/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19204687]

Worth reading?

[Anonymous No.19204711]

>>19204687
depends on how educated you already are on roman history
for beginners it is very good and marx beard is an exceptional scholar

[Anonymous No.19204757]

>>19204687
As has already been said, it's ideal for newcomers to Roman history. Mary Beard is one of the highest regarded (if not the most) scholars of Roman history. She's presented countless documentaries on the Roman world, all of which are exceptional.

[Anonymous No.19204767]

>femoid author

Into the bin

[Anonymous No.19204777]

>>19204687
>woman’s take on HIStory
Ngmi
>>19204767
Well said.

[Anonymous No.19204800]

>>19204767
>>19204777
absolute retards

[Anonymous No.19204821]

>>19204800
In a world full of retards, the sane ones are mocked as retarded. Ironic.

[Anonymous No.19204823]

Great book. Also worth watching is Marx’s debate with Boris Johnston on Jewtube.

[Anonymous No.19204835]

>>19204821
how ironic that in a world of mostly average people the few retarded ones actually think of themselves as sane and everybody else as retarded

[Anonymous No.19204903]

I enjoyed pic related.

[Anonymous No.19204914]

>>19204687
>TV pop historian
LOL no.

[Anonymous No.19204916]

>>19204835
Average is pretty stupid though

[Anonymous No.19205079]

>>19204916
>>19204835
Ironic

[Anonymous No.19205081]

>>19204914
>professor of classics at cambridge
>pop
K

[Anonymous No.19205103]

>>19204757
I've seen some of her documentaries and read one of her books. While it is all well and good to look into areas of history that have been ig over or forgotten, Mary Beard is part of a destructive trend against high culture. There is too much to talk about in a 4chan comment, but keep your eyes open. While there is something to be gleaned from her work, she is part of the Neomarxist trend.

[Anonymous No.19205204]

>>19204687
No, the book's structure is weird and she skips over a lot of stuff. She doesn't discuss anything after 200 AD, and makes a lot of generalizations about the empire after Augustus. If you're totally ignorant about ancient Rome you would honestly get more out of listening to Mike Duncan's podcast, and then following that up with the actual classical sources.

[Anonymous No.19205357]

>>19204687
>complete lack of any coherent narrative
>entire book is just but we can't say for sure this happened in fact we can't say anything for certain
Terrible introduction

[Anonymous No.19205388]

>>19204687
I'm about 150 pages in now and enjoying it quite a bit. Her prose is good, and I know next to nothing about Ancient Rome to begin with. I can't comment on her use of sources; the philosophy of history; etc etc

>>19205357
>entire book is just but we can't say for sure this happened in fact we can't say anything for certain
I've never read a non-textbook history book before and I find this point interesting. She drives this point home when mentioning the founding of Rome and the Roman Kingdom. I don't know what to make of it, all we can know is what the Romans themselves wrote down, and even to them it wasn't clear what was going on when Rome had 'kings'.

[Anonymous No.19205443]

>>19205388
>She drives this point home when mentioning the founding of Rome and the Roman Kingdom. I don't know what to make of it, all we can know is what the Romans themselves wrote down, and even to them it wasn't clear what was going on when Rome had 'kings'.
I think it's a shitty point. An average reign of 35 years is a bit farfetched but not impossible.. First, the Roman monarchy was an elected position and second there was the institution of the interrex. Lengthy Interregnums could pad out the years thus lowering the average reigns of the kings. Take both these factors into account and the 7 king's for 244 years doesn't really seem farfetched. The thing is she doesn't give an alternative answer to the monarchy. There's also pic related. It contains what is possibly the oldest ever Latin inscription and directly mentions "rex". IMO we have slight archeological evidence of monarchy and we have the Roman sources so I'm more inclined to believe historians like Livy

[Anonymous No.19205621]

>>19205443
>IMO we have slight archeological evidence of monarchy and we have the Roman sources so I'm more inclined to believe historians like Livy

she flat out mentions this in the book and I only remember because I read this bit like four days ago. see the first page of Chapter Three: The Kings of Rome. i think what she's doing is fine, she basically claiming we can't have an objective stance on what was going on in Rome at the time. We'd need to be God, or we'd need to send a group of folks back in a time machine. I'm assuming this 'skeptical' stance is taken by many historians, especially historians focusing on 'ancient' times.

[Anonymous No.19205710]

I have it it's trash, full of modern projections from the author

[Anonymous No.19205715]

>>19204687
not really

[Anonymous No.19205771]

>>19205621
>I'm assuming this 'skeptical' stance is taken by many historians, especially historians focusing on 'ancient' times.
It isn't. It's completely asinine because people already know there's no need to constantly shove it down our throats. That makes SPQR a worthless history book. A normal history book involves an author supporting his thesis or theme with points and arguments

[Anonymous No.19205939]

>>19204687
If you have 0 idea about the Romans yes
If you want specifics no

[Anonymous No.19206842]

>>19204687
I read it a few years ago before I knew who she was. It seemed fine to me, had some interesting and fun details about the Roman world. A decent intro.

[Anonymous No.19206883]

>>19204687
Yes, Mary Beard is a Gigachad and I love her

[Anonymous No.19206967]

Read Boatwright's From Village to Empire if you actually want to learn about Roman history.

[Anonymous No.19206968]

>>19204903
>the Spiderman nigga
No thanks

[Anonymous No.19207666]

>>19206968
Not sure if this is bait, but it was written by the actor who plays Spider-Man.

[Anonymous No.19207733]

>>19205103
>Mary Beard is part of the Neomarxist trend
Care to share a couple of neomarxist excerpts from her books?

[Anonymous No.19207742]

>>19207733
I too would like to see a historical materialist analysis of the Roman Empire

[Anonymous No.19208123]

>>19204767
basado

[Anonymous No.19208133]

>>19204687
You only asked because it's a quid today in the Kindle deal of the day.

[Anonymous No.19208143]

>>19204903
>ian mcwewlad

[Anonymous No.19208152]

>>19204711
>marx beard

[Anonymous No.19208261]

>>19205081
This is not the own you think it is

[Anonymous No.19208278]

>>19207666
He's so multi-talented. Ballerino, thespian, historian...

[Anonymous No.19210496]

bump

[Anonymous No.19210507]

I want to avoid pop history when possible

[Anonymous No.19210608]

>>19204687
No it's shite and full of anachronisms
>>19204903
This is better but not by much, the writing style is horrible