Emperor of Rome

Whenever I come across Mary Beard in the media, I like what she does. And I know she writes books, but I have never read one. And then I came across one in a charity shop. I bought it! It was Emperor of Rome. And when I had finished my Welsh book I started it.

It's basically an evaluation of what we actually know about emperor of Rome. It's not even that much. And she also evaluate information that is out there about them, but which might not be very reliable. For instance, quite early in the book she mentions the important distinction between emperors who had been murdered, and emperors who had peacefully transferred power to their successor (still by dying, probably, or maybe exclusively). Their successes probably keen to paint them in a particular light. If they came on the throne as the Sun of the previous emperor who had died in natural death, they load there position basically to the authority of their successor, and they wanted to paint them in a very positive light. If they had been involved in murdering the previous one, they of course benefited from showing that person in a very negative light. And there is a risk that a lot of vote will be written about an emperor is in that period not long after the end of their tenure, so we might get very biased views on all of them.

She dives into what we know about various aspects of the lives of the emperors. Their food, their administrative duties, their travels, military campaigns, etc. There clearly was a lot of spin, and a lot of gossip. But also some interesting sources on the cogs of the empire turning. These would be letters from regional administrators to Rome or vice versa, or court transcripts, or suchlike. 

I really enjoyed it! It’s great to read a work of history with such clear explanation of how we know. And the Romans are not my favourite topic, but that’s OK. It suddenly sort of is when it’s Mary Beard writing about them. But for my next book I want fiction!