Rome: Empire of the Eagles 753BC - AD 476 by Neil Faulkner

[Narukami]

Greetings!

Has anyone read this book yet?

I thought Faulkner's book on the Jewish Revolt was very good, but this book is bound to raise the ire of some, perhaps even me...


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/058278 ... pe_snp_956

Rome: Empire of the Eagles, 753 BC - AD 476 (Hardcover)
by Neil Faulkner (Author)
No customer reviews yet. Be the first.
List Price: $39.95
Price: $29.16

From the Back Cover
A thrilling and often corruscating fusion of narrative with scholarship. The Romans have rarely before seemed quite so terrifying.Tom Holland, author of Rubicon: the Triumph and Tragedy of the Roman Republic (2004).

In this dramatically provocative new account the Roman Empire is a bloodthirsty capitalist superstate whose plutocratic stakeholders bled dry untold millions of slaves and serfs, and ethnically cleansed millions more, only to implode exhausted by its merciless policy of ruthless expansionism. Dr Faulkner, for whom Augustus was 'a truly disgusting man', never sits on the fence - this unashamedly partisan book is a must for anyone who wants to be challenged and outraged by our familiar image of Rome's contribution to world history.Guy de la Bédoyère, co-presenter of Channel 4’s ‘Time Team’.

The Roman Empireis widely admired as a model of civilisation. In this compelling new study Neil Faulkner argues that in fact it was a ruthless system of robbery and violence. War was used to enrich the state, the imperial ruling classes and favoured client groups. In the process millions of people were killed or enslaved.

Within the empire the state and the landowning elite creamed off taxes and rents from the countryside to fund their army, their towns, and their villas. The mass of people – slaves, serfs, poor peasants – were the victims of the exploitation that made the empire possible. This system, riddled with tension and latent conflict, contained the seeds of its own eventual collapse from the outset.


About the Author
Archaeologist and historian Neil Faulkner works as a lecturer, writer, editor and professional broadcaster. He has worked as excavation director for Time Team and is an Honorary Lecturer at the Instituteof Archaeologyat the University College of London.

His previous books include The Decline and Fall of Roman Britain(2004) and Apocalypse: the Great Jewish Revolt against Rome, AD66-73(2004) and Hidden Treasures, which accompanies the BBC series.


:wink:

Narukami

[Nicholas Gaukroger]

I'll probably give this a miss - Faulkner takes, for me, a too dogmatic Marxist view of history and refuses to consider any other approach/view.

[Narukami]

Yes, that too concerned me when I fist picked up Apocalypse, but it turned out to be better than I had first feared.

However, the blurb on the book info does give me pause.

Narukami

[Narukami]

The following interview appeared on the Socialist Worker on-line site (link follows)

Members of our forum might find Mr. Faulkner's views interesting.


http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=14297


[size=150:o112r40q]Empire of the Eagles: the myth of Rome[/size]

Modern leaders looking for a ‘civilised’ way to dominate the world refer to the Roman Empire. Historian Neil Faulkner explained the brutal reality to Ken Olende

What motivated you to write your new book Rome – Empire Of The Eagles on the history of the Roman Empire?

Most histories, if they aren’t broadly uncritical, tend to make excuses for the Roman Empire. They admit that there was a lot of nastiness such as the massacring of enemies, slavery and gladiators.

But then they point to lots of good things, like towns, roads, central heating, bathhouses and mosaics – as if that cancels the other out.

When we look at a modern society we evaluate it on the basis of what is fundamental to it as a social and political system. People writing about Nazi Germany don’t say it was half good – “You got decent motorways as well as death camps.â€

[sulla felix]

I had the good fortune to have Neil Faulkner as a tour guide for the sites of Roman Tunisia a while back. He is very articulate and thought provoking, and whilst I do not share many of his views (probably due to the fact that the lectures on Marxist Archaeological Theory at Uni just bored the hell out of me!) I believe it would be worthwhile reading his work. If nothing else it provides an alternative view to the "Empire is progress" view point that is predominant in much of the Roman History and Archaeology we read.

Thanks for posting the interview David.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Yes, there are always 2 sides of the coin!
I do agree with his interpretation of the advance in Greek culture, and Romes adoption of it tho'! :wink:

[Tarbicus]

But... I've always thought they were like that. What's the big deal?

And even then, wasn't everyone else doing it, except they couldn't travel as far as fast?

Although I think it can be statistically proven they proportionally caused less deaths than 20th C. men.

[Narukami]

Good point Tarbicus and indeed I would agree that if anything 20th century man has at the very least become more "efficient" in his killing, or more lethal.

As he states in the interview Faulkner has written this book in response to certain political thinking now current and while you and most members (if not all) are well aware of the brutality of the ancient Romans and so not surprised by Dr. Faulner's thesis, it is also quite clear that the public at large is not and may well accept the idea that the Roman Empire provides a model that certain current governments might do well follow.

Now I do not want to cross the line into current politics so I will not comment on Dr. Faulkner's intent, though I must wonder if his intended audience, that being the general public, will even hear about this book let alone read it. Members of this forum might read it, but that is very much akin to preaching to the choir.

I do think that his earlier book on the Jewish Revolt (Apocalypse) was one of the on the topic so this new one might prove to be informative if not revelatory.

On the other hand, while I envy Sulla Felix for his tour experience with Dr. Faulkner (lucky ), I too would find Marxist Archeology too much to sit through. It is best to approach Faulkner's books with eyes wide open, but then that is true for any history book. Every historian has an agenda, some are just more obvious than others.

Now the problem is finding the time to read this book. The list of books grows ever longer even as the clock continues to wind down. Such is the way of life is it not... :? roll: :wink:

Narukami

[Muzzaguchi]

Well, corruscating sent me to the dictionary - it only has one r so there is a typo on the back cover's first sentence. Yikes. hock:

[john m roberts]

I'm always wary when archaeological evidence is interpreted through a specific ideological lens. When conformity to the ideology is more important than the actual evidence, bad science results. I'm not calling it worthless: people with a different perspective can supply us with insights that may not have occurred to us.

Perhaps the Roman Empire was based on brute force and exploitation, but to the best of my knowledge almost all historical regimes have been the same. The Romans were just more successful at it. What he seems not to be addressing is, what did the citizenry get in the tradeoff? Take a look at any of our legion maps of the Empire from the 1st century on. What is the most remarkable thing? That there were so few legions based in the interior of the Empire. That was because they weren't needed there. People were taxed and exploited, but they were also protected. For centuries, the vast bulk of the inhabitants of the Empire never saw a soldier because the legions were concentrated on the frontiers, and they lived their whole lives without fear of invasion and with at least some protection from the courts. Much of the world's population for much of history would have considered that a good tradeoff.

[Narukami]

You're quite right John, Dr. Faulkner seems to gloss over the issue of legion placement and total number of legions. In fact, I am not convinced that one can say that the legions were used to govern the empire. To defend it, to expand it and yes to steal the resources of others, but used as a police force to keep the citizens in line?

Of course one could make the case that in locations where legions were stationed, Britain or Judea for example, they did keep the local populace in line if not directly then by the threat their very presence implied. Even so, you make a good point John, for vast areas of the empire had no legions stationed in them at all and yet remained peaceful and productive.

Dr. Faulkner does touch on some of these issues in the lecture posted bellow which seems to be a general introduction to the themes discussed in his book Rome: Empire of the Eagles.

http://fascinatinghistory.blogspot.com/ ... -rome.html


Now, posting this lecture does not paint me as a socialist, or a Red (as Flavius Crispus labeled me in another thread :wink: ) or even a fellow traveller (there's a Cold War term for you). Posting this does paint me as a trouble maker -- no doubt about it, but then I'm just trying to keep the conversation lively. :roll:

:wink:

Narukami

[Virilis]

Now, posting this lecture does not paint me as a socialist, or a Red (as Flavius Crispus labeled me in another thread :wink: ) or even a fellow traveller (there's a Cold War term for you). Posting this does paint me as a trouble maker -- no doubt about it, but then I'm just trying to keep the conversation lively. :roll:

:wink:

Narukami

I have always thought that it is the basis of understanding western civilization / political thought to know ALL classical political theories, including marxist :? twisted: !?

[Timotheus]

Now, posting this lecture does not paint me as a socialist, or a Red (as Flavius Crispus labeled me in another thread :wink: ) or even a fellow traveller (there's a Cold War term for you). Posting this does paint me as a trouble maker -- no doubt about it, but then I'm just trying to keep the conversation lively. :roll:

:wink:

Narukami

I have always thought that it is the basis of understanding western civilization / political thought to know ALL classical political theories, including marxist :? twisted: !?

Is there any portion of Marxism that has not been completely discredited and laughed at? Why use a faulty lens when studying anything?

[Virilis]

Well, defining for the first time in detail such political/sociological/economic phenomena like class, capital etc. isn`t such a bad achievement. By the way, have you studied Marx? (here we go again, in university I was considered as a right-wing neo-liberalist and here I am a commie :wink: )...

In short, I think that we all agree that the practical solutions marxism has offered so far has had horrible consequences. The thing we can`t deny is that his theories are an important part of the evolution of the western political thought, be it right- or left-wing...

[Narukami]

With regard to the application of modern values on the past, I offer this comment from Michael Parenti (from his book: The Assassination of Julius Caesar A People's History):

[color=darkred]“we hear that we must avoid imposing present values upon past experience, and we must immerse ourselves in the historic context under study. But few historians immerse themselves in the grim and embattled social experience of the Roman proletariat. If anything, they see the poor – especially the rebellious poor – through the prism of their own class bias, the same bias shared by ancient historians from Polybius and Cicero to Tacitus and Velleius.â€