Pax Romana by Adrian Goldsworthy

Pax Romana Reviews

• 
  Jeffrey Keeten

  Even though Adrian Goldsworthy has been a noted historian for decades, my first encounter with his works was his enjoyable, fictional, Roman series Vindolandia. This book is an overview of Rome at peace, but even when they were at peace, because of the size of the empire, they were never totally at peace. There were rebellions, incursions by neighboring states, and coup attempts in the provinces. These disturbances were not war, but merely situations that required a show of strength by the Romans to reassert their dominance.
  
  Because of the large scope of the book, a Keeten-style review to do it justice would be longer and more comprehensive than what anyone would want to read, so I’ve decided to share some of the best quotes from the book that really stood out for me and add just a dab of commentary.
  
  ”Like most imperial powers, the Romans felt that their domination was entirely right, divinely ordained and a good thing for the wider world. Emperors boasted that their rule brought peace to the provinces, benefiting the entire population.” They firmly believed that to live as a Roman should be the goal of every man, woman, and child. Certainly, there are parallels with how most Americans see things as well. They, too, believe that everyone should want to be an American, even as they do everything in their power to keep people from realizing that dream.
  
  ”When the empire was at its height, the greater part of the Roman army was stationed on its fringes in the frontier zones--a second-century AD Greek orator compared the soldiers to a protective wall surrounding the empire as if it were a single city.” I really liked the visual of a wall of soldiers surrounding the empire. It must have been very reassuring to Romans to know that this human wall stood between them and anyone who wished to invade. Anyone trying to do so would suffer a blood price if they attempted to push through this first line of defense.
  
  ”Rome was one of many aggressive, imperialistic states and kingdoms, unusual not because it was uniquely bellicose but because it proved so successful. Much of this rested on its capacity to absorb other peoples and tie them permanently to the Republic as loyal, if clearly subordinate, allies.” I can remember as a child when I was first reading about the Roman empire how impressed I was with their ability to absorb the very best of whatever cultures they conquered. This also applied to battlefield tactics. If an enemy defeated them, the Romans would either adopt the methods used to defeat them or find ways to counteract those winning tactics. They were never too proud to change their conducts of war.
  
  ”I am a Roman citizen!” Romans had the same hubris as Americans. When they traveled abroad, they believed that the power and influence of being a Roman gave them special protections. To an extent they were right. One did not behead or torture or even inconvenience a Roman citizen without knowing that there could be grave consequences. I won’t get into what it means to be an American traveling abroad these days, except to say that I generally try to fake a Canadian accent...very badly.
  
  ���Verres’ tenure in Sicily from 73-71 BC was marked by profiteering, extortion and abuse of power on a spectacular scale. Cicero claimed that the governor joked that his first year was devoted to making himself rich, the second to gathering money to hire the best advocate and the third to raising the cash to bribe judges and the jury at his inevitable trial.” The only reason that Roman aristocracy wanted to govern a province was to increase their influence in Rome and become filthy rich. There are some exceptions, but they did not go to the provinces on a mission of mercy or to make life better for the citizens. It was to squeeze every slender denari they could out of the population without inciting rebellion.
  
  ”Many agricultural workers produced crops on behalf of a landlord they never met for consumption by people in distant lands.” That was interesting to contemplate, growing all this beautiful grain that was promptly hauled to Rome to feed the ravenous maws, especially if the farmer was having difficulties feeding his own family.
  
  ”By AD 200, the nominal size of the army was at least 350,000 men, all sworn to serve the emperor, and paid and promoted by him. It was not until the French Revolution brought mass conscription that the army of any European state surpassed this total, and even then few maintained so many troops outside of the grand mobilisations of wartime.” Armies previously were mostly made up of farmer soldiers. These men, when not mobilized, were working in the fields. It is astounding to think that Rome in AD 200 could afford to have that many able bodied men devoted strictly to warfare and defense. They obviously deemed it necessary to keep the peace.
  
  ”The Roman army was a force best suited to direct confrontation with the enemy’s main strength--whether this was a field army or a stronghold--which meant that strategy and tactics at all levels were aggressive, pushing for a decisive result as soon as possible. This aggression was combined with a willingness to learn from mistakes and a stubborn determination to continue a struggle until victory was achieved.” Their adversaries just simply did not have the ability or the enthusiasm to keep fighting. There are several moments in history where a nation would hand the Romans a resounding defeat, but then they went back to their regular lives, little knowing that in very short order the Romans would return wanting payback. Romans never accepted defeat, which is admirable, but also somewhat psychotic.
  
  ”The Romans never attempted to invade a country with the intention of establishing a functioning democracy and then withdrawing. The Romans tended to stay, which in the end meant that most of the population had to make an accommodation with them.” I’ve had some controversial discussions about this aspect in regards to the United States. When we invaded Afghanistan, a decision I completely disagreed with, my first question for people was...well, are we going to keep it or are we going to set up a sham government that will take decades to achieve peace? One person said to me...we don’t want that shithole. My response. Okay, so why are we invading then? Revenge? Invading a country, toppling their leadership in the process, and then leaving makes no sense whatsoever. We can offer assistance to an existing government, but if our goal is regime change, it has always led to disaster. Make it part of the empire or leave it alone with a heavy lean towards...leave it alone.
  
  If you wish to see more of my most recent book and movie reviews, visit
  http://www.jeffreykeeten.com
  I also have a Facebook blogger page at:
  https://www.facebook.com/JeffreyKeeten and an Instagram account
  https://www.instagram.com/jeffreykeeten/
• 
  Emma

  Once again Goldsworthy reveals the incredible depth and breadth of his knowledge, focusing this time on the theme of Roman Peace. It is a fascinating book, on a theme I have not seen addressed in this manner before. Perhaps this is because the idea of Empire continues to hold negative connotations and Goldsworthy instead aims to show that a system based on simple brutality could never have retained control of such vast areas, varied peoples, and over such a long amount of time.
  
  Peace here is not quite as we imagine it to be, full of qualifications and more than a few skirmishes. Yet Goldsworthy makes clear that the Romans did create a system of mutual benefit, of alliances, and of balance that allowed peace and prosperity to a greater extent than could otherwise have existed. The most important factor seems to be been the multitude of different types of relationships between Rome and its subject territories-Rome did not have the desire or the manpower to permanently garrison each and every controlled area-so it was in those connections that peace was maintained, or otherwise. Even within the ruling elites, the network of friendships and debts formed a real part of how the system of government was run. Many people wanted to become Roman citizens, it was an avenue of opportunity that offered numerous benefits. It is significant that Rome offered this to some, unlike the more insular Greece, and part of why, in the end, Rome was destroyed by outside forces rather than overwhelming internal revolt.
  
  That is not to say the power politics based on fear were absent. Indeed, one significant factor in peaceful relations within the empire and around it seemed to be that Rome held the biggest stick, and could use that position as a deterrent or to broker relationships between other warring territories. Roman soldiers were not idle and violence remained a useful tool.
  
  Overall, a genuinely compelling, well researched, and well argued book, a great addition to Goldsworthy's Roman series.
  
  Many thanks to Adrian Goldsworthy, Yale University Press, and Netgalley for this copy in exchange for an honest review.
  
  
• 
  Ian

  It probably seems odd that I’m starting a 5-star review with a criticism, but I would say that even for a history nerd like me, this wasn’t the quickest read. It’s worth it though for the level of insight provided. This isn’t a narrative history, rather a comprehensive look at the Roman Empire at its height, and an attempt to explain its success. The book concentrates on the period from the third century BC to the end of the second century AD, when the Pax Romana was at its height. From the third century AD the Empire was weakened by frequent civil wars and increased threats from outside.
  
  Dr Goldsworthy argues that the Empire can be considered a success firstly for its longevity. Other empires have been bigger but few if any have lasted as long. Sicily was Rome’s first overseas province and remained under continuous Roman administration for more than 700 years. Britannia was one of the last provinces to be added and was one of the first to be lost, but even there Roman rule lasted around three and half centuries.
  
  Many people of my vintage will be familiar with the “What have the Romans ever done for us?” sketch from the film “The Life of Brian”. “Well, peace and stability, that’s what” would be Dr. Goldsworthy’s reply. He argues that, “... the areas under Roman rule experienced considerably less war and organised violence than they did in the centuries before or since.” He highlights that rebellions against Roman rule were rare and, where they did happen, tended to occur within a generation of the arrival of the Romans. This was the case with the rebellions led by Boudicca in Britain and Vercingetorix in Gaul, and the successful revolt in Germany led by Arminius. (The exception was Judaea, which saw at least 3 major rebellions - the book contains a discussion about why Judaea was such an unusually turbulent province). Moreover, the Roman Empire did not collapse because of any desire for independence from its provinces. On the contrary, what evidence we have from the following centuries suggests a yearning for the days of the Empire.
  
  Dr Goldsworthy is known as a specialist on the Roman military, and this book is full of insights on that subject. Although the Roman Army was huge the size of the Empire meant it was thinly spread. The legions were all deployed in the frontier provinces and others were only very lightly garrisoned with auxiliary troops. There was always the distant threat of the legions returning in the event of serious unrest, but on a day to day basis, governors of settled provinces were not in a position to impose their will through force of arms. The book suggests that the scene in the Gospels where Pontius Pilate gives way to the demands of the mob may well have been more common than most of us think. However, the author argues that it was this very concentration on the security of the frontier that made successful attacks on the Empire very rare, thereby maintaining the Pax.
  
  The other great success of the Romans was their ability to absorb other cultures, reconciling them to Roman rule. This was especially the case with the leaders of the subject peoples. The Latin language spread through western Europe, and other aspects of Roman culture – public baths, toga wearing, the gladiatorial arena, and the circus for chariot racing, spread through the whole Empire. Tacitus’ book “The Life of Agricola” contains a particular reference to the way this happened in Britain.
  
  It should be said that the author doesn’t attempt to gloss over the negative side of the Roman Empire. He notes that “we can confidently state that over the centuries millions died in the course of the wars fought by Rome, millions more were enslaved, and still more would live under Roman rule whether they liked it nor not.” For all that, he argues persuasively that the Romans created a long period of relative peace over the huge area they ruled. That achievement was “a glory greater than war.”
  
  
  
• 
  Sud666

  Goldsworthy's "Pax Romana" was excellent. Using the most up to date records we are shown the inner workings of the period of Roman Peace.
  
  The book looks at various conditions and factors that led to the creation of the Roman Empire. It then looks at the positives and negatives of Roman expansion. It is a superb look at how the Romans, both during the Republic and during the Empire, were able to create and run an Empire.
  
  Looking at the development through two stages- Republic and Empire, we see how other nations and states interacted with the Romans, how they conducted war and field operations. There is also a detailed look at why the all pervading power of Rome was instrumental in the functioning of the Empire.
  
  A superb book and highly recommended for fans of Roman history.
• 
  Carlos

  I loved this book, be aware tough it is not the most fast paced book, it deals with the daily goings of the running of the Roman Empire. In it you will learn that while the Roman Empire provided peace to the regions it conquered, it wasn't always permanent and while the term "Pax romana "calls to the time after Augustus , those years were not always free of conflict , the only difference was that the Roman Empire was strong enough to contain the threat and amortize the effects , this would change in the future .. highly recommend this book to anyone interested in classical history and anyone with an interest in the Roman Empire!
• 
  Ray

  I liked this book. It seeks to get beyond the headlines of war and conquest, emperors and usurper, to understand what life was like in Rome and how it became perhaps the greatest empire the world has ever seen. It does this by exploring the themes of Roman life and the conditions which led a small hill town in central Italy to rule much of the world.
  
  The basic idea is that the progressive extension of Roman citizenship allowed adjacent elites a stake in a successful state and provided an ideal than even the lowliest could aspire to, the Roman dream if you like. Combined with a refusal to admit defeat in war and a ruthless Darwinian political system this made Rome unbeatable for centuries.
  
  I liked the idea that someone like Septimius Severus could rise from being minor African nobility to become ruler of a massive empire, dying in far away York on the fringes of the known world. And in all the vast distance between these two places there was a recognisable Roman culture and identity, albeit with local nuances.
  
  Ultimately the power of Rome became it's undoing, as the extreme bounty available to the victors caused interminable civil wars over the spoils of empire, fatally weakening Rome from within. Failure to maintain static borders allowed outsiders to progressively raid, settle and usurp formerly peaceful provinces.
  
  Rome fell, but it will always be a subject of wonder and fascination.
• 
  Ana

  A well paced and clearly written piece on the existence of such a thing as Pax Romana - Roman Peace - under the rule of the Empire. Filled with many bits of interesting information and painting at times a detailed picture of the lives of Roman citizens (or not so citizens), it's a worthy read for anyone interested in the period.
• 
  Andrew

  Pax Romana, by Adrian Goldsworthy, was a fun book detailing the idea of Pax Romana, or peace through Roman Imperialism. This is a concept that is often invoked or aped throughout history; we hear of Pax Americana, Pax Britannica and so forth, meaning that a global or regional hegemonic power has created a system of long-standing peace through a monopoly on violence. Goldsworthy looks at this idea in the Roman world. Rome, as we all know, was an Empire that ruled Southern Europe, Northern Africa, the Middle East, and parts of Britain, Germany and the Low countries for many hundreds of years. The blitz of Empire building for Rome lasted from the Republican era, into the first reign of the Principate, but then slowed to almost a stop, with only a few conquests of land in Britain, the Kingdom of Dacia, and some short lived border adjustments in the Middle East and Germany. Other than that, Roman imperial conquest mostly happened during the Republic.
  
  Goldsworthy examines the concept of peace through Roman arms from multiple perspectives. He examines the theoretical concepts behind the expansion, from an administrative standpoint, as well as through the rationale of various actors (gleaned from writings). Conquest was prevalent in the Republic because the Senate would send one of their own to a province or territory to administer every few years. The Senator would have limited time to make an impact (and a fortune) in the province, and so would have to act fast to gain prestige (and maybe a Triumph!). One could administer a province competently, put its finances in order, fairly arbitrate justice and policy, OR... one could just invade a bunch of land and take plunder and bring it back for the glory of Rome!! This is often what happened. Goldsworthy does note that Rome during the Republican era was not always aggressive, and often responded to slights and raids as pretexts for war, but usually was tolerant of client kingdoms and tribes on its borders. Friends of Rome were treated quite well, and Rome would even send in troops to prop up allies and puppets on the borders, or more often arbitrate disputes between two different allies. Only when things got really rough, or when a particularly ambitious Senator was in charge of a few legions (think Pompey or Julius Caesar) was territory annexed. During the first reign of the Roman Principate - Augustus Caesar, territory was annexed for reasons of Imperialism. Most sources indicate that the borders were shored up for logistical reasons of Empire - the Balkans was consolidated to build land networks to Rome's Greek/Asian possessions, and Spain was consolidated as well. The borders of the Empire in Germany were pushed up to the Rhine, and so forth.
  
  During the reign of the Emperors, Rome was mostly an Empire in holding. It rarely increased its territory - only on a few occasions. Goldsworthy notes that Emperors with an insecure legitimacy were often the ones to engage in this sort of conquest - the invasion and extension of Roman possessions in Britain, and the invasion of Dacia, as well as the failed campaigns extending the German frontier to the Elbe, or moving deeper into Parthia, are all examples. Goldsworthy examines the concept of Imperial limits in Rome, in terms of the ability to raise, finance and fund legions, border posts and the like. He also looks at it from the perspective of legitimacy - Roman emperors were more secure in their legitimate power then an elected Senator, and only needed to prove themselves on particular occasions. This, Goldsworthy posits, is a key reason why Rome stopped its aggressive campaigns into foreign lands.
  
  Goldsworthy also looks at internal peace. Civil conflict was common during the end of the Republic, but this conflict did not lead to a pause in further annexations. On the contrary - the acquisition of Gaul, Turkey and much more came about during the end of Republic, when powerful Senators and families squabbled for ultimate power. Goldsworthy then compares this to the centuries leading up to Rome's final collapse. Civil conflict was ripe in the Empire, but this did not lead to territorial acquisition. Rome suffered from rebellion in many of the recently annexed territories- notably Gaul, Spain, Judea and in Germany, where it actually lost provinces permanently for the first time. Rome's existing provinces for much of their Roman history were garrisoned if they were rebellious (usually close to its point of annexation), but as time went on, legions would be pulled away, and sometimes disbanded, to support frontier garrisons. During its peak, Rome has a string of forts and walls across its entire frontier, controlling defensive points like the Rhine and Danube, or building features like Hadrian's Wall, to create stable points of static defense and border control to deter raids, armed migrations, and smuggling and banditry. This was a time of economic stability for most Roman citizens, and a world where violence was rare, homesteads secure, and social life was stable. Roman women, slaves and foreigners did not possess full rights, and could not (for the most part) break free from there socially constructed places within society. Even so, this was an era of stability for many within (and sometimes without) the Roman Empire - the Pax Romana, if you will.
  
  Goldsworthy examines (posits) the reasons why Pax Romana came about, and by extension, how Imperial rule can often lead to stability. It is stability enforced by a monopoly on violence, and one that is often not tolerant of social mobility, but it is Pax nonetheless. The social situation, garrison life, politics and policy, administration and so forth are all examined. If I had a criticism of this book, it would be that it doesn't fully offer a compelling examination of the concept of Pax Romana, but instead historical perspective on the birth of Roman imperialism, and some refutation of both the Roman Admirers in schools of history, and the more recent influx of anti-Imperialist scholarship that examines Rome. Goldsworthy acknowledges the benefits of both concepts, but tries to keep the history firmly in line with what a Roman politician or statesperson, or average citizen for that matter, might think, feel and how they would interact with the concept. This is a pretty solid read on the subject nonetheless, and I would certainly recommend it to those interesting in reading up on Ancient Rome.
• 
  Charlie Hasler

  Really informative read. Very enjoyable.
• 
  Anne Martin

  I cannot give less than four stars to this book. The amount of research and thus knowledge it holds is huge.
  I studied latin for seven years at school and most of the names mentioned by the author ring a bell. But while Caesar is associated with clear memories, some other ones belong to the half-forgotten realm of long lost memories. I still know that Verres was corrupted and was governor of Sicily; I did not associate him with Asia Minor (understand Turkey in today's words). Mithridates in my mind was the weirdo who, for fear of being poisoned, absorbed regularly smidgens of dangerous substances to acclimate his body to them, the way we try today to desensitize allergic kids with microscopic amounts of the product creating hives on their skin. But I never knew he was involved in a big rebellion against Rome.
  So, I learned a lot through this book and regretted it was written with the seriousness historians use. It is lacking the sociological anecdotes many would use to make such matters more fun. I know, history cannot be re-written. But some have tried to write it differently, so that people would be enthused by their description of ancient battles, old lifestyles or mores long extinct.
  
  In other words, a very good book which would have been great with a touch of humor. It is just missing what Alain Decaux or Andre Castelot added on their television shows -the capacity of making people feel with their heroes of one night, laugh with them, fear with them, learn about the events but cheer with the characters, get acquainted with them, know the heroes as if they were your friends.
  I understand it is getting out of the historian's work and gets closer to the tabloids. But for the reader, it is fun and enjoyable, and helps memorize the events better. Obviously, the book insists on the conquest of England about which I know very little.
  
• 
  Jennifer

  I received an ARC of this book from Netgalley in exchange for an honest review. I enjoyed reading Pax Romana. It brought me back to my classics classes I took during my BA and it re-taught me about a lot of events and people from Roman times( with a focus on the Roman Peace). Goldsworthy's approach is fair and balanced. he does not simply view the Romans as evil conquerors but also intelligent and well planned. He discusses that not all peoples they conquered suffered under them and in fact some prospered. This book is an interesting read for fans of Ancient History and would be a great textbook in any ancient roman history or classics class.
  
  
• 
  Bonnie_blu

  This is another excellent volume on ancient Rome by Adrian Goldsworthy. His vast knowledge is put to work here examining the Pax Romana. He clearly shows that the Pax Romana was very real and long lasting. Some highlights:
  1. Rome was an aggressive, warrior society, but it only differed from other ancient societies in its level of success and its unique "philosophy" of how it managed conquered peoples.
  2. The overwhelming majority of people conquered by Rome did not rebel, even during those times when Rome was weakened by foreign wars or by civil wars brought on by men competing to rule the empire.
  3. The majority of people under Roman rule experienced hundreds of years of unprecedented peace and greater economic prosperity. Granted, this "greater economic prosperity" meant vastly different things to the poor and the rich, but most benefited.
  
  One point that cannot be stressed strongly enough is that the ancient world was a horrendously brutal place where raiding was endemic, people were enslaved, women raped, and violent death was a constant possibility. The Pax Romana made the world a much safer place for most of its people.
• 
  Nicky

  
  Reviewed for The Bibliophibian.
  
  Pax Romana is a popular history style examination of the peace imposed by the Roman Empire, and how peaceful it actually was, as well as how it benefitted or oppressed the lands and peoples that fell under Roman sway. Although I called it popular history, it’s not super popularised: the evidence is meticulous, and the pace slow. It’s popular history in the sense of being perfectly comprehensible to the interested outsider to the field, rather than being simplistic.
  
  The overall theory of the book is that the Pax Romana really was, in general, beneficial — and that Rome’s rule really was relatively peaceful and benign, with exceptions being just that rather than the overall rule. A lot of the time the evidence suggests that benignity was due to basically ignoring local squabbles and leaving places to govern themselves with minimal interference, while the legions only marched in for serious matters.
  
  How far do I agree with Goldsworthy’s views, based on the evidence presented? Well, he definitely makes a good case for it, though I think he takes the long view to a great degree and I think there were likely people within the Roman Empire who felt oppressed by it, as well as people who were relatively unaffected by it. I do agree with his view that the Roman Empire wasn’t ruled simply through brutality: it certainly wouldn’t have had the longevity it did, if that were the sole basis, and it wouldn’t have been something people actively wanted to be part of — and it was something people wanted to be part of, more often than not.
  
  It’s definitely a worthwhile look at whether the Roman Empire is really so degenerate as its painted.
• 
  Steven Peterson

  The book concludes with a few reflections on the "pax Romana," Roman peace as it existed over centuries. The author, Goldsworthy, says that "it took the domination of an empire like Rome to establish peace over such a wide area." He follows up: ". . .this was a remarkable acdhievement and one deserving admiration, whether or not it balances distaste for the savagery of Roman conquest."
  
  Goldsworthy has written other magisterial works. I have read two of those--biographies of Julius Caesar and Augustus. The works are exemplary and give us much detail and reflections on the outcomes of rule by both. This, too, is not just a rendering of what happened and when. There is that, but more as well. Goldsworthy steps back from time to time and reflects on the Pax Romana.
  
  Some of the more interesting findings:
  
  a. The Empire would leave a fair amount of administration of a newly conquered area to local rulers--if they were willing to submit to Rome and perform in accordance with the Empire's dictates and interest. It is interesting to see how many conquered peoples were willing to accept this state of affairs.
  
  b. The Empire cut also decide to "cut and run" if the cost-benefit calculus was not attractive. For instance, withdrawing from some Germanic lands, because of the difficulty of subduing these people.
  
  c. A willingness to be savage of an opponent resisted and the Romans had the strength to overcome them.
  
  d. Many of the subject nations were willing to work within the Roman parameters, because they received benefits, such a better communication and economic health.
  
  e. The surprsingly thin administrative resources of Rome. Governors were sent from Rome to exercise authority in the varios parts of the Empire. But they did not have much Roman bureaucratic infrastructure.
  
  Goldsworthy can also assess the strengths and weaknesses of the Pax Romana. All in all, a really fine work. If you want to understand the nature of Pax Romana, this is a very fine resource.
• 
  saïd

  It’s fine as a reference tool, but really dry otherwise. Goldsworthy is unabashedly pro-Rome in his beliefs, and it really shows; it reminds me of that Life of Brian bit where the Germanic tribes are talking about how the Romans brutally conquered them, but then reason that it’s not that bad, because the Romans gave them roads and laws and agriculture and civilisation and so on. Really unpleasant stuff if you’re not an imperialist, honestly.
• 
  Mac

  Buy.
  
  Ancient Rome + Goldsworthy = Perfection.
  
  Always.
• 
  Christopher

  Pax Romana: War, peace and Conquest in the Roman World sets out to examine the Roman Pax Romana that existed across the Empire! :D Pax Romana being of course used in much the same context as we us Democracy! :D Pax Romana: War, peace and Conquest in the Roman World and serves as a great introduction for the Roman Empire as a whole as Goldsworthy takes the POV on trips around the empire examining to what extent Pax Romana can be seen, as well as the impact on the peoples if the Empire! :D We dart around the Empire and at the same time the comparisons that are drawn are telling! :D The examination of the disparate peoples and how Rome integrated them all into their culture neatly are shown as well! :D This illustrates clearly the different strategies the Empire had to undertake in their observation! :D The book does a great job of comparing these and showing the different circumstances that developed! :D
  
  Pax Romana: War, peace and Conquest in the Roman World does a great job of giving the background to the events of the parts of the world not only in the Empire but in its borders as well! :D This makes for a better balanced approach that rally shows the not only the differences between the Roman territories but also explains the activities of the people outside the state! :D The book also compares what was there before Rome arrived and the difference Roman abortion made to the people! :D The makes for a great examination as well as a balanced approach! :D For people already clued up in events then the arguments made will result in head nodding but for those new to the Empire the introduction is balanced assessing the Empire from both sides of the argument about how beneficial it was! :D The book also covers the extent that raiding, civil war, population movement etc took its toll on the Empire! :D This is all shown as well in relation to the Empire's foreign policy as well as in how it handled it own provinces! :D
  
  The book also examines the other Mediterranean cultures, and those of Europe, Asia and Africa! :D This gives us an overview as of the people that the Romans encountered! :D I t illustrates the differences in the cultures, at the same time showing that once absorbed the situations that developed in the these areas of the world required different approached! :D The examination of the governorships of the provinces is also covered! :D While Roman Law was very individuals could go beyond their mandate and how this was revolved and it impacts on the province in question are examined! :D The book also does a great job of examining the differences between the Republic and the Empire! :D This is more subtle that you would reckon but at the same time the differences are there and ultimately were a recipe for many of the issues later in the Empire! :D Throughout the balanced approach comes through though and it up you to see which side of the argument you fall on, whether Rome was justified or not in its actions! :D Though it is worth noting that as the book points out of that internal conflict usually involved more that meets the eye, or was a squabble for the Imperial purple, which was a competition that would bring huge rewards for the inevitable victor! :D At the same time the book does examines how actually fluid Roman society really is, how someone could go all the way from the bottom to the top in their society! :D The book really bring to the fore the debates about the Empire and does a incredibly well in presenting them! :D A great introduction book which is still great for others more informed! :D
  
  The book does not allow itself to get quagmired on any particular argument and bounds along at a great pace! :D It also captures that people were still human within and without the Empire and the people involved and their actions are clearly portrayed! :D We get not only a real sense of the characters involved but also their reactions to situations will have you gasping, wincing, fist pumping and ribs hurting in equal measure! :D Pax Romana: War, peace and Conquest in the Roman World is insightful, informative, a great introduction and presented with fast pacey looks at the Empire and beyond! :D Brilliant and highly recommended! :D Crisp High Five! :D Go and get it! :D
• 
  Carmel-by-the-Sea

  Chyba nic tak dobrze nie wpływa na pełniejsze zrozumienie procesów dziejowych i roli jednostki, jak dobra książka historyczna. Imperium Rzymskie, jako jeden z kluczowych etapów prowadzących do współczesnego rozumienia relacji państwo-obywatel często, nawet przez zawodowych historyków, jest mitologizowany. Czasem wybiela się to imperium, jako prawodawcę i źródło stabilizacji, czasem autorzy skupiają się przesadnie na militaryzmie i bezwzględności w dążeniu do hegemonii. Brytyjski historyk, Adrian Goldsworthy w "Pax Romana. Wojna, pokój i podboje w świecie rzymskim" zapolemizował z takimi skrajnymi stanowiskami, pokazując świetnym językiem i przykładami z okresu późnej republiki i pryncypatu (głównie między II w. p.n.e. a II w. n.e.), że dominacja rzymska była pod pewnymi względami wyjątkowa, pod innymi zupełnie typowa, a tak ogólnie była wytworem świetnie funkcjonującej biurokracji i nieokiełznanej motywacji Rzymian do wojskowej dominacji.
  
  Praca Goldsworthego skupia się przede wszystkim na odtworzeniu klimatu i mechanizmów budujących codzienność imperium z punktu widzenia prowincji. W jaki sposób administracja namiestników, legatów i legionów formowała rubieże rzymskich włości? Odpowiedź jest dość skomplikowana, zniuansowana i wielopoziomowa, choć można i krótko zawrzeć sporo prawdy. Tak właśnie należy rozumieć słowa Cycerona, który celnie podsumował dewizę typowego namiestnika podczas sprawowania urzędu: "pierwszy rok poświęcił na zdobycie majątku dla siebie, drugi na gromadzenie pieniędzy na wynajęcie najlepszego adwokata, a trzeci na zebranie środków dla przekupienia sędziego i trybunału podczas nieuchronnego procesu". Mimo korupcji, cynizmu i bezwzględności w tłumieniu buntów czy rewolt, ostatecznie biurokracja rzymska pozwalała nawet na odwołanie się wprost do senatu czy cesarza.
  
  W ostatecznym rozrachunku, z lektury książki wyłania się bardzo 'kolorowy' obraz imperium tętniącego zawi��cią, zachłannością, cynizmem, oddaniem dla idei republiki czy cesarstwa, etosem życia wojskowego, pożądaniem władzy i pieniędzy czy troską o dobro wspólne. Tytułowy 'Pax Romana' to sztuka balansu między kilkoma elementami - przewagą militarną Rzymu nad innymi ludami, pewną dozą kontrolowanej niezależności ofiarowanej podbitym ludom a budowaną powszechną świadomością o przewadze rzymskiej z wszechobecną biurokracją. Ostatni czynnik, dzięki temu, że z reguły funkcjonował bardzo sprawnie, to w połączeniu z mobilnością i karnością legionów, zbudował na kilka stuleci stabilny świat w basenie Morza Śródziemnego. Elitom podbitych ludów zależało na awansie w strukturach rzymskich, na spokoju i pożądanym dobrobycie. Z reguły poddali się modelowi życia importowanemu z Kwirynału. Ostatecznie tak bardzo się z nim utożsamili, że nie podjęli z reguły walki o odzyskanie niezależności w dobie upadku pryncypatu. Docenili stabilność i względny spokój. Mityczna agresywność rzymskich podbojów nie była niczym wyjątkowym; choć pod skrzydłami 'centrali z Lacjum' być może nie było szczęśliwiej, ale przynajmniej bardziej przewidywalnie.
  
  Auto nie wybiela Rzymian. Jasno daje do zrozumienia, że nim politycy rzymscy przystępowali do negocjacji, agresją dowodzili swojej wyższości wysyłając legionistów, jako argument siły. Stawanie się prowincją wiązało się z podatkami, utratą niezależności, dawało jednak szansę zaradnym. Imperium oferowało legiony do obrony przed zewnętrznymi agresjami, wspólny rynek gospodarczy, prawo do sądu. Główna dewiza rzymska brzmiała (str. 468):
  
  "szczędzić poddanych, wojną poskramiać zuchwałych"
  
  Militaryzm, wojskowość i historia wojen nie są moimi ulubionymi tematami narracji historycznej. Goldsworthy, choć wielokrotnie opisywał wojskowe manewry taktyczne, to wplótł je ciekawie w szeroki kontekst. Sprawił, że mnie nie przytłoczył i nie zniechęcił 'oskrzydleniami, taktycznymi odwrotami', itd. Przeciwnie - opisał sporo z codzienności legionowej, mechanizmy awansu, nieuchronną utratę siły bojowej w okresie pokoju przygranicznego, potrzebę luksusu i przyjemności cielesnych.
  
  "Pax Romana" jest, tak formalnie, pewnym ogólnym opisem społeczno-gospodarczo-militarno-administracyjnej codzienności w rozległym imperium rzymskim. Ponieważ kluczowe procesy działy się na jego obrzeżach, autor zamieścił kilkanaście ciekawych mapek kluczowych granic prowincji, które dopełniają obrazu skomplikowania tego wielokulturowego organizmu, który rzymianie stworzyli i z sukcesami utrzymali w jednym kawałku przez kilka stuleci.
  
  Ponieważ źródłowego materiału i monografii o historii Rzymu jest sporo, to kolejna książkowa rekapitulacja musiała mieć uzasadnienie. Jak wspomniałem na początku, Goldsworthy chciał zapolemizować z pewnymi trendami odczytania historii. Zrobił to bardzo przekonująco i zajmującym językiem. Książka ma dodatkowo walor nowości (wydanie angielskie z 2016). Stąd pojawiło się sporo najnowszych ustaleń archeologicznych o dziedzictwie materialnym, które istotnie zmienia narrację historyczną późnych okresów epoki żelaza (i które pierwszy zaakcentował mocno w piśmiennictwie McCormicka w "Narodzinach Europy"). Książkę, którą zakwalifikowałbym, jako popularną monografię, czyta się świetnie za sprawą zrównoważenia przytoczonych faktów z bogatej kwerendy tekstów z epoki i ogólnych opisów zjawisk. Uwikłanie Rzymu w tarcia miedzy podbijanymi plemionami z cynicznym wykorzystywaniem lokalnego poparcia, historyk pokazał poprzez dzienniki galijskie Cezara. Relacje namiestnika z mieszkańcami prowincji i lokalnymi problemami odległych od stolicy obszarów, dostaliśmy w listach Cycerona z Azji Mniejszej. Stopień zaangażowania cesarza w codzienność prowincji, problemy sądownicze i sensowność inwestycji lokalnych, odtworzył autor poprzez przykłady korespondencji Pliniusza Młodszego z Trajanem. Całość przytoczonych źródeł została zgrabnie wpleciona w spójny wywód nie przytłaczając czytelnika detalami.
  
  Gorąco zachęcam do lektury "Pax Romana". To nieszablonowa i urokliwa lektura pobudzająca do refleksji, oferująca przy okazji sporą dawkę wiedzy poukładanej w odpowiednie przegródki.
  
  BARDZO DOBRA - 8/10
• 
  Noah Goats

  The Romans didn't create their Empire the way that Alexander created his, by quickly fighting their way to sweeping victories that gave them massive territorial gains in a few years. They did it slowly, piece by piece, and in fits and starts over several generations. They didn't have any grand plan for conquest, they simply kept getting into wars, winning those wars, and then adding to the empire relatively slowly. Backed by the Roman genius for administration and war, the Empire proved extremely durable.
  
  In Pax Romana, Adrian Goldsworthy argues that, generally speaking, the Romans did not "make a desert and call it peace." Although their initial conquest of a new territory was always bloody and resulted in large numbers of people being enslaved, on the whole the people in the conquered territories gained greater levels of peace and prosperity once the initial wave of violence (and often a second and final wave of violence) had finished rolling over the land. Large parts of the world that had known constant tribal warfare since time immemorial flourished with commerce and peace once the Romans took over.
  
  I happened to be reading The Better Angels of our Nature, by Stephen Pinker, side by side with this book, and Pax Romana almost felt like a case study in support Pinker's argument that powerful leviathan-type governments lead to a reduction in violence.
• 
  Daniel

  Goldsworth in his classic style: facts to the front with just a touch of musing on the side. The main downside is that my friends are now being subjected to the ancient Roman anecdotes I found amusing in this book. Examples include the Roman governor who made up two extra months in order to extort more taxes and the Roman soldiers who three times were almost burned to death only to be saved by lucky die rolls.
• 
  Liviu

  This one is more of an overview of the Roman World more or less from caesar and Augustus time until the civil wars of the 200's AD, though it touches on the Republic and the later Empire. Split into thematic chapters, there are lots of cool tidbits, but the book is kind of disjointed and doesn't stand that well on its own as it tries to cover almost all the aspects of life under the Principate and show that indeed the Pax Romana was a golden age unsurpassed for the regions covered by it until modern times (and for some, maybe not even today) despite modern revisionistic history
  
  Overall not for a novice in Roman History and not a book to read like a novel, but more of a longer reading project with lots of cool tidbits that make worth the effort
• 
  Richard Hannay

  Goldsworthy nunca decepciona. Sólido, interesantísimo y bien escrito. Una visión no cronológica del Principado, inteligente y sugestiva.
• 
  Andrew Tollemache

  "Pax Romana" was an interesting read into how the Romans were able to maintain a fairly stable empire for so many centuries with only a handful of notable rebellions. While the dust over suggested Goldswortthy had written a revisionist treatise on how the Romans did not actually maintain the peace well, the actual bulk of the book serves to document that the "Pax Romana" was very real for at least several centuries.
  Goldsworthy details the general template for Roman imperial expansion was for the Legions to arrive in force and demonstrate a new force to be reckoned with was in town, but then the Romans would use a divde and conquer approach to buy off and co-opt some of the major tribal chieftains in the area. Those who did not get with the program would be decisively defeated in battle. The professional ROman army could leverage its discipline to defeat much larger, but clumsy tribal armies. The Romans would also make sure to steal the crops and livestock leaving the defeated foes to starve. Julius Caesar used this to great effect in his conquest of Gaul (France). It was a harsh and brutal approach that today would find one on trial in The Hague, but for the Romans it meant they seldom saw much rebellion in conquered areas. Occasionally a generation after their initial conquest a new cohort of tribal leaders would chafe under Roman rule and try to fight back. In those cases the Romans would return and re-teach those harsh lessons.
  Actual cases of sustained and determined resistance were rare. Boadicea, the Celtic Queen in England won numerous victories in what is now Essex. Arminus (Herman the German) was able to lure 3 Roman legions to their destruction in the Teotuburg Forest and end Roman dreams of ever regaining control of Germania and in doing so created a permanent cultural fault line in Europe. Lastly there was rebellion in Judea in late 1t century AD that ended with the epic last stand at Masada and the dispersal of Judea's jewish problem through out the Old World.
  Very good read, as always I have to reference the current place name of the Roman place name mentioned so they stick in my head.
• 
  Steve

  Informative, but dry and often repetitive. Essentially the "Pax Romana" (Roman Peace) was maintained by its Legions. Those Legions represented a unified government -- be it Republic or reigning dictator -- that, administratively, had a way of doing things. None of Rome's many opponents (other than the Carthagenians) had anything to match it. Internal divisions, and that includes the troublesome Parthians, would usually work in Rome's favor. Rome could and did lose battles, but they usually won the war. The point seems (to me at least) relatively simple, but Goldsworthy examines various facets of this method of ruling, and Why it would eventually falter -- and Fall. The Why of Rome's decline IS interesting, and Goldsworthy has some interesting thoughts on the reasons for that in the closing chapters. That said, the different reexaminations of Roman rule through the centuries is where I had problems. For one thing, I rarely understood or cared about the subtle reasons why Goldsworthy would repeat himself. Yes, the retellings were from different angles, those different shadings, didn't add much to the Why of the long running Roman success. The Romans could fight, fight well, and had been organized to do so. That armed organization of savagery was key when all their opponents had, in the end, was savagery (and sometimes surprise). Rome, in the long run, would grind them down.
• 
  Katie

  I really liked this book. Adrian Goldsworthy barrels through a few hundred years of Rome gaining its Empire during the Republic, and a few more hundred of it having, expanding, feeding, spying on, defending and consolidating it following the ascension of Augustus. Whilst I thought that the author did an incredible job of describing and detailing Pax Romana ( Roman Peace ) over a huge period of time, I wished at times he might have been more descriptive, so that the book was less analytical (this is, of course, incredibly picky). Never was the book difficult to understand or to follow, and the author was careful to dissuade the reader from making uninformed comparisons with other empires - as well as taking extreme care to evaluate the Roman Empire within it's context in time, and within the context of the actions of fellow states.
  
  A great read for anyone interested Rome, and it's relations with its friends and foes.
• 
  Daniel Kukwa

  It's a good thing I was on holidays when I picked up this majestic volume of history, because I devoured it over the course of an entire day. For those who are familiar with Roman history, there isn't necessarily a great deal of new information here, but it's all in the presentation. Nowhere else will you find such a systematic, methodical, and logic examination of how the Romans managed to maintain a stable peace across such as massive empire. It's focus is unwavering, its analysis is concise & straightforward, and it doesn't shy away from recent attempt to re-interpret traditional beliefs. An immensely satisfying piece of scholarship & writing.
• 
  Socraticgadfly

  A solidly good book overall, but for me, not quite great. Might be a five-star for someone with little knowledge of Roman history.
  
  Goldsworthy does a good job of detailing how much Rome let provincial, subprovincial and city-state natives run much of their own affairs, especially if they didn't affect other spots in the Empire. That's in large part because Rome didn't have the manpower in the earlier years, and, although not totally mentioned by Goldsworthy, once the Principate had sunk in, and the old Republican cursus honorum meant nothing, there was no reason for most senatorial-rank people to go out, unless it was to boost their friendship with the sitting emperor.
  
  Goldsworthy also does a good job of walking middle ground between "Rome was so noble" and "Rome was a pack of vicious evil." He notes the barbarians fought as much internally and against other barbarians as Rome did against them, and often more brutally. At the same time, Rome had its own history of brutality.
  
  Next, Goldsworthy is good at looking at details of early imperial frontiers, military settlements, civilian settlements, trade, and just how limes and walls worked — and weren't designed to work.
  
  Finally, why didn't Rome go back after 9 CE and try to conquer Germany?
  Goldsworthy posits multiple reasons. Among them?
  1. Although Romans weren't ancient capitalists, they had some idea of cost-effectiveness and probably deemed it wasn't worth it. This is not new by any means, but Goldsworthy gives it a bit of a visit.
  2. Once the Empire was established, emperors were reluctant to give unsupervised generals too much of a head. Claudius went briefly to Britain, then on his way back to Rome, recalled the general Corbulo from campaigning east of the Rhine, probably the last realistic change for Rome to move to the Elbe. Trajan and Septimus Severus themselves led campaigns against the Persians.
  
  Now, why not five stars?
  1. Goldsworthy doesn't go in a lot of depth beyond the age of the Good Emperors and doesn't go in ANY depth past the Troubles of the Third Century. He knows that provincial and subprovincial government, as well as the Roman military, were reorganized by Diocletian, and, of course, a unified (on paper) empire lasted 90 years after Diocletian's abdication. So, why no discussion? Especially since the book as is, is not THAT long. I don't know. He does briefly note that "the dead hand of tradition" seems to have been part of what prevented rebellion earlier, once the barbarians broke the borders. But, that's it.
  
  2. Given his "walking the middle," this book seemed open for a couple of chapters of "speculative history." That is, could Rome, rather than abandoning the trans-Rhine as it actually did (sort of, at first), or trying to conquer it another time, opted for Plan C and tried to deliberately create one or more client kingdoms? I picture three, myself. One south of the Main, one north of it and west of the Weser and one between the Weser and Elbe. Maybe these wouldn't be "kingdoms," but rather, tribal grouping areas or something. Only certain tribes are allowed to directly trade with Roman citizens in each of the three areas, for example.
  Related, it could be argued that, after retreating from the Antonine Wall back to Hadrian's, that the Romans did just this in Britain.
  
  3. Goldworthy appears too credulous about the historic reliability of New Testament documents, and, closely related, Tacitus' and Suetonius' talk about Nero killing Christians. The second I discuss first. Both Tacitus and Suetonius seem to reflect itacism in the Greek that they heard or read Χρηστός rather than χριστός. The former is a common Greek adjective meaning "useful" or similar and was a fairly common first name in koine-era Greek. The fact is that Suetonius also reflects this parallel when talking about Claudius expelling Jews from Rome because of disturbances instigated by/about Chrestus. And, Goldsworthy doesn't even pick up on that.
  
  It's most likely, and I along with other scholarly types have long felt this, that Tacitus was referring to general Messianic disturbances at the time of Nero. In addition, Suetonius, writing less than a decade later, and friends with Pliny the Younger, who was a good friend of Tacitus, was directly dependent on Tacitus for the Nero passage.
  
  And, given that Jesus never went to Rome, and was referred to as Jesus, or Jesus Christ, and only rarely Christ Jesus, throughout the Christian scriptures, this is additional argument against Claudius expelling Jews on account of "Christianity," or that Nero blamed the Fire of Rome on "Christians."
  
  In addition, to the degree that Christians of Jewish background might have been separating themselves from non-Christian Jews circa 64 CE, there probably were no more than 200 in Rome out of a population we'll conservatively call 800,000 — 1/40 of 1 percent, in other words.
  
  In other other words, too small to be on Nero's radar screen.
  
  Side note, per my dating? I also found it "interesting" that Goldsworthy uses BC/AD rather than BCE/CE, and when quoting biblical literature, uses the King James.
  
  Upon yet more thought, I cut it to three stars. That's in part because a good one-third of the book is pre-Pax Romana. Combining that with a paucity of discussion on the third century, and how much, or how little, and how universal versus regional, the decline of the Pax was, and little discussion on why he needed to cover as much pre-imperial history as he did, led to the cut.
• 
  Adam

  The title should be "how to write boring book about interesting topic". Kaligula, Marcus Aurelius, Cleopatra - Caesar affair, those were interesting things in Roman Empire, not Hadrian's Wall - mentioned, like about 150 times and Scots cutting their pots to make them smaller. Oh don't forget about Hadrian's Wall.