The Romans

Is she really discredited or is that just /pol/ saying that?

She lost pols respect, something she never had to begin with. She's still a classic professor at Cambridge.

Feel free to see her constant unnecessary asinine tweets on her twitter page.

Anyone that wants accurate history absent of modern agendas will read primary sources.

If we are going to give modern academia the benefit of the doubt, Beard has certainly lost that benefit. When the only defense for her is writing off her detractors as pol or alt-right you know it is over.

>What better books are there?
The primary source

How to find best translation?

Since I seem to be the only person who's read it, it's seriously overrated. Her prose is clunky and awkward, and she has a bad tendency to ramble on about things that are only vaguely related to what she was talking about a paragraph before. Her writings about the creation myths of Rome are especially tedious.
>lays out the myth like it's fact
>But plot twist! We believe that's not the case!
>proceeds to ramble on about what she thinks actually happened
>But we don't really know anything and really have no proof.

Anthony Everitt's Rise of Rome is vastly superior, I would recommend following it up with his Cicero and Augustus books. To compare here's how he lays out the myths about Rome's founding
>Rome's founding is steeped in legend and myth. Most of them are probably BS, but it's important we understand them so that we can understand what motivated later Roman actions.
His book is much clearer and much easier to follow. I found myself getting actually irate reading Beard's book because I got tired of "picking the corn out of the shit."

Primary sources are great and all, and you should absolutely read them if you have a serious interest in history. But if you're like me and just like to learn new things in your spare time Everitt is the way to go.

brb studying for 40 years

>Andrew Roberts
I love his bio on Napoleon.

>What better books are there?
Livy, Sallust, Caesar, Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus.

Unless you're interested in the views of 17 year old holocaust deniers, I fear you're in the wrong place

She's a Professor at the worlds most prestigious college. Some stupid alt-righter with a blog doesn't like 'liberals'. What do you think?

I read them in Latin desu
Dryden for Plutarch

Are Wops diverse?

>appeal to authority
>writing off detractors as: [insert group I don't like]
like pottery

Hmm yes I should equally value the opinions of a professor and an alt right blogger.

>This is the kind of person who votes

>Objective evidence does not exist and I base all of my beliefs on authority figure dictation

you are a sad little person

This. Although there is undeniable merit in the broader, better-founded perspective you will get when introducing or synthesizing Roman history by reading a modern book, I would still heavily recommend at least part of that reading list. Also Polybius.

She's bullshitting in that tweet. "Ethnic diversity" as the term is used today doesn't mean "there were six black people on the island of Britain," which is what actually happened

The small bit I read (listened) to seem pretty disorganized, but I also got it for like 4 dollars.

If you want to be intellectually honest in your values and arguments, yes. If you want to be a retarded ideologue conformist, no.

Good post. I was mildly interested in buying Beard's book, but not anymore. I hope you get pic related some day stranger.

This thread is just further proof that a lot of folks on Veeky Forums aren't interested in discussing literature at all.

Beard's book isn't historically inaccurate by any means, let me clarify that. From what I've read from other sources she's actually spot on with her claims and assessments. It's just that her writing is tedious, and not in the normal academic sense. Whoever edited this book did not do their job very well because she obviously needed to be reigned in at several points in the book.

You want to read a ridiculously dense academic book, read A Storm of Spears by Christopher Matthew. That book is insanely dense and technical, but at no point do you feel lost reading it. With SPQR I was frequently going back to the last page I read to make sure I didn't skip something because Beard changes gears so abruptly. If you want a historically sound academic book with excellent prose look up anything by Mary Elizabeth Berry, the woman is an absolute artist.

Tl;dr- Beard's facts are sound but her writing is atrocious. There are better alternatives.

Ronald Syme- The Roman Revolution. It's of the 'the' books on Roman history

Zyme???

There are millions of books. Bad Authors produce bad books, Good Authors produce good books.

Mary Beard has shown she cares more for her political agenda than for a factual representation of history. Thus she is put of the bad author list and should not be read.

There are infinite alternatives and not enough time to waste determining if you are being fed shit or not.

>six black people on the island of Britain
If you ignore facts, like there were several African Emperors of Rome...

There are two arguments that always go on in regards to the argument that happened in twitter. One is about the BBC video and the other is about her tweet. It's important not to confuse them.

Let me brake down exactly what happened in regards to her tweet
She tweets in response to someone saying that Romano Britain was not ethnically diverse by saying that it was. This has no reference to the BBC video, only to the person she is responding to. What the fuck his name is provides some links to genetic studies done which don't show a lot of strange genetic elements.
Here is where it gets stupid. What's his name is telling her what she meant by ethnically diverse and then tell her that her definition that he is forcing on her is wrong because of these studies. The problem is that she is clearly using a different definition from his. What's his name acts like a complete asshole and Beard gets frazzled.

His definition of ethnically diverse seems to be that the ethnic variety would be widespread enough, and that there would be enough interbreeding, and that no ethnic groups were displaced to prevent enough mixing to show obvious evidence in genetic studies done today.
Also that white people from outside Britain don't count as ethnically diverse.
Her definition seems to be is that there was a reasonable number of people not indigenous to Britain in a variety of stations. Almost all soldiers would be foreign, almost all merchants would be foreign, almost all Roman officials would be foreign. We are talking about distinct ethnic groups that don't have many reasons to have children with the native Britons.

The BBC video however is complete shit and while there was a Berber Proconsul (literally the most powerful position in Briton) he was probably only dark skinned and was not black.

They may have been African but they probably weren't black.

I sent SPQR back after Beard's retarded tweets (the historical inaccuracy bothered me more than anything political) and ordered The Roman Revolution instead. In some ways I'm thankful for Beard's idiocy saving me from a dumb pop-history book.

North African's aren't black, and many of those "African" Roman's were just Italian colonists, not even North African.

>"Scipio was North African"

You should read Posteguillo's books

>She's right Rome was ethnically diverse.
But was britain ethnically diverse?

She's an SJW libcuck (to use the scientific term), so I wouldn't trust her to keep her ideological tentacles out of the whole business.

>If you ignore facts, like there were several African Emperors of Rome...
Yes, the illustrious African Emperors of Rome, to join the venerable ranks of African great men, like the famous African philosophers St. Augustine and Camus.

>everyone else is an ideologue but meee

>there wuz black celts
>there wuz black roman legionaries

It's sad that so many historians, scientists, and artists are bending over backwards for the progressive regime and its lies.

>while there was a Berber Proconsul (literally the most powerful position in Briton) he was probably only dark skinned and was not black
Berbers are and always were racially white, you mongoloid brainlet. They're whiter than Sicilians.

>Berbers are and always were racially white, you mongoloid brainlet. They're whiter than Sicilians.
Some can be, are brown skinned.
Their haplogroups are made up of things that are either absent in Europe or if they are present then vastly more prominent in North Africa and the Middle East.

Yes, almost the entire administrative class would be foreign as would almost all the army and a large number of the wealthy, not to mention all the traders that would be there.

>Academia can't ever disagree with me otherwise they are cucks

No, I probably have a few dozen books on rome, all of them are better than this.

Even most biographies of specific people like Caesar give a much better overall explanation of roman history and culture than this piece of garbage.

Easily the worst book on rome I've ever read. Seriously, most anything is better.

also the fact that most upper class people who lived in north africa (who would go on to become major players in rome) were actually just ethnically Mediterranean people who just happened to live in north africa.

Sort of like Cleopatra, who idiots always think is black just because she was "north african" but they don't bother to read she was just a greek transplant who's family had lived in north africa a few generations.

...

...

>If you ignore facts, like there were several African Emperors of Rome...
THEY WERE MED

When you know something isn't true and yet you promote it because of pressure from your current political regime you're a coward.

This would apply to a Nazi historian claiming the ancient samurai were all blonde Aryans just like it applies to Mary and her sub saharan Celts.

you wont regret it user. If you like Syme's style he also wrote the most influential book on Tacitus. I believe its just called "Tacitus". I would highly recommend it

read this to see how viewing people from 2k years ago through a modern lens is RETARDED. TALEB MED LIFE4LYFE

academia.edu/35335526/Crisis_in_the_Classics

Britain, no. A few populated centers ruled by foreigners, somewhat, but they didn't interbreed with the locals in significant numbers.

>written by a women
>retarded title and attention grabbing graphic
Its rated well because it was meant for the masses and the masses ate it up.

wops are black.

You see when the Moors invaded They did so much fuckin'

Some people would call that ethnically diverse. This goes all the way back to the begging where alt-right types are angry because they assume the only possible meaning that word has is their one and then they get angry at people for using words in a different way.

there's zero genetic evidence of blacks having lived in roman britain

Is the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire worth reading?
I know the guy apparently hates Christianity but at the very least is it an informative, stimulating and entertaining read?

the reading is entertaining, and is valued as one of the first pieces of written history that exclusively relies on primary sources
it also is a flagship of english-written history, so yeah, if you have the time id recommend it

>I didn't read any of the thread and made a comment that has nothing to do with anything

If you don't know that much about Rome I would not suggest it as an introduction. For example, the first emperor he talks about is Augustus (no surprise there) before jumping ahead to Commodus skipping sixteen emperors (I think he very briefly mentions Trajan). The book is written for people who already have a decent knowledge with which this book would augment. To read this book first I think would be confusing and would lead to a lot of misconceptions. Not least of all that Gibbon's is so laughably biased, and if you are unfamiliar of Roman history it might be harder to tell the slightly more subtle ones of his. I'm not kidding, I often break into laughter when he mentions the depraved effeminate barbarity of this or that non-Roman.

In short since you need to already know about Rome before reading the book probably won't be very informative, or if you read it without any reasonable of knowledge it again also probably won't be that informative. However it is incredibly entertaining and well written and is a book of historical importance in its own right. So if you are going to read it read it as a work of literature rather than a work of history.

The only things I learn from Mary Beard SPQR threads:

Dont do popular academic outreach.
The outlandish popular rage mechanic exists on the right and left
Roman Britain, at least in regards to the army, was relatively diverse compared to pre-Roman Britain

She is right, though. PJW and the rest of his ilk ignore history if they don't personally agree with it.

A few years ago my grandmother (who now only watches televangelists and Fox News) and I were having a discussion about America when I said, "did you know that a Muslim nation was the first to recognise American sovereignty?" She said she didn't believe it. When I showed her sources she still said she did not believe it and that was the end.

She also thinks (or parrots from Fox News rather) that colleges are nothing but indoctrination centers for Marxism. It's crazy how people who are normally in a bubble can go somewhere that gives you other ideas and viewpoints and then, shockingly, change their view. Yet, apparently, that is a bad thing.

On a sidenote is that why STEM is pushed often? One of the most important topics I was taught more of was critical thought in my WASTE OF TIME ARTS CLASSES. I think we need to teach that in schools again but can't have the cattle doing anything but chew their cud and wait for slaughter, am I right?

Inb4 edgy

my kids school pushes "STEAM". Guess what the A stands for.

I suspect angry graphic designers

The arts are necessary for a functioning society.

>buying into that Morocco meme
france, britain, and netherlands all recognized our sovereignty before they did. for you to use the first formal treaty as the criteria of recognition is silly because plenty of other diplomatic relations took place with other countries prior to that

>She is right, though. PJW and the rest of his ilk ignore history if they don't personally agree with it.
This is true, but hardly demonstrated in the example you're replying to - obviously the ethnic diversity people care about isn't that of Romans, Brits, Germanics, Jews, Moors and whatever other various ethnic groups could have or really were present in Roman-occupied Britain at the time, and this fact hardly has immediate moral or cultural implications - unlike perhaps, the idea that black people have always been present. This sort of "ethnic diversity" is beyond question; even the whole myth of British identity is based around the conjoining of Angles and Saxons. To just write all this off as "ethnic diversity", to slip the elephant in the room under the door there, without really addressing what PJW is implying, is so useless and silly she probably shouldn't have bothered replying to him at all.
>She also thinks (or parrots from Fox News rather) that colleges are nothing but indoctrination centers for Marxism. It's crazy how people who are normally in a bubble can go somewhere that gives you other ideas and viewpoints and then, shockingly, change their view. Yet, apparently, that is a bad thing.
Dull misapprehension of her words, user. Something about your condescension reeks of adolescence. It's nearly impossible for people to view "conversion" to an ideology they dislike neutrally. If people went to university and were more prone to adopt far-right ideologies it'd be hard not to view this extremely negatively. People who are normally in a bubble go to /pol/ and get their views changed. Doesn't make the process a wholly positive one, necessarily. I mean, I agree with you ultimately, but don't act like there's no reason at all to be concerned and your grandma's just a dumb retard. If your grandma dislikes Marxism, of course she's gonna think this is horrible.

The Morocco thing is also untrue. Another silly factoid that you've granted undue significance. Your grandmother was, in the last analysis, right, though her reasons for being right are wrong (unless you misrepresented her to fit your little racist grandma narrative) - in any case, if you're not lying it looks like you inherited her retarded ideologue genes. Skip Veeky Forums after school tomorrow and go play with your grandma like a cat would with a mouse again. I'd hope it brings you more pleasure than making stupid comments online.

There's literally tens of thousands of living "eminent" historians in Britain alone, that's the problem.

Morocco was the first nation to recognise American sovereignty in a document in 1777. Netherlands saluted the flag. France recognised the USA via document in 1778.

It's not a myth nor is it a meme.

Just read her exchange with Taleb. He shows incontrovertible genetic evidence, and she basically has no response.

Anglo Saxon rule looks pretty comfy desu

She shit-talks Marcus Aurelius

>This sort of "ethnic diversity" is beyond question
Why do you have to put that in speech marks? It's like saying you're right, but you are a sneaky commie bastard that kept to the letter of the agreement but cheated its spirit.
>unlike perhaps, the idea that black people have always been present
The idea that we using the words ethnic diversity to describe something that doesn't include a lot of black people as being sneaky sounds like some tumble tier left wing regression.

Well he did persecute Christians and raised the emperor that gave rise to the crises of the 3rd century.

agreed

This just came in the mail. I am excited.

Isn't this admittedly revisionist?

Damn, didn't know there was a landmark Caesar

It was only just released this week.

I think they're going to go back and do a Landmark edition of Xenophon's Anabasis next, which should be a treat as well.

I've ordered the landmark Xenophon hardback for £11. I'm looking forward to it.
Just need to find the others for a reasonable price now.

Read Thucydides and Herodotus and both were an absolute pleasure to read

I have all them all. I took some small issue with the translation used for Thucydides, but the wealth of additional contextual information (maps, essays, archaeological digressions, etc) in it more than compensated for small moments of artlessness in the translation.

The series as a whole really is a delight.

>The idea that we using the words ethnic diversity to describe something that doesn't include a lot of black people as being sneaky
He's completely right about this. You guys do this all the time, one example is with regards to immigration. I've legitimately seen notable left-wing sites using Switzerland as an example for how great immigration is, despite the fact that all of their immigrants are other white Europeans and clearly not what anyone is concerned about. Now you go back into British Roman history and say it was "diverse" because of multiple other European and Mediterranean ethnic groups forming 1% of the population and try to use it to justify making half the fucking country non-white and flooding us with sub-saharans.

She also thinks (or parrots from CNN rather) that skinhead rallies are nothing but indoctrination centers for Nazism. It's crazy how people who are normally in a bubble can go somewhere that gives you other ideas and viewpoints and then, shockingly, change their view. Yet, apparently, that is a bad thing.

You're wrong about Morocco or at least twisting things to fit what you want. The document of "recognition" by Morocco was simply the Sultan mentioning American merchant ships, something he could do for a company as well. It wasn't a declaration of recognition of the US as a country. France was the first to do that. If we're talking unofficially then you're also wrong, that would be the Dutch saluting the flag. You're only right in the narrow category of unofficial, written recognition. So in other words you were an arrogant, condescending pseud to your grandma while also being wrong. I think you belong on reddit.

Oh my, there's another 300+ pages of essays on Caesar and Rome more generally that Landmark commissioned available for free at thelandmarkcaesar.com/TheLandmarkCaesar_WebEssays.pdf

I'm going to be reading a lot about Rome this Christmas season.

Whats a good book about Rome then?

But who cares about these "facts." It's much more important to promote a narrative about history that favors Muslims.

Absolutely retarded that I can't get this in paper form. Hell, even including it would only put the book at 1200 pages, that's perfectly fine.

I thought Adrian Goldsworthy's books on Caesar and The Punic Wars were great.

>These essays, we repeat, form an integral part of The Landmark Julius Caesar and, as such, are cited throughout the footnotes in the printed volume and the Web essays

Not integral enough to include in the actual fucking book go fuck yourself strassler

Yes, very lame and disappointing. I blame Pantheon/Knopf for being cheapskates. Anyways, I just put in an order at lulu to have a hard bound volume of the essays printed to have on hand.

How much did it cost?

$27.60 including tax and shipping. Should arrive in two weeks or so.

I don't think it's an incorrect application of the term ethnic diversity - but in this context there's obviously strong connotations to the word, and I think she's trying to vindicate those connotations in a circumstance where they don't really fit.