/lit/ - Literature

>>16278443
>women had it bad ;-;
There, saved you money and time (or simply time when you get down to it)

>>16278467
but has nice cover(hence why i bought it)

>>16278443
I did. It's actually good (as good as an extremely compressed overview of a millennium of Roman history can aspire to be). If you're hesitant for it being a postmodern feminist take on Rome, it's not; you can tell she's an accomplished expert and has dedicated her life to Roman studies. Her feminist views do come up here and there, but it's not third wave feminism, and she's able to separate these views from the material she's treating.

>>16278505
Thanks for the answer. I have heard good reviews about it and since I wanted to read a bit on Rome I thought I could buy it, but I don't know it it would just be better to read something more established like Montanelli.

>>16278559
I just read it as a quick launching pad and continued with Roman historians (Livy, Sallust, Tacitus, etc.). If you're planning to do the same don't worry too much about it.

>Mary Beard
BTFO by Taleb
https://medium.com/east-med-project-history-philology-and-genetics/the-insidious-racism-of-mary-beard-et-al-8b6b768b4575

why do i trust >>16278505 over >>16278467

>>16278443
Why not just pirate a university textbook? The Romans: From Village to Empire or something like that.

>>16278443
It's good. People say she tries to "feminise Rome" or that she's biased in favour of feminism, but I saw nothing like that when I read it. She makes it pretty clear that Rome was a patriarchal society whose founding story was even built on rape (the rape of the Sabine women), and she does it with the typical historian's objectivity. There are some portions talking about women in Rome (why shouldn't there be?), but it's nothing like what the critics on /lit/ would have you believe.

>>16278609
I still don’t accept jews, Lebanese, Greeks and Italians as white.

>Mary Beart
Start here, it's funny https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k448JqQyj8

>>16278669
They are MED

>>16278624
Because books that are effective in teaching large groups aren't always the most consistently engaging for individual reading. Also, a lot of textbooks contain stuff like exercises meant for classes and end up wasting a lot of time and space that way. Don't know about OP but I'd rather have something built from the ground up for individual learning.

What does she say about Lex Oppia?

>>16278691
Hmm, I've definitely had trouble staying interested reading textbooks on my own, that's true. I was under the impression that this was pop history, which it's not, so sorry about that.

It's trash. Get something from the times when textbook writers had enough respect for the intelligence of their students to believe that they could parse actual chunks of data instead of just dumbing it down and leaving them half-blind. Get something like the "A History of Rome: Down to the Age of Constantine" before continuing with works that investigate specific periods.

>The historian had been defending a BBC schools video that featured a high-ranking black Roman soldier as the father of a family

This should really be reason enough not to read her books

>>16278443
I don't know, you tell me.

>>16278609
>The diversity discourse appears to serve an insidious form of racism and Northern Euro supremacist agenda (with a redefinition of the Western world and a reframing of the classics). Please stop classifying people according to race, and stop creating racial stereotypes and divisions in the name of “diversity”, while doing some smug virtue signaling. Look up “framing” in a decision theory textbook and you can see what I mean. This is no different from funding Al Qaeda headcutters and women-enslavers in Syria in the name of “democracy”.

I love Taleb

>>16278782
but that's' a different book you colossal faggot

>>16278505
>If you're hesitant for it being a postmodern feminist take on Rome, it's not;
>Her feminist views do come up here and there
You dishonest fuck

>>16278864
retard

Bought the book and it has sat on my book shelf since

>>16278864
She doesn't shoehorn feminism into chapters like the Caudine Forks or the Punic Wars (because women didn't play an important role, so why would she?) All of her reeeeing is mostly confined to a brief final chapter where she addresses slaves and women in Rome. If this causes you discomfort, by all means read another book, just telling it like it is.

>>16278891
You're arguing that the book is not a feminist take on Rome because she's not literally talking about women the entire time. You may as claim the bible isn't about God.

>>16278903
No, that's not what I said at all.

>>16278443
No. Just read a proper textbook.

>>16278853
Yes, backpedal more!

>>16278913
You said the book is not a feminist take on Rome because all the feminist stuff is in the final chapter.

>>16278467
>>16278782
>>16278869
>>16278903
funny how the book is bad because "feminism" but no one can provide an example of an inappropriate feminist statement made in the book

>>16278928
What would be the purpose of doing that when both the supporters and detractors agree that she's a feminist and it influences her book in some way?

>>16278935
are you some sort of r*dditor?
only brainlets search through the personal convictions of an author in order to convince themselves not to read something
as it stands no one has given me any reason not to buy and read this book, only copes for why seeing the authors name triggers them

>>16278891
>falls for obvious baits from retards who never read the book
how new are you?

>>16278782
>Hillary Clinton
Why can’t people just accept that she was a terrible candidate.

>>16278968
You shouldn't read the works of a historian who is notorious for distorting history, doesn't that make perfect sense?

>>16278443
It isn't terrible, but the structure of the book is weird and she skips over a lot of stuff, including everything that happened after 212 AD. The book is only worth reading if you don't like academic history books and know absolutely nothing about ancient Rome, and even then you'd learn more from listening to a podcast or watching some youtube videos instead.

>>16279059
>historian who is notorious for distorting history
provide me an example of distorted roman history from this book then

>>16279098
What purpose would that serve when everyone agrees that she's a feminist and it influences her work? The only disagreement in this thread is the degree of influence. You accuse me of being a Redditor but here you are playing this "gotcha" game about sources, as if me not giving you quotes from the text will prove something.

>>16279129
I assumed since this is /lit/ that there was a chance I was talking to someone who read the book and had real opinions, not an internet culture warrior who pretends to read past the author bio
Feel free to return to your larp

>>16279129
Don't bother with that retard, the entire thread was leftypol bait to begin with.

>>16279155
I did read the book but I'm not taking notes on it because who the fuck would do that for a pop history book? Again, even if I was willing to put in the work for you, what would it prove? Everybody agrees there is a feminist influence on the book. You're asking for irrelevant evidence and using the absence of that evidence in order to try shutting up opinions you disagree with. It's very transparent and anyone who has had any experience with Redditors have been through it because that is their primary method of argumentation.

>>16278443
>Caracalla was great

>>16278968
Well, it seems like you already have all the reason you need to read, namely your desire to do you. That’s apparently the only justification you need so what the fuck are you doing here?

>>16279215
Because unlike a larper such as yourself, I actually read books I expect to disagree with to see if I'm right. I've probably posted more sections of Guns, Germs and Steel on 4channel to laugh at then any of you larpers who just put brackets around Jared Diamond and piggyback off so-called western civilization.

The difference between you and me, other than actually reading of course, is that I will continue to investigate the merit of what Diamond has to say in spite of his obvious agenda and errors. Reading Diamond dismantle leftists trying to criticize him for not blaming Easter Island collapse on white people is enjoyable.

But please, continue to pretend to read and blame your lack of note taking ('my brain sucks' is an interesting larp) for why you can't substantiate any claim.

>>16279278
Holy fuck lmao

>>16279278
What am larping as? That doesn't make sense and you went off the rails with this one. Why are you talking about Guns, Germs, and Steel? I guess you're bringing up books that you've previously talked to people on 4chan about because apparently this will give you credibility in discussing the book we're currently talking about?

If you want I can go through the book and give you examples of her bias towards feminism but again, what would it prove? I've asked you multiple times and you've ignored it. Both sides agree that she's a feminist and it influences her work. If I asked you to prove that the sun was hot, would you feel compelled to do that when everybody already agrees that it's hot?

>>16279278
This is some peak Reddit here

>>16279329
>What am larping as? That doesn't make sense and you went off the rails with this one. Why are you talking about Guns, Germs, and Steel? I guess you're bringing up books that you've previously talked to people on 4chan about because apparently this will give you credibility in discussing the book we're currently talking about?
This is /lit/, in a thread about a specific book. If you are going to try to deflect from discussing a book by claiming it has an agenda, I'm obviously going to provide you with an example of that being a bullshit cope.

>If you want I can go through the book and give you examples of her bias towards feminism but again, what would it prove?
That you have a real opinion from actually reading a book on a board about reading and discussing books

>I've asked you multiple times and you've ignored it. Both sides agree that she's a feminist and it influences her work. If I asked you to prove that the sun was hot, would you feel compelled to do that when everybody already agrees that it's hot?
what the fuck sort of analogy is this lmao

Is this one better?

>>16279495
No, it's also pop history but with EPIC BATTLES instead of >muh soggy knee

>>16279520
Sounds based? So what's not pop history? Edward Gibbon?

>>16279525
Caesar, Claudius, Livy, Tacitus, Plutarch

>>16278609
I've heard that shes just kinda an asshole from people that work in her field

>>16279525
>>16278749 and these :
- Tim Cornell : The Beginnings of Rome
- Gary Forsythe : A Critical History of Early Rome - From Prehistory to the First Punic War
- Martin Goodman : The Roman World, 44 BC - AD 180
- David Potter : The Roman Empire at Bay, AD 180 - 395
- Peter Heather : The Fall of the Roman Empire - A New History of Rome and the Barbarians
- Géza Alföldy : Römische Sozialgeschichte

>>16279362
I don't read posts when they start quoting and responding to individual sentences. It's bad writing and bad form for somebody as well read as you.

>>16279551
Eh, fuck it. I'm not trying to be a Roman fuckin scholar.

>>16279564
>I don't read posts
same

>>16279568
Then just read >>16278749. You could do a lot worse than that.

>>16279551
>Peter Heather
The barbarian lover? No thanks

>>16279600
So you're more of a Peter Brown kind of guy who unironically believes the collapse of the empire was all sunshine and rainbows?

>>16279598
>Checks goodreads
>94 ratings
Stop shilling your shit, Max.

>>16279600
Peter Heather hates Barbarians

>>16279622
Brown is based, but a collapse is a collapse

>>16279680
>checking goodreads for book reviews
Get >>/out/

>>16279759
My time is too precious to read your obscure literally who book, Max, sorry.

>>16278505
This

>history book mentions women
>incels: >:(

>>16279974
Go back

>>16278443
I thought that it was a good read. It wasn't too tainted in current politics, if at all, and works on life in the Roman Empire from different perspectives. It doesn't even take that much pity on women; they're mentioned, of course, but they're not the main focus of the book by a long shot. Hell, I only remember one instance of it happening. If anything, it points out class inequality more often than gender inequality, but without making the case for some sort of Marxist revolution or anything.
As an introduction to Roman history, it's not bad.

All these replies dancing around the obvious biases of the author and defending it with statements of "Its not that bad" or "It's only in a few chapters" is exactly how we came to our current state of idpol poisoning every single faucet of our lives. Reject it solely for this reason, to take away the inch that the puritans stood on to stretch their cancer for miles.

>Mary Beard
When it comes to British female historians, the correct choice is Bettany Hughes

>>16280091
pussy

>>16280123

>>16280091
this, but for books written by white boys

>>16280201
>hole posting

>>16280195
Indeed brother
Why are med-looking Anglo women so kino?

>>16280313
Nice tracts of land

>>16280091
You know who's worse? The people ITT pretending to have a valid opinion without actually having read the book.