Rubicon Paperback – March 8, 2005

I loved this book. Tom Holland is an incredible writer—he narrates the sequence of historical events in a way that’s both engaging and easy to read. His storytelling makes complex history feel accessible and compelling.

I've long had a fascination with the characters and politics of ancient Rome, whether it be the Republican Period or the Imperial Period that followed the fall of the Republic. However, the most fascinating time for me, perhaps because of the vivid and larger-than-life characters in the cast, the gruesome violence of its politics, and the sheer scale of the stage (from the tip of Spain west to the far shores of the Black Sea east, from the shores of Britain north to the deserts of Africa and the Nile south), is the period as the Republic began to falter and fail and the Roman Empire began to ascend.Perhaps this period has gained even more currency with me recently because so much of our own politics in many ways echoes the arguments and politics of the Roman Republic. As I have listened, and occasionally participated in, debates and discussions about the role of government, I have heard arguments not unlike those that once were made in the Forum by senators of Rome. How much power should government have, what government should, and shouldn't, do for the people, whether we should engage in wars far across the ocean, whether we should be nation building, what should we do with the many millions of people immigrating across our borders, who should be an American, and so on, and so on. Long before the modern American Republic encountered these issues, the Roman people--under the Republic--debated these issues from in the Forum of Rome.With these thoughts in mind, as well as a love for gritty and real bare knuckle politics of ancient Rome, I picked up Tom Holland's book. Told in a narrative style with vibrant language, the story reads with novel like ease and speed. But for footnotes and awareness of the history being accounted from other sources, I might have wondered at the fictional like quality to it.All the great names of Roman history are present. Julius Caesar and his legions. Marcus Cicero, the oratorical giant. Pompey the Great, hero and megalomaniac. Cleopatra, seducer, queen and Pharaoh-goddess. And, of course, my favorite, Cato, the Spartan like idealist and champion of Republican principles, falling upon his sword rather than surrender to dictatorship as Caesar's army marches on Utica.I usually confine my gym reading to "fun stuff," like novels and other brain candy. However, I found that Holland's history was sufficiently enjoyable that I had difficulty picking up other books for the duration of the read, including at the gym. For those who complain that history is boring, a list of "one thing after another," Holland's Rubicon may be for them. For in it, they may find that `yes,' history does seem to repeat itself, but no, it is not just one thing after another, nor is it boring. Roman history, especially in Holland's telling, is as vibrant, alive, and violent as the Italian operas that their descendants would write over fifteen hundred years later.Rubicon is, ultimately, a tragic tale marked by violence, civil war, conquest and the fall of the world's longest standing republic. As the turmoil begins to end, we see Octavian rise as the second Caesar, but really as the first emperor, of Rome. His long life and mostly peaceful reign were a marked difference from the tumultuous years of the Republics fall, and they gave rise to a different period in Rome's, and the West's, history. It would be more than seventeen hundred years before another republic with Rome's staying power was established.As the only constant in history is change, as I closed the book, I could not help but wonder how long our republic will last. I don't mean to speak doom and gloom by saying so, only to point out that human nature is tends to bring about repetition of history, including the failures of democracies and republics alike. How long can ours last? Even if it is only at mid-point or, to be optimistic, a relative beginning, what duration can it have? And will the causes of Rome's fall also cause ours to fall?

I say layman and beginner only because the obvious texts for those serious about Roman history are the likes of Plutarch, Livy, etc. I just don't understand why there are people on here holding Tom Holland to that standard. there are reviewers here complaining about a lack of detail or depth, or his touristy language of Roman history that reads more like a novel than history. those reviewers should stick to Plutarch and leave T.H. alone. he never proposes that his work is a textbook. it's stylized ancient history, and in writing it so well he proves that ancient history doesn't always have to come from a textbook and taste like an old graham cracker.This book would have no merit if it were in any way embellished, but it isn't. The facts he provides are well-researched and demonstrate his impressive command of the history. Each chapter is an unfolding of decades of important Roman history delicately tied together to seem like one great big narrative. I can see where historians would have a problem with this aspect of the book, however. he does tend to connect events and figures loosely at times, but look at what we're working with. I say WE because the nature of Roman history is stunted by what little facts we have that have survived and so it is always a daunting task to hook together events that happened 30 or 40 years apart by what little we know. Tom Holland deserves accolades for how he managed to do this by using slight elements of suspense and other novelist's tools to make the reader very willing to suspend chronology in favor of a broad understanding.He shines when he muses about the personal lives and emotional makeups of his characters, whom he treats like real people, because they were. He avoids sounding like a novelist here only because the personal inclinations of his characters are only offered as a means for understanding their actions and trends within the times. For instance, he goes on about the villas of Sulla, Marius, etc., and their various interests in oyster farming, for instance, not because he thinks that by understanding Gaius Marius as an oyster farmer we will sympathize with his character interpretation, but because it was a crucial fact worth pointing out that wealth and power were displayed in this way and that Marius, though history remembers him as a blood-spattered golden boy of Rome, was also a political entity with public relations and images to uphold. It makes his rivalry with Sulla seem more like a modern jockeying for power that we can wrap our minds around, and less like a Charlton Heston movie.I think it speaks to the quality of this work that I, a seasoned veteran of Roman history with years of study under my belt, still found this book utterly enchanting, despite knowing almost every story before he got to it. If you love it as much as I, you should by all means read his second book, Persian Fire. It's almost just as good.

Vivid and well researched characters come to life with an encompassing understanding of the culture and times thanks to Holland’s beautifully rendered history. Like the cool history teacher that keeps everyone entertained while they learn - I loved it.Great maps that I constantly referenced and some fantastic photos of art and landmarks to remind you this is real history- not fiction.First time I read Tom Holland and will not be my last. - Greg