Colin Wells's vivid account is now available in an up-to-date second edition.

    363, the violent end of the Emperor Julian has become synonymous with the death of paganism. But how did a young philosopher-warrior, who ruled for only eighteen months, come to be seen as one of the most potent threats to Christianity?Driven by a burning hatred of the Church, rooted in the brutal murder of his family and the treachery of his Christian predecessor Emperor Constantius II, Julian dedicated his brief reign to the eradication of this new and dangerous cult. He vowed to rid the Roman Empire of heresy and restore paganism to the hearts and minds of its citizens.Although vilified throughout history as the 'Apostate', Julian was an inspirational and visionary leader. He made appointments on merit rather than influence or money, cut down on bureaucracy and had an economic policy geared to avoid corruption and waste. His experiment with paganism may have ultimately failed, but Julian has long been a hero of secular humanists and critics of Christianity's historical record.Drawing on Julian's own writings, and using extensive new archaeological and literary research, Adrian Murdoch explores the vivid, engaging and complex character of this controversial emperor. The Last Pagan will fascinate anyone with an interest in ancient history or the history of Christianity.

    In 64 BC when idealist Marcus Cicero, Rome's greatest orator, ran for consul (the highest office in the Republic), his practical brother Quintus decided he needed some no-nonsense advice on running a successful campaign. What follows in his short letter are timeless bits of political wisdom, from the importance of promising everything to everybody and reminding voters about the sexual scandals of your opponents to being a chameleon, putting on a good show for the masses, and constantly surrounding yourself with rabid supporters. Presented here in a lively and colorful new translation, with the Latin text on facing pages, this unashamedly pragmatic primer on the humble art of personal politicking is dead-on (Cicero won)--and as relevant today as when it was written.A little-known classic in the spirit of Machiavelli's "Prince", "How to Win an Election" is required reading for politicians and everyone who enjoys watching them try to manipulate their way into office.

    His work was received with widespread acclaim by the scholarly community and the reading public. In 1902 Mommsen was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature and acclaimed as 'the greatest living master of the art of historical writing'. Mommsen rejected traditional Enlightenment accounts, which glorified ancient Rome; instead, guided by a new and rigorous criticism of sources, Mommsen began the demythologisation of Roman history. In a vivacious and engaging style, Mommsen drew bold parallels between the nineteenth century and classical Rome. Information about this Folio Society edition (taken from the Editorial Note):Theodor Mommsen’s Römische Geschichte was first published in three volumes between 1854 and 1856, and was subsequently revised several times. The text of the present volume is derived from William Purdie Dickson’s translation, first published in four volumes by Richard Bentley in London in 1868, of the fourth German edition.The text printed in the ensuing pages preserves slightly less than half of the 1868 edition’s three-quarters of a million words. In abridging a work of such magnitude, strict guiding principles tend to be honoured as much in their breach as in their observance. With that caveat in mind, therefore, the intention in this edition has been to provide, within a single volume, a continuous narrative of the history of Rome, from the origins of the city down to the Civil War that resulted in the sole rule of Julius Caesar (c.753—46BC). At the same time, it is hoped that the selection represents the essential character of Mommsen’s historical vision, and can be read with both pleasure and profit by a non-specialist audience.In pursuit of these goals, the relative amount of space devoted to each of the main periods of Roman history has been preserved, and Mommsen’s own book divisions and titles retained. Similarly, the original chapter titles and breaks—and indeed even the paragraphing—has been followed as closely as possible. Wirth some obvious exceptions, marginal precedence has been given to social and constitutional developments, and to political events and conflicts in Rome and Italy, over foreign policy and the detailed narration of overseas wars. Consequently, the significant amount of background information that Mommsen provided concerning the foreign nations with which Rome came into violent contact—Etruscans, Celts, Carthaginians and the peoples of the Hellenistic eastern Mediterranean among them—has been almost entirely excised. And the summaries on literature and the arts that were tacked on to the end of each book have also had to be omitted. Within these broad parameters, however, every effort has been made to ensure that the full spectrum of Mommsen's themes, methodology, and style is portrayed.So that the text retains its readability, all cuts have been made silently, without the distraction of frequent ellipses. Where it has proved impossible to provide a continuous narrative in Mommsen’s own words, then editorial linking passages, printed in smaller type than the rest of the text, have been supplied. These confine themselves to the bare essentials and take a deliberately conservative line in order to sit more comfortably with the main narrative. the new maps and extensive chronology are also intended to compensate for information otherwise excised. A handful of editorial footnotes and other brief interpolations have been added where essential for sense. All such additions to the original text, as well as any other localised rewordings necessitated by the cuts, are contained within square brackets. Most of Mommsen’s analogies to subsequent historical events, which are one of the many delights of his work, require no explanation for an educated readership.Any attempt to update Mommsen’s scholarship would be presumptuous, if not completely foolhardy, and so all points of fact and interpretation have been allowed to stand without comment. thus, for example, Mommsen’s belief that Caesar was probably born in 102BC—rather than 100 BC, as is now generally accepted—has not been amended. Nor has it been deemed necessary to bring into line with current accepted norms either the spelling of proper nouns or Disckon’s faithful equivalents of Mommsen’s deliberately idiosyncratic and anachronistic rendition of Latin terms. Of these, the most noticeable is undoubtedly the word ‘burgess’ instead of ‘citizen’. While proving that few things date faster than modernity, they also provide an important reminder that Mommsen wrote his history with the pressing political and national issues facing both pre-unification Germany and the rest of the mid-nineteenth0century Europe directly in mind.

    As catchy as that aphorism is, it's sadly untrue, even if it has a nice ring to it. The one thing Nero is well-known for is the one thing he actually didn't do. But fear not, the truth of his life, his rule and what he did with unrestrained power, is plenty weird, salacious and horrifying. And he is not alone. Roman history, from the very foundation of the city, is replete with people and stories that shock our modern sensibilities. Evil Emperors puts the worst of Rome's rulers in one place and offers a review of their lives and a historical context for what made them into what they became. It concludes by ranking them, counting down to the worst ruler in Rome's long history. Lucius Tarquinius Suburbus called peace conferences with warring states, only to slaughter foreign leaders; Commodus sold offices of the empire to the highest bidder; Caligula demanded to be worshipped as a god, and marched troops all the way to the ocean simply to collect seashells as "proof" of their conquest; even the Roman Senate itself was made up of oppressors, exploiters, and murderers of all stripes. Author Phillip Barlag profiles a host of evil Roman rulers across the history of their empire, along with the faceless governing bodies that condoned and even carried out heinous acts. Roman history, deviant or otherwise, is a subject of endless fascination. What's never been done before is to look at the worst of the worst at the same time, comparing them side by side, and ranking them against one another. Until now.

    Edward Champlin reinterprets Nero's enormities on their own terms, as the self-conscious performances of an imperial actor with a formidable grasp of Roman history and mythology and a canny sense of his audience. mother's prompting. He then murdered his mother, with whom he may have slept. He killed his pregnant wife in a fit of rage then castrated and married a young freedman because he resembled her. He mounted the public stage to act a hero driven mad or a woman giving birth and raced a ten-horse chariot in the Olympic games. He probably instigated the burning of Rome, for which he then ordered the spectacular punishment of Christians, many of whom were burned as human torches to light up his gardens at night. Without seeking to rehabilitate the historical monster, Champlin renders Nero more vividly intelligible by illuminating the motives behind his theatrical gestures, and revealing the artist who thought of himself as a heroic figure. Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio.

    This text consists of an illustrated guide to all the major sites in twelve main areas in central Rome, and four in Greater Rome, including the Capitoline Hill, Roman Forum, Colosseum, Mausoleums of Augustus and Hadrian, the Circus Maximus, Catacombs, Ostia, and Tivoli.

    This chronicle of the Byzantine Empire, beginning in 1025, shows a profound understanding of the power politics that characterized the empire and led to its decline.