/lit/ - Literature

>wanting to learn history
>reading primary sources first

Poor idea. Read Tom Hollands Rubicon and move in from there. You also missed Cicero.

read them in the order they were written.

also read Rubicon by Tom Holland and De Re Publica by Cicero

>>6617483
>>6617491
Cool thanks, will add these to my list. So you'd recommend reading the Holland first, then Caesar, Cicero, Plutarch, Suetonius, Appian?

>>6617521
yeah

If you're looking for some GOAT classics:
>Caesar's "The Civil War: Together with the Alexandrian War, the African War, and the Spanish War" (shows all these wars from Caesar's perspective)
>Caesar's "The Conquest of Gaul" (shows the conquest of Gaul from Caesar's perspective)
>Cassius Dio's "The Reign of Augustus" (naturally shows the reign of Augustus)
>Suetonius' "The Lives of the Twelve Caesars" (biographies on all the Caesars from julius to Domitian)
>Tacitus' "The Annals of Imperial Rome" (shows Rome from Augustus to Nero)

An absolutely GOAT book in my opinion is Gibbon's "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire." It really shows the degradation of Roman society and the Empire in relatively good detail however it basically results in Gibbons getting a hard-on for masculinity in society which can make it quite repetitive. Unless your a massive fan of Roman history you may find it's size and contents a dry read.

Still waiting for the day in which a decent book comes out about the Crisis of the Third Century.

>>6617521
Definitely read holland first, and when you read the others remember they are heavily slanted and biased. another more modern book would be Caesar life of a Colossus and a biography of Pompeii and biography of Augustus.

you might check out the podcast a history of rome that covers this time period from the Gracchi brothers to Augustus' rise to power.

>>6617548
>Gibbon's "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire."
this is excellent but only covers the age of the Antonines to the fall of Constantinople, not the late republic early empire.

Holland's Rubicon is indeed great, but I think it wouldn't hurt to try reading some Livy. He was a historian from the time of Augustus who compiled a massive history from Rome's founding up to the rise of Caesar. He's as much a secondary source as a modern day historian, although with some obvious propaganda stirred in.

If you like podcasts, I'd highly recommend Mike Duncans completed The History of Rome. He covered Latin prehistory up to the fall of the western empire in year by year detail. There's a also history of Byzantium podcast that is finishing the next thousand years if the eastern empire.

>>6617568
Yeah I'd like to read some Livy but I thought his only surviving stuff covers early Rome?

>>6617477
RL Fox - The Classical World
Tom Holland - Rubicon
In The Name of Rome - Adrian Goldsworthy
Caeser - Adrian Goldsworthy
Augustus - Anthony Everitt
Marcus Agrippa - Lyndsay James

This is your starting point. All these books overlap and take you from why Rome existed and the greek influence though to how the Republic diead and what happened next.

Now start looking at the ancient and classical historians, its easy this way around as you now have a good general background and are able to read from say Tacitus or Suetonius with an understanding oh who they are talking about.

Fellow classical lads, does anyone know of any books about the ancient world of the Sumerians, the Assyrians and the Babylonians. Their whole society just sounds and looks so bizarre and has no comparison to any other society in history and the fact that they were the first empires in history also seems epic.

>>6617573
Livy goes through the Augustan period

>>6617597
Yes but it hasn't survived, it only still exists up to book 45 out of 142.

Is Adrian Goldsworthy good? I want to read his Punic Wars.

>>6617660
yeah he's alright

>>6617587
A History of Ancient Egypt by Nicolas Grimal
Cultural atlas of Mesopotamia and the ancient Near East by Michael Roaf
The Kingdom of the Hittites by Trevor Bryce
Ancient Iraq by Georges Roux
Early Mesopotamia: Society and Economy at the Dawn of History by J.N. Postgate

>>6617477
'From the Gracchi to Nero: a history of Rome from 133 B.C. to A.D. 68' is exactly what you want.

Rubicon is fucking great, but the fall of the Republic era is way too overplayed. I want something that tells of the fall of kingdoms and the rise of the SPQR.

>>6617818
Not really. Only if you're looking for a monarchist Tory interpretation.
I'll have to defer to the others

>>6617922
Bumping for pre-republic Italy

>>6617922
>>6618056
The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Republic
>Flower's Companion is primarily addressed to those with interest but little background in Roman history, offering “an introduction to the Republic that tries not to privilege a particular time period or point of view,” but instead providing “a guide to a variety of areas, fields of study, and possible approaches that are currently being explored.”
http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=4c719c74ea4f24eb975136fc8d1f1d15

Protip for all history/non-fiction readers looking for books: Good on wiki and find a subject you like (e.g republican Rome) then scroll down to the further readings/sources.

The definitive volume on the fall of the Roman Republic is "The Roman Revolution" by Ronald Syme

Don't die on me now...

>>6617587
They had effect on the Hebrews and via them on Christianity. The metaphor of the shepherd comes from them (hence all those symbols).

A rough chronology. There is some disparity or overlap between groups and cultures.

New-Assyria

The Roman Republican Forum.

Goldsworthy's book on Caesar is rather dry, it spends a lot of time offering his own doubts about historian's claims.

Roman class structure.

Social customs and manners; frontispiece?

>>6617548
>Gibbon's "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire."

Garbage-tier. Mommsen is superior in every respect.

>people still recommending Gibbon
Jesus Christ the book is two centuries out of date


There is literally no reason to read Gibbon. It's like reading Lamarck to understand evolution

all these plebs hating Gibbon
c'mon now

>>6622427
>history
>science
>comparable
lel

>>6622805
4/10 needs its own thread

>>6620197
This is interesting. Are there books I could read to learn more about this?
Especially on Kassites taking Babylon and the like.

I'm afraid it's a part of history I don't know anything about.

>>6622771
What does gibbon bring to the table that you can't get from a more accurate, easier-reading contemporary history of the late empire?

I'll put in a word for Mackay's "Ancient Rome", it's a solid one-volume overview of the whole timeline of Roman history, from early beginnings, to expanding Republic, to principate/empire etc. It can't afford to go too deeply into any one subject, but that's what later reading and primary sources are for. It's great for having a foundation of Roman history before you delve deeper.

>>6622771
>>6622805
Gibbon was wrong about so much shit, and his ludicrous attempts at trying to find a common root between the fall of Rome and the collapsing British Empire are laughable. Much like Ptolemy's geocentric model of the Solar System, Gibbon's work is meant to be consigned to obsolescence in the face of actual facts. Even Mommsen's errors (his blatant personal biases against individuals and his mistaken application of Second Reich parliamentary political parties to the Roman social parties in an attempt at parallelism) are minor spots compared to the egregious assumptions Gibbon infested his work with.

>>6617548
>Gibbon's "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire."
Really not interesting or relevant as anything other than a part of the history of history.

>>6623621
The history of historiography*

>>6620197
Babylon in the time of Hammurabi looks like a vagina.

There was an English Catholic Historian of Rome in the 18th or 19th Century... Dammit, I wish I could remember his damned name. I think he had a few volumes worth too. Naturally, he was criticised as being too credulous concerning ancient sources...

Does anyone know who I mean?

>>6623637
>Kish was the ancient name for clitoris

>>6623628
I've never understood what that term brings to the table which isn't already covered under the word "history".

>>6623043
How does Mackay do on the subject of Christianity? A review of the book by some lawyer from Chicago said that he spent too much time on Christian origins.

I'd like something succinct and preferably non-heretical.

>>6623656
History is the study of what happened in the past

Historiography is the study of how people have written about/viewed the subject of history

Or in other words, the history of history

>>6623588
I guess we shouldn't read Herodotus either?

>>6623797
Herodotus is narrative history, gibbons is analytic history. Gibbons' analysis is stale, but Herodotus' narrative is still poppin' fresh

>>6623954
>>6623588
>>6622347
Every serious scholar on roman and european history holds gibbon in high regard. They all read gibbon, keeping in mind his obvious biases particularly towards christianity. He's not necessary for dilettantes though.

>>6617922
>thinks that the kings --> SPQR narrative is based on Roman history
lol. Go read more Livy

>>6623972
Sure, because he founded their field. But you're bonkers if you think anyone considers him an authoritative source - it's not just his bias, he's literally lacking 200 years worth of scholarship and archaeological discoveries.

suetonius is pleb

tacitus 4 lyf

>>6623954
The Histories have some of the most beautiful pieces of prose I have ever read in my life.

>>6624002
>"Gibbon’s methodology was so accurate that, to this day, little can be found to controvert his use of primary sources for evidence. While modern historical methodology has changed, his skill in translation of his sources was impeccable, and contemporary historians still rely on Gibbon as a secondary source to substantiate references. His literary tone is old-fashioned, skeptical, and pessimistic; it mirrors both his own character and the topic under discussion, the gradual decay of a mighty empire."
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Edward_Gibbon#Gibbon.27s_Legacy

>>6620197
This is interesting, but I've got to comment on one thing: there's no evidence for "Abraham" or any events described in the Bible before David's time.

>>6623797
>comparing Gibbon to Herodotus

This is why people like you can't be trusted.

>>6624029
>this Gibbon dicksucking

Just because modern historians are classy enough to not admit they wipe their asses with pages from Gibbon doesn't mean they 'hold him in high esteem' as a source for anything but the most basic bitch shit that we know is factually correct. The point stands that were Gibbon to publish his work today he'd be torn apart as a fanfic writer.

>>6624292
>this denial
Did Gibbon fuck your mom or something?

You have no idea what you're talking about.

>>6617477

Agree with >>6617483 - starting with the primary sources is not a great idea. Pretentious dickbags on /lit/ act like it is the 'only' way to get into history, but you will be much better served by reading good modern scholarship that puts the primary sources into perspective, and shows which sources can be used where as it were. Then by all means tackle the originals.

An oldie but a goodie for late Republican/Early Imperial Roman history is Scullard's 'From the Gracchi to Nero'.

Also add Polybius' Histories to the list of your primary sources for the period.

Enjoy.

>>6624292
>classy enough to not admit they wipe their asses with pages from Gibbon
yes, lest the dead guy take offense, that would be an immense social faux pas

>>6624292
>this Gibbons dick biting

Shut the fuck up you meme shouting cuntstick.

>>6617483
>>6624516
>want to learn history
>better invest all of my trust in a contemporary scholar's tainted modern framing of the primary sources first!

kill yourselves

>>6622892
He writes well, for one.

>>6624561
>I bet my own judgement won't be biased! Only others suffer from bias!

>>6624561
There's such a thing as archaeology, which is vital for understanding classical history and you would completely bypass by just reading Latin histories.

>>6623668
I think it's fine. I guess a decent time is spent on it but it is of huge importance to Rome at the time and is one of it's most lasting legacies.

"A History of Christianity" by MacCulloch does a great overview of the origins of Christianity in Rome, pretty succinctly for all it covers. The rest of the book is good as well but you don't have to read the rest if that's mostly what you're interested in.

>>6624567
>multiple posters say Gibbon is a dry writer
>"he writes well, for one"

Gibbon = trash

>>6624301
>>6624528
>>6624545
>these people were forced to read Gibbon and have hated life ever since

You're the kind of people that would cite Bernard Cornwell as a source. I've given you ample evidence as to why Gibbon isn't the end-all, be-all of source material now, and all you can spout is 'muh Gibbon'? Apologize for not being stillborn.

>>6624798
but i didnt read gibbon

Man, early Rome was so incredibly resilient. Pyrrhos and Hannibal defeated them numerous times, and yet they persisted.

During the days of empire even a single defeat of the magnitude of any of those previous was a crippling blow.

Fun fact: In the Pyrrhic wars the Romans had a general whose claim to fame was his father's. The Romans had been hard pressed by the Samnites, when the man, dressed in sacrificial garb, charged the enemy single handed. Though he died, the example made a great impression upon a superstitious age, the romans won the field.

Fast forward some years, the Romans again suffer defeat. It was believed only the gods could save them. Thus this man was called to lead the army, with many suggesting that he follow in his father's footsteps, and sacrifice himself for the cause.

Imagine the psychology of that moment.

>>6620197
This looks almost exactly like the lecture slides used in the introductory Ancient History at my university.
Am I correct, anon?
I won't say the university out of politeness, but... 'Straya mate.

>>6624782
Multiple posters also have shit taste and read sci-fi and fantasy, so kill yourself.

>>6624782
>people having differing aesthetic opinions
Shocking.