<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Inform mostly about the author's mindframe.
Review: Ancient History had always been pragmatical and worried itself about military and diplomatic information useful to statesmen of the future. Dio's history is a part of that tradition, coming, however, in Later Antiquity, were possibilities of participating in political life were restrained to those enrolled in the Imperial service, such as Dio, a Greek with consular rank who made his carrer during the already burocratic and militarized monarchy of the Severan dinasty. Therefore, Dio is concerned mostly with the only political question remaining in his day: what are the moral qualities that make the absolute ruler whorthy of praise and therefore make him deserve to be pointed as an exemple to future rulers? Therefore the fancy, retorical accounts (the account of Actium being so fanciful as to remind one of a Xena script) and the endlessly imaginary speechs on all kinds of moral topics. In short, Ancient historiography as it begins to turn into the kind of moral encomia to rulers that would make most of Mediaeval "Political" literature. Informs more about Dio's mentality as a man of Late Antiquity than about the Reign of Augustus - therefore its utility, which is great,as a chapter of a history of mentalities.
Rating: 
Summary: More Urban Legend Than History
Review: Compared to well-written ancient histories by Tacitus, Suetonius or Ammianus Marcellinus, Cassius Dio's history of the reign of Augustus is a great disappointment. Cassius Dio was a Greek (c. 163-235 AD) who wrote the history about 214-226 AD. Although Dio was well educated, his approach is far less methodical and tends to focus on what would now be called "urban legends." Throughout these pages, there is a seemingly endless recounting of strange incidents and oddities involving sea monsters, odd sounds, weird apparitions, statues frowning or bleeding, tigers, swarms of ants or bees, flames, wolves, comets, owls and even crows dropping "flaming fragments of meat." At times the reader will be embarrassed for Cassius Dio and wish that some of these pages had been lost to posterity. While there is no doubt that Dio does offer a full account of sorts of the reign of Augustus, there is little information that is not better presented by Suetonius or Tacitus. The history consists of seven books (chapters), numbered 50-56, that cover the period 32 BC to 14 AD. While there are some missing parts, these are not very significant. The Penguin edition begins with a 29 page introduction that is interesting and informative. There are a series of maps that cover most of the empire in this period but as usual, Penguin omits to cover the crucial area of the Balkans. Much of the campaigns of Tiberius, Drusus and Germanicus in Dacia and Moesia that are mentioned in the history are not depicted on any of the maps. The history begins with two books covering the confrontation between Mark Antony and Octavian. While interesting, the account is very superficial and the decisive Battle of Actium is glossed over with little detail. Book 52, which covers the infamous "debate" between Agrippa and Maecenas about the virtues of monarchy and democracy, is a 37-page historical wasteland. Aside from the obvious fact that the author inserted this fictional dialogue to expound his own theories of government, much of the dialogue is inconsistent with the characters and of little practical historical value. The history gets back on track with the narrative in Book 53 and Dio does discuss interesting aspects of the development of the principate in the early years. For example, to maintain the pretense of senatorial rule, Augustus allowed the senate to administer the interior provinces of the empire while he governed the frontier provinces. However since the Roman army was only deployed in the frontier provinces, Augustus effectively controlled all the military resources in the empire (including his Praetorian Guard). Dio also mentions the Roman expedition down the Red Sea in 24 BC, which reached as far as modern-day Yemen. There is also considerable detail on the Imperial family in the last half of the book, which fans of "I Claudius" will find interesting, and readers will note how Robert Graves used rumors of imperial plots and conspiracies mentioned by Dio to weave his tale. The last two books, 55 and 56, are the most interesting from the point of view of the military historian. Although Dio rarely goes into great detail, he does discuss the campaigns of Tiberius, Drusus and Germanicus at some length. On pages 213-215, Dio provides an order of battle for the legions, the origin of each legion and a discussion of the military budget. It is interesting that initially Augustus paid military pensions out of his own funds and then reverted to a 5% death inheritance tax to supplement the military budget; it is apparent from Dio that the Roman army in Augustus' time was maintained on a financial shoestring. The Battle of Teutobergerwald is also discussed and Dio suggests that the Romans were lulled into a false sense of security by conspiring German tribes and committed the mistake of making an essentially administrative road march (complete with camp followers) through hostile territory. After this catastrophe, Augustus was hard-pressed to scrape up replacements and was forced to conscript freedmen by lots and execute malingerers. Clearly, the Roman Empire had no reserve military capacity - it was all in the window. Finally, Dio concludes that the main contribution of Augustus was the length of his 44-year reign, which provided vital stability to Rome. By the time that Augustus died, Romans had grown accustomed to monarchy and did not yearn for an unfamiliar Republic (which brought back distant memories of civil war).
Rating:
Summary: More Urban Legend Than History
Review: Compared to well-written ancient histories by Tacitus, Suetonius or Ammianus Marcellinus, Cassius Dio's history of the reign of Augustus is a great disappointment. Cassius Dio was a Greek (c. 163-235 AD) who served in the Roman Empire as a senator, consul and provincial governor and who then turned to write a history of the first emperor in the later years of his life, about 214-226 AD. Although Dio was well educated and familiar with the methods of ancient historians, his approach is far less methodical and tends to focus on what would now be called "urban legends." Throughout these pages, there is a seemingly endless recounting of strange incidents and oddities involving sea monsters, odd sounds, weird apparitions, statues frowning or bleeding, tigers, swarms of ants or bees, flames, wolves, comets, owls and even crows dropping "flaming fragments of meat." At times the reader will be embarrassed for Cassius Dio and wish that some of these pages had been lost to posterity. While there is no doubt that Dio does offer a full account of sorts of the reign of Augustus, there is little information that is not better presented by Suetonius or Tacitus. The history consists of seven books (chapters), numbered 50-56, that cover the period 32 BC to 14 AD. While there are some missing parts, these are not very significant. The Penguin edition begins with a 29 page introduction that is interesting and informative. There are a series of maps that cover most of the empire in this period but as usual, Penguin omits to cover the crucial area of the Balkans. Much of the campaigns of Tiberius, Drusus and Germanicus occurred in Dacia and Moesia, and these areas are not depicted on any of the maps, whereas areas not even mentioned by Dio are depicted. The history begins with two books covering the confrontation between Mark Antony and Octavian. While interesting, the account is very superficial and the decisive Battle of Actium is glossed over with little detail. Book 52, which covers the infamous "debate" between Agrippa and Maecenas about the virtues of monarchy and democracy, is a 37-page historical wasteland. Aside from the obvious fact that the author inserted this fictional dialogue to expound his own theories of government, much of the dialogue is inconsistent with the characters and of no practical historical value anyway. Dio only discusses a theoretical government, not the actual government of Augustus, so the value of this is nil. Note to reader: skip book 52. Dio gets back on track with the historical narrative in Book 53 and does discuss interesting aspects of the development of the principate in the early years. For example, to maintain the pretense of senatorial rule, Augustus allowed the senate to administer the interior provinces of the empire while he governed the frontier provinces. However since the Roman army was only deployed in the frontier provinces, Augustus effectively controlled all the military resources in the empire (including his Praetorian Guard). Dio also mentions the Roman expedition down the Red Sea in 24 BC, which reached as far as modern-day Yemen. There is also considerable detail on the Imperial family in the last half of the book, which fans of "I Claudius" will find interesting, and readers will note how Robert Graves used rumors of imperial plots and conspiracies mentioned by Dio to weave his tale. The last two books, 55 and 56, are the most interesting from the point of view of the military historian. Although Dio rarely goes into great detail, he does discuss the campaigns of Tiberius, Drusus and Germanicus at some length. On pages 213-215, Dio provides an order of battle for the legions, the origin of each legion and a discussion of the military budget. It is interesting that initially Augustus paid military pensions out of his own funds and then reverted to a 5% death inheritance tax to supplement the military budget; it is apparent from Dio that the Roman army in Augustus' time was maintained on a financial shoestring. The Battle of Teutobergerwald is also discussed and it is apparent that the Romans were lulled into a false sense of security by conspiring German tribes and committed the mistake of making an essentially administrative road march (complete with camp followers) through hostile territory. After this catastrophe, Augustus was hard-pressed to scrape up replacements and was forced to conscript freedmen by lots and execute malingerers. Clearly, the Roman Empire had no reserve military capacity - it was all in the window. Finally, Dio concludes that the main contribution of Augustus was the length of his 44-year reign, which provided vital stability to Rome. By the time that Augustus died, Romans had grown accustomed to monarchy and did not yearn for an unfamiliar Republic (which brought back distant memories of civil war). Rome was also fortunate that the personality and character of Augustus was not egomaniacal, as so many of his successors would prove. Augustus listened to his advisors, was more inclined to persuade than dictate, and usually kept his supreme powers in reasonable check. Augustus gave Rome four decades of sound management and he laid the basic design that endured for four more centuries, despite many threats to stability. As for Dio's history, it is of interest to the specialist in Roman history, but the tendency to relate rumors and gossip at the expense of fact is a major weakness.
Rating:
Summary: An essential read in Roman history
Review: Dio's Roman History:the reign of Augustus, is an essential read in the range of Roman history texts which cover this important era in Roman history when the Republic came to an end and the Empire started. Dio stands in strong contrast to Tacitus writing of the same period in that Dio isn't anywhere near as entertaining and appears far more pragmatic although as other reviewers have noted the style is one of history as a consequence of the fitness of the rulers to rule. As such there is nothing wrong with this, it must be remembered that at the time Dio lived the Empire was in dire straits after the succession of Severus to be followed by a virtual plague of civil wars and barbarian attacks which were overcome with difficulty and it stands as a testimony to the rulers during this period that the Empire survived. This then is the viewpoint from which Dio writes. He doesn't let Augustus appear too much of a demi-god but also brings out his weaknesses and does not just praise him but rather explains how he was able to reign so well with the help of extremely able men such as Agrippa and Maecenas and the leadership of Drusus. Unfortunately the book is interspersed with numerous "created" speeches which don't ring true, rather different from Tacitus where they certainly sound more genuine. Also it covers far better the events in the capital than in the provinces and more detail as regards the campaigns in Germany would have been illuminating. Nonethelss a good book, well worth it for a study of the style of Roman scholarship of the time.
Rating: 
Summary: Dry Classic
Review: I recognize that there is a certain amount of hubris in complaining about a book that remains "in print" 1800 years after it was written. So let me begin by declaring that the two star rating is meant to solely be a reflection of how little *I* *enjoyed* the book; I'll leave reviews of Dio's historiographical and literary qualities to those more qualified. For those who, like me, read Roman history more for enjoyment than any academic interest, Dio's history of Augustus is painfully dry. Missing is the eloquence of Livy, the scandals of Tacitus, the drama of Plutarch. What is left is a bare recitation of facts: so and so was made consul; Augustus increased this department to thirteen people instead of ten; Augustus went on a trip. And every few books there is a long speech that does little to further the history (the sole exception is Augustus' speech to the Senate early in his reign saying he wishes to retire; as Dio tells it, it was less "I'm tired and want to rest" than "I can do whatever the heck I want, I hold total supreme power, but I am such a magnanimous person that rather than treat you all like the slaves you are, I'm going to retire"). Even the famous "debate" between Agrippa and Maecenas over whether Octavian should assume sole power falls flat. The only truly enjoyable moments are the opening chapter featuring Antony and Cleopatra and Dio's description of the massacre of Varo's legions in Germany. Beyond that, those who want an enjoyable read about Augustus' reign are better off reading Robert Graves "I, Claudius." True, it's fiction, but you get the same information you get from Dio with a lot more fun!
Rating:
Summary: Dry Classic
Review: I recognize that there is a certain amount of hubris in complaining about a book that remains "in print" 1800 years after it was written. So let me begin by declaring that the two star rating is meant to solely be a reflection of how little *I* *enjoyed* the book; I'll leave reviews of Dio's historiographical and literary qualities to those more qualified. For those who, like me, read Roman history more for enjoyment than any academic interest, Dio's history of Augustus is painfully dry. Missing is the eloquence of Livy, the scandals of Tacitus, the drama of Plutarch. What is left is a bare recitation of facts: so and so was made consul; Augustus increased this department to thirteen people instead of ten; Augustus went on a trip. And every few books there is a long speech that does little to further the history (the sole exception is Augustus' speech to the Senate early in his reign saying he wishes to retire; as Dio tells it, it was less "I'm tired and want to rest" than "I can do whatever the heck I want, I hold total supreme power, but I am such a magnanimous person that rather than treat you all like the slaves you are, I'm going to retire"). Even the famous "debate" between Agrippa and Maecenas over whether Octavian should assume sole power falls flat. The only truly enjoyable moments are the opening chapter featuring Antony and Cleopatra and Dio's description of the massacre of Varo's legions in Germany. Beyond that, those who want an enjoyable read about Augustus' reign are better off reading Robert Graves "I, Claudius." True, it's fiction, but you get the same information you get from Dio with a lot more fun!
<< 1 >>
|
