Now I get to be the annoying guy who bashes on Cicero and has evidence to back up the claim that Julius Caesar wasn’t actually that bad. ( )

A fascinating look at Roman History, from a distinctly plebian/proletarian view, which is fairly unique in history.

The main thesis of the book, was that Julius Caesar was assassinated not for being a tyrant, but for taking away power and profits from the wealthy elite, and giving them to the people. The book details his policies and reforms he proposed and enacted, such as debt relief, rent control, landlord taxes, redistribution of wealth and land from wealthy elites to middle/lower classes. Considering leftists 2000 years later are still being assassinated for similar policies, it shows that society has not really changed much in 2 millennia.

The book was interesting, but could get a little dry at times. If I were a little more familiar with the big names at the time, it probably would have been vastly easier to follow. For that reason, I'd recommend this to anyone who has read anything about Roman History before, but maybe not for someone's first time. ( )

A good alternative view to the dominant narrative. Not a very good historian though. ( )

An absolutely outstanding history of late Rome. Focuses on the concerns of the common people and how deluded historians (Parenti calls them "Gentleman historians") in their prejudice for the wealthy elite, have denigrated Julius Caesar's record of accomplishments.

Parenti's explanation of a "people's history" is excellent. With few exceptions, he places historians in the same class as the wealthy elite who distort history for their own purposes and propaganda.

My saddest revelation was that Cicero was a mouthpiece and wannabe for the rich nobility. Parenti reveals him as small and grubby. What a shame. ( )

A "people's history," like Howard Zinn. A very different viewpoint on Caesar: a champion of the people (lower and middle classes) rather than a tyrant. ( )