Taken at the Flood: the Roman Conquest of Greece Free

FREE TAKEN AT THE FLOOD: THE ROMAN CONQUEST OF GREECE PDF

Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Want to Read saving…. Want to Read Currently Reading Read. Other editions. Enlarge cover. Error rating book. Refresh and try again. Open Preview See a Problem? Details if other :. Thanks for telling us about the problem. Return to Book Page. Preview — Taken at the Flood by Robin Waterfield. This was the crucial half-century of Rome's spectacular rise to imperial status, but Roman interest in its eastern neighbors began a little earlier, with the First Illyrian War ofand climaxed later with the infamous destruction of Corinth in Taken at the Flood chronicles this momentous move by Rome into the Greek east. Until now, this period of history has been overshadowed by the threat of Carthage in the west, but events in the east were no less important in themselves, and Robin Waterfield's account reveals the peculiar nature of Rome's eastern policy. For over seventy years, the Romans avoided annexation so that they could commit their military and financial resources to the fight against Carthage and elsewhere. Though ultimately a failure, this policy of indirect rule, punctuated by periodic brutal military interventions and intense diplomacy, worked well for several decades, until the Senate finally settled on more direct forms of control. Waterfield's fast-paced narrative focuses mainly on military and diplomatic maneuvers, but throughout he interweaves other topics and themes, such as the influence of Greek culture on Rome, the Roman aristocratic ethos, and the clash between the two best fighting machines the ancient world Taken at the Flood: The Roman Conquest of Greece produced: the Macedonian phalanx and Roman legion. The result is an absorbing account of a critical chapter in Rome's mastery of the Mediterranean. Get A Copy. Kindle Editionpages. More Details Original Title. Roman Republic Greece. Other Editions Friend Reviews. To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up. To ask other readers questions about Taken at the Floodplease sign up. Lists with This Book. This book is not yet featured on Listopia. Community Reviews. Showing Average rating 3. Rating details. More filters. Sort order. May 31, Colin rated it really liked it. A magisterial, if dry, account of how Greece and Macedonia were absorbed by Rome The conquest of Greece and her former Macedonian masters was a complicated Taken at the Flood: The Roman Conquest of Greece, and is generally overshadowed in the history books by the Punic Wars that were taking place or in preparation at roughly the same timeframe. When students used to ask me about it, I would usually just say, "Well, the specifics are complicated, but basically those areas ended up as Roman provinces, and that's all you need to know about A magisterial, if dry, account of how Greece and Macedonia were absorbed by Rome The conquest of Greece and her former Macedonian masters was a complicated process, and is generally overshadowed in the history books by the Punic Wars that were taking place or in preparation at roughly the same timeframe. When students used to ask me about it, I would usually just say, "Well, the specifics are complicated, but basically those areas ended up as Roman provinces, and that's all you need to know about the actual conquest - more interesting is the influence Greece then had Taken at the Flood: The Roman Conquest of Greece Rome. Well, if you ever wanted to know, this book will tell you the story, in great detail. The account is a little dry - perhaps that could not have been helped - but balances between magisterial scholarship on the matter without trying to present every known historical detail, which would probably fill a whole shelf of volumes this size, and be lethally boring. Check it out if you have an interest in the history of the relations between Greece and Rome. Feb 18, Dmitri rated it really liked it Shelves: europe. This is a compact military and political history of the Roman conflicts with Greece between BC, told by a well-known classicist writer and translator. It is set forth without a lot Taken at the Flood: The Roman Conquest of Greece polemical frills, contrary to what is suggested in the Bryn Mawr Classical Review. Events Taken at the Flood: The Roman Conquest of Greece clearly related, and the book works well as an introduction to the period. It is not a comprehensive or in depth survey of the period. It wouldn't be possible in pages. There isn't much social or cultural histo This is a compact military and political history of the Roman conflicts with Greece between BC, told by a well-known classicist writer and translator. There isn't much social Taken at the Flood: The Roman Conquest of Greece cultural history presented, aside from several supplemental passages. Some have been quick to criticize the drawing of comparisons between the Roman Empire and the United States. The importance of this within the overall context of the book has been overstated as it only appears a few times. Waterfield points out that this is not the purpose of the book, nor his area of expertise. But it is not an overall anachronistic portrayal of the period on the part of the author. Waterfield could have deleted these passages and probably should have since they don't really add much to the book. A reader suggested we would be better off to just read Polybius and Livy. The scope of the historian shouldn't be limited to recounting primary sources, influenced as these sources were by the politics and perspectives of their time. A higher goal would be to provide analysis and advance critical thinking about the sources. Waterfield provides such insights, and it is up to us to decide if we agree with them or not. Limiting the scope of an ancient historian to factual representation, besides being unachievable, denies the tradition and evolution of modern historiography. To read Roman history by Gibbon, Mommsen, Syme, or Gruen provides substantially different insights on many of the same events. These writers Taken at the Flood: The Roman Conquest of Greece built upon and argued against the work of their predecessors. The Roman conquest of Greece is replete with competing Taken at the Flood: The Roman Conquest of Greece. Several views advanced were that Rome was defending itself against anarchy in the Mediterranean, that Rome became involved as a series of unplanned circumstances over a long period, or that Rome was intentionally extending their political and economic influence. Waterfield comes down on the side of the last argument, and gives various reasons for this. I can see aspects of these explanations existing simultaneously without contradiction. The bibliography references primary and secondary sources for further study. This book is worthwhile reading if you are interested in a basic recount of the events, or to review ideas you've read elsewhere. For steadfast supporters of the Republic, let it be it known: Rome looks no worse than others in this tome. Just finished reading Taken at the Flood. I thought it did a good job at describing the geopolitical situation inherent in The Roman Republic's eventual conquest of Taken at the Flood: The Roman Conquest of Greece. His analysis was interesting, but at times I found it too cursory. This was particularly true when he was discussing key battles. Nevertheless, I appreciated his key points, namely Rome's strategy of virtual control and balance if power politics. It was definitely enjoyable and interesting. It is obvious that Waterfield's sympathies lie with the Greeks, and his account of the Roman conquest is more focused on how the Greeks abased themselves before the Romans over the course of the second century BC. Waterfield's view of the Romans falls mainly in line with William Harris's thesis: the Romans were aggressively looking to expand their control into Greece and the Balkan peninsula almost from its first foray into Illyria in BC. A useful counterpoint to other accounts, like Erich G It is obvious that Waterfield's sympathies lie with the Greeks, and his account of the Roman conquest is more focused on how the Greeks abased themselves before the Romans over the course of the second century BC. A useful counterpoint to other accounts, like Erich Gruen. Oct 30, Daniel Kukwa rated it liked it Shelves: non-fiction. The book gets a bit tedious when it dives into the fine details surrounding the squabbling Greek states; it would have Taken at the Flood: The Roman Conquest of Greece satisfying if this section had been condensed into a more digestible form. The Roman side of events is far more readable and fascinating, but overall this remains a solid overview of Greece's absorption into the newly coalescing Roman Empire. One stop shops for information are always a god-send to history teachers like myself. Jan 25, Panagiotis Gioxas rated it really liked it. Jun 19, Nathan Albright rated it it was amazing Shelves: challenge. This book is a rare achievement on several levels, one worthy of high praise as well as the praise of reading it and reflecting upon its eerie contemporary relevance. Many readers will likely know little about the context of this period, with shifting alliances and the growing power of Rome over Greek affairs despite the rel This book is a rare achievement on several levels, one worthy of high praise as well as the praise of reading it and reflecting upon its eerie contemporary relevance. Many readers will likely know little about the context of this period, with shifting alliances and the growing power of Rome over Greek affairs despite the reluctance of Rome to annex the area outright, but rather more interested in maintaining an indirect empire on the cheap where there Taken at the Flood: The Roman Conquest of Greece periodic interventions in local affairs with Taken at the Flood: The Roman Conquest of Greece military force, followed by a renegotiation of terms and increasing realization that areas have passed from a state of freedom into a form of imperial control. The writer, on several occasions, draws specific parallels between this rare historical case of an indirect empire with the imperialistic behavior of the United States, making some pointed commentary about recent wars and the similar reluctance of the United States to annex territories it nonetheless seeks to control remotely. The result is a work of history about an obscure but important area of history and also one that bears a startling contemporary Taken at the Flood: The Roman Conquest of Greece to American imperialism [1]. The book itself is organized generally chronologically and from a sober perspective of a historian who wishes to give full credit to obscure historical personages within the Roman Republic, various Greek leagues of city-states, and various Anatolian realms of importance like Rhodes, the Seleucid Empire, and Pergamum. The book starts with concerns about clouds in the West, such as the desire of the Antigonid rulers of Macedonia to regain their position of preeminence over Greece and the role of the Epirot leader Pyrrhus in seeking to stop Roman expansion. The author then examines the Roman turn east in seeking to stop the unification of Illyria under powerful leaders, the course of the Illyrian Wars that Rome fought to ensure the safety of the Adriatic Sea for its trade, the growing hostility of many Greeks to the presence of the "barbarian" Romans, the somewhat hypocritical support of the Romans for the supposed "freedom of the Greeks," the behavior of both Rome and Philip V of Macedon to provoke warfare, the Romans through deliberately snubbing diplomacy to Philip upon their entrance into Greek affairs, Philip V through making an alliance with Hannibal during the Second Punic War and in his repeated attempts to increase Macedonian strength and regain previous losses due to Taken at the Flood: The Roman Conquest of Greece military strength. The author then examines the expansion of Rome's periphery into Asia Minor, their efforts at remote control over Greek city-states, the choice of Perseus to resist increasing Roman domination, the end of Macedon as an independent state, the establishment of firm Roman rule over Greece, and the Greek World after the battle of Pydna and its long period under imperial domination to the Romans, Byzantines, and Ottomans before its relatively recent freedom in the 's. There are at least a few notable aspects to the achievements that Waterfield has in this book. One of them is sound attention to evidence, including the histories of Polybius, who was a participant in these matters on the Greek side, and a witness of some of the events he writes about, as well as attention to sculptural and numismatic evidence. Besides the attention to these matters, the author also shows a strong tendency to understand history in the context of contemporary events, pointing out that the remote control imperialism of the Romans for so long in Greece would have been less easy to conceive of without the example of contemporary American imperialism. This insight helps us to understand that we have significant barriers to understanding history unless we can see parallels that we can recognize in the present to allow us to better understand the past. Taken at the Flood: The Roman Conquest of Greece - Robin Waterfield - Google книги

I had never read a systematic account of how Rome overthrew Macedonian hegemony in Greece so this book really filled a gap for me, particularly since Waterfield is more concerned justly with high Robin Waterfield. This was the crucial half-century of Rome's spectacular rise to imperial status, but Roman interest in its eastern neighbors began a little earlier, with the First Illyrian War ofand climaxed later with the infamous destruction of Corinth in Taken at the Flood chronicles this momentous move by Rome Taken at the Flood: The Roman Conquest of Greece the Greek east. Until now, this period of history has been overshadowed by the threat of Carthage in the west, but events in the east were no less important in themselves, and Robin Waterfield's account reveals the peculiar nature of Rome's eastern policy. For over seventy years, the Romans avoided annexation so that they could commit their military and financial resources to the fight against Carthage and elsewhere. Though ultimately a failure, this policy of indirect rule, punctuated by periodic brutal military interventions and intense diplomacy, worked well for several decades, until the Senate finally settled on more direct forms of control. Waterfield's fast-paced narrative focuses mainly on military and diplomatic maneuvers, but throughout he interweaves other topics and themes, such as the influence of Greek culture on Rome, the Roman aristocratic ethos, and the clash between the two best fighting machines the ancient world ever produced: the Macedonian phalanx and Roman legion. The result is an absorbing Taken at the Flood: The Roman Conquest of Greece of a critical chapter in Rome's mastery of the Mediterranean. In addition to more than twenty-five translations of works of Greek literature, he is the author of numerous books, most recently Dividing the Spoils: The War for Alexander the Great's Empire. Clouds in the West. Key Dates. Robin Waterfield, Taken at the Flood: The Roman Conquest of Greece - PhilPapers

This chapter Taken at the Flood: The Roman Conquest of Greece contains digressions on Roman imperial expansion down to this point and the nature of the Roman ruling aristocracy. Chapter Two narrates the Illyrian Wars of and and events in between, such as the Social War ofwhich pitted the Aetolian League and their allies against the Hellenic League under the leadership of Philip V of Macedon. The chapter ends with a digression on Greek knowledge of and attitudes toward Rome down to this period. Chapter Eight describes how Rome tried to exercise hegemonic control of Greece and Asia Minor after without annexing territory or garrisoning strategic points. The chapter also documents the renewed tensions between Rome and Macedon in the s, as well as civil strife in central and southern Greece, much of which revolved around the appropriate policy stance to adopt toward Rome. Chapter Eleven opens with an account of the short, concurrent war with Genthius, king of the Illyrian Ardiaei, and his defeat by the Romans. The chapter also describes the Roman plunder and enslavement of Epirote Molossis inthe Roman triumphs over Macedon Taken at the Flood: The Roman Conquest of Greece Illyria, and contains a digression on the crisis in Roman self-identity caused by Hellenization. The final chapter surveys Roman involvement in the East after Pydna, including the war against the Macedonian pretender Andriscusand the war with the Achaean League The chapter also includes a brief, impressionistic account of the history of Greece under Rome after down to the creation of the province of Achaea in Waterfield paints a grim picture of decline and exploitation of the Greeks under Roman rule—the proverbial desert that Rome called peace Tac. Overall, an epic tale, engagingly told in clear, eloquent prose. OUP is to be commended for commissioning a book on such a world-changing series of events which, despite the importance Polybius attributed to it in antiquity, is mostly ignored outside academic circles today. Harris argued, with force and conviction but also with too little attention to and misreading of the evidencethat the Romans were exceptionally warlike and brutal compared to their peer-competitors in the Mediterranean state system. In sum, Waterfield says x-xi :. To be clear: the Romans did, sometimes, visit acts of great savagery on their military opponents, and those unfortunate civilians caught in the middle; the Romans did, on occasion, indulge in diplomatic sharp practice and manipulate their opponents into positions where they had to resist or else suffer complete destruction; and the Romans did, as a matter of course, make war on their neighbors every year, almost without exception. Waterfield occasionally lets this fact slip out. Waterfield also accuses the Romans of being exceptionally deceitful in its diplomatic practices. But how much of a change was this from the attitudes of those other great liberators of the Greeks, the Hellenistic kings? Not much at all, it turns out. Numerous Hellenistic inscriptions contain precisely similar conditions to that imposed on the Teans in Going back even further, Ptolemy II wrote to the Milesians ca. Numerous other examples could be cited. As Gruen so brilliantly demonstrated thirty years ago, the formulaic language the Romans used in their eastern decrees especially as concerned Greek freedom and Taken at the Flood: The Roman Conquest of Greece came straight from the chancelleries of the Hellenistic kingdoms. If difference there was between the Roman and Hellenistic versions of Greek freedom, it was this: the Romans habitually left behind no garrisons in Greece after major wars. The Romans, it turns out, behaved no more atrociously than Alexander had. How terrible would life have been under Philip? This was the same man who plundered his own Thessalian subjects during the Second Macedonian War Livy Were they exceptionally carried away by a mania for plunder and slaughter? Certainly, on occasion, but it was the Macedonians, not the Romans, who delighted in war as if it were a banquet, according to Polybius 5. Some 10, Seleucid troops were killed by Ptolemaic forces at Raphia in Polyb. Casualty figures for inter- polis wars may seem low by comparison, but this is due to the small scale of the average Greek polis rather than a gentlemanly Greek aversion toward killing and plundering. Chalking up kills and collecting huge spoils was the surest path to glory and everlasting fame for a Greek man. As for sacking and destroying cities, and killing and enslaving entire populations, the Taken at the Flood: The Roman Conquest of Greece were in good company. At least forty Greek cities were wiped off the map in polis -on- polis violence during the Classical period. One hopes it will spark interest in the subject beyond academic circles. See the list in A. Skip to content. BMCR Ancient Warfare and Civilization. Burton anu. Notes 1. All dates BC. Oxford,