Fall of the Roman Republic (Penguin Classics)

Plutarch is the opposite of Isaaic Asimov. Foundation portrays history only in terms of massive predictable, quantifiable and eminently understandable trends. There is little accounting for individual personalities; only stochastic movements of people, information, money, and resources. On the other hand, Plutarch writes history in the form of biographic essays, showing us one unique, sometimes inconsistent, often inscrutable man at a time.Six Lives was written 150 years after the fall of the Roman Republic, and gives the reader a feel for six top leaders of the Republic. I think they help show that while the Empire was sexier than the Republic, the Republic may have more to teach us... It's history is the cautionary tale of a prosperous, learned society with codified rights (for some), and elements of representative governance, which proceeded down a path to dictatorship. Some understanding of how this happened may be gleaned from the six lives Plutarch examines:GAIUS MARIUS parlays success as a General into a legendary political career, becoming the first man to be elected Consul seven times. He is responsible for the slaughter on the Capitoline Hill, demonstrating an arrogance and ruthlessness which makes him plenty of enemies and few friends. He spends his last few unhealthy years fleeing political rivals and seeking sanctuary wherever he can find it, much as Mohammad Reza Pahlavi "the Shah of Iran" did in 1979. I'm not sure why Gaius was included on this list; he seems the less impressive than the others.SULLA is a little Roman Joseph Stalin. Turning on the public who elected him Consul, he maneuvers himself into a position of Dictator, and then proceeded to butcher over 12,000 citizens, political opponents, personal enemies and their families for the slightest real or perceived transgressions. Through sheer dumb luck, Sulla was asked to receive the surrender of notorious outlaw Jogurtha on behalf of Rome. Sulla hadn't contributed anything to Jogurtha's defeat and capture, but that didn't stop him from commissioning statues in Rome depicting him standing triumphally over the humbled outlaw. His peers were particularly miffed by a giant gold ring he had custom made, bearing the surrender scene. I guess he wore it under their noses, like bad bad LeRoy Brown. That must have been some outrageous piece of jewelry, to get mention Plutarch`s book, written 150 years later! I wish somebody who saw it would have drawn a picture! Sulla died, incidentally, of a gruesome intestinal worm infestation. (Ascaris??)CRASSUS (Triumvir #1) is best known as the General who defeated Spartacus, and in his day: the richest man in Rome. His for-profit fire company used to show up at burning homes to negotiate a bargain sale of the house. If the owner refused, the firemen turned around and went home! He comes across as the weakest of the Triumvirs, with no realistic shot at coming out on top over Pompey or Caesar. Brutal ending for Crassus: a beheading when his military adventures in Parthia go bad.POMPEY (Triumvir #2) is the military strategy whiz-kid, who becomes General at twenty-two, and gets his own Triumph (victory parade) without the normally required rank of Praetor. His career as statesman is less impressive. When Crassus's death ends the Triumvirate, the Republic descends into civil war. Pompey snatches defeat from the jaws of victory, and loses to Caesar. Shortly after, he seeks asylum in Egypt, and is murdered by King Ptolmey's agents, in an example of cold-blooded Machiavellian politics which Plutarch explains well on page 239. Side note: while reading this section, I couldn't help feeling Pompey's nemesis, the renegade king Mithridates, was a much more intriguing personality.CAESAR (Triumvir #3) is the best known of these men, so I won't elaborate. No matter; there is so much overlap of events in the personal histories of Crassus, Pompey, and Caesar, that reading them in succession starts to feel a bit like Rashomon. If you have read Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, and the preceeding chapters on Crassus and Pompey, this section has little new to offer.CICERO is the lone intellectual of the group. It's nice to know that political power wasn't completely limited to generals, but Cicero wasn't nearly as powerful as the others on this list. I like him better in his own work: On the Good Life Penguin Classics. Plutarch thinks Cicero is a too-clever-by-half smartass, but does grudgingly admit his brilliant oratory skills, and his impressive legal career. Sadly, Cicero's life illustrates that being right or just or smart was not enough to ensure the public's goodwill during the Republic. Without question, military might ruled the day.Parting Advice1) Get a good Atlas of the Roman World for reference when you read this. There are plenty of places mentioned in this book, and no maps. This is a setup for much confusion: what the Romans called "Albania" is in present-day Georgia, while what we now call "Albania", the Romans called Dyrrhachium; what the Romans called "Iberia" is in present-day Armenia... etc.2) If you go to Rome, be sure to seek out some of the ruins of the Republic: Temple of Hercules Victor, and the Temple of Portunus.

Plutarch was a classical Greek historian during the Roman period who was well rounded and provides us with important insights into the classical world through his writings. Most important among these writings are the extensive biographies he wrote of important individuals from Greece and Rome. Some of his sources are now lost to us, but the tales live on.This particular collection is a set of six biographies of individuals set in the late Republic: Gaius Marius (who instituted various military reforms which probably doomed the Republic), Sulla (the first to enforce a dictatorship over the republic through civil war), Crassus, Pompey, Caesar, and Cicero. Through these writings we are introduced to religious customs, stories of prophecies, and tangential tales that have in some ways eclipsed the subject of the biography.For example, in the biography of Crassus, we are introduced to a fairly full account of the Spartacus War and the appeal of that story during McCarthy-era America among those who were dissenting from McCarthy's rhetoric is obvious.For all of this, the line that stands out in my memory is the popular description of Sulla being that his face was a "mulberry with oatmeal sprinkled on it."Definitely recommended.

The book was in perfect condition and arrived ahead of the scheduled timeframe.

The selection of lives in this book is not quite as good as those in Makers of Rome, but it does have Pompey the Great and Julius Caesar, so it's worth reading for those alone. The rest are also interesting, just not as interesting after having read the other book.

People have been reading Plutarch for 2000 years!He must be good! I agree.

Plutarch's Lives is a harbinger to those who can see it across 2 millenia. Well translated, and surprisingly readable. I enjoyed it thoroughly.

Excellent insight on the reasoning behind the multiple decisions of powerful men that led to the collapse of a society that had inexplicable potential.

Great translation of Plutarch. If you are looking at learning more about ancient Rome then this is a must have.

This is a definitive collection translated by a noted scholar that perfectly encapsulates the collapse of the Roman Republic. A brief introduction by the translator helps set the scene for each life.The six lives are printed in chronological order from Marius to Cicero which helps maintain the sense of the steady decline into chaos. The extensive notes are cross referenced, where necessary, when referring to other lives covered in the book.Plutarch was writing well after all the protagonists were dead which helps develop the thought that these were real reflections upon the lives of influential men and not just gloss to massage an ego.Apart from brief introductions to each life, and one to the main text, there is little attempt to put the lives in context. However, where ambiguities occur some explanation is made in the notes. These lives are straight translations and they leave the reader to make up his\ her own mind. They would be ideal for students trying to make sense of the original Greek text.These lives are primary sources and as such add no new understanding to the history of ancient Rome, but they do shed some light on what near contemporaries thought about their ancestors. It is interesting to read in Plutarch's own [translated] words what he thought about evolving history. They are by no means complete and do not include every known fact about each subject, but they do build a picture regarding their character.In summary; this publication summarises the collapse of the Roman Republic through the lives of six famous men, Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Crassus, Caesar and Cicero. Classic.

It was for my daughter and she is the one that picked this book as so loves history

fast delivery, very happy with my order!

This is the fifth time I got the book thanks my historically inclined visitors. This edition appears to have more matter. I am loving it.

Plutarch's 6 biographies of Roman politicians/generals give a fair picture of a decadent Rome in the 1st century B.C.: mighty unequal distribution of wealth and `legal safeguards inadequate to deter the forces of law and order from murder.' `Since the whole state was rotten within itself, it was in the power of any bold man to overthrow it.' Bold were men like the generals, `who had risen to the top by violence.'Plutarch's portraits of `Gaius Marius' and `Crassus' are very superficial.On the contrary, his picture of `Sulla', the first Roman dictator, is very clear-cut: `Sulla, a butcher. (He got) immunity for all his past acts, while for the future he was to have the power of life and death, the power to confiscate property, to found new cities or to demolish existing ones.'A brave `Cicero' attacked Sulla's murky business transactions in court.`Pompey' restored the powers of the tribunes, the representatives of the plebeians, and the rights of the classes outside the Senate to serve on juries in law courts. He worked together with `Caesar' to destroy the powers of the aristocracy. After they grabbed power, they fought one another: `armies of the same kin, ranks of brothers, here the whole manhood and might of a single state was involved in self-destruction.'Why did they fight? Out of greed and personal rivalry.Caesar won and asked to be given all powers. The Romans opted for the Hobbes/Machiavelli solution: `the rule of one man would give them respite from the miseries of the civil wars, and so they appointed Caesar dictator for life. This meant an undistinguished tyranny; his power was now not only absolute, but perpetual `... until the Ides of March.Plutarch's dramatic talent produced a shocking tale, full of `putting to death', `cutting into pieces', burning to the ground, slaughtering, enslaving, looting and plundering.A must read for all those interested in the history of mankind.