After Columbus made his discoveries, other explorers wanted to follow in his tracks. Balboa was one of these, and for whom some places are named in southern California. Balboa seemed to be one of the few trustworthy and moral characters of his genre. As a leader, he was fair to his men and tried to protect them and reward them for their service.

This is a simple book, written at about a 2nd to 3rd grade level. As with all the other historical/biographical books by Syme written for children, he does an excellent job of describing the lives of historical figures. Though written simply, many interesting details are included, and he is able to bring the people to life by including emotions and interpersonal relationships. I like to read his books to get a quick overview on the subject and/or the historical character. Many of his books were written in the 50s and 60s, but they are still interesting today. They should be reprinted with a more modern look on the cover, though maintaining the original illustrations, which I also enjoy.

I have discovered that author Ronald Syme has written many historical biographies in particular for children. I may even have read something of his when I was kid, since he seems to have published since the 1960s. His books are timeless, well written and easy to follow, presented in a story-type format, and including interesting details to personalize the history. I read his book about DeSoto as part of my own research about the Spanish explorers of North America. As an adult reader of this book, I was able to glean a good understanding of who deSoto was and what he did. The last I had ever heard anything about deSoto was in sixth grade, along with a brief mention of the names and discoveries of other early explorers, such as Ponce deLeon. DeSoto's story is really fascinating, and Syme's version is sure to interest today's children. It covers the difficulties met by deSoto's men in crossing difficult territory and confronting hostile natives. It does mention the injustices the Spaniards meted to the natives, but not in the horrific detail that will be found in biographies meant for older readers. I recommend this book as well as other works by Syme to interest young readers in the subject of history.

Syme was the pre-eminent authority on Roman history in the twentieth century. This wide-ranging collection of essays will please and enlighten all who are interested in the classical foundations of the modern world.

This is without doubt Syme's masterwork. The praise has been lavish. A.J.P. Taylor said it was a "work of brilliant scholarship which can be enjoyed by the expert and the layman alike". Sir Maurice Bowra said "his work is extraordinarily persuasive and interesting, it is the best book on Roman History that has appeared for many years." The Classical Review wrote that is the "one of the most important books on Roman history since Mommsen.

Need more reasons to read it? Well, I'll try. I'll start by saying that this is one of the top 25 books I have read - though I by no means agree with everything Syme believes.

What Ronald Syme has done is to lay bare the workings of the late Republic and early Empire. To do this required an effort of scholarship and synthesis on a gargantuan scale. And yet Syme manages to render the story in a lucid, straightforward, compelling manner. His arguments are often ineluctable. You find yourself drawn along, at times unwillingly, to conclusions you thought far-fetched.

The period under scrutiny is 60 BC to AD 14. Thus he covers the last generation of the Republic and the first two or three of the Empire. In a nutshell his hypothesis is that the Republic simply was not equipped to manage what had become an empire. He believes that Rome was inevitably drawn to the rule of one.

He writes of Caesar: "The rule of the nobiles, he [Caesar] could see, was an anachronism in a world-empire; and so was the power of the Roam plebs when all Italy enjoyed the franchise. Caesar in truth was more conservative and Roman that many have fancied; no Roman conceived of government save through an oligarchy."

Augustus, however, was a different matter. And it was Augustus, believes Syme, who wrought the revolution that forever changed the Roman way of life. To suggest, as has some have done, that there was no true revolution, almost defies sense and logic. And Syme ably makes the case.

But aspects of the Syme's theory remain controversial. He writes: "The nobiles by their ambition and their feuds, had not merely destroyed their spurious republic: they had ruined the Roman People. There is something more important than political liberty; and political rights are a means, not an end in themselves. That end is security of life and property: it could not be guaranteed by the constitution of Republican Rome. Worn and broken by civil war and disorder, The Roman people was ready to surrender the ruinous privilege of freedom and submit to strict government as the beginning of time....So order came to Rome. "Acriora ex eo vincula", as Tacitus observes."

Wow. This is breath taking and highly controversial. He might as well have been writing about pre-Nazi Germany (and note that Syme wrote "The Roman Revolution" in 1939). And, frankly, I must tell you I do not agree with his condemnation of the nobiles. Nor do others.

The most important voice in opposition remains that of Erich Gruen's. "The Last Generation of the Roman Republic" MUST be read alongside "The Roman Revolution." Gruen believes that the monarchy was in fact neither anticipated nor inevitable. And he strongly believes that the Republic was functioning quite well, thank you very much, and could in fact have coped with empire.

Despite of intensive study and thorough research, the book was written with a view on the situation in 1939. Fascist dictatorships then seemed to hold a franchise on the future. StalinÕs purges and the Spanish civil war appeared to reenact the drama which had seen a first performance at the end of the Roman republic, when a party-politician and republican General committed high treason and suspended the constitution, which opened unheard of opportunities and eventually swept the son of a small town banker to the highest office and absolute power. I said swept, but SymeÕs monumental study shows that dumb luck and blind opportunity played only a small part in the ascend of one of the coolest, most ruthless, and most calculating minds who ever aspired political power. However considering the youth and inexperience of Augustus at the beginning of his career, and with a look at the staff of first class advisers that surrounded the young man from the very beginning, one wonders whether it was just AugustusÕ calculation or whether history witnessed to the execution of a master plan by the same man who had had adopted the young Augustus (gossip says, for sexual favours) and who had set him up with means and advisory brainpower. After the dictatorÕs assassination the young fellow acted without hesitation, and succeeded against enormous odds. But the man who despite of his frail physique should become one of the longest ruling heads of state in history, had remarkably few lucky breaks. In 31 BC. he again had reached a point where he completely lacked constitutional legality. In order to consolidate his position, Augustus became the first dictator in history to call for a nationwide plebiscite. With due respect to Mommsen it must be said that Sir RonaldÕs study helps to straighten out MommsenÕs rather curious adulations on Julius Caesar. Yet both historians based their views on the same premise: that democracy inevitably leads to dictatorship, if the conservative forces turn out to be too stubborn and retrograde in terms of social and economical progress, or if they create a situation in which such progress disenfranchises societyÕs weakest without compensating for the pain inflicted. Strange as this may sound: Caesar, Augustus, Musolini, Hitler, Stalin, Peron, or chairman Mao at some point had all started their career as a spokesperson for the people against the pillars of conservatism. When I look at the present scene in America, I wonder whether this lesson is going to be lost again. Who might it be, who is going to hold the peopleÕs mandate without an election? I am afraid he is already walking among us. Legally, as the peopleÕs tribune, a Roman emperor depended on his legislative veto-power. It was Augustus who first realized its importance. Of course the commander in chief of the armed forces could ask for whatever he fancied, yet Augustus had enough acumen not to depend on the loyalty of troops if he could help it. He was a Roman, and like the aqueducts his empire was built for posterity. When it suited them Roman emperors could even present themselves as the antique equivalent to the leader of a modern labor union: Domitian, Òthe most careful administrator of the empireÓ (Mommsen,) is known for his interventionist economics and he had an inventor of a new material executed because such innovation could have put people out of work. The senatorial gossip surrounding Nero has clouded the fact that his policies were immensely popular with the masses, even after his ignominious death. Ancient Rome had succumbed to military despotism, yet we should keep in mind that the same man who had done most to bring down republican liberty, had also left as his legacy the egalitarian rule of law, which remained to be surprisingly functional until DiocletianÕs reforms. Many emperors thought it good PR to show themselves below the law like everybody else, and public welfare enjoyed the benefit. What impresses most in Sir RonaldÕs study is the way this historian manages to unravel the entangled messiness of cross-purpose policies, blind chance, and calculated action. Syme successfully avoids to create a picture of ironclad necessity, which so often mars the perspective of historical writing, but it also becomes quite clear, that in the end timely and better informed decisions succeeded over poorer judgement. Augustus was in no way ÒdestinedÓ to come out victorious, but he did because his opponents missed their chances. Eventually this supreme pragmatist became not only the richest man of his era but also the most opulent benefactor who funneled back most of his billions into the community. Augustus is one of the enigmas of history: an absolutely ruthless politician, completely untrammeled by even the remotest sign of a conscience, and yet at the same time a genuine benefactor, fond of mingling with lower classes at the dog-races; a man who preferred to live, away from his palaces and villas, in a small, rented apartment. Go figure. Not your everyday friendly mobster from the neighborhood. And this is the other great quality of SymeÕs study. He clearly advances on MommsenÕs anachronistic imposition of latter-day party politics on the Roman political scene. With Sir Ronald we come much closer to the often purely dynastic competition in the Roman senate. However it would oversimplify the situation to dismiss this institution merely as a clearinghouse for perks and prestige without any conflict between principles and policies. The legislation of the Gracci had had introduced issues that really mattered and moved the urban masses to support populist dynasts, like Catilina and Caesar, against provincial upstarts on the conservative ticket, like Cicero, and even made them vote for military junta chiefs of dubious legitimacy like Augustus himself. Sir RonaldÕs book, meant as a warning to politicians of his own time, never compromises on scholarship and profound analysis. Historiography at its very best; an outstanding achievement.

this is one of the best books i have ever read, i am only 15 years old and by far not an expert in roman history (yet). but regardless i can say thet this book is an excelllent one, it describes, in an amazing style, the end of the republic and the rise to power of Augustus one of the greatest and first of the roman emperors. it will not be an exageration to say thet this book has changed my life, and i suggest anyone that has the option to read it!

This book is not for the faint of heart -- and I hesitated for some time over how to rate this book. One does require a working knowledge of Tacitus' life and of Roman history and traditions. The book was written in the late 1950's when, annoyingly, certain classicists felt that it was beneath them to translate their citations from the original latin. Today we often regard this practice as having the patina of snobbishness and elitism. Again and again one encounters paragraphs where the key thought is embodied (entombed is more like it!)in one of Tactitus' remarks -- but in Latin!

This however, is a quibble. There is enough of this book that is readable to render it a vastly worthwhile undertaking. But be prepared! Have a good translation of Tacitus to hand -- together with a classical dictionary, a latin dictionary and Barrington's recently published Atlas of the Ancient World (which, by the way, was one of the most wondrous things to be published in the last few decades).

If you are prepared to put the work in, Syme, and Tacitus, will reward you. Victor Davis Hanson referred to The Roman Revolution, Syme's more accessible work, as a work of "Tacitean brilliance". And there is no question that Tacitus style and wit have rubbed off on Syme.

Here is Syme, encapsulating Cicero, on the writing of history:

"Now the fundamental laws of history, as all men know and concede, are veracity and honesty. But history calls for style and composition. It is not enough to record the events, they must be interpreted and judged, with movement and eloquence in keeping. The orator will supply what is needed."

And on the Roman view of the afterlife:

"The shadowy hope of a shadowy existence did not convince the traditional Roman of the governing order. The sole and solid propect of survival lay in good deeds, with good repute thereafter to posterity. Hence the preoccupation with fame -- sharp, insistent, and dominant. Even philosophers, who impugned the validity of the opinion, could not deny or repel the tempations of glory."

Let there be no mistake about it, Syme was one of the most thought-provoking and influential scholars of the last century. His death was a terrible loss. Syme's Tacitus is an excellent study (for it is not a biography)of Tactius, his work and his times. But the road to this book lies through The Roman Revolution -- read that first. If it is to your taste, drive on!

Ronald Syme has created an mediocre book, in my opinion. It is historical fiction, but the book sounds more like a textbook. The book summarizes the live and times of thet explorer and conquistador. I give it three stars because he had much originality in his story, some of which may have been hard to make up and still make sense. From a historical viewpoint, he only gets three stars because it is fiction. Much of his story was based on true fact except the minor details. I do recommend his book because it is a good learning opportunity about Cortes and the wonderful world of history.

Expensive book. Syme started this book back in 1939. It was suppose to be his first book, but ended up shelving it. Some 60 years later a profesor from Germany (Anthony Birley) took on the project of dusting off Syme's original manuscript and a bunch of unpublished papers on the region which is the second title of this book. Syme died in 1989, but not before leaving all of this material to have one more book published posthumously. I read only one other Syme book (Emperors and Biography) and despite the prose being a little dated it was a good read. The Provincial at Rome is the first 120 pages of this book and is an excellent survey of the Roman Senate. He also covers the time leading up to Augustus, but I have read much better books on the early Empire. He does have an interesting take on the justification of Augustus' rule as compared to that of Julius Caesar. The last 70 or so pages is about Rome's involvement in the Balkans and that is why I read this book. I have seen very little written about Rome and the Balkans. Syme was one of the few historians with published works on the subject. However, even Syme is only able to "outline" the history. He has some detail on Macedonia, Dardania, Illyricum, and a great chapter on Caesar's plan to carve-up Dacia and Partha. A good read, but dry in parts. It takes a real Roman history nut to read this stuff. It has a couple good maps. The best part is the editor's choice to use footnotes instead of endnotes. It's so much easier to read footnotes.