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

[Wander]

And that book -- "The Assassination of Julius Caesar" -- seemed very determinedly Marxist in its focus. It presented some good history, and some things I didn't know before, but it had a definite agenda.

[SigniferOne]

Well, defining for the first time in detail such political/sociological/economic phenomena like class, capital etc. isn`t such a bad achievement.

That's exactly what Faulkner was caricaturing as an incorrect methodology. It's like saying that the Nazis were mixed because they had the autobahn along with the mass killings. One can't say that, he argues. And you can't say the same thing about Marxism. Along with causing death of millions, it was thoroughly discredited on every level, and introduced a thousand obfuscations into every field it touches -- into economics (labor theory of value), into history (dialectical materialism), into philosophy (determinism), art (class expression), etc etc. If after devastations such as that, they added a handful of a few tiny words, there is no harm in still judging the whole philosophy as utterly detrimental to mankind.

[Virilis]

Well, defining for the first time in detail such political/sociological/economic phenomena like class, capital etc. isn`t such a bad achievement.

That's exactly what Faulkner was caricaturing as an incorrect methodology. It's like saying that the Nazis were mixed because they had the autobahn along with the mass killings. One can't say that, he argues. And you can't say the same thing about Marxism. Along with causing death of millions, it was thoroughly discredited on every level, and introduced a thousand obfuscations into every field it touches -- into economics (labor theory of value), into history (dialectical materialism), into philosophy (determinism), art (class expression), etc etc. If after devastations such as that, they added a handful of a few tiny words, there is no harm in still judging the whole philosophy as utterly detrimental to mankind.

James, I think you missed my point entirely. I was just saying that Marx is an integral part of the history of the evolution of western philosophical / political thought whether we like it or not.

[Narukami]

And that book -- "The Assassination of Julius Caesar" -- seemed very determinedly Marxist in its focus. It presented some good history, and some things I didn't know before, but it had a definite agenda.

I have a feeling that Parenti might agree with you Wander.

Even so, not all Socialist Historians are on board with his "agenda."

In his book "Rome: Empire of the Eagles" Neil Faulkner makes this comment:

"M Parenti's The Assassination of Julius Caesar is an excellent read and a refreshingly acerbic indictment of the Late Republican ruling class, but the analysis of Caesar and what he represented is naive."

I do not agree that Parenti's view of Caesar is naive, but at the same time I am leery of the attempt to make history (or the study of history) conform to a rigid dogma (from the Left or the Right). Thus am I also skeptical of Dr. Victor David Hanson's analysis of the battle of Thermopylae.

Be that as it may I do think both Parenti and Faulkner bring some good information and interesting insights to the discussion of ancient Rome and I welcome it.

:wink:

Narukami

[Narukami]

Rome – Empire of the Eagles
By Neil Faulkner
2008

I must say this was not quite the book I expected, but then after reading the cover blurb I was not certain what to expect.

“The Roman Empire is widely admired as a model of civilization. In this compelling new study, Neil Faulkner argues that in fact it was a ruthless system of robbery and violence.”

Well, for any student of the ancient Romans this statement hardly comes as a surprise, nor does Faulkner’s advocacy of that position. Indeed Faulkner’s views are well known but they do not invalidate his scholarship both as an archeologist and as an historian. (One critic referred to Faulkner as a “military historian” as if that were some lesser class of Historian, to be tolerated but not endorsed.) Faulkner’s earlier book on the Jewish Revolt (Apocalypse – The Great Jewish Revolt Against Rome AD 66-73) is one of the best written on that seminal event in Roman and Jewish history and established, for me at least, his credibility as an historian of ancient Rome.

Although not shy about calling himself a Marxist Historian, Faulkner is also quick to point out that, “…I also found myself at odds with the ‘orthodox’ Marxist accounts of the ancient world.” Indeed while he clearly believes that the Roman Empire was “a dynamic system of military imperialism – of robbery with violence – and that its rise and fall, its conquests and defeats, its revolutions and civil wars can best be understood as manifestations of this” one also gets the distinct impression that Faulkner admires the Romans, in spite of himself. He does not say so, not in so many words, but it is rather a feeling one gets as they read this and his earlier works. This is, to be sure, a subjective judgment but no less valid for being so.

This same basic argument was made most eloquently by those other famous Marxist Historians (of the Groucho School), Monty Python, in their historical treatise “The Life of Brian.” Indeed Faulkner quoted them at length in a recent lecture about his book. However, though this argument: “Should we deplore the historical example of Rome, or admire it, perhaps even seek to emulate it?” is the stated core of this book, and even though Faulkner does make mention of it several times, this book is not so much an argument of that question but rather an excellent survey of Roman history from the founding to the fall of the Western empire.

This, in and of itself, is not a problem and in fact those looking for a good general survey of Roman history could do worse than this book. That being said it is still a bit of a disappointment that Faulkner did not spend more time making his case directly. That the book ends without a summing up or re-stating of the thesis and his points in support of it is a disappointment. That the book ends with the fall of the Western Empire is a major surprise. Perhaps the East just doesn’t count?

There are other points that rankle as well.

His judgment of Augustus is harsh in the extreme:

Weak, untalented, immoral, self-serving, arrogant, murderous: all
these words applied to Octavian, and it is astonishing that this truly
disgusting man has been admired by a succession of ancient historians mesmerized by the image-makers of the Augustan regime. He was in
fact one of history’s bloody tyrants. (p172)

This statement is certainly in keeping with his central theme, but it is used almost as an aside and not more fully explored. Of course the good doctor is entitled to his interpretation of history, even if it flies in the face of all other scholarship. Faulkner does cause one to look again at Augustus and consider him with care. As we all know, history is written by the winners, and no more so than ancient history, when very few wrote and even fewer works survived.

More egregious is the following caption to a photo of the Colosseum, “The Colosseum is Rome’s Auschwitz: built for the mass murder of slaves as a form of public entertainment.” (plate 23)

Often it is the case that captions are taken directly from the text, however in this case this outrageous statement appears nowhere in the book. So the question naturally arises where did it come from? Did Dr. Faulkner write it, and the other captions, specifically for the photo, or it is something the publisher came up with on his own, like the controversial jacket blurb? Either way Faulkner, as author, bears the responsibility for it and it does not reflect well on him as an historian either of ancient Rome or modern Europe. It calls into question not only his grasp of history but his judgment as well.

The Auschwitz Camps (for it was a complex of several camps) had but one objective – the death, either by work or by extermination, of all its inmates. It was not a venue for public entertainment and indeed measures were taken to keep its activities if not secret then at least hidden from public scrutiny.

The Roman Colosseum was nothing of the sort. Its objective was the entertainment of the inhabitants of Rome. That the Romans liked their sports bloody is deplorable but it is well know that not all Gladiators were slaves nor was the Colosseum used as a means to exterminate an entire people.

Another area that may prove controversial is the book’s Bibliography. It is laid out in an unconventional way and while I like this, I do not agree with some of his assessments, particularly that of Michael Parenti’s book The Assassination of Julius Caesar – A People’s History of Ancient Rome. “…[It] is an excellent read and a refreshingly acerbic indictment of the Late Republican ruling class, but the analysis of Caesar and what he represented is naïve.” (p.329) I do not think Parenti’s analysis of Gaius Julius is naïve at all, quite the opposite, but that is just my opinion.

It is also worth pointing out that Faulkner does praise Tom Holland’s book Rubicon “…when has Roman history ever been such a compelling and convincing read?” and that Holland is quoted on the book’s jacket praising Faulkner, “A Thrilling and often coruscating fusion of narrative with scholarship. The Romans have rarely before seemed quite so terrifying.” Perhaps it is just a coincidence.

Yet despite these flaws (minor and major), I did enjoy the book and found it to be a good general survey of Roman History. I do not think my time wasted in reading it.

:wink:

Narukami