" I give Anthony Everitt credit for taking on this subject, which has largely remained untouched in the field of classical studies: that of the rise of Rome. Gibbon himself said that it was among the two most puzzling aspects of this society-the other being its fall of course a rite of passage for any classical scholar. The rise, however is harder, much harder: legend and fact are so intimate in the early days of Rome that it is very difficult, if not impossible to separate the two successfully. Everitt chooses the logical middle ground and uses portions of legend: timelines, basic events and so on, which is safe enough all the while weaving in what is archaeologically known. He did the same thing in his biographies of Augustus, Cicero, and Hadrian and it worked very well. It works well here too for that matter. Everitt also wisely stops his narrative at the death of Sulla instead of rehashing the old First Triumvirate, Caesar/Pompey Civil War Rivalry, assassination of the victorious Caesar, and rise of Augustus. He briefly mentions them, so this isn't necessarily a text that one would have to know significant background to enjoy.
What I didn't like: Everitt supports the idea of a moderate, compromising Republic that was tragically overthrown, but he also notes which I did appreciate that the Roman Republic was not suited for overseas expansion, indeed it was not suited for expansion at all. Everitt however seems to largely buy the argument that the Roman Constitution, despite its flaws was at heart an excellent system, tragically overthrown-the obligatory response for any Roman history it seems. However, the Roman Republican form was not at all 'stable' in a governmental sense. It was obstinate certainly in that it proved inflexible to change, but hardly perfect, and no amount of moderation, or compromise could have saved it. The Roman government was fundamentally a flawed system-basing a government around an aristocratic class produced a rule as disconnected from day to day life as any monarchy, or dictatorship. Those who governed the state virtually excised those lower class, whom they yet relied upon as Rome grew in size, yet leaving them powerless in the political sphere. Greed and self interest for political office, lucrative overseas provinces and conquest destroyed Roman Republicanism, not failure to moderate. Hence I cannot award Everitt's work more than three stars in that the history is great, but what it means, is flawed. "
— Elliott, 2/8/2014