About book The Classical World: An Epic History From Homer To Hadrian (2006)
Low 5. The author provides a wonderful, comprehensive, yet digestible, history of the classical worlds of Greece and Rome. No exact date exists to map the rise of the ‘polis’, or city state, which dominated the classical stage but Lane Fox believes this development took place between 950-700BC. Though no national country existed, these communities of warriors did share a common language and religious beliefs. Potential for domestic disorder over limited available land was offset by the opportunities offered in terms of overseas colonisation. Moreover, each mother-city was aware of the strategic importance of overseas settlements as conduits for trade and as opportunities to exploit mineral resources and staple foods, such as grain from the settlements around the Black Sea. Upon the decline of the Mycenaean kings, rule within the city-states fell to aristocrats as the major landholders and stakeholders. However, the rise of factions and divisive politics in the 7th century led to political dynasties and simmering political unrest. With increased threat from the social orders below, lawgivers emerged to restore social harmony, while ensuring continuity of aristocratic power. In the 620s, in response to a failed coup of a would-be tyrant with foreign backing, Draco published in writing quite repressive laws prevailing in Athens at the time - thereby unfairly being memorialised with the term ‘Draconian’. During another period of political unrest in 594 Solon, chief elected magistrate that year, recorded a list of legal precedents. To offset anarchy, he created a second council alongside the ruling Areopagus, and opened up positions to men of wealth as well as birth. He also abolished dues exacted from smaller landowners to secure noble protection, recognising the rise of the ‘hoplite’, or armed infantry, made the rule and protection of the knight-aristocrat obsolete. Solon ended the practice of creditors demanding debtor’s’ person as security for non-payment of loans, thereby ending bondage of one Athenian to another overnight. In contrast to Athenian progress towards greater democracy, Sparta retained kingship, though the religious and military duties were shared by two appointed regents. Political decisions were made by the kings in conjunction with a Council of Elders before being passed before the people as a gesture of goodwill. Though Spartan society was far from democratic, with far less accountability than in Athens, ancient commentators regarded it the far more stable alternative to tyranny and anarchy. Yet, Spartan involvement in Athenian politics in 508 helped establish the acceptance of the framework for greater democracy in their rival city. To maintain his faction in power Cleisthenes proposed changes to the constitution so that sovereign power lay with all male citizenry. Spartan involvement in an attempt to oust him, led to a revolt in which Spartan troops were besieged on the Acropolis. Though the subsequent adoption of Cleisthenes’ reforms did not equate to full democracy, ruling out slaves, residents from other cities, and women, they offered unparalleled freedom to male citizens of every rank. Included in this raft of changes were further proposals by Cleisthenes which would act as future safety-valves on internal dissent – rotating annual membership of the ruling council and ‘ostracism’. At the outset of the 6th century no mainland Greek would have heard of the Persians, a nomadic tribe. Yet, between the period 560-520 they overran the Near East, capturing Babylon, Sardis, and Susa, extending their rule as far as Memphis in Egypt. With their suzerainty over the Ionian cities, the Persian kings employed the political expedient of ruling through co-operative tyrants, leading to growing resentment and eventual open rebellion in 499. The Ionian Revolt received support from the Greek mainland and when crushed five years later, the Persians sought revenge in two waves, with the second reportedly involving 5 million men. Five landmark battles ensued: Marathon (490) the Athenians roundly defeating the first invasion; Thermopylae(480) where 300 Spartans bravely tried to hold the pass against 250,000 Persians; Salamis (480) the biggest naval encounter in ancient history with the Athenian and Carthaginian fleet victorious; Plataea (479) where the Spartan hoplite infantry proved themselves; and Mycale (479) in which a joint Athenian and Spartan fleet gained a final victory off the coast of Asia .Xerxes made tactical errors, principally having no plan to obstruct the grain supply route from the Black Sea. Another factor was the lack of homogeneity within the massed Persian ranks, in stark contrast to the order and efficiency of the hoplite ranks. Yet, the Greek combined victory would sow the seeds for a conflict which would derail both major powers. In 481 a ‘Hellenic Alliance’ was formed to counter the Persian threat, and in victory, this alliance now sought revenge on the Persians for their acts of sacrilege in Greece, while offering freedom to Ionian cities still under the Persian yoke. The freed cities faced an uncomfortable choice of adopting the strict oligarchy of Sparta, or the democratic ideals of Athens, and greater glory was being accrued by the latter. Furthermore, military failure led to internal dissent within Sparta - even Pausanias, hero of Plataea, being dismissed and put on trial. The Spartans’ fears that their own allies were being infected by Athenian concepts of freedom were exacerbated by the major revolt in 465 of their subject-population- the helots. Three years of struggle led to an appeal for Athenian support to quell the rebellion, and obvious distaste from Athenian volunteers for the task to their dismissal by the Spartans. Despite a treaty in 446 guaranteeing peace for 30 years, there was Spartan disgruntlement at clear Athenian benefits from the Alliance: the assured peace allowing time to construct fortified walls around the city; to safeguard the grain route from the Black Sea; and to accrue great reward from the tribute paid by the freed Ionian cities – especially after payments were sent directly to Athens for security reasons in the mid 450s. What started as a common fund to sustain the war effort quickly became mere tribute to Athens. However, tribute was ‘low’ and adjustable, while necessary to offset the Persian menace which still existed, and Athens never interfered in others’ politics unless specifically requested, offering residents of all allies access to legal appeal in Athenian courts. Years of ‘Cold War’ standoff ended when Corinth, scared by Athenian power and influence, threatened to withdraw from alliance with Sparta if no action resulted against Athens’ perceived territorial ambitions. It was expected in 431 that Sparta would obtain a quick decisive victory. Yet, by not possessing a fleet to contest Athenian dominance of the oceans, and poor tactics in siege warfare - Pericles refused to broker peace, retreating behind Athens’ defensive walls- Spartan weaknesses became all too apparent. The war dragged on for 20 years with only five notable skirmishes, but still devastated the landscape and led to plague behind Athens’ walls - accounting for Pericles. The final Spartan victory in 404 was largely due to Athens overstretching itself to support Sicilian allies, and internal dissent leading to a failed anti-democratic coup in 411. Moreover, given the exile and execution of most top commanders for political reasons, Athens lost a decisive sea battle to maintain control of the Hellespont and the essential grain route. The harsh terms of her surrender were having to breach her walls, surrender her fleet, and accept a Spartan-backed oligarchy, yet this must be contrasted with the wishes of Sparta’s allies, Corinth and Thebes, seeking the total destruction of the city. Sparta paid dearly for her victory, by ceding suzerainty of the Greek cities in Asia and Cyprus in the King’s Peace of 386 in return for Persian support to overcome Athens, but also due to inevitable resistance to her own supremacy. The death knell for Spartan power came with her worst ever defeat, at the hands of the Thebans at Leuctra in 371. This was quickly followed by a Theban invasion leading to the final removal of the Spartan yoke from their subject peoples and close neighbours. The endless battle for supremacy paved the way for the rise of Macedon under the brilliant leadership of Phillip. Macedon had been a loosely knitted series of separate kingdoms, regarded as barbarian by mainland Greeks. Indeed, the polygamous nature of Macedonian kingship resulted in innumerable contested successions - in the previous two centuries no Macedonian king had died peacefully in bed. Above all, Macedon desired acceptance within the Hellenic fraternity, and under Philip’s guidance over a 20-year period to 338BC antiquity’s most rapid example of power-building witnessed Macedonian rule stretch from the Danube to the southern tip of the Greek mainland. Having subsumed the barbarian kingdoms to the north, Philip drew on the subsequent extra manpower, and, as importantly, a higher quality cavalry with new breeding stock, and gold and silver deposits. The seal was set on Macedonian hegemony of the Greek-speaking world when Thebes invited its former hostage to intercede in a dispute with a neighbouring power in 357. Philip’s success throughout these years can largely be accredited to artful diplomacy allowing him to gradually extend Macedonian influence. Not until he faced a Theban-Athenian alliance did he reveal the extent of his military power, gaining a resounding victory at Chaeronea in 338. Upon his murder in 336 he was succeeded by his son Alexander, under whose reign Macedon and the Greek-speaking world would know no greater glory. Lane Fox states that the latter’s conquests were fundamentally due to the army and battle tactics he inherited from his father, together with plans for overcoming the Persian Empire at the head of a new Hellenic alliance. Yet, it was Alexander’s vision which sought triumph beyond Persian borders. Alexander proved a brilliant military strategist in his own right, evidencing great audacity and superhuman stamina. Conquering the Persian Empire within five years, he led his troops to the banks of the Ganges, where, afraid of rumours of a powerful kingdom ahead, they refused to march further. Retreating to Babylon, Alexander probably succumbed to malaria in 323 BC at the mere age of 32. The author explains that any rumours of a poisoning emerged from the inevitable disputed succession following his death, having left his Bactrian wife Roxane with an unborn son. The first to act was Ptolemy, Alexander’s life-long friend and appointed food taster and governor of Egypt. To found his own dynasty he seized Alexander’s corpse en route home to Macedonia – transferred later to Alexandria with the last recorded reference to the glass-lidded coffin in 215AD. In the long struggle for supremacy, Seleucus, Alexander’s former infantry commander, emerged as the victor in Asia, while control of Macedon fell to the Antigonids. Having expelled the monarchy in the 6th century, Rome was ruled by a republic - the king’s advisers surviving as a senate ruled over by two elected consuls. However, in 494 the plebs decamped to surrounding hillsides refusing military service until grievances were met. Consequently, ‘tribunes’ were created to represent the lower orders. Though the plebs met in assemblies where majority decisions became law, these could only be summoned by magistrates presiding over all business conducted, clearly containing any potential for undermining the ruling elite. Yet, the people elected magistrates, the Senate had no independent legislative powers, and the right to veto decisions allowed any tribune to adopt a populist stance for greater influence. During 360-280 Rome extended control across the Italian peninsula, welcoming outsiders and granting them full citizenship, thereby securing manpower to field armies far superior in number to either Athens or Sparta. In subduing Greek allies in the south, Rome would encounter the military greatness of Classical Greece in King Pyrrhus of Epicurus. The three defeats he inflicted on the Romans during the 270s were at such great cost, it led to the term a ‘Pyrrhic victory’. Yet, Roman involvement in Sicily brought them their most dangerous opponent – Carthage. The First Punic War, the longest continuous war in classical history, lasted from 264 to 241.The eventual defeat of the Carthaginians led to huge fines from Rome, the loss of Sicily and Sardinia, and a fight for survival against a revolt from their mercenary forces. In response, one Cathaginian family, the Barcids, decided to establish a separate power base in Spain. Roman encroachment across an agreed boundary between theirs and Carthaginian interests, the River Ebro, ignited the Second Punic War (218-202), and the revenge of the Barcid heir, Hannibal. This conflict strained Rome to its limits, devastated the Italian peninsula, and embellished the legendary prowess of the man who astonished Rome by crossing the Alps. In destroying 400 roman towns, he inflicted such great loss of life - 48,000 alone perished in Hannibal’s overwhelming victory at Cannae in 216. Yet, his failure to capitalise on this victory by marching on Rome resulted from his plan to demolish her power base by detaching her from her allied states in Italy rather than destroy her. The longer he waited such an eventuality the more certain became his final defeat. Moreover, from 214 new supplies became impossible as the Roman fleet controlled the coastline, while Fabius Maximus transformed defeat into victory, devastating the Italian countryside to further deplete Hannibal’s supplies. Finally, the tactical genius of Scipio led to Hannibal’s ultimate defeat on return to North Africa in 202. The ensuing decades saw Rome emerge as the only superpower in the Mediterranean, but further clashes with foreign powers resulted in dire consequences for the health of the Roman Republic. To meet one such menace in 88BC, traditionalists in the Senate voted military command to one of their own – Sulla. When overturned by populist tribunes in favour of the ‘people’s hero’ Gaius Marcus, maternal uncle to Caesar, Sulla’ marched on Rome and executed political rivals. Securing a feeble peace, and with Rome plunged in civil war, Sulla returned to victory at the very gates of Rome, establishing himself as dictator. Despite resigning in 80BC, his legacy would sow the seeds for the end of the Republic. Two prominent figures during Sulla’s dictatorship played a significant role in further undermining republican rule. Crassus had profited greatly and distinguished himself in crushing Spartacus’ rebellion in 72BC, while Pompey had served as Sulla’s ‘policeman’ in defeating all the latter’s enemies in Africa and Spain. Despite their personal animosity - fuelled by Pompey receiving the triumph of Spartacus’ defeat despite playing a minor sweeping-up role- they buried their differences in 70BC to share the consulship of Rome. Caesar, by contrast, fled Rome to avoid execution by Sulla, to serve in the east, and after taking revenge on Aegean pirates attempting to ransom him, began to carve a political career in Rome. A climactic moment in Roman politics arrived in 59BC with his election as consul and a secret ‘gentleman’s agreement’ reached with Crassus and Pompey, sealed with marriage between the latter and Caesar’s daughter. Caesar thus pushed through a populist programme helping secure him a power-base to sway support to obtain an influential foreign command in Gaul. Though the agreement was renewed in 55BC, it proved short-lived, firstly, due to the death of Crassus on campaign against the Parthians in a vain attempt to gain military glory previously denied him. The second setback was the death of Caesar’s daughter in childbirth, severing personal ties to Pompey. However, the major blow came in 52BC with the murder of Clodius, architect of the populist programme in Caesar’s absence. In the ensuing chaos, with the Capitol razed to the ground, the Senate appealed to Pompey, stationed outside Rome, to restore order. Caesar had avoided returning until possible re-election for political office, but with the clamour for his return for probable trial, and his main rival in control, he crossed the Rubicon in 49BC, effectively declaring civil war. Pompey underestimated the popular support for Caesar, abandoning Rome and fleeing south to the coast. Sailing to Greece he intended to raise foreign support while impeding the grain route to Rome. When Caesar arrived in pursuit in 48BC he should have been soundly defeated, but emerged victorious, while the hapless Pompey was murdered on arrival in the Nile Delta. The following years were marked by Caesar’s dalliance with Cleopatra in Egypt, his removal of pockets of republican resistance, and grants to lengthening periods of dictatorship until in 44BC he accepted one for life. In contrast to earlier populist leanings, his rule was characterised by attempts to curb free association, while removing any tribune whose actions displeased him. Signs of opposition mounting were there - Brutus had remarried the widowed daughter of his former mentor and staunch republican, Cato, who committed suicide in North Africa after defeat by Caesar. Moreover, dissent grew when arrangements creating a living cult of Caesar merged with rumours of a plan to assume the title of king. Consequently, in March 44BC Caesar was assassinated en route to a Senate meeting, and though only 5 or 6 conspirators participated in the deed, 60 were involved in the overall plot. Lane Fox proceeds to provide the tale of the Caesars in all their pomp and gory detail. An engrossing read.
Robin Lane Fox's monumental Classical World was a tour de force of a book spanning the worlds of Greece and Rome right from the time of the epic poet Homer (7th(?) - 8th(?) Century BCE) to the Roman Emperor Hadrian (1st - 2nd Century CE).Robin Lane-Fox is a professor of Classical History at Oxford University, and is eminently suited to handle such a massive task he has taken on.Lane-Fox makes it immediately clear why he picked the two giants as bookends very early in the book. Both characters suit very well into the overall theme of the book which explores the Classical World in the light of "Luxury, Liberty and Justice". It might be a little abstract, and it might take a few re-readings by me to make it absolutely clear what Lane-Fox was going for. But that doesn't reduce the enjoyability of the book one bit, as the reader comes to get a good understanding of the world which has influenced Western thought to such an extent.Lane-Fox's political view is very clearly championed throughout the book. He's very pro-Athenian especially for its representative democracy and slightly anti-Roman and makes it abundantly clear that Rome's slide into authoritarianism was very deplorable.The book's narrative structure is fairly chronological and eschews a blow-by-blow detail of kings, battles and other standard narratives although these are by no means ignored. We get great little chapters on 6th Century BCE technologies and taxes and another on how Alexander's Hellenestic successors viewed the massive "New World" they had opened up thanks to Conqueror's escapades all across West Asia. But these are few and far between. This book is not a social history that gives a voice to the slaves and women (although Fox is critical of the slavery and patriarchy). It clearly follows the doings of what could be called the elites of the time, whether it is the upper class citizens in Athens, or the Senators in Rome (Hellenistic Kings are more or less ignored as they didn't much directly impact the two core regions of interest: Greece and Rome. Even Macedon after the death of Alexander is ignored).While I couldn't much support Lane-Fox's political philosophy of blind Athenian worship (I came into this book having read excellent, balanced works on both Carthage and Sparta, two cities which receive too much negative flack, when not ignored in this book); I can understand and appreciate how Lane-Fox arrived at them. He pops into Athens every now and then throughout the book, even after their empire has collapsed. Some of the best writing appears here, dealing with Athenian culture and philosophy.The book spends a lot of time on the transition from Roman Republic to Empire, and while I did get a little bored with the politics of "Liberty" (which sounded a lot like whining after a while to me), I liked the argument that slide to autocracy might not have been inevitable as has been presented by many authors for two millennia at least. The emperor Hadrian ties up the narrative nicely as he toured his massive empire and gave especial interest to both Rome and Athens and also wrestled with themes such as liberty and license.Overall the book was a great stepping stone into the history of the Classical world, and I thought its narrow themes actually helped in confining the narrative and make it more compact and flowing. Although, for the same reasons, this book might not be for everyone.
Do You like book The Classical World: An Epic History From Homer To Hadrian (2006)?
As a complete ignoramus on classical history, this book was a pleasant surprise. Necessarily superficial in some respects (you try fitting so many years of history in a little over six hundred pages), but full of interesting, curious and often quite naughty detail. Lane-Fox writes from a very well-informed perspective, but he assumes no previous knowledge of the subject from the reader, and neither does he insult the intelligence of his readership, making it an entertaining and informative read. This is intelligent, witty and worldly history writing, sensibly divided into short, clearly-themed and easily-digestible chapters, and written with evident enjoyment and intellectual engagement. Recommended as a basic, but well-written and clear beginners' history of the Classical world.
—Claire
I'd read one of Fox's book previously. Therefore, seeing this title at the Park Ridge Library booksale, I picked it up with some confidence. Reviewing books on ancient history for a scholarly journal, but not being a classicist, I keep my hand in by regularly reading popular books on the subject.Robin Lane Fox is likely a very good teacher. His books are accessible, even fun, because he punctuates serious discussion with odd tidbits, the kinds of quirky facts which helped get me interested in history as a kid. These bits include a lot of that old standby, the sexual proclivities of the great, as well as his own personal obsession, gardening practices--he happens to be the gardening editor of the London Financial Times as well as a history professor.The scope of this book is Homer to Hadrian, ca. 800 BCE to 138 CE. The two primary canvases are Greece and Rome. The three major themes running throughout, a bit stretched at times, are freedom, justice and luxury. Fox does not conceal his own ethical and political beliefs: Athenian democracy is good. Roman autocracy is bad.My only complaints about Fox's work are relatively trivial. First, a chronological table and some more maps would have been helpful. The maps he uses are mostly, of all things, elevation maps with major cities and the occasional landmark and political or regional division noted. Second, although he's a good writer, the text could have used a better editor. Personalities pop in and out without backgrounding sufficient to the intended general reader and some sentences are quite clumsy. Overall, this is a good general introduction to the period and cultures covered. Although tendentious, Fox is generally explicit in noting when his opinions are extraordinary or controversial.
—Erik Graff
Robin Lane Fox has authored a sweeping history of what he calls "The Classical World," from Homer's Greece to Hadrian's Roman Empire. While a work of such scope means that there cannot be great depth in discussing any point in that era; on the other hand, it provides a bird's eye view of issues, themes, and change over time. The author himself notes that (page xv): "It is a challenge to be asked to write a history of some none hundred years, especially when the evidence is so scattered and diverse, but it is a challenge which I have enjoyed." Some definitional issues. Lane defines "The Classical World" as (page 1) ". . .the world of the ancient Greeks and Romans, some forty lifetimes before our own but still able to challenge us by a humanity shared with ours." Fox ceases his narrative with the reign of the Roman Emperor Hadrian. Why? Lane says (page 2): ". . .'classical literature' ends in his reign. . . ." Even more important Page 2), ". . .is that Hadrian himself was the emperor with the most evident classicizing tastes." First, Fox focuses on three themes across this span of history--freedom, justice, and luxury. He believes that each of these--and the changes that occurred with time--can help explain the sweep of events. Second, he divides the time span into several eras, and treats each separately, although noting how the themes of freedom, justice, and luxury play out in each. "The Archaic Greek World" begins with Homer's Greece and concludes with the great Persian Wars. The next time period is what Fox refers to As "The Classical Greek World." This period runs from the rise of democratic Athens, the Peloponnesian War, Socrates, the rise of Philip of Macedon. The next phase is what he terms "Hellenistic Worlds," beginning with Alexander the Great's incredible success and the development of one of the world's largest empires. This frame runs until the final struggles between Carthage and Rome. Fox then moves on to a discussion of "The Roman Republic." Here, he considers the increase in luxury in Rome, the intrigues among Pompey, Julius Caesar, and Caesar's death. He follows this with a discussion "From Republic to Empire." The chapters in this segment include the rise of Octavian (to Augustus), his conflicts with Mark Antony, the Civil War against the assassins of Caesar, and so on. The last portion of the book, "An Imperial World," traces the post-Augustan period, concluding with Hadrian's rule. Under Hadrian, according to Fox (page 571): ". . .the two worlds of this book, the classical Greek and the Roman, came closely together. Hadrian's love of Greek culture is evident in his patronage, his favours for Greek cities (especially Athens) and his personal romantic life." In a history as large as this, one sacrifices depth for breadth. It is interesting to note Fox's rather dismissive treatment of Julius Caesar and Octavian/Augustus, as compared with more sympathetic treatments of each in the recent biographies by Goldsworthy and Everitt. Also, Everitt's biography of Cicero provides greater depth on that key figure in the period of time when the Republic was moving toward Empire. All in all, this is a well written book and worth looking at by those interested in this slice of history.
—Steven Peterson
