He does one remarkable thing, however,he retired and relinquished his power then returned to his odd behavioral ways. The republic was afterward reestablished. The author points out the mindset of the Roman people. Ambition was their number one goal. They viewed sex as a weakness. They were xenophobic. Winning was everything and the path to glory was winning wars. Pompey rode this subscription to its highest level. He ran a spectacular string of successes in Spain and took credit for ending Spartacus’s slave revolt. When the Senate decided to try to stop the Pirate harassment of Roman citizens, which had grown substantially over the decade, they called on Pompey. He miraculously wiped out the Pirates in just 3 months. He was then sent to take care of Roman’s greatest enemy Mithridates. He easily defeated him and continued into Syria and Judea making them Roman satellites. No Roman general had accomplished so much. In all, 243 countries came under Rome rule due to Pompey. He was given the title “Great” because of these accomplishments. However, there were two other men seeking similar glory in the midst. The first was Crassus, Rome’s wealthiest man. The other was Julius Caesar. Caesar won a high office due to his great charisma and paying for votes. From this position he was able to secure a part in a triumvirate along with Pompey and Crassus which ruled Rome. While serving as part of the triumvirate he was appointed as governor of Gaul. This is where he met his first test of his military greatness by soundly defeating a united Gallic force. He then moved through Germany and built a bridge to cross into England and occupy Britain by defeating a Celtic Army. It was the first time in history that a foreign enemy invaded Great Britain. Back in Rome, the Senate feared Caesar’s accomplishment’s called him back to face charges of illegal military actions. Caesar calculated that the Senate was out to get him, gathered his troupes and assembled them at the Rubicon. The Senate sensed Caesar’s intentions called on Pompey the Great for Rome’s defense. As Caesar troupes moved at an accelerated pace Pompey left Rome to assemble troupes to battle and end Caesar’s ambitions. Caesar finally met Pompey at Pharsalus where his army routed Pompey’s. Pompey fled to Egypt but rather than the great hero receiving safety, he is murdered. Caesar entered Egypt finding Egypt in the midst of a political power struggle. Cleopatra, in exile, was snuggled in a blanket then rolled out in front of Caesar. She seduced Caesar. Caesar next took a long deserved vacation, after he reestablished Cleopatra as Egypt’s ruler, by taking a boat ride down the Nile River.The Romans were not happy about Caesar’s love affair with Cleopatra. He returned, with Cleopatra, to a shattered and crumbled Rome. The Senate gave him a 10 year period of dictatorship recognizing his brilliance. Caesar, forgave his enemies, provided land to his troops, granted citizenship to disenfranchised citizens and commissioned rebuilding of Rome’s great architecture. However, the Ides of March 44 BC the great Julius Caesar was stabbed 23 times by among 60 enemies including a man named Casca and Brutus. Rome capitulated into another civil war. Caesar’s Lieutenant Mark Anthony crushed the murderers. But Caesar’s heir made claims to succeed his great Uncle Julius Caesar. Octavian and Antony agree to joint rule for a while. As Antony relished in power his relationship with Octavian strained until they finally went to war. Octavian won a fairly easy war therefore becoming Rome’s undisputed ruler. In Rome he was entitled as Augustus. Augustus ruled for 40 years of peace and prosperity and a happy Rome strived.
—Arminius
I first wanted to read this book after listening to the Hardcore History podcast series on the fall of the Roman republic. The host, Dan Carlin, recommended Rubicon for a more in-depth treatment of the subject matter, even though the podcast came in at around six hours.Carlin was right, Rubicon treated the topic exhaustively, but the narrative flow was superb. At times it was like reading a political soap opera. The characters were amazingly well-rounded. No one came off as a total villain or saint. Even with the heavies like Sula and Augustus, Holland showed that their motive were always something they use to justify their deeds.The one drawback was something common to all books from this era and most distant history: It was primarily one side of the story. Holland like all his contemporaries relies heavily on the Plutarch, Horace, Virgil and the canon greats. The problem is that they were not objective. Most of the time these ancient writers, like Shakespeare, were flattering patrons like Augustus. Are the things they said about their enemies true? We'll never know.
—Craig Coleman
