Understanding and Reacting to Ronald Symes and “The Roman Revolution”
When studying a concept as dense as the fall of the Roman Republic and thus the subsequent creation of the Roman Empire many factors must be taken into account. Ronald Syme in his book the Roman Revolution is very bold in his attempt to explain all the events of the revolution to his audience. This in itself is not an easy thing to do and Syme’s book is in itself not an easy read. Perhaps in correlation with the difficulty of the book's topic. Nevertheless, Syme’s book is both a masterpiece in it utter devotion to explaining the topic and gives great insight to Symes own opinion on the various historical figures associated with this period of time. However, it must be understood …show more content…
Syme’s position on Octavius sees him as while a bold revolutionary still an unsavory character, a man who was not truly as great as public opinion has preconceived him to have been. While Syme in his introduction does admit that Octavius was able to bring some good to Rome he wants the reader to also clearly understand that this was not done without a large degree of insidious deeds done by him or in his name. (Syme Page 2) Syme in his approach to the figure of the great Cesar Augustus wants his readers to understand the turmoil and destruction that comes with the radical change seen in this revolution(or mayhaps any revolution). He also in his writing on the topic wants to challenge this preconceived general opinion of Augustus as being so magnificent and brilliant strategist, mentioning how in writings survived from the period we do not see much besmirching of the Cesar’s character. (Syme Page 4) Syme does the opposite of this in many cases seeming to mention that some of the man’s most brilliant moves were sheer luck or riding on the coattails of his predecessors. (Syme 213,229,) If not one of those two instances he was a master manipulator, a king of the use of propaganda, being sure to spin the …show more content…
However, Syme in his approach to the book can easily loose those more unfamiliar with the background of Roman history. While he does gives his readers a small understanding of the fall of the Roman kings and the start of the republic and the general regulations and culture surrounding this era he almost fails spectacularly in his name dropping of so many figures in quick succession in the beginning. His use of not using key characters anglicized names also leads to some general confusion (Syme 10-27) However, this lapse in the beginning eventually becomes smoother as readers begin to see the emergence of the main players whom Syme wants his audience to truly connect with and whom the readers can begin to place in their minds with the use of more familiar titles as well-known events help readers define them by the more common name and even begin to see the familial connections that tie the key players together (Syme 435-437). Yet, one issue also seen repeatedly in Syme is that he is almost trying to tell his readers too much. He crams this overabundance of characters actions, general religious beliefs, and political turmoil into one book. He with this seeming need to tell everything skips to and fro in time on his whim, leaving a feeling of whiplash and those looking for a more central theme may find themselves at a loss. However, the fact that he does try to
When studying a concept as dense as the fall of the Roman Republic and thus the subsequent creation of the Roman Empire many factors must be taken into account. Ronald Syme in his book the Roman Revolution is very bold in his attempt to explain all the events of the revolution to his audience. This in itself is not an easy thing to do and Syme’s book is in itself not an easy read. Perhaps in correlation with the difficulty of the book's topic. Nevertheless, Syme’s book is both a masterpiece in it utter devotion to explaining the topic and gives great insight to Symes own opinion on the various historical figures associated with this period of time. However, it must be understood …show more content…
Syme’s position on Octavius sees him as while a bold revolutionary still an unsavory character, a man who was not truly as great as public opinion has preconceived him to have been. While Syme in his introduction does admit that Octavius was able to bring some good to Rome he wants the reader to also clearly understand that this was not done without a large degree of insidious deeds done by him or in his name. (Syme Page 2) Syme in his approach to the figure of the great Cesar Augustus wants his readers to understand the turmoil and destruction that comes with the radical change seen in this revolution(or mayhaps any revolution). He also in his writing on the topic wants to challenge this preconceived general opinion of Augustus as being so magnificent and brilliant strategist, mentioning how in writings survived from the period we do not see much besmirching of the Cesar’s character. (Syme Page 4) Syme does the opposite of this in many cases seeming to mention that some of the man’s most brilliant moves were sheer luck or riding on the coattails of his predecessors. (Syme 213,229,) If not one of those two instances he was a master manipulator, a king of the use of propaganda, being sure to spin the …show more content…
However, Syme in his approach to the book can easily loose those more unfamiliar with the background of Roman history. While he does gives his readers a small understanding of the fall of the Roman kings and the start of the republic and the general regulations and culture surrounding this era he almost fails spectacularly in his name dropping of so many figures in quick succession in the beginning. His use of not using key characters anglicized names also leads to some general confusion (Syme 10-27) However, this lapse in the beginning eventually becomes smoother as readers begin to see the emergence of the main players whom Syme wants his audience to truly connect with and whom the readers can begin to place in their minds with the use of more familiar titles as well-known events help readers define them by the more common name and even begin to see the familial connections that tie the key players together (Syme 435-437). Yet, one issue also seen repeatedly in Syme is that he is almost trying to tell his readers too much. He crams this overabundance of characters actions, general religious beliefs, and political turmoil into one book. He with this seeming need to tell everything skips to and fro in time on his whim, leaving a feeling of whiplash and those looking for a more central theme may find themselves at a loss. However, the fact that he does try to