Rome & the Sword

Rome & the Sword:
How Warriors & Weapons
Shaped Roman History

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Simon James is a Reader in Archaeology in the School of Archaeology and Ancient History, University of Leicester, and a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London.

[For the record: I met Simon James in the year 2000 when I signed up for a study tour of Roman Britain which was arranged by a British travel agency. He was the guide on this tour during which he showed us some of the major Roman sites in England, Scotland and Wales.]

His book is based on ancient written sources, archaeological objects - swords in particular - and modern scholarship. The main text is divided into six chapters which follow a (more or less) chronological line from the early Republic around 500 BC to the death of the Byzantine Emperor Justinian in AD 565.

At the end of the book there are notes, a timeline, a bibliography, a list with sources of illustrations, and an index. There are 116 illustrations, but only 13 in colour. A large number of the black-and-white illustrations are line-drawings of Roman swords made by the author himself.

Simon James wants to avoid the traditional top-down perspective of ancient history books. Instead he wants to see events from the bottom-up; he wants to write the history of the Roman soldiers, in so far as this is possible. [pp. 7-8]

The Roman world achieved “extremes of creativity and cruelty” (p. 286). We should not focus on one element and ignore the other. Instead, he says, we should try to understand the Roman world in its entirety.

In this book, the sword has a double meaning: the first is literal: it is a weapon of the Roman soldier. The second is a metaphor: it is the symbol of the power of the Roman soldiers.

How were the Romans able to build an empire and maintain it for several centuries? According to the author, the answer is the sword and the open hand. The sword stands for the power of the soldiers, while the open hand stands for diplomacy. The elite of a conquered area was invited to join the Roman elite; while the young men of a conquered area were invited to become soldiers and fight for Rome.

The Roman marching camps provided protection for the soldiers during the night. This is a well-known fact. Simon James adds an interesting observation: “But equally they facilitated surveillance and control of the soldiers.” [p. 51]. Describing the permanent legionary bases he says they are “Not castles, but wolf-cages.” [p. 174]

This example shows how the author is ready to question (or re-interpret) conventional wisdom. Another case is Hadrian’s Wall, built in the north of England AD 122-128. Conventional wisdom tells us that it is a military fortification which was built in order to keep the Barbarians out. Simon James believes the purpose was to keep the soldiers busy and to keep them out of trouble for a while. [pp. 159 & 170]

This book is not recommended for the beginner. The author often jumps from one event to another in order to support his argument, and events mentioned are not always fully explained. If you do not know much about Roman history, this approach may be confusing and annoying.

If, on the other hand, you are already familiar with Roman history, I think you will find this book an interesting and valuable account, because the author does more than tell us what happened. He also explains how and why it happened. He gives an interpretation (which is often convincing), and while doing so he is not afraid to question (or re-interpret) conventional wisdom.

This book is written by an expert, but even for an expert something can go wrong. I have to mention a few cases which bother me:

(1) Illustration # 61 is a map of the Roman Empire in the third century AD. On this map the River Elbe is placed in Gaul south of the River Rhine, which is wrong. Illustration # 31 on page 117 is a map of Germania in the early imperial era. On this map the two rivers are placed correctly: the River Elbe is north of the River Rhine.

(2) On page 102 he claims “the Sicilians, with Cicero’s help, got Verres condemned and exiled in 70 BC.” In fact, the former governor of Sicily was never condemned or exiled. When he realised that Cicero had mounted a formidable case against him, he simply gave up and went into exile.

(3) On page 155 he mentions the Roman attack on Masada. When did this take place? The traditional date is AD 73. Following the discovery of new evidence most modern scholars say AD 74. But Simon James says AD 72.

(4) On page 163 he talks about “the Second Jewish (or Bar Kochba) Revolt of 132-136.” But the timeline on page 295 has a different date, 131-135, which is correct.

(5) On page 170 he claims Antoninus Pius “outdid his adoptive father Hadrian by both advancing back into Scotland and building a new wall across Britain.” This passage is unfortunate, because it may be misunderstood. Unlike Hadrian, Antoninus Pius never travelled to Britain (or any other place), but it is true that his soldiers advanced into Scotland and built a new wall.

(6) On page 255 he claims Emperor Constantine adopted “Christian monotheism as the new state cult.” The same claim appears in the timeline (page 295). It is a common mistake, but it is not true. Constantine recognised Christianity in his famous edict of AD 313, but Christianity was not adopted as the official state religion until the reign of Theodosius I (379-395).

(7) The index is not good enough:

(A) The following words are listed, but the listing is incomplete:

      ** Antoninus Pius is listed 176. Not listed 170

      ** Brigandage is listed 199 and 256-257. Not listed 163 and 288

      ** Christianity is listed 254-255 and 260. Not listed 231, 243 and 252.

      ** Testudo is listed 45. Not listed 125.

(B) The following persons are mentioned in the text, but not listed in the index:

      ** The famous general Corbulo: 121, 132 and 168

      ** The famous philosopher Synesius of Cyrene: 253

(C) The ancient eastern city Hatra is mentioned in the text (pp. 205 and 207), but it is not listed in the index, and its location is not marked on any of the three maps which show the eastern part of the Roman Empire (pp. 160-161, 181, 258).

(8) The Altar of Victory, which was placed in the senate house in Rome, is mentioned in chapter 3 (on page 120): "In 31 BC, to commemorate the defeat of Mark Antony and Cleopatra at Actium, the future Augustus set up an altar to Victory, decorated with a statue of the goddess captured long before from Tarentum, in the senate house where it remained for four centuries."

The battle of Actium took place in 31 BC, as the author says, but the altar was not not placed in the senate house until two years later, i.e. in 29 BC. The monument is mentioned again on page 243. Unfortunately, this highly symbolic monument is not listed in the index.

Flaws such as these are unfortunate, but they are the exception, and only one of them (# 6) is a serious mistake.

The publisher claims the author “provides a striking new ‘bottom-up’ perspective on Roman history, focusing on soldiers and their actions,” and describes his account as a “groundbreaking narrative.”

I agree with this, and therefore I think this book deserves a rating of five stars.

* * *

 

Simon James,

Rome & the Sword:

How Warriors & Weapons Shaped Roman History,

Thames & Hudson, 2011, 328 pages

 

* * *