This is ancient history as it used to be practised, in this case, in 1976. No concerns here with identities, perspectives and discourse. Ogilvie typifies classical history as practised after the war. He relies very much on the written sources - being a historian - but he does make some use of archaeological evidence. His attitude to the written sources (produced, mostly, many centuries after the events they describe) is critical but constructive. Ogilvie rejects the traditional stories found in sources such as Livy as fabrications based on Greek myth and on folklore, but he does search for the general and likely trends behind those stories.

His book is basically a history of early Rome in the late sixth century and the fifth century BC, ending with the Gallic sack of the city in 390 BC. He places Rome in its Etruscan context and sees Rome of the Tarquins as exercising hegemony over Latium. This erodes after the expulsion of the kings and a weakened Rome is forced to come to terms with its near neighbours. The early constitution of the Republic was not as clear cut as later sources portrayed.

The author spends some time weighing options on specific points of early Roman history. These afford a glimpse of a scholar at work, but can also be glossed over by those wanting more overview. These points of detail are a reminder of the paucity of source material that we have for early Roman history and how reliant we are on the historian's reasoning and judgement.