/lit/ - Literature

>>17440858
>but I got annoyed with the unapologetic revisionism
Why did she revise?

>>17440879
*what not why

>>17440858
Livy
I suppose there’s also Goldsworthy’s biographies on Caesar and Augustus

>>17440858
Tom Holland's books Rubicon and Dynasty are both good.

>>17440858
>I got annoyed with the unapologetic revisionism

>>17440858
The Romans had historians, read them
>>17441099
You don’t understand what the rotated profile of that head represents

>>17441072
>Livy
lol. based retard
>biographies
no thanks, I asked for an overview of Rome
>>17441096
thanks, will look into it
>>17441110
>Romans had historians
based retard

>>17440858
Mary Beard is an intellectually dishonest hack who filters Roman history through a modern moral and ethical lense.

>>17442250
would you expect anything else from a woman?

>>17442267
not him, but yes
i think we should hold women to a reasonable standard as opposed to letting them get away with all the bullshit just because they're women

>>17442322
would you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree?

>>17442333
yes
fish suck

>>17441122
You are literally just as bad as wikipedia authors "hurr durr no you CANNOT read primary sources. you must have someone read them for you and then base your understanding off of their subsequent reports". No one genuinely believes that Livy represents the actual historical truth of early Rome

>>17442267
No, part of me wishes I expected more but another part of me knows that I'm only fooling myself. The only thing I know is that I always check the bibliography of any modern book i buy about Rome because if I see her name extensively I disregard the book entirely. I got burnt when i bought ten caesars and instead of learning about the men who were actually emperor, I learned about the strong important women that were the REAL driving force behind their rule.

>>17441122
You're the fucking retard ITT, faggot.

>>17442347
Come jump in the ocean and say that to my face faggot

>>17442250
yes, that's why I dropped it in spite of being very interested in the source material.
>>17442363
>No one genuinely believes that Livy represents the actual historical truth of early Rome
then why would you recommend reading him to learn the actual historical truth of early Rome, like I'm hoping to do?
>>17442487
reading Roman historians to learn Rome's history is like reading Aristotle to learn physics

>>17442554
Anon, don't listen to other Anon. I'm in a 400 level roman history course and we are reading livy straight up. He's a perfectly good place to start. he even describes in his first book about how history should be seen as a model of how to live life in the present. he admits his own short comings as an imperfect historian and I would say that by reading livy you might not get a100% accurate version of what we know today due to physical evidence, but you will feel like a Roman while reading him. He writes the way the Romans thought at the time and that's good enough for me. just pretend you're a patrician in his villa reading about the exploits of your ancestors.

>>17442582
I think I replied to the wrong person. IDK I've been up for like three days straight now fuck me

>>17442582
I'm not opposed to reading him and other primary sources eventually, I just think it's a bad place to start if my goal is to understand what actually happened. You have the benefit in your course of a professor able to point out inaccuracies in Livy's account, but I don't have that. So my ideal would be to read something from the past 50 years, with up-to-date information on what we know, at which point I will feel more comfortable reading primary sources without worrying I'm going to start believing things that aren't true.

>>17440858
MOMMSEN
>MOMMSEN
MOMMSEN
>MOMMSEN
MOMMSEN
>MOMMSEN
MOMMSEN
>MOMMSEN
MOMMSEN
>MOMMSEN
MOMMSEN
>MOMMSEN
MOMMSEN
>MOMMSEN
MOMMSEN
>MOMMSEN

>>17442598
That's a good point, honestly my best advice would be to find a specific topic within Roman history that you like and then branch out from there. My love of Rome started with Caesar but moved to Marcus Aurelius and now I find myself reading everything I can about Julian (the apostate) as you read try writing down questions you have and then try to fill in the blanks. let me grab my textbook though, it's fairly concise and not to dull, I'll get you the ISBN once I get back to my dorm

>>17442622
>Julian (the apostate)
Is the Gore Vidal book good? I love Burr
Alexander Hamilton is Norman Mailer

>reading a NYT bestseller to learn history
Fucking americans.

>>17442622
Julius Caesar is definitely the period I've found most fascinating, I had a bunch of books as a kid about Rome and that was my favorite part, but SPQR really piqued my interest in earlier stuff, all the stuff about the very early origins of Rome, how it compared to the Roman's beliefs about how Rome came to be, etc. But I suppose finding anything that covers a large period is going to be difficult, probably better off, as you said, to pick a couple specifics to start with.
>>17442646
This is a thread asking for alternate recommendations. You're welcome to provide them.

>>17442636
I'm not familiar with that book actually, do you mind telling me about it? I finished Alice Gardner's Julian: Philosopher and Emperor which is part of the Heroes of the Nations series. It was really wonderful but it might be difficult to find due to its obscurity. (I've been looking for a copy to buy from thrift books and haven't managed to find one) and now I've moved on to the english translation of Gaetano Negri's 2 volume Julian the Apostate which has been nothing short of jaw dropping in its treatment of Julian, it's just so humanizing.

>>17442613
based!

>>17442613
is it still relevant?

>>17442658
The problem is that OP is incapable of recognizing an actual history book, let alone a good one.
The best I could suggest would be looking for digital copies of schoolbooks, possibly from different years/countries to catch blatant errors.

>>17442659
for example who here can relate to this passage: "While he was yet in his student days, his young and enthusiastic mind saturated with the imaginations of a bygone era, he felt bitter scorn and indignation in seeing this culture and this world receding before the inflowing tide of new principles totally foreign to his whole view of life."

>>17442658
So my text book is "A brief history of the Romans" isbn 978-0-19-998755-9

>>17442681
I wasn't looking for a history book. I wasn't looking for anything. It was recommended to me and sounded interesting, so I bought it.
>>17442726
ty, ordering now

>>17442759
>reading history
>complaining that the book is not accurate
>but not looking for an history book
???

>>17440858
>>>/his/

>>17442759
anytime friend, I really love sharing things about Rome and the ancient world in general. Like all civilizations the Romans had their faults but it doesn't mean there isn't something we can learn from in the way they lived. I hope as you learn more you come to share my passion and spread it to other people!

>>17442554
[retardation intensifies]

>>17442791
Ask me how I know you were vaccinated
>>17442792
unironically good advice, thank you
>>17442795
thank you anon, I've always been interested in rome but never put in any serious study. studied latin for a year and that was fun. I read ~200 pages of SPQR a couple years ago then dropped it. then recently started reading Seneca recently and it rekindled my interest. looking forward to learning more.

>>17442670
IMHO you have to know what he and Gibbon said and why in order to enter the real conversation. Like Plato in philosophy.
>>17442659
It's a comfy and not very difficult novel about the demise of natural aristocracy and republicanism in the face of capitalistic mob democracy. Speculative/alternate history. Clearly about GV's time.
ACTUAL NON-MEME SPOILER
Martin Van Buren is Burr's bastard.
Stuff like that
>Alice Gardner's Julian: Philosopher and Emperor
Thank you

>>17440858
From the Gracchi to Nero.

>>17440858
If you're going to buy books by women, buy them used so as to not encourage them to write more.

I prefer to exclusively read primary documents and live in a fantasy world where Alexander cut the Gordian Knot

I've seen a lot of replies saying she's revisionist, views things through a modern lens etc but there's been literally 0 evidence of this posted. What did she say that made all the /lit/virgins seethe?

>>17443599
Many people on this website consider the Old Testament to be historical, what do you expect?

>>17443599
she compares things to current events a lot, to the extent it feels like she's trying too hard to make Romans relatable. There are definitely observations and connections she makes that seem salient, but many seem like she's grasping at straws or willfully misreading the history to make it parallel the modern world.

That said, I mostly stopped reading it because I was sick of the comparisons, not because I thought the comparisons were necessarily inaccurate.

>>17443692
>it feels like she's trying too hard to make Romans relatable.
I mean, you might be right but have you seen Pompeii and the fucking graffitti there?
They give "you are here forever" a whole new meaning.

>>17443692
>she compares things to current events a lot, to the extent it feels like she's trying too hard to make Romans relatable.
I welcome this approach to history. History has long been a story of heroes and villains, battles and borders. It's wonderful but after a while you've heard it all, and what does it mean to a wagie fuck like me? I do enjoy seeing the life of common people, because that's what my life would have been like.
Also
>>17443701

>>17443692
>she compares things to current events a lot, to the extent it feels like she's trying too hard to make Romans relatable.
This isn't really out of place for a pop-history book. The Romans were very relatable, the general public are largely unaware of this and just remember them in vague notions.
I don't see this as a valid criticism of her work to be honest, people should've known what they were buying.

>>17443701
>>17443744
that's fair, I mean, some of it I think is cool. But I care more about it feeling real than relatable -- relatable definitely makes something feel real, but you can make it feel real in other ways, too. I think just going into different figures' motivations, personal failings, etc. makes the history a lot more interesting, but you don't necessarily need to convince me that Romans and Americans had the exact same values for me to feel engaged.

>>17443774
It's the romans man. What's left to be said about them?

>>17443773
the Romans were relatable to /lit/. because they were gay.

>>17443773
I wasn't criticizing it, I was saying why I stopped reading it and wanted something else.
>should've known what you were buying
I didn't read the book before buying it, you're right
>>17443782
idk? I figured people publish books on history every once in a while even if there's nothing new to say just to sell copies. That's how it seems to be in other non-fiction areas. As I said, I just heard about the book from a coworker and picked it up, I wasn't seeking out a book on Rome.

>>17443790
Christ dude, leave some comedy for the rest of us.

>>17443798
>I just heard about the book from a coworker and picked it up
this was your first mistake. never accept recommendations, not even from me.

>>17443798
>I wasn't criticizing it, I was saying why I stopped reading it and wanted something else.
Then why are you replying to my post where I asked what the criticisms of the book are?
>I didn't read the book before buying it, you're right
It's called a blurb and/or reviews, snarky bitch.

>>17440858
This is the top rated Goodreads review for the book and is quite possibly the most embarrassing thing I've read to date.

>>17443804
it wasn't actually a recommendation, it was just them talking about a book about Rome, I thought "wow Rome, I haven't thought about her since high school. I wonder how she's doing"
>>17443816
because I'm the one who started this thread and have made about half the posts in it, and most likely you made your comment after reading one of mine and taking it as criticism when I was just saying why I dropped it.

>>17444085
>because I'm the one who started this thread and have made about half the posts in it,
This goes an incredibly long way as to explaining how low quality the thread has been.

>>17440858
>WOMEN SHOULD NOT BE IN THE FUCKING CLASSICS EVER

>>17444093
your inability to understand the comments you're replying to?

>>17443861
>look at me im BONKERS and BRILLIANT
britpopper vermin moment

>>17443773
I cannot in good faith comment on her pop-history stuff, but Religions of Rome vol I and II are a fantastic starting point for looking into religion in the Roman Empire. Having said this, she is not the sole author of these texts, which are encyclopedic rather than a story.

>>17443599
She okayed MUH BLACK ROMANS, which is just patently absurd. Having said that, it would be career suicide to argue against this. Jared Diamond had to write Guns, Germs, and Steel as a mea culpa for his prior HBD interests.

>>17440858
>>17444153
>She okayed MUH BLACK ROMANS, which is just patently absurd. Having said that, it would be career suicide to argue against this.
The Romans were black. You might disagree with this statement. You might even have pretty good evidence to the contrary that disproves that statement. But you have to ask yourself, is it worth losing my job over? The Romans were black.

>>17444103
>your inability to understand the comments you're replying to?
It's more like your inherent inability to verify any of your criticisms posted. Lets follow the conversation so far.
>n posts of "she's revisionist", "views x through a lens" etc.
>my post essentially saying "what did she say that made /lit/ seethe to the extent of posting unverified criticisms".
>your replying to my post saying "I just dropped it because it was too relatable"
>my reply asking what the fuck that has to do with the revisionist criticisms or my post asking about them.
>you reply "well the thread's half my posts."
>me replying that you're a midwit.
>(You) are here.
Do better.

>>17443861
How the fuck does he not know what SPQR means?

>>17444177
>>17444153
There verifiably (genetic testing, contemporary accounts) were black Romans after assimilating a relatively small population of them as a result of their trade/looting conquests through sub-Saharan Africa. The strength of the Roman empire was in large part due to their ability to effectively make use of conquered peoples - to try and imply they just traipsed around Africa without touching the native populations is revisionist "Romans wuz white" propaganda in itself.

>...an Ethiopian soldier, who was famous among buffoons and always a notable jester, met him with a garland of cypress-boughs. And when Severus in a rage ordered that the man be removed from his sight, troubled as he was by the man’s ominous colour and the ominous nature of the garland.'

>>17444280
Nobody seriously thinks the Romans were exclusively a global cohort of blond blue eyed stormtroopers. It was a tremendously ethnically diverse empire and as a consequence the big imperial centres were dare I say ,melting pots, of traders from all over. What people bitterly resist is the politicisation of these elementary facts .
>There were sub-saharan blacks in continental Europe in the 4th century
>yes
>therefore Europe has never been "European"
>what
>and now you have to accept unlimited immigration lmao
That is the point of contention. Not that these things never happened/existed. But that there is a moral imperative for the 21st century because of these ragtag roamers and traders who wind up in odd corners of Europe. It is a hilariously long bow that would've been laughed at a generation ago, and would be today in most parts of the world, but this is where the discourse is at right now.

>>17440858
Go straight to the source and read "conquest of Gaul" by Julius Caesar.
Just remember it's about 30 percent propoganda

>>17444453
>What people bitterly resist is the politicisation of these elementary facts .
Has the political aspect of this came up in Mary's writings though? The impression I'm getting (without having read the book) is that there is some mention of black Romans, and the highly politicised readers are reading it as "IS THAT A REFERENCE TO BLACK PEOPLE?? I'M GOING INSAAAAANE".

>>17444492
>Has the political aspect of this came up in Mary's writings though?
Yes. In 2017 there was a massive chimpout about it all. Mary claimed Britain was always a diverse gay polity of many colours, twitter people lost their shit, then the greatest hero of the white race Nassim Nicholas Taleb told her she was a dumb bitch. Mary backed down and wrote an extended article about how she was threatened with death by evil racists and notorious fascist Taleb. Basically Beard is just a run of the mill writer who is tacking on bits of modern political orthodoxy to the study of ancient history to both be more "relevant" but also curry favour with the regime. As a side note with the "decolonisation" or "decolonise X" trend in academia, university admins are taking the opportunity to axe departments seen as frivolous under the guise of them being inherently racist etc etc. What could be more DEAD WHITE MALE AND STALE than the study of Latin and classical history? Beard is probably a true believer in the modern political religion but she may also be shrewd and understand that in order to keep these departments alive they have to make overt concessions to current talking points. Maybe I'm being generous, she could just be boring

>>17444608
Oh by the way I won't dox myself but I was dunking on her in 2017 too and I got a shoutout in the Times Literary Supplement by her lmfao

>>17441122
Where do you think the later authors got their information? Read primary sources and look at recent archaeology

>>17444224
this isn't how greentext works. please lurk a minimum of 3 months prior to posting
>>17444483
>remember it's about 30 percent propaganda
yes, and why I'm not looking for primary sources as an introduction. I am not so arrogant as to assume I, as a novice, can discern fact from fiction in ancient primary sources. I wish the rest of this board had similar skepticism around their own abilities.
>>17444647
Yes... obviously. They look at hundreds of primary sources and an insane amount of archaeology to come to a very small number of conclusions. ie far more work than any person not in academia is going to do for almost no pay off. The same reason I don't read primary sources is the same reason I don't buy raw materials and build my own appliances.

>>17445012
I don't understand your aversion to primary sources, especially since many are entertaining and provide detailed pictures in themselves. A comprise might be to find annotated primary works. To avoid any spurious politics keep it safe by sticking to the 20th century authors. Classics was only very recently politicised, maybe prior to 2010~ would be fine. People generally don't get as emotional about Sulla or Horace as they do about Robert E Lee or Ezra Pound etc. The distant past is a lot harder to project our modern neuroticism on, especially our Anglo-American race hysteria which, truly, is completely inappropriate for the ancient world as no such colour line existed. There are very many good modern authors who provide commentary. Anything published out of Cambridge Uni for instance is extremely sound. Mary Beard and friends are pop authors and they do not represent a lot of the very good modern scholarship being done in the academies. It is fine to be sceptical of authors and even your own abilities but don't let that deter you from all angles of inquiry

>>17445155
>primary sources are entertaining
wow, what a convincing argument. I've already stated my stance on primary sources -- they are useful for anyone already familiar with the material, but for a novice, they are a confusing mix of misinformation and fact, often told in a deceptively believable stories.
Finding earlier secondary sources sounds like a good place to start.

>>17445155
>aversion to primary sources
It's not that primary sources are bad, it's that they can't tell you about the archaeology, numismatics, etc. not to mention what other primary sources might say. Modern secondary source do all of these things and thus give you a better overview.

>>17444483
>Just remember it's about 30 percent propoganda
And about 65% corn, if I remember correctly.

>>17445155
>Classics was only very recently politicised,

Dude, you should read Prussian classical scholarship around World War I, or American philologists around the Civil War.

>>17445155
>>17445275
to add on, since my bloodborne partner died and I've got another min, I'm not scared of inquiry, I'm scared of uninformed inquiry. I think too many people on this board overestimate their own understanding because they know how to read works written by others. I'm not an idiot, I just know my own limitations.

>>17441099
what's wrong with getting annoyed with unapologetic revisionism?

>>17442267
kek because it's tire

Read Cicero, obviously.

>>17445012
>The same reason I don't read primary sources is the same reason I don't buy raw materials and build my own appliances.
Just come out of the closet, there's no shame in it.

>>17444101
Can't wait till some dumb fucking bitch takes it upon herself to translate Werther and repeatedly calls him incel all throughout.

>>17444608
>the greatest hero of the white race Nassim Nicholas Taleb
based leb

>>17444280
were you there?

>>17446758
Damn you just BTFO'd the entire field of history.

>>17446768
Yeah. Historians? More like fucking stupid lying faggots. The Odyssey was real and so was Ragnar Lodbrok and Ossian and the cheddar man wasn't no fucking sub-saharan neither.

>>17440858
I also ditched this book back when I read it a few years ago. I'm not a moral relativist, but if you're going to understand a time and a place and a people, you really have to view the world through others' eyes, and not your own. I don't need a shrill feminist academician sermonizing about the evils of ancient Rome in its treatment of women; I don't need a hysterical neoliberal atheist decrying jihad during the expansion of Islam in the early Middle Ages and comparing it to modern terrorism; I don't need a homosexual communist-anarchist-vegetarian-zombie whining about this-or-that Christian doctrine when reading about Church history. Unless a historian is analyzing a specific moral weak spot that caused serious trouble for a society, that kind of judgment is worthless.
Also, sorry, OP, I don't really have any recommendations. General histories of anything tend to suck. Gotta get into specifics for interesting material.

Anyone who doesn't trust himself to read Livy is an insecure faggot. Even then, the Oxford editions have a dozen endnotes per page if you really need to be told that Romans probably didn't kill 50,000 Samnite men every year. Read him.

>>17441110
>The Romans had historians, read them
There's plenty of inaccurate shit in their history books lad, they're not infallible

>>17442646
The book in OP's post is actually decent though. Being a bestseller doesn't automatically make a book garbagio (that's Latin for garbage).

>>17447023
This. The scholar editing/translating the work usually notes the historical errors/exaggeration or clarifies stuff. My Tacitus book had foot notes on every page.

>>17447023
or, I could read one of the secondary sources that synthesizes dozens of primary sources into what actually happened, rather than just learning from endnotes what didn't happen.

>>17444622
based

>>17444492
>>17444280
There was a BBC educational cartoon that presented the typical Roman British family as a black pater familias and a brown wife, which Beard defended as historically accurate. Needless to say, it all seems heavily influenced by modern multicultural ideologies.

I expect this thread is up for deletion next. Did someone new just get their mod powers?

>>17444280
>traipsed around Africa
The Sahara wouldn't be crossed until well after 600AD. You are correct, there were a handful of Ethiopians. One even made it to Britain. To imply that all Romans were Bantu, however, as >>17444177 does in jest but Mary Beard agreed with in seriousness, is absurd.

>>17442792
Board has been trash for years, don't bother. All the good posters left and it's basically just "durr look at this epic thing I found on Wikipedia" or WW2 threads

>>17442333
>would you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree?
Yes

>>17441099
The romans where not african transgenders, i am sorry sir. May i offer you a quiet place to dillate?

Just read the old multi-volume academic histories. I'd name you some but all my books are at home, sorry.

>>17441099

>>17449495
Lol