Enjoy fast, free delivery, exclusive deals, and award-winning movies & TV shows with Prime
Try Prime
and start saving today with fast, free delivery
Amazon Prime includes:
Fast, FREE Delivery is available to Prime members. To join, select "Try Amazon Prime and start saving today with Fast, FREE Delivery" below the Add to Cart button.
Amazon Prime members enjoy:- Cardmembers earn 5% Back at Amazon.com with a Prime Credit Card.
- Unlimited Free Two-Day Delivery
- Streaming of thousands of movies and TV shows with limited ads on Prime Video.
- A Kindle book to borrow for free each month - with no due dates
- Listen to over 2 million songs and hundreds of playlists
- Unlimited photo storage with anywhere access
Important: Your credit card will NOT be charged when you start your free trial or if you cancel during the trial period. If you're happy with Amazon Prime, do nothing. At the end of the free trial, your membership will automatically upgrade to a monthly membership.
-21% $23.64$23.64
Ships from: Amazon.com Sold by: Amazon.com
$11.38$11.38
Ships from: Amazon Sold by: Parcel & Package
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
OK
Taken at the Flood: The Roman Conquest of Greece (Ancient Warfare and Civilization) Hardcover – April 7, 2014
Purchase options and add-ons
The 53-year period Polybius had in mind stretched from the start of the Second Punic War in 219 BCE until 167, when Rome overthrew the Macedonian monarchy and divided the country into four independent republics. 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 of 229, and climaxed later with the infamous destruction of Corinth in 146.
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 ever produced: the Macedonian phalanx and Roman legion. The result is an absorbing account of a critical chapter in Rome's mastery of the Mediterranean.
- Print length312 pages
- LanguageEnglish
- PublisherOxford University Press
- Publication dateApril 7, 2014
- Dimensions9.3 x 6.1 x 1.2 inches
- ISBN-100199916896
- ISBN-13978-0199916894
Books with Buzz
Discover the latest buzz-worthy books, from mysteries and romance to humor and nonfiction. Explore more
Frequently bought together
Similar items that may ship from close to you
Editorial Reviews
Review
Book Description
About the Author
Product details
- Publisher : Oxford University Press; Illustrated edition (April 7, 2014)
- Language : English
- Hardcover : 312 pages
- ISBN-10 : 0199916896
- ISBN-13 : 978-0199916894
- Item Weight : 1.3 pounds
- Dimensions : 9.3 x 6.1 x 1.2 inches
- Best Sellers Rank: #927,564 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #987 in Ancient Greek History (Books)
- #1,548 in Ancient Roman History (Books)
- #23,434 in Military History (Books)
- Customer Reviews:
About the author
Robin Anthony Herschel Waterfield (born 1952) is a British classical scholar, translator, editor, and writer of children's fiction. Waterfield was born in 1952, and studied Classics at Manchester University, where he achieved a first class degree in 1974. He went on to research ancient Greek philosophy at King's College, Cambridge until 1978, after which he became a lecturer at Newcastle University and then St Andrews University. He later became a copy-editor and later a commissioning editor for Penguin Books. He is now a self-employed writer, living in southern Greece, where he has Greek citizenship.
Bio from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on AmazonReviews with images
-
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
“The ruin of Carthage is indeed considered to have been the greatest of calamities, but when we come to think of it the fate of Greece was no less terrible and in some ways even more so. For the Carthaginians at least left to posterity some ground, however slight, for defending their cause, but the Greeks gave no plausible pretext to anyone who wished to support them and acquit them of error. And again the Carthaginians, having been utterly exterminated by the calamity which overtook them, were for the future insensible of their sufferings, but the Greeks, continuing to witness their calamities, handed on from father to son the memory of their misfortune. So that inasmuch as we consider that those who remain alive and suffer punishment are more to be pitied than those who perished in the actual struggle, we should consider the calamities that then befell Greece more worthy of pity than the fate of Carthage, unless in pronouncing on the matter we discard all notion of what is decorous and noble, and keep our eyes only on material advantage. Everyone will acknowledge the truth of what I say if he recalls what are thought to have been the greatest misfortunes that had befallen Greece and compares them with my present narrative.”
The very year that Carthage was destroyed, the Romans also destroyed the magnificent Greek city of Corinth and killed or enslaved the entire population. They took all that was valuable to Rome and the Consul Lucius Mummius Achaeaicus presented a vast amount of Corinthian booty to the Roman populace when he marched through the streets of Rome in his triumph.
In Taken at the Flood: The Roman Conquest of Greece, Robin Waterfield goes into detail about the long but inexorable process of Rome’s ever increasing domination of its Eastern neighbor. Rome first became involved in Greece in 229 B.C. in the First Illyrian War. The Queen of Illyria, Tueta, was allegedly encouraging pirate activities along the Adriatic coast, and when Roman envoys went to discuss the matter with her, she had them killed. Rome’s military intervention was limited to Illyria at the time.
During the Second Punic war King Phillip V made a treaty with Hannibal offering mutual assistance and co-operation. This led to wars between Rome and Macedon in 214 B.C. and again in 200 B.C. The Romans defeated Phillip decisively at the battle Cynocephalae in 197 B.C.
In 196 B.C. the Roman Proconsul Titus Quinctius Flamininus proclaimed at the Isthmian Games that Rome was withdrawing its military forces from Greece and that it was the policy of Rome that the Greek city states would be free. The slogan was “Freedom for the Greeks.” Waterfield makes it clear that, even at that time, “freedom” was conditional-states friendly to the interests of Rome would fare much better than states whose rulers opposed Rome. Rome would control Greek polity by remote control, relying on oligarchs friendly to Rome. It wasn’t long before the velvet glove was replaced by the iron fist.
Over the next decades it became more and more clear that Rome was pulling the strings. In 168 B.C. Rome, under Counsel Lucius Aemilius Paullus, destroyed the Kingdom of Macedonia after defeating King Persius at the battle of Pydna. Macedonia was divided into four sections and eventually became a Roman Province. At that time, the Romans also took the liberty of devastating the region of Epirus and selling 150,000 Epirotes into slavery. In the aftermath of the war Rome assured that all of the Greek polities had pro Roman leadership, and had many Greeks suspected of being anti-Roman taken as hostages and interned in Italy. One of these was the historian Polybius. Polybius had the good fortune of friendship with the Roman Consul Lucius Aemilius Paullus and his sons and was able to make the best of a bad situation.
Polybius evidently had the notion that the Greeks brought much of their misery upon themselves through their resistance to Roman rule. After the disastrous Achaean revolt of 146 B.C. and the total destruction of Corinth, Polybius attempted to mediate between the Romans and the Greeks and get the Greeks to see that resistance was futile.
By any measure, Roman dominance of Greece was disastrous for the Greeks. Many regions of Greece were depopulated and their inhabitants reduced to poverty. The conquest of Greece brought vast amounts of wealth to the Roman treasury as various victorious Consuls looted Greek temples and public monuments of their treasures to display in their triumphs. Many of the Greek polities were also compelled to pay tribute to Rome.
Waterfield points out that the Greeks and the Romans had a complex relationship. Much of the art, architecture, theater and literature that we’ve come to associate with Rome had its roots in Greek culture. Many upper class Romans were bilingual in Greek and admired Greek culture. On the other hand, there was contempt for contemporary Greeks as being effete and obsequious and not up to Roman standards of virtue. Some influential Romans, notably Cato the Elder warned against the insidious influence of the Greeks. In the long run Rome incorporated much of Greek culture, leading the Roman Poet Horace to write: “Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit.” Captive Greece took her captor captive. Greece may have captivated Rome, but if the above quote by Polybius is any indication, Greece did not benefit from the transaction.
Reviewed in the United States on May 26, 2015
“The ruin of Carthage is indeed considered to have been the greatest of calamities, but when we come to think of it the fate of Greece was no less terrible and in some ways even more so. For the Carthaginians at least left to posterity some ground, however slight, for defending their cause, but the Greeks gave no plausible pretext to anyone who wished to support them and acquit them of error. And again the Carthaginians, having been utterly exterminated by the calamity which overtook them, were for the future insensible of their sufferings, but the Greeks, continuing to witness their calamities, handed on from father to son the memory of their misfortune. So that inasmuch as we consider that those who remain alive and suffer punishment are more to be pitied than those who perished in the actual struggle, we should consider the calamities that then befell Greece more worthy of pity than the fate of Carthage, unless in pronouncing on the matter we discard all notion of what is decorous and noble, and keep our eyes only on material advantage. Everyone will acknowledge the truth of what I say if he recalls what are thought to have been the greatest misfortunes that had befallen Greece and compares them with my present narrative.”
The very year that Carthage was destroyed, the Romans also destroyed the magnificent Greek city of Corinth and killed or enslaved the entire population. They took all that was valuable to Rome and the Consul Lucius Mummius Achaeaicus presented a vast amount of Corinthian booty to the Roman populace when he marched through the streets of Rome in his triumph.
In Taken at the Flood: The Roman Conquest of Greece, Robin Waterfield goes into detail about the long but inexorable process of Rome’s ever increasing domination of its Eastern neighbor. Rome first became involved in Greece in 229 B.C. in the First Illyrian War. The Queen of Illyria, Tueta, was allegedly encouraging pirate activities along the Adriatic coast, and when Roman envoys went to discuss the matter with her, she had them killed. Rome’s military intervention was limited to Illyria at the time.
During the Second Punic war King Phillip V made a treaty with Hannibal offering mutual assistance and co-operation. This led to wars between Rome and Macedon in 214 B.C. and again in 200 B.C. The Romans defeated Phillip decisively at the battle Cynocephalae in 197 B.C.
In 196 B.C. the Roman Proconsul Titus Quinctius Flamininus proclaimed at the Isthmian Games that Rome was withdrawing its military forces from Greece and that it was the policy of Rome that the Greek city states would be free. The slogan was “Freedom for the Greeks.” Waterfield makes it clear that, even at that time, “freedom” was conditional-states friendly to the interests of Rome would fare much better than states whose rulers opposed Rome. Rome would control Greek polity by remote control, relying on oligarchs friendly to Rome. It wasn’t long before the velvet glove was replaced by the iron fist.
Over the next decades it became more and more clear that Rome was pulling the strings. In 168 B.C. Rome, under Counsel Lucius Aemilius Paullus, destroyed the Kingdom of Macedonia after defeating King Persius at the battle of Pydna. Macedonia was divided into four sections and eventually became a Roman Province. At that time, the Romans also took the liberty of devastating the region of Epirus and selling 150,000 Epirotes into slavery. In the aftermath of the war Rome assured that all of the Greek polities had pro Roman leadership, and had many Greeks suspected of being anti-Roman taken as hostages and interned in Italy. One of these was the historian Polybius. Polybius had the good fortune of friendship with the Roman Consul Lucius Aemilius Paullus and his sons and was able to make the best of a bad situation.
Polybius evidently had the notion that the Greeks brought much of their misery upon themselves through their resistance to Roman rule. After the disastrous Achaean revolt of 146 B.C. and the total destruction of Corinth, Polybius attempted to mediate between the Romans and the Greeks and get the Greeks to see that resistance was futile.
By any measure, Roman dominance of Greece was disastrous for the Greeks. Many regions of Greece were depopulated and their inhabitants reduced to poverty. The conquest of Greece brought vast amounts of wealth to the Roman treasury as various victorious Consuls looted Greek temples and public monuments of their treasures to display in their triumphs. Many of the Greek polities were also compelled to pay tribute to Rome.
Waterfield points out that the Greeks and the Romans had a complex relationship. Much of the art, architecture, theater and literature that we’ve come to associate with Rome had its roots in Greek culture. Many upper class Romans were bilingual in Greek and admired Greek culture. On the other hand, there was contempt for contemporary Greeks as being effete and obsequious and not up to Roman standards of virtue. Some influential Romans, notably Cato the Elder warned against the insidious influence of the Greeks. In the long run Rome incorporated much of Greek culture, leading the Roman Poet Horace to write: “Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit.” Captive Greece took her captor captive. Greece may have captivated Rome, but if the above quote by Polybius is any indication, Greece did not benefit from the transaction.
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. Once is in the preface where another author’s comparison of Roman indirect influence to post-WWII US international relations is noted. Waterfield points out that this is not the purpose of the book, nor his area of expertise.
A second instance is on page 101 where it is stated that “The Romans wanted to be players in the Greek world without being drawn into colonialism; they wanted political control without administrative control, just as over recent decades the USA has avoided structures of empire while ensuring a widespread hegemony.” This may be a somewhat clumsy way to make a point and has understandably put off some readers. 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. Read them we should, they have both been well referenced by Waterfield, and translated by him too in the case of Polybius. 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 have built upon and argued against the work of their predecessors. The Roman conquest of Greece is replete with competing theories.
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.
On the whole, this is a well presented and mostly uncontroversial short history. The bibliography references primary and secondary sources for further study. Waterfield indicates what he considers to be “indispensable launch pads for further inquiry” from across the spectrum of Roman history writing. 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.
Top reviews from other countries
Highly recommended.
Waterfield sketches the stages by which this process was accomplished, offering an overview of the four Macedonian Wars and the associated campaigns in the Balkans and Asia Minor. On one level this is a slightly old fashioned,great men and battles, account, though taking full account of the political skulduggery in the background and with plenty of analysis of the mechanisms of indirect control favoured by Rome at this stage. He is certainly not guilty of playing down the sheer levels of violence and destruction in the process- there are precious few untarnished heroes on display here (perhaps Perseus of Macedon comes closest). He manages to keep a clear focus on events in Greece even though a great deal else was going on at the same time.- though at times it is very hard to keep track of who was allying with whom and keep the Achaean and Aetolian Leagues distinct. I would have happily traded Waterfield's very 21st century moralising about the evils of imperialism for a few pages giving a clear outline of the balance of power and relationship between the actors in Greek politics on the eve of Roman intervention, as well as an explanation of how the various leagues actually worked.
One also senses a slight anti-Roman animus from a man who has made his name as a historian of Greece. Rome's allies in Greece tend to attract derogatory epithets like "quisling" and one occasionally senses double standards at play. The Greek world was hardly in a state of pre-lapsarian innocence before the Romans turned up and "Greek Freedom" implied the right to slaughter one's fellow Greeks from the next polis in large numbers. Obsequiousness to powerful outsiders was the norm well before Rome arrived on the scene (Hellenistic monarchs, after all, expected to be worshipped almost as gods). Rome may have lost whatever innocence it possessed in asserting control over Greece, but it was arguably just more successful in playing the ruthless game of Greek politics than anyone since Alexander the Great