/lit/ - Literature

>>18150074
Bump

>>18150074
p.127, para 2: complete garbage
Beard is a pseud

page 0-999: worthless pop history

>>18150074
It's been years since I read the book, but if I recall correctly (and I may not) I wasn't bothered by her scholarship so much as her editorializing and moralizing.

>>18150540
>editorializing and moralizing.
Ah yeah. Do you remember anything in particular? Some of her tone seems annoying.

Roman soldiers literally killed people!
wahhhhh wahhhhh they bad !!

There's only one good female historian and that's Kate Williams also cute af

>>18150074
This isn't really a good example of her scholarship because it's shit made for s pleb audience.

She's best known for her work on Roman religion, especially for her stuff on the Triumph - and that stuff is fine

>>18150622
Alright, so I went back and looked through the book. Here's a quote from the prologue:
>SPQR is not, however, a simple work of admiration. There is much in the classical world – both Roman and Greek – to engage our interest and demand our attention. Our world would be immeasurably the poorer if we did not continue to interact with theirs. But admiration is a different thing. Happily a child of my times, I bridle when I hear people talking of ‘great’ Roman conquerors, or even of Rome’s ‘great’ empire.
This attitude infuses the rest of the book. Later, when describing Rome's early history - which was violent, of course - she takes on a moralizing tone, playing up the horror of the Rape of the Sabine Women and so on. It's not egregious, just annoying.

>>18150074
>Please cite precise claims or ideas in the TEXT that you object to.
It's a woman.

>>18150074
yes

>>18150074
th part where she says "rome was full of Black people" was totally wrong

>>18150074
i don't have time to read every book. why should i read this instead of gibbon?

>>18151944
Gibbon wrote his book 300 years ago so a lot of is going to be way off

it's cool the way she tells the story of cicero and cateline through the whole thing. moralism aside i enjoyed it a lot

>>18151971
Why would it be wrong when he was closer to the actual events

>>18151986
>Why would it be wrong when he was closer to the actual events
top kek

>>18151986
Improvements in archaeological techniques + new digs

>>18150074
She gets stuff about the military wrong.

>>18151986
lmfao can't even tell if bait or this retardation is consistent with the rest of /lit/

>>18152194
qrd?

If you want to read some Reddit author’s ‘down with the white man’ book then go right ahead.
Just don’t ask us to sign off on your insufferable faggotry.

>>18150074
anyone have a suggestion for a better history of rome?

>>18150719

>playing up the horror of the Rape of the Sabine Women and so on

Does Mary think it was a literal rape? I don't think we know for sure. Several ancient cultures have rituals where men pretend to kidnap their future bride. Maybe it was a ritual marriage between the two tribes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fh_x3vNiklU

>>18150074
>Women writes about Rome
I'll just go ahead and filter myself

>>18152284
im sure she has more information on the subject than any anons here

>>18152277
Tom Holland's Rubicon isn't too bad but its still what's considered easy reading.

The good shit is Decline and Fall, The annals of Imperial Rome by Tacitus, The Rise of Rome books 1-5 by Livy and things in that vein. Basically read primary sources first then move onto more modern history. That's how we were taught to approach reading on the subject in college

>>18152277
>>18152755
Would also say if you're interested in the topic check out Plutarch on Caesar it's a fantastic read

>>18150719
>Mary Beard: The Rape of the Sabine Women was awful and barbaric
>Also Mary Beard: If aid workers in Haiti rape women, oh well. It's not like their is much civilization over there anyways and we have to remember they are also doing so much good that what is a little rape in the grand scheme of things.

>>18152773
I hate her so much bros

>>18150074
I enjoyed SPQR while I was reading it but it lacked a strong thread.

>>18150074
There are better books on the history of ancient Rome. Schultz et al. is a good start.

>>18152773
The second part is pretty based, ngl.

>>18150638
For anyone thinking of googling her, just look at this picture and convince yourself that she has not at all aged 25 years and turned into what looks like a middle-school English teacher.

>>18150074
I've met her and she is an absolute mess of a person, even more scruffy than she is on tv if you can beieve that.

>>18151986
This is actually incredible logic and not a single person on /lit/ can disprove it

>>18152277
The Roman Revolution, by Ronald Syme

>>18151986

>>18151944
Because Gibbon is also wrong, moron. Read "The Romans: An Introduction" and then whatever books in the bibliography of each chapter for more in-depth reading.

>>18152755
I wouldn't recommend this approach at all because while it works with Greeks, it doesn't not work with Romans for two reasons: several of books were lost and they were propaganda pieces rather than an honest attempt at recording history. Plutarch is pretty good though.

>>18152773
>>18153121
Yeah it is pretty based lol

I like how no one actually cited any text that’s actually wrong

None of you pseuds actually read

>>18150074
I finally found another story to adapt into my next screenplay. I'm excited to start writing again.

>>18151986
progressivists BTFO

>>18150074

>a rather low-key, slightly tawdry affair

-stupid bitch on the Battle of Actium

>>18156266
>>a rather low-key, slightly tawdry affair
>-stupid bitch on the Battle of Actium

>>18152773
Source? When has she ever shown this sentiment?

>>18152272
Mate, it's quite obvious that you don't actually read.

>>18151986

>>18150074
She heavily romanticizes roman slavery and points to tombs of prominent freedmen to show it was somehow this liberating path to citizenship for everyone who was put through it

>>18150074
Just read (almost) any textbook from the 60s or 70s, they are much cheaper and a thousand times less dumbed down.

>>18150074
Historians who adopt a patronizing tone are a pain to read

Pax Romana

>>18156351
https://twitter.com/wmarybeard/status/964613592833253376

This is probably what he's talking about.

>>18157521
Christ, what a right trainwreck that is. Maybe she feels sympathy to those guys because they remind her of her rich pedofriends? So fucking weird, can't believe I missed this.

>>18157521
>>18157885
I don't think it's that weird

>>18151986
This is so dumb it actually makes sense.

>>18152277
The Inheritance of Rome by Wickham is quite informative, that's one I've actually read. The only problem is it only has one section dedicated to the entire Roman Empire, and the rest is to do with the post-Roman West up until 1000AD.

>>18152749
Doubtful.

>>18158126
I read another book by Wickham (Medieval Europe) and it was one of the driest, most boring history books I've read. Is that one better?

>>18158135
No, that sounds like the same problem I had with it. It is at least dense with information though, and seemingly without much obvious distortion of facts.

>>18150074
That awful, awful title. Can you get any more forgettable and generic?

>>18152277
Ronald Syme, HH Scullard, Adrian Goldsworthy

>>18158285
>HH Scullard
im OP. im reading this atm. i have insecurity that people will now think i am reading it because of seeing it on lit. i am now deranged,. i am now deceased. i am now infected.

>>18158126
>>18158144
Wickham is probably the best Middle ages scholar in the UK, but his writing is obviously very dry and academic

Trash, read Gibbon.

BS Vendor imbecile

>>18151793
Did she say this? I didnt really read this but have it from a class. I dont want woke literature on my shelf.

>>18151986
Unfathomably based

>>18158733
um... based department?

It's poor work.

The admitted goal of Beard's corpus is to apply the lens of representational diversity to the classical world in order to critique the racial makeup of her field in academia, and as a cudgel in public debate against contemporary far white forces, who she argues have co-opted classical history unfairly to serve their own ends. (Although she also admits that artists, fiction authors and historians have represented the classical world the same way for centuries.)

Beard cites scientific analysis which indicate some Roman corpses in found in Britain were native to Africa. She extrapolates this data to conclude in her own words:

>the myth of a white Roman Britain is exactly that, a myth

Unfortunately this tact precludes her from the realm of serious historical analysis. This is why Beard must gloss over the reign of most definitely nonwhite Romans like trannybottom emperor Elagagabalus and instead roam the countryside atop her bicycle searching for obscure graves to fuel her confirmation bias.

seeth more

>>18150437
??

>>18160205

Yes, hammers and niggers existed in the Roman empire, I have yet to read a pervasive far right account that said Rome was 100 percent white people.

That does not mean that this guy is the long lost intentionally whitewashed Emperor Antifascicus.

There are so many things leftists could bring to the table from the ancient world with more heft than the "Muh black Roman" strawman.

>>18150074
Currently reading it.

It's okay. Really easy to follow and informative. There are some redflags that make me think the writer is going for a post-modern, sjw approach in her work, but most of the times it's fine.

>>18151986
Umm...based?

>>18160148
Thanks. Fuck this bitch. I'm, throwing this book into the garbage where it belongs

>>18160205
>Bath in North Africa
>Has nigger pictured
And? How is this disproving anything? YEs, unfortunately niggers exist, they wauzznt kangz doe

>>18150074
Anglo historiography is poor in general. Exceptions exist ofc, but the tradition isn't there.
You should pick French or German if you want quality.

>>18151986
oooh, fuck yeah based

>>18160482

If you haven't read Ammianus Marcellinus, I would highly recommend him. He isn't as important as Tacitus or LIvy, but his accounts are vivid and straightforward:

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/28587/28587-h/28587-h.htm

>>18153121
It would be more based if she applied that logic consistantly.

>>18160205
>white sources

>>18160589
They did have gigantic BBCs though (as is shown there), which all the women of Rome frantically sought after (being, of course, dissatisfied with the average Med 8-cmer.) Unfortunately, this was a rare pleasure for the average Roman woman back then so those who could had to substitute BBC with BGC (Big Germanic Cock). How lucky the modern Mediterranean frau is today to have her pick huh?

bump.

>>18157521
That’s a good point desu. If people wanted to do sex tourism for African women they would not be volunteering in Haiti, there’s better places. That isn’t the initial motive for people who go there

>>18152272
There's not much of that in it IIRC, mostly just the tedious post modernist hyper focus on irrelevant shit.
"Oh, the RoMANs were great? But what about the wamens? Yeah, guess I just blew your mind, kiddo" as if the history we get wasn't written by the top 0.01% and is a fair representation of the average Roman male.

>>18152284
>We are told that the first act of the new city was to seize some Sabine women — a legend which appears very improbable when we reflect on the sanctity of marriage among the ancients; but we have seen above that the municipal religion forbade marriage between persons of different cities unless these two cities had a common origin or a common worship. The first Romans had the right of intermarriage with Alba, from which they originally came, but not with their other neighbors, the Sabines. What Romulus wished to obtain first of all was not a few women; it was the right of intermarriage, — that is to say, the right of contracting regular relations with the Sabine population. For this purpose a religious bond must be established between them; he therefore adopted the worship of the Sabine god Consus, and celebrated his festival. Tradition adds that during this festival he carried off the women. If he had done this, the marriages could not have been celebrated according to the rites, since the first and most necessary act of the marriage was the traditio in manum, — that is to say, the giving away of the daughter by the father; Romulus would have failed of his object.

>But the presence of the Sabines and their families at the religious ceremony, and their participation in the sacrifice, established between the two nations a bond such that the connubium could no longer be refused. There was no need of a seizure; the right of intermarriage was a natural consequence of the festival. And the historian Dionysius, who consulted ancient documents and hymns, assures us that the Sabines were married according to the most solemn rites, which is confirmed by Plutarch and Cicero. It is worthy of remark that the result of the first effort of the Romans was to throw down the barriers which the municipal religion had placed between two neighboring nations. No similar legend relative to Etruria has come down to us, but it appears quite certain that Rome had the same relations with that country as with Latium and the Sabines. The Romans therefore had the address to unite themselves, by worship and by blood, with all the nations around them. They took care to have the connubium with all the cities; and what proves that they well understood the importance of this bond is, that they would not permit other cities, their subjects, to have it among themselves

>>18163069
>tedious post modernist hyper focus on irrelevant shit
Yeah, I really hate this crap. One thing Marxists do well is use a class based study of history, instead of insisting Roman men were well represented because the literal fucking emperor's diary managed to survive or the modern equivalent of a trillionaire dabbled in history because he was had time to burn.

>>18160148
why is this book pimped so hard? it's always the most recommended reading on roman history.

>>18163986
you have 3 guesses and first two dont count

I wouln't read any academic history text written for at least the last 30 years, more if european. Imagine the progressist revisionism on these pieces

>>18164424
You are being uncharitable. They are mostly very thorough.

There's an easy way to tell with ancient history. If they use BCE/CE it's lefty garbage

>>18164424
Yeah I am starting to do this, too. I can't stand reading modern pieces for this precise reason. Doesn't mean older work does not suffer from the same problem, but the revisionism is certainly not as egregious. Stop teaching me moral lessons, Christ.

>>18164587
Based. Not even a christfag but I use AD

>>18151986
based and truthpilled. that's why I always trust Herodotus over anyone else when it comes down to ancient Greece

>>18164604
>but the revisionism is certainly not as egregious
Examples?

>>18164617
Well, you should

>>18158733

>>18164630
The fall of the western empire is a particularly egregious in this regard
>Max Adams
>There's no evidence of collapse!!! Brian being taken over by warlords who didn't understand why agriculture is useful is LOCALISM against evil Roman centralisation. I'm going to glorify the early middle ages Northumbria now. I'm going to talk about animals now... Should I mention that they became considerably smaller after the fall of Rome? No that'd undermine my narrative
Even more egregious is Peter Brown
>Duuuuuuuuuuude, simplification is just what the people wanted. It had nothing to do with the economy disintegrating, the people just wanted to live in tileless shitheaps instead of their old tiled, actually durable homes that didn't have 60 hours weekly upkeep.

>>18164604
>Stop teaching me moral lessons
Right? I'm a big boy. I can decide whether someone was naughty or nice on my own - I don't need some effete and over-socialized academic to tell me the moral of the fable.
But, really, I think a certain class of historians doesn't view history as, well, history, but rather as a vehicle for ideology. Narratives, and their moral lessons, are more important to these "intellectuals" than actuality. This also results in works which are lesson concerned with real people, and are more concerned with grand and abstracted arcs.

>>18164986
I don't really have anything against that since the fall of Rome is big and complex enough that there is room for revising the standard narrative of decline (and the dark ages meme). Take it with a grain of salt.

>>18158733
someone strip away the irony and sarcasm from this and interpret it for me

>>18152022
they don't make up for the bias and incompetence of modern historians

>>18150074
Take a look at her bibliography. Read Gibbon

>>18165161
>bias and incompetence of modern historians
doesn't exist in any greater proportion now than it ever did