“From Edward Gibbon onward, historians have pondered the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. But how was the empire won? What was it that enabled a small Italian market town by a ford on the river Tiber to conquer the known world?”

Rome, you might have heard, did pretty well for itself. The Western Roman Empire lasted just over a millennia (including the earlier Republic), while the Eastern managed closer to two. To put that in perspective, the Americans have so far managed about 250 years, and as a nation they’re not exactly bursting with youthful vigour. So how, you might ask, did the Romans manage it?

Everitt doesn’t answer this question directly, but he does tell the story of the early years of Rome, from its beginnings as an early hill town, overshadowed by nearby Greek and Etruscan settlements, to its climactic struggles with Carthage that would catapult it to world-power status. Rome saw its strength as government: they could not compete with the Greeks for poetry or culture, they argued, but they argued their ability to govern and organize a state was second to none. What makes it interesting, though, is the malleability of that government. In early Rome, there were no tribunes, no aediles – laws were kept secret, as holy books. It would be centuries before the Roman government became recognizable in its better-known form, the product of an ongoing struggle between different factions. Cicero would claim that was its strength: Greek cities could be ruled by one great man, but Rome was ruled by generations of wise ones. I’m not sure any country today could say the same, but then the Roman Republic did turn into a dictatorial empire, so it isn’t all role model.

Everitt’s strength is in the small details that help bring the ancient world to life. The Romans were helped in building a fleet, for example, because a Carthaginian ship was shipwrecked on Italy: building a replica was made easier because the Carthaginians used to mark all their warship pieces with different letters, so they could ship the pieces as a flatpack and then easily assemble them in port. For all that, I have to admit Everitt’s not to my taste. He tends to hold strong opinions, and cast judgment quickly on his subjects: I’m sure that suits some readers, but for me when there is no evidence, I prefer humility over unprovable claims and ambiguous judgments. Still, it’s a fascinating question, and if its one you’re interested in, the book provides a wealth of detail and information.