Emperor of Rome: Ruling the Ancient World

I'm a big fan of Beard's previous book, SPQR, and this is about the same time period more or less (Julius Caesar to Alexander Severus). Her prose is very readable. For this book, it is helpful if the reader knows something of Roman history as it is arranged by topic, that is, what it was like to be emperor (what were his duties, what was his life like), rather than chronologically. If you don't already know which emperor followed which, it could be confusing (though she provides a list of the emperors at the back of the book). She uses the sources available critically, examining their own motives for writing what they did and the times in which they were writing. Overall, I liked it very much. It's not your typical "history book."

Mary Beard always does a fine job of making ancient Rome interesting and fun to read. The book is very well written and extremely readable. Beard provides an exceptional amount of detail, but hers skill as a writer (as well as her sense of humor) result in a book that's a real pleasure to read. Beard doesn't page-specific footnotes or end notes to provide additional information. She takes a novel approach by providing further readings (as well as places to visit) for each chapter. This essentially combined notes with a bibliography. What's more, the further readings contain a considerable amount of additional information. An added plus is that the book contains some fine color illustrations as well as about 100 black and white images. I'd already read SPQR and Twelve Caesars (both of which I would give five stars), so I was looking forward to reading Emperor of Rome. I enjoyed the book--and it's certainly a worthwhile read. However, Emperor of Rome warrants a rating of four stars: it isn't quite as good as SPQR or Twelve Caesars.

Contrary to what one might expect given the title, Dr. Beard's _Emperor of Rome_ is neither a biography nor a summary of the rule of Roman emperors; rather, it is a brilliant examination of the conventions of imperial rule: the expectations (what made one a "good" emperor"? what was the criteria for a "bad" emperor"), the idea of "emperorship" writ large (how it was understood by not just the Roman elite, but by workaday citizens as well) in addition to an insightful exploration of the difficulties wading through contemporary Roman accounts given the tendency to either suck-up to the current emperor or run-down predecessors. Beard has a difficult task seeking to understand the persons at the center of the empire: what was administration like, what was expected of these people, how were decisions made and communicated and executed - and of particular interest to me, what was the perception and role of the women behind the throne? Beard writes that Roman emperors "present an extreme case of the historian's dilemma. How do we understand the Roman emperor on his own terms, and yet not lose sight of our own moral compass, and our obligation to evaluate, as well as to describe, the past?" I think she has hit the sweet spot in addressing this problem. Writing with humor, expertise and incisive analysis _Emperor of Rome_ is a marvelous history showing the complex and complicated nature of governance as well as providing unique insights into its political culture. Highly recommended, as is her _SPQR_ on the Roman republic.

The author is truly sharing a lifetime of insights into the Roman world. Incredibly well organized, and a joy to read, this book is a valuable gem worthy of being in anyone’s library, especially those like myself who are inveterately curious and studious. The book is written in such a way to be interesting not only to scholarly readers like myself, but also to the average reader who has some curiosity about the Roman Empire, even those readers who enjoyed films like ‘Gladiator’, but who have never read any history about the Roman Empire. On the other hand, this book is not so much about particular emperors, but rather is about the duties and life of Roman emperors in general. Each chapter focuses on a particular aspect. M. T. Philipps, author of ‘Keeping Calm’

Mary Beard does a good job of organizing the book where it flows and is very easy to understand. Writing about the roles and intricacies of a Roman emperor can easily become boring so kudos to Beard for avoiding this problem. My biggest issue is much of what she writes about is what an emperor isn’t versus what it is. She will often point out anecdotes and say why that isn’t likely and reliable and continues to do this page after page. Almost everything she brings up, she counters immediately by saying we can’t really trust the source because of this or that. And to be fair, she is right. She’s not saying anything wrong but this style eventually wears you down as a reader I get tired of reading about why we can’t trust sources and just want to be told what is actually accurate. After 300 pages it just starts to feel negative and you can already sense where she is headed as soon as she goes to a new topic. It’s a good book but does start to feel exhausting towards the last few chapters

To me, the most interesting part of the book is Beard's explanation of why the Republic was so unstable: Rome's global empire meant that commanders ruled legions large enough to March on Rome and take power, and spent years with their legions gaining their loyalty. The first emperors tried to solve this problem by centralized pay and pensions in the capital- but eventually this solution failed as well. I also was especially interested in Beard's description of what emperors actually did. Because a letter took months to reach the outer edges of the empire, an emperor's ability to micromanage was limited. Mostly, emperors (supported by a large staff) answered correspondence: sometimes policy queries from provincial governors, sometimes requests from ordinary citizens.

I bought this book because I've liked a couple of Mary Beard's short pieces and because she is such a Big Name. The thing is, Beard didn't seem to like this subject - I really wonder whether she only wrote it because the publisher wanted it. We get a wide-ranging look at Roman life that's marred, imho, by some rather juvenile Attitude. Augustus' _Res Gestae_ - which Google translates as "Accomplishments" - is repeatedly (and I mean like Very Very Often) rendered as _What I Did_ which, to an American, has connotations of dutiful homework assignments. Aurelius' _Meditations_ are inexplicably - and equally often - rendered as _Jottings To Myself_ despite Beard's telling us that they were very much meant to be shared. (These translations feel sort of like chiseling Hadrian Was Here on Egyptian statues, even if the damage is only visible to Beard's readers.) The _Younger Pliny_ becomes just Pliny, even though his Elder uncle is mentioned once. I might have liked _SPQR_ better, but after this book I'm not very likely to try the experiment. It's great to read history that doesn't exalt those who were born to power, but this doesn't feel like the model of the books that should replace that old hagiography. It seems to spend too much energy showing that it's not buying into any Great Man theories without really offering any alternative framework. We get some of the juiciest stories about 'bad' emperors but with the cautions that 1) much of what we know comes from books written by aristocratic writers 2) they define 'good' and 'bad' emperors as good or bad *for the Roman upper classes* and so 3) we can't really know whether the stories are true, so Beard skips the 'good' stories.

For anyone who can't help returning periodically to the ancient world--an insistent mirror and source for today's world--this is a perfectly splendid book. Dr. Beard takes us as close as possible to understanding the emperor's role and concerns from global politics to the telling minutiae of his life. She offers as well a critique of his critics over the centuries; much was written about them, true and false. Dr. Beard brings to this book comprehensive learning matched by a wonderful sense for the odd and funny. There is no one like her. A disagreement between us, but no matter: she has no sympathy whatever with Marcus Aurelius, whose classic notes on life and consciousness she mockingly calls his "Jottings," as if they were mental doodles. But read the first entry in his Book Two, and much else. . .

une analyse du fonctionnement de l'empire romain très instructive qui donne à penser concernant les régimes “présidentiels“ actuels

Rather than try and tell all of Roman history in one attempt, Professor Beard this time takes a slice of the history focusing on the period covered by the Emperors and placing them within the wider longer history of Rome. As always this is as much as social history as a political one. Indeed this book presumes a certain knowledge of Roman history which is built upon in the text.

surprise with facts

Excellent history of the emperors by the great historyan Mary beard great read.

The book is educational and entertaining; I read it in one sitting.