Roma. Nascita di una grande potenza

The book highlights key moments in Rome's rise, but I wonder what motivated the author to emphasize these specific events over others. Did the author find these periods more compelling or pivotal?

While I appreciated the depth, some sections felt dense and complex. Was this pacing a deliberate choice to reflect the tumult of Rome’s rise, or could it have been streamlined?

Rome's history is immense, and I’m curious how the author balanced thoroughness with narrative flow. What criteria guided the selection of certain stories over others?