A lesson learned from THE ROMANS: A 2,000 YEAR HISTORY, by Edward Watts

 Change and evolution are vital for the long-term survival of a state.

    While my primary interest and specialty has always been American History, it has always been a fun hobby to read up on ancient civilizations, particularly Egypt and Rome. People have spent centuries trying to study the lessons of the Roman Empire, and unsurprisingly that has meant centuries of different interpretations and arguments over how Rome became such a successful and long-lasting civilization, and that includes arguments as to when exactly Rome "rose" and "fell." In his new book The Romans: A 2,000 Year History, author Edward Watts takes the controversial stance that "Rome" as a unique civilization actually lasted all the way through the first sack of the city of Constantinople in 1205 (other historians call the Constantinople-led Roman outbranch "Byzantium" and argue it's its own unique civilization, I don't know nearly enough about that debate to render a firm opinion about it). Watts' book is dense and sprawling and probably not good for the amateur historian, but it is an enlightening study of how the Roman state survived various major crises through figuring out new ways to welcome and absorb immigrants from new regions, and be willing to adapt their own systems in ways where they could still survive as a unique entity while also evolving and responding to a changing world around them.

    Watts does begin the Roman story in its usual spot, investigating the origins of the "Romulus and Remus" legend and arguing that Rome from the beginning of its history was a story of a city that grew in strength and status from absorbing and incorporating elements from the other civilizations around them. Through such strategies the small ancient Roman village eventually grew into the Roman Republic, a fascinating ancient government that tried to balance having its most wealthy and educated citizens pulling all the levers of government, while simultaneously trying to give a say to its ordinary citizens through the tribune system. That government broke down and collapsed into crisis with the murder of the Gracchi Brothers--who took the idea that Rome's wealth and power needed to be distributed more equally to all of its citizens a bit too literally for the tastes of wealthy Roman senators--and a century of chaos ended with the Republic's consolidation into an ancient empire with the rise of the Caesars and the creation of an imperial state focused on conquest. Interestingly, as he recaps the reigns of centuries of emperors, Watts makes the argument that the strength of Rome was never its "great men," but rather its appearance of having a stable and effective government that still gave a token of a voice to its ordinary citizens (most emperors did not inherit the title through family, but rather were chosen based on competence by Roman citizens). As he notes, empowered Roman emperors could be generally wise and effective such as Trajan and Marcus Aurelius, but could just as easily be brutal and unhinged (Caligula, Commodus, Nero) and severely weaken the stability of the Roman world. Eventually, Emperor Constantine determined that Rome's ancient pagan gods did not provide the state with enough unity to survive in a changing world, and encouraged the empire's mass conversion to Christianity. Throughout the ancient empire, Watts describes a Roman state that could be brutal and exploitative, but who was also generally welcoming of refugees throughout the ancient world, and eventually granted equal Roman status to people of various racial and ethnic backgrounds, and who brought new ideas and approaches that helped the Roman state to survive various eras of upheaval.

    Eventually, the Roman state declined and collapsed due to terrible decisions made by petty individuals that proved to have generational effects. Through the centuries Watts tells various stories of coups, assassinations, and petty family drama that are impossible to chronicle here but are often horrifying and amusing in equal measure. For example, the collapse of the main Roman western empire was triggered by the cocky emperor Valens fighting the Battle of Adrianople before his men were properly rested and prepared, resulting in the loss of a huge Roman army and a general collapse in morale and prestige. After the Roman empire itself dissolved in the 400s, its eastern segment continued to survive and often thrive through the city of Constantinople, until rampaging Crusaders pillaged the city in the 1200s and left it a shell of its former glory. Watts argues that the story of Rome's rise and fall isn't a tragedy as much as a stunning success story, as few states in all of human history have managed to last as long (America is now coming up on 250 years, a fraction of Rome's time regardless of how you count). Thus, it is the states that foolishly try to recapture some perfect past era that never really existed, and tear down needed progress in the process, that fail faster than states such as Rome that constantly try to change and evolve its existing institutions to meet their modern needs.

    Overall, I greatly enjoyed Watts' book, even as it is dense reading. Some of his conclusions are undoubtedly challenged (I know I've read other works that present the transition of the Roman Republic into the Empire as a brutal and tragic era worth lamenting), but he is a well-studied historian who convincingly presents his arguments and timeline. As people today take away all the wrong lessons from the age of Rome (from modern bro podcasters to the comical shenanigans of video games like Fallout: New Vegas), Watts' book is a welcome addition of serious historical research into the actual lessons of that era.