The design and UX isn't done, Rob and Abbie, okkurrrr! 馃槍
layalam's review
4.0
This book has been sitting on my shelf for ages now, and I have been avoiding it, partially because of its size and partially because I thought it would read more like a fact book. However, I was as wrong as ever, I have had an inkling to read it for a while now and I finally picked it up. I sped through this novel it was so captivating and I was completely engrossed in the story, I felt like I was learning more about ancient Rome, but not in the way of facts. Also, the book is sectioned into four to five generations of the Pinarii family, this gives us different perspectives, and because of the books progressive characteristic you don't feel completely lost because you know a lot of the history of the family.
Anyway, fantastic book, definitely worth my time, and to be frankly honest, since it's such a page turner, you tend to forget about the size of the book and find yourself suddenly halfway through. I recommend this book to anyone who is interested in history or historical fiction, and let me tell that you will not be disappointed.
Anyway, fantastic book, definitely worth my time, and to be frankly honest, since it's such a page turner, you tend to forget about the size of the book and find yourself suddenly halfway through. I recommend this book to anyone who is interested in history or historical fiction, and let me tell that you will not be disappointed.
archytas's review against another edition
4.0
These aren't exactly "great" books, but as a romp through Roman history - awesomely entertaining. Saylor has a vivid imagination capable of incorporating vast amounts of detail about historical Rome into a narrative about possible lives.
This one is less interesting than its predecessor, simply because the cult of the individual makes Roman history less interesting. I ended up wishing - particularly given the title - that Saylor had just left Rome, and explored the growth of the Roman empire by the experiences of those who lived or moved to the provinces. But I'm a sucker for the central conceit of a bloodline that goes back to the first settlers in the areas being involved in major events. No idea why I like this so much - but it's satisfying on some "tying up loose ends" level.
This one is less interesting than its predecessor, simply because the cult of the individual makes Roman history less interesting. I ended up wishing - particularly given the title - that Saylor had just left Rome, and explored the growth of the Roman empire by the experiences of those who lived or moved to the provinces. But I'm a sucker for the central conceit of a bloodline that goes back to the first settlers in the areas being involved in major events. No idea why I like this so much - but it's satisfying on some "tying up loose ends" level.
smcleish's review against another edition
3.0
Originally published on my blog here in October 2011.
Why, when this is a sequel to [b:Roma|75503|Roma The Novel of Ancient Rome (Roma #1)|Steven Saylor|http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1312009659s/75503.jpg|73039], is Empire given an English language title, rather than using, say, Imperium?
Empire follows on from the earlier novel, with a small gap (less than that between some of the individual chapters which make up the story). It describes the story of Rome from AD 14 to AD 141 - the years in which the Roman Empire became an established institution. Once again, the viewpoint characters are the various members of the (fictional) Pinarius family which was established at the beginning of Rome's history, according to Roma.
As Saylor points out in the afterword, this is one of the best documented periods of Roman history, but the surviving histories concentrate (with varying degrees of accuracy and/or bias) on the colourful figures of the emperors, who include some of the best and some of the most monstrous ruler of any nation. Saylor complains that contemporary historians were excessively emperor-centred, but then goes on to do the same thing himself: the novel is really about how successive generations of the Pinarii interacted with the emperors of their day, becoming intimately involved with most of the emperors from Tiberius to Hadrian. So Empire, too, centres on the emperors, and, to be honest, this does not work too well. I ended up feeling that it would be more fun to work through the histories for myself, or read some novels which concentrate on just part of the period, such as Robert Graves' [b:I, Claudius|18765|I, Claudius (Claudius, #1)|Robert Graves|http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1348245799s/18765.jpg|4232388]. (Graves is a clear and acknowledged influence on Saylor's historical fiction.) The episodic nature of the story, as the focus moves from generation to generation, does not make a gripping novel (I felt much the same about Roma). Saylor is to my mind much better with the more focused detective stories he has written, whether set in ancient Rome or not.
The main lesson from the history as presented here is just how lucky you need to be to survive once you have attracted the attention of a Caligula, Nero or Domitian. Indeed, it becomes implausible that the family continues to exist after close contact with so many emperors.
It's worth reading, if you're vaguely interested in the history, but it's better to read the originals in a good translation - and they are generally available free online.
Why, when this is a sequel to [b:Roma|75503|Roma The Novel of Ancient Rome (Roma #1)|Steven Saylor|http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1312009659s/75503.jpg|73039], is Empire given an English language title, rather than using, say, Imperium?
Empire follows on from the earlier novel, with a small gap (less than that between some of the individual chapters which make up the story). It describes the story of Rome from AD 14 to AD 141 - the years in which the Roman Empire became an established institution. Once again, the viewpoint characters are the various members of the (fictional) Pinarius family which was established at the beginning of Rome's history, according to Roma.
As Saylor points out in the afterword, this is one of the best documented periods of Roman history, but the surviving histories concentrate (with varying degrees of accuracy and/or bias) on the colourful figures of the emperors, who include some of the best and some of the most monstrous ruler of any nation. Saylor complains that contemporary historians were excessively emperor-centred, but then goes on to do the same thing himself: the novel is really about how successive generations of the Pinarii interacted with the emperors of their day, becoming intimately involved with most of the emperors from Tiberius to Hadrian. So Empire, too, centres on the emperors, and, to be honest, this does not work too well. I ended up feeling that it would be more fun to work through the histories for myself, or read some novels which concentrate on just part of the period, such as Robert Graves' [b:I, Claudius|18765|I, Claudius (Claudius, #1)|Robert Graves|http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1348245799s/18765.jpg|4232388]. (Graves is a clear and acknowledged influence on Saylor's historical fiction.) The episodic nature of the story, as the focus moves from generation to generation, does not make a gripping novel (I felt much the same about Roma). Saylor is to my mind much better with the more focused detective stories he has written, whether set in ancient Rome or not.
The main lesson from the history as presented here is just how lucky you need to be to survive once you have attracted the attention of a Caligula, Nero or Domitian. Indeed, it becomes implausible that the family continues to exist after close contact with so many emperors.
It's worth reading, if you're vaguely interested in the history, but it's better to read the originals in a good translation - and they are generally available free online.
traveller1's review against another edition
3.0
An enjoyable read. Better than the first in the series. The story of the fascinum and the Pinarius family is carried forward through the early empire to the time of Hadrian. Well told, a few twists and turns. The darks side of the emperors is revealed.
linwearcamenel's review against another edition
5.0
I really enjoyed both this and the previous book, Roma. A great overview of the history with good stories and legends string together. The Roman emperors are always fun to read about (is there any other group of people quite as debauched?) Can't wait for the next installment, since the empire post-Hadrian is something rarely found in fiction.
razgon's review against another edition
3.0
A nice introduction to the Roman Empire, but a bit thin on historical facts, or rather, its hard to distinguish the historical facts from the fiction. I do really enjoy that the author lists his primary sources at the end though, and gives a short comment on his speculations since we can't take any of the old texts at face value.
rafalreadersinitiative's review against another edition
2.0
Drugi tom cyklu "Rzym" zapowiada艂 si臋 na bardziej interesuj膮cy - przecie偶 dzieje Cesarstwa, nietuzinkowe postaci kolejnych cezar贸w, unosz膮ca si臋 nad wszystkim atmosfera strachu, nieufno艣ci, cz臋sto przemocy, okrucie艅stwa i zepsucia, wszystkie te elementy sk艂ada膰 si臋 powinny na histori臋 emocjonuj膮c膮 i wstrz膮saj膮c膮. Tymczasem Saylor podszed艂 do wszelkich, mniej lub bardziej znanych, "rewelacji" w spos贸b nadzwyczaj asekuracyjny i dziwnie u艂adzony. Bardzo mi to przeszkadza艂o, w zestawieniu z niedawno czytan膮 powie艣ci膮 Gravesa, "Ja, Klaudiusz", kt贸rej autor nie kamuflowa艂 opisywanych wydarze艅, i nie stara艂 si臋 "ubiera膰 ich" w szaty swego rodzaju poprawno艣ci.
S艂abiej r贸wnie偶 wypadaj膮 tu losy rodu Pinariusz贸w. Historie poszczeg贸lnych potomk贸w tej rodziny - por贸wnuj膮c z perypetiami ich przodk贸w, opisanymi w tomie uprzednim - s膮 naprawd臋 ma艂o zajmuj膮ce a do tego poszczeg贸lne historie ocieraj膮 si臋 o wt贸rno艣膰 wzgl臋dem tych, kt贸re poznali艣my w "Rzymie". Jedynym, naprawd臋 interesuj膮cym, i do tego rozpisanym w nieco dwuznaczny spos贸b, jest epizod Lucjusza Pinariusza, z okresu panowania Domicjana, dotycz膮cy enigmatycznej postaci Apoloniusza z Tiany.
Ksi膮偶ka nadal sprawdza si臋 znakomicie, jako ilustracja obyczaj贸w, 偶ycia codziennego, polityki i kultury w staro偶ytnym Rzymie, jednak zabrak艂o tutaj zdecydowanie tego ludzkiego pierwiastka, czego艣, co mog艂oby czytelnika przej膮膰 i zainteresowa膰. Pierwszy tom w momenty przejmuj膮ce obfitowa艂, tym bardziej tego w艂a艣nie niedosyt odczu艂em w przypadku "Cesarstwa".
S艂abiej r贸wnie偶 wypadaj膮 tu losy rodu Pinariusz贸w. Historie poszczeg贸lnych potomk贸w tej rodziny - por贸wnuj膮c z perypetiami ich przodk贸w, opisanymi w tomie uprzednim - s膮 naprawd臋 ma艂o zajmuj膮ce a do tego poszczeg贸lne historie ocieraj膮 si臋 o wt贸rno艣膰 wzgl臋dem tych, kt贸re poznali艣my w "Rzymie". Jedynym, naprawd臋 interesuj膮cym, i do tego rozpisanym w nieco dwuznaczny spos贸b, jest epizod Lucjusza Pinariusza, z okresu panowania Domicjana, dotycz膮cy enigmatycznej postaci Apoloniusza z Tiany.
Ksi膮偶ka nadal sprawdza si臋 znakomicie, jako ilustracja obyczaj贸w, 偶ycia codziennego, polityki i kultury w staro偶ytnym Rzymie, jednak zabrak艂o tutaj zdecydowanie tego ludzkiego pierwiastka, czego艣, co mog艂oby czytelnika przej膮膰 i zainteresowa膰. Pierwszy tom w momenty przejmuj膮ce obfitowa艂, tym bardziej tego w艂a艣nie niedosyt odczu艂em w przypadku "Cesarstwa".
More...