Reddit mentions of The Roman Revolution

I would say in the period immediately following the Second Punic War.

Rome had just defeat it's greatest enemy, and would have no serious threats to it's existence for hundreds of years. The spoils from Carthage greatly enhanced the wealth of it's people (especially the elite), yet it was not quite to the point where decadence and corruption had completely overtaken the people.

The army was strong, and still owed loyalty to the state, instead of individual generals in the post-Marian reforms era. Of course, some of Rome's greatest commanders (namely, Scipio Africanus) were still alive and kicking. Territories in Spain, Sicily, and North Africa were in the process of annexation (so, perhaps dock a few points for stability there).

It would be quick turnaround in a few years, once the Glory-Seekers (i.e., Marius, Sulla, the Triumvirates), came around. But at the end of the 3rd century BCE, things were going pretty well for Roma.

I'd really disagree with the "Pax Romana" period of Augustus' reign being the best. To me, even that period looked nice on the outside, but was rotten to the core. We have a tendency to romanticize the early empire, I think. Check out Ronald Syme's book, The Roman Revolution. One might make the argument that it's a bit dated at this point, but I think it gives some very interesting insight into the Caesars, and helps de-romanticize them.

While Gibbon is a lot of fun to read, he is in no way authoritative, his work is over 200 years old after all. I think there may have been some new research since then. :)

There are always the Romans/Greeks themselves of course, Tacitus, Livy, Seutonius, Plutarch, Polybius etc. but they can be a bit overwhelming for a newcomer.

Here's some newer stuff.

M. Carry A History of Rome Came out in the mid 1960s. Meant for undergrads. Very readable.

Robin Lane Fox The Classical World This came out in 2006 and is meant for the educated general reader. Very well written and sourced. A breeze to read and as a bonus you get the Greeks too.

Michael Grant was an excellent classicist who wrote for the educated general public. A great writer, always a fun read and you can often find some of his works at used bookstores.

Ronald Symes The Roman Revolution This is for once you've got a few books under your belt because the names and terms are going to come at you fast. You have to know your Claudius from your Clodius. An account of how Augustus managed to do what Caesar couldn't.

It's a fascinating history. I've been reading it for 25 years, I envy you your first plunge.

For starters, there really isn't such a thing as a "middle-class citizen" in the Roman Empire. Roman social classes did not work that way, and wealth actually had less bearing on your existence than social status, inherited mainly from your ancestors.

The best resource for this sort of thing would be Jerome Carcopino's Daily Life in Ancient Rome. Carcopino was the premier classical social historian of his day, and most of what he says is still very much to date. To say more than that would honestly not get you anywhere. The lives of citizens varied pretty wildly depending on social status, wealth, and of course location (life within the city would be very different from life in certain provinces, which would differ even more from each other). A very few things can be said in general, however. The vast majority of the Roman Empire was enjoying the benefits of peace, a blessing that was not lost on them after nearly a hundred years of civil wars and nearly a hundred and fifty years of political strife within the noble orders. The reign of Augustus was also blessed with an extreme degree of wealth, which Rome and her empire had not seen the likes of before, and which was even more welcome considering the extreme deprivation that most people had suffered duing the destructive civil wars. Among the lower social orders the climate of Augustus' reign from the period after the War of Actium was incredibly welcome, providing great social freedom and opportunity, as well as unheard-of wealth. The upper social orders, mainly the survivors of the nobility, were a mixed bag. Most of the remaining prominent members of the senate and nobility had originally been lowlives under Caesar or Octavian, and had joined them because they had hoped that supporting them would help pay off their massive debts from extravagance. The rest were the few survivors of the old nobility that had been sure to kiss up to the dictators, as well as aspiring tyrants like Pompey and Crassus. Since the beginning of the 1st Century, B.C. the political climate at Rome had increasingly been one of power slipping more and more firmly into the hands of private individuals, and as a result there were throughout the century great purges, either through proscriptions or wars, of the members of the nobility. As a result, there was great dissatisfaction with Augustus' seizure of power among the nobles, but for them Rome was rather like a police state, since any disloyal actions would result in Praetorians knocking on their doors. These attitudes are echoed by Virgil and Livy, who had mixed feelings about Augustus, by Cicero (for example, in his Philippics--although all of this is technically before Augustus' reign, it still very much applies, as the loss of political freedom had already been cemented in place following Caesar's victory over the Pompeians), and even by Horace, who owed Augustus and Maecenas everything but who nevertheless could not quite bring himself to agree with the autocracy. For more on the destruction of the Roman political system, see Ronald Syme's groundbreaking work, The Roman Revolution, which was the first study (on the eve of Hitler's declaration of war, to whom Augustus is implicitly compared) to challenge the old Victorian view of Augustus as the "benign dictator."

Syme's The Roman Revolution is in my opinion still the orthodox text almost 100 years after it was written (1939 I think). There's several biographies of Caesar that come to mind, most powerfully Meier's and Goldsworthy's. Of these two I prefer Meier's, but I think Badian had a fairly scathing review of it published somewhere. The most recent thing I'm aware of (although I haven't read it) is Goodman's Rome's Last Citizen.

And of course there's always Plutarch, Appian, Cicero's letters (which contain some written by and to Cato). I don't think there's any substitute for starting with the ancient sources.

Ronald Syme's Roman Revolution would be my 'scholarly 'recommendation.

Chronicle of the Roman Republic/Empire would be my recommendation for a true introductory look and for use as a quick reference when reading more in depth texts, plus its pretty.

A good middle of the road intro text to the republic although the translation is a little clunky

This book also comes highly recommended but I haven't read it myself.

I'll suggest two:

Augustus: Introduction to the Life of an Emperor (Karl Galinsky). This is recent, realistic but not jaundiced.

The Roman Revolution. This is a classic work, tough to read, now old, but a very interesting way of getting at the character and life of Augustus (by examining the course of events rather than dissecting his background and personality).

I'm not personally fond of Everitt's work. He seems to make unfounded conjectures (like his speculation at the beginning of his book on Augustus) and unjustifiable statements (like calling Cicero Rome's greatest politician...that one belongs to Augustus.)