Emperor of Rome: Ruling the Ancient World

I'm a big fan of Beard's previous book, SPQR, and this is about the same time period more or less (Julius Caesar to Alexander Severus). Her prose is very readable. For this book, it is helpful if the reader knows something of Roman history as it is arranged by topic, that is, what it was like to be emperor (what were his duties, what was his life like), rather than chronologically. If you don't already know which emperor followed which, it could be confusing (though she provides a list of the emperors at the back of the book). She uses the sources available critically, examining their own motives for writing what they did and the times in which they were writing. Overall, I liked it very much. It's not your typical "history book."

Mary Beard always does a fine job of making ancient Rome interesting and fun to read. The book is very well written and extremely readable. Beard provides an exceptional amount of detail, but hers skill as a writer (as well as her sense of humor) result in a book that's a real pleasure to read. Beard doesn't page-specific footnotes or end notes to provide additional information. She takes a novel approach by providing further readings (as well as places to visit) for each chapter. This essentially combined notes with a bibliography. What's more, the further readings contain a considerable amount of additional information. An added plus is that the book contains some fine color illustrations as well as about 100 black and white images. I'd already read SPQR and Twelve Caesars (both of which I would give five stars), so I was looking forward to reading Emperor of Rome. I enjoyed the book--and it's certainly a worthwhile read. However, Emperor of Rome warrants a rating of four stars: it isn't quite as good as SPQR or Twelve Caesars.

Contrary to what one might expect given the title, Dr. Beard's _Emperor of Rome_ is neither a biography nor a summary of the rule of Roman emperors; rather, it is a brilliant examination of the conventions of imperial rule: the expectations (what made one a "good" emperor"? what was the criteria for a "bad" emperor"), the idea of "emperorship" writ large (how it was understood by not just the Roman elite, but by workaday citizens as well) in addition to an insightful exploration of the difficulties wading through contemporary Roman accounts given the tendency to either suck-up to the current emperor or run-down predecessors. Beard has a difficult task seeking to understand the persons at the center of the empire: what was administration like, what was expected of these people, how were decisions made and communicated and executed - and of particular interest to me, what was the perception and role of the women behind the throne? Beard writes that Roman emperors "present an extreme case of the historian's dilemma. How do we understand the Roman emperor on his own terms, and yet not lose sight of our own moral compass, and our obligation to evaluate, as well as to describe, the past?" I think she has hit the sweet spot in addressing this problem. Writing with humor, expertise and incisive analysis _Emperor of Rome_ is a marvelous history showing the complex and complicated nature of governance as well as providing unique insights into its political culture. Highly recommended, as is her _SPQR_ on the Roman republic.

Wonderful book. You can hear Professor Beard's voice on every page.

Mary Beard does a good job of organizing the book where it flows and is very easy to understand. Writing about the roles and intricacies of a Roman emperor can easily become boring so kudos to Beard for avoiding this problem. My biggest issue is much of what she writes about is what an emperor isn’t versus what it is. She will often point out anecdotes and say why that isn’t likely and reliable and continues to do this page after page. Almost everything she brings up, she counters immediately by saying we can’t really trust the source because of this or that. And to be fair, she is right. She’s not saying anything wrong but this style eventually wears you down as a reader I get tired of reading about why we can’t trust sources and just want to be told what is actually accurate. After 300 pages it just starts to feel negative and you can already sense where she is headed as soon as she goes to a new topic. It’s a good book but does start to feel exhausting towards the last few chapters

To me, the most interesting part of the book is Beard's explanation of why the Republic was so unstable: Rome's global empire meant that commanders ruled legions large enough to March on Rome and take power, and spent years with their legions gaining their loyalty. The first emperors tried to solve this problem by centralized pay and pensions in the capital- but eventually this solution failed as well. I also was especially interested in Beard's description of what emperors actually did. Because a letter took months to reach the outer edges of the empire, an emperor's ability to micromanage was limited. Mostly, emperors (supported by a large staff) answered correspondence: sometimes policy queries from provincial governors, sometimes requests from ordinary citizens.

As in my headline, I found Mary Beard’s most recent book to be a mixed bag of interesting facts, speculation, and a myriad collection of repetitive thoughts, observations, and historical observations that seem to run throughout the book. Exploring Roman emperors from various viewpoints can be fulfilling to a certain extent, but as each chapter progressed, I found that revisits of emperors, events, stories, and asides told and retold made the book a plodding exercise for me by its end.

My wife loves this book.