Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Antonines by Michael Grant
#1
Grant, Michael, The Antonines: The Roman Empire in Transition, 1994

The mid-second century is one of the time periods in which I am most interested, so I’ve wanted to read this book for years. Unfortunately, the wait was not worth it.

It is basically a series of biographies and a couple essays. Grant covers the emperors from Antoninus Pius to Commodus. These are very short and don’t offer much. The best part is Grant’s use of coins to illustrate different aspects of their reigns, something in which he excels. Some things are odd: for instance, he warns twice not to trust what the Historia Augusta says about Lucius Verus, but still he apparently believes everything it says.

There are more biographies on different writers. This is probably my least favourite part of the book. In the introduction to the Sophists section Grant mentions that they served their local communities with liturgies and as magistrates. He then launches into Aristides, apparently unaware that Aristides claim to fame is his diary, in which he describes his efforts to be an official rhetor so he would not have to serve as a magistrate! There are other strange passages, such as where Grant confuses Lucian’s Alexander and Peregrinus. He also manages a paragraph on True History without mentioning that it is about space travel. He does better with Apuleius’ Golden Ass and Marcus Aurelius’ Mediations, even though he seems unfamiliar with Stoic doctrine.

The last section are two essays, one on art and architecture and the other on Edward Gibbon’s famous sentence: “If a man were called to fix the period in the history of the world, during which the condition of the human race was most happy and prosperous, he would, without hesitation, name that which elapsed from the death of Domitian to the accession of Commodus.” I think these were better done, and I especially liked his defence of Gibbon’s statement.

Grant is frustratingly coy in regards to some of his statements. For instance, he states that Antoninus Pius personally directed the Empire’s artists to change their style. I would love to know where he got this idea. Also, he says that only 1% of the legions came from Italy during this time. Again, I would love to know his source.

Overall, this was a major disappointment. I know that others have had similar opinions.
David J. Cord
www.davidcord.com
Reply
#2
About being less than 1% of soldiers being from Italy, I think that usually archaeologist uses the messages that were written in the tombs from ancient soldiers (where they included their origin).
Reply
#3
I suspected something like that, but I wish he would have put his source in a note. (I've never met a footnote I didn't like! :wink: )
David J. Cord
www.davidcord.com
Reply
#4
I read the book on Gladiators by Michael Grant (which is quite old already) and it was the worst I've ever read on that subject. So I would stay away from any of his books.
Reply
#5
Never read it.
Abouth the statistics of the ethnics of the roman army, read the book from Yann Le Bohec "Imperial Roman Army". This is a translation of the original french (I read the original, but it seems its a good translation).
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Michael Grant\'s History of Rome ... ? Narukami 2 3,529 07-01-2011, 06:51 PM
Last Post: Narukami
  Michael Grant Anonymous 11 3,098 03-05-2002, 09:49 PM
Last Post: Anonymous

Forum Jump: