The Roman Triumph

The Roman Triumph. Author: Mary Beard. 448 pages. 2007.

I picked this book up at the library while I was browsing for another title. It proved to be an interesting read.

The book is not a definitive treatise on what a Roman Triumph would have looked like. Rather this book is a survey of all research related to the topic of the Roman Triumph. The author choose not to provide a word picture of a triumph or to take a stand on what a triumph was, how it operated, its origins, or its meanings and purpose.

What you get is a survey of theories and scholarship about the origins, the route, the parade order, the meaning, the history, and the legacy of the Roman Triumph. Some of these theories raise more questions than they answer and in a sense it is up to the reader, provided with the information, to make up their own mind.

What I found especially interesting was the history of the Triumph. How what we know about the Triumph has been shaped by historians. Much of what we know as history is either political/cultural propaganda or revisionist history. In a sense it was very Orwellian with the historian using the present to project into the past as a justification for what is present. This use of history was on going through both the Republic and the Empire and clouds our understanding of what a Triumph was and how it worked. This revisionism also clouds our understanding behind the meaning or reason for a Triumph.

The meaning of the Triumph is one of the more interesting fields of inquiry. The meaning is every thing from a raucous homecoming celebration much akin in spirit to mummery, to a solemn religious ritual of atonement for blood shed, to a political act of affirmation and many things in between.

The book proved thought provoking and I will never think of a triumph in quite the same manner. It calls in to question how I experience and view parades and processions of all types.

The book did have some drawbacks. The author had the academic tendency of constantly saying "as we will see in Chapter or later on" and other such habits of the academy. All told a book which provokes more questions then it answers and that was I think its intent.

When a Roman general won a great victory the Senate would frequently vote for him to be given a triumph. The Roman triumph was Rome at its most glorious, according to many. It was mostly "about display and success" (p 31). The entire city seemed to shut down to watch the gaudy parade; work was suspended, songs were sung, and everyone came to cheer on the victors.

Imagine seeing Pompey's booty carried through the streets, the beaks of wrecked pirate ships, the gold and plunder, and the beaten captives, now in chains. Floats were popular. Tacitus mentions "replicas of mountains, of rivers, and of battles" (p 109). In case anyone in the crowd wasn't aware of what happened, actors were hired to perform the roles of the soldiers.

It appears that nearly every general and politician and Rome longed to have a triumph.

The defeated were so horrified at the thought of the display and ignominy that we know of quite a number who preferred suicide to participating in a triumph. Famously, of course, Cleopatra, but also Mithradates and Virrius. "When defeat appeared inevitable, Virrius persuaded some twenty seven of the Capuan senate to join him in drinking poison" (p 116).

Those captives who were made to walk through the streets in a Roman triumph to the jeers of the mob had little future happiness in store later. Many were slain. Some, like the defeated Jews driven to Rome after the end of the war in 70 AD, ended up as slaves who helped to build Vespasian's coliseum.

For anyone with an interest in Roman history, this is a book to savor.

Lots of interesting info on the Roman triumph, but unfortunately the author gets in the way of her own topic. Statements like "The book will show..." and "I will prove..." belong in the Introduction. Instead, they're all over the place. Phrases such as "Now I'll turn my attention to" and "as we'll see in chapter 9" are littered throughout the book, leaving the reader to feel as though the actual book will, in fact, begin any minute now, we just have a few more previews to get through. I can't stand it when authors continually call attention to themselves like this. Just GET ON WITH IT. Also, whole paragraphs full of rhetorical questions (which historians should we believe? why should we believe them? how do our beliefs color who we end up believing? blah blah blah) put a frequent, and deadly, stop to the narrative. Maybe academicians like this sort of thing, but I don't think the average reader appreciates it. I know I don't. I'm halfway through the book; I'll finish it because of my interest in the subject, and in spite of the author's well-meant but exasperating prose.

This book did not keep my interest. It nit-picked the roman Triumph to death. A continous flow of information would have been helpful. But we stop at each street corner, and nit pick the corner and then proceed a little further, and nit pick some more...I still don't know the how, why or wherefor's of the triumph.

Not all history books are written to be read by those of us who are not academics. When Mary Beard takes on a subject matter, all that changes and history not only comes alive, it becomes clear and enjoyable. Thank you, Ms. Beard. This book has, of course, led to me looking for related subjects of the Roman Empire, as well the as the Republic.