Nathan Rosenstein

This is an academic work with narrow appeal, i.e., to those with a particular knowledge and interest in the history of the Roman Republic. For those people, which include myself, the book is a worthwhile read. For those who want a more general overview of Ancient Rome, better look elsewhere.

The author argues that social and cultural procedures were established by the Roman aristocracy to ensure its secure place as leaders of the republic. This concept is not new. However, the author's particular arguments are interesting. He notes evidence which seems to demonstrate that Roman generals who lost battles nonetheless were elected to further office just as frequently as victorious generals. Given Rome's militaristic ways, this result seems inexplicable.

Imperatores Victi argues that this result was possible because Romans viewed an aristocratic general's responsibilities very different than we do today. It was less important how strategically or tactically gifted the general was. More important was his ability to set an example of bravery even in defeat, the observance of religious procedure prior to battle and the soldiers personal refusal to accept anything less than victory or death fighting in the lines.

An interesting argument whether or not correct. I would have rated this work higher, but for the author's rather stilted writing style.… (meer)