Get a book called SPQR for my birthday

>get a book called SPQR for my birthday
>first time getting to grips properly with the Roman Empire
>excited
>go to read it, author is a woman
>doubt
>find out she lectures at Oxbridge, feel a little better must know her shit
>2 pages in
>Romans and 'gender identity'
>sigh
>close book

Why do women have to ruin everything?

Other urls found in this thread:

books.google.com/books?id=yKL4CQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover
amazon.com/Varangians-Byzantium-Sigfús-Blöndal/dp/052103552X
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>SPQR
>LBQT

Coincidence? Cogito ergo not.

Not respecting mary beard is the dumbest thing you can do as an uneducated plebian

Ann Coulter is the only respectable woman since Queen Victoria. The women in academic circles usually aren't even worth puking on.

Meh, she seemed a bit full of herself desu. Only talked about her own views and glossed over the general concensus. Her use of BCE/CE drove me mad though

>Ann "Throw in enough words like imagine, perhaps, and might have – and you've got yourself a scientific theory! How about this: Imagine a giant raccoon passed gas and perhaps the resulting gas might have created the vast variety of life we see on Earth. And if you don't accept the giant raccoon flatulence theory for the origin of life, you must be a fundamentalist Christian nut who believes the Earth is flat. That's basically how the argument for evolution goes." Coulter is the only respectable woman since Queen Victoria

>SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome
>By Mary Beard

This one?
Had a similar episode with a book.

>Be me, get a book called "The Lost Army" a few years ago
>It's about an expedition of 10'000 spartans in Persia
>Author is a man, a reknown conductor in historical documentaries
>I fall for it
>Buy it, read it at home
>It has romance, it's actually about a persian girl who leaves her village to accompany these soldiers
>Give it away to a female classmate

20+ yuros spent for nothing, how disgusting.

It is important. The Romans were a conquest culture that held up masculinity as a virtue. A man was supposed to be self-sufficient, tempered, strong, and intelligent. The Romans had no idea of homosexuality or heterosexuality, only active and passive individuals. To submit meant a loss of your integrity, self-sufficiency, and masculinity. You were a bastardized woman, similar to a eunuch.

Her own views are the most developed to come out since gibbons senpai, I had some lectures with her and I think cemented my adoration when she 'triggered' a SJW girl in the front row by joking about the rape of the sabines. She's a no no-nonsense lady who only cares about the truth- she doesn't dress up or faff around with charity galas like some historians I wont mention.

Yeah that's the one senpai. So disappointed

Wouldn't expect that tripe from a man. Especially as most history authors are aware that the battles/campaigns/politics/individuals are what draws in most of their (male) readers.

Normies lap all that shit up though

Ann "I would like evolution to join the roster of other discredited religions, like the cargo cult of the South Pacific. Practitioners of cargo cult believed that manufactured products were created by ancestral spirits, and if they imitated what they had seen the white man do, they could cause airplanes to appear out of the sky, bringing valuable cargo like radios and TVs. So they constructed 'airport towers' out of bamboo and 'headphones' out of coconuts and waited for the airplanes to come with the cargo. It may sound silly, but in defense of the cargo cult, they did not wait as long for evidence supporting their theory as the Darwinists have waited for evidence supporting theirs." Coulter

Ann "I'm always suspicious when a story is covered heavily on one of the liberal stations and not being talked about on Fox. For example, the birther story, all over MSNBC – no one on Fox ever mentioned it." Coulter

Ann "They're Democrats always accusing us of repressing their speech. I say let's do it. Let's repress them. Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment." Coulter

I think that book came around the time in which everything in Italy (I live here) was getting streamlined for a wider audience like it had already happened in the USA, so the interesting history documentaries were dying off and 3 years later history revisionism, ancient aliens and all that shit would later rise to prominence.
Just a reminder that normies ruin everything they touch.

Although these two posts
suggest something different from blatant feminazi bait

I think her writing is good when it's not focusing on her own views (I read a few chapters a few weeks later, Cicero, Roman Monarchy etc) but that makes me feel better.

Still tho, the BCE/CE thing really irks me for some reason

Autism?

Historians disagree, big deal- Beardbae thinks the empire was over when every man within the borders recieved citizenship- i think the end was when it was split into east and west, some people say it was the fall of byzantines etx

Anyone else likes Conn Iggulden's books?

because women understand nothing, they just feel and react

>Still tho, the BCE/CE thing really irks me for some reason
It irks you because it's retarded.
It's an attempt at removing religion from dating by literally stating that the beginning of said religion marks the beginning of humanity's history. It doesn't get any more retarded.

>humanity's history
*humanity's common history

The classical Roman Empire ended with the death of Theodosius and the final victory of Christianity. After that, you have Western Rome, which soon falls, and Eastern Rome, which maintained the values of the classical world.

You realise that is an opinion and they didnt have an official 'end of the empire' day

That's why I hate it. BC/AD is an established way of doing it, don't see the need for change. I'm not Christian (yet) but if I was I'd be more pissed desu. And 'common era' of all things? Totally retarded

Ann "I look like a dinosaur even though I don't necessarily believe in them" Coulter

>Beardbae thinks the empire was over when every man within the borders recieved citizenship
What argument does she make?

I can't remember the exact argument, but its kind of stupid anyway considering that other territories were granted Roman citizenship way before the so called 'ending of the Empire.

Some may not have been given the vote at first, but many were

>wadda fugg is this shit?? i wanna learn about muh epik legion! ave seasawr!

That Caracall's 'Constitutio Antoniniana' basically undermined the entire slave based economy of the roman empire, and changed the notion of citizenship to make Rome less of a centralised concept in the empires philosophical political identity. It undermined the social dynamic rome was built and maintained on completely and then caracallas genocides crippled the future generations of rome's interlectuals and manpower reserves as well.

It legally ended in the west when Odacer sent the Imperial regalia to Constantinople and Zeno abolished the division. The only other set date for the fall of the Roman Empire is the final conquest of Constantinople. If you want to get technical, it's the fall of Trebizond.

I've always considered this the beginning of the end for Rome.

Again, this is an opinion- we do not possess the original, binding legal documents from the times- nor did any individual from the time possess the power to formally disolve the empire/or they didnt do so

>getting triggered by reading a book
>stops reading it because he finds new ideas scary

Good. People like you should be no where near history and should be working in the fields.

>implying I was triggered

I just don't want gender politics in what I read, is that too much to ask? Go back to Tumblr faggot

Gender is an important part of understanding societies. If that's too frustrating for you and you just want to know about le epic battles and baddass generals you're welcome to go and enjoy some pop-history bullshit made for shitters like yourself.

Grow up

Zeno had the power to abolish the division between east and west, and he did. This is not my opinion, this is a fact. You can say that Rome survived after the fall of Constantinople and Trebizond, but you'll be wrong.

Do you not understand the point? There is no consensus on this, no 'right' answer

On the fall of Rome? Technically, 476 (750 if you take Byzantium into account). Legally, it's 1453. Culturally, the reign of Heraclius. Religiously, the death of Justinian.

>Legally, it's 1453

As a solicitor I can't wait for this explanation

That's when Bush signed his secret deal with Mehmed II, selling out his country.

Yeah, and and I understand that but when it's shoehorned in is when I hate it. I'd much rather the book focused on the politics, expansion, government, alliances and treaties before battles. All of that is much more important than gender, faggot

How is it shoehorned it? It should be at the front of Beard's book because you need to understand the society and the ideals of it's members before you can understand their political structure or military decisions. Honestly, you sound like the Veeky Forums equivalent of a Michael Bay fan; unless there's pretty explosions and battle scenes to distract you, you get bored and angry because you can't comprehend a story that requires more than the most basic stereotypes to understand.

>politics, expansion, government, alliances and treaties

From early rome? What are you smoking? We barely know any of that shit. Stick to pleb history if you don't want the gender politics, because it's one of the most facinating segments of the study of history

>attend a classics studies seminar
>just about everyone gives interesting lectures
>middle aged woman lecturer comes up, short hair, looks lesbian
>"i'm going to compare contemporary country music lyrics to roman poetry to show parallels in male gender identity in both cultures"
>nope
>get up and leave

De facto fell I mean. It's when the last crowned Roman Emperor fell. Legally, the Roman Empire still exists, just without an emperor, government, or army. It was conquered, but never actually dissolved, unless you take right of conquest or Ottoman claims to be the Roman Empire as law.

Bet it would have actually turned out to be a great lecture with some interesting insight into how similar yet different the ideas of masculinity and femininity were in Rome compared to our time. the comparison obviously only really there to help us understand Roman society better.

You dun goof'd

>barely know any of that shit

It's vague but what we do know is interesting enough. Speculation on how Rome was founded, the Sabines, Veii all of that. The legality of early Roman citizenship. The monarchy and what succeeded it. The guesswork is what I find intriguing.

Gender politics is pleb history. Haven't you got a gender studies lecture to attend? Faggot

That doesn't seem too bad. The mere fact you shut down when you seen this woman's looks and dress proves you hold bigoted views.

Don't you have a vagina to bleed out from?

You keep using 'gender studies' as a solely negative thing, and not an important tool in actually understanding history. I'd tell you that you're not cut out for actually learning history and you'd be better off reading Cracked and talking about how awesome Tesla and Roosevelt were, but even Cracked has a basic understanding that history is not defined solely by things that look dramatic in tapestry.

You're worse at historical understanding than Cracked- I can think of no greater insult.

This is correct, that lecture could have shown how Rome's culture compares to ours.

The difference between masculinity and femininity in ancient Rome is important. I explained the qualities, role and responsibilities of Roman men earlier. Women were seen as beneath men because they lacked agency and self-sufficiency, which literally meant they lacked a penis. Since they could not play the active role in sex, they could not conquer for Rome. They were also seen as weak-willed and scatter-brained. This and their lack of agency is why they could not vote and why they had a lesser form of citizenship.

>not cut out for learning history

If that were the case I wouldn't be studying history and politics in a top 20 uni and averaging firsts.

Implying that we know more about gender in early Rome than expansion, government etc is absurd.

It's of mid tier import behind everything else.

Hows the neet life?

>I'm mad at people on tumblr because of what people on Veeky Forums tell me
>People on tumblr like to talk about gender
>therefore anything that talks about gender is tumblr

You're a cretin. That's like refusing to study Roman religion because you don't like fedoras.

Going to birmingham isn't an achievement, pls leave

>Birmingham

Try York, faggot

Is this what triggered you OP? Really? And you stopped reading right there?

You better fucking be vanbrugh, and not some disgusting derwent-til-i-die faggot

It would be a waste of time to just focus on gender in ancient Rome. You need to understand the basics of it, but that's it. Three or four pages explaining how social class and gender worked in ancient Rome is enough. The problem is that because of critical theory, we now have fields which focus only on gender or class. Critical theory is important, but you cannot look at everything from the point of view of gender or social class. History is about being objective and understanding the context surrounding events and societies.

You were literally triggered by the word gender.

Are you aware that there are such thing as men and women, and that they were a part of the Roman empire?

books.google.com/books?id=yKL4CQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover

The prologue is the only place the phrase "gender identity" appears, and you couldn't even make it past that.

Nah, I didn't "shut down", it's something I noticed in retrospect. There were other women lecturers. I also didn't walk out right away, but after I saw that it was meme-tier.

user is one of those people would tell you at the drop of a hat all about the physiological and psychological differences between men and women, but is appalled at the idea that someone might want to incorporate those differences, and the social effects of those differences, into their studies, because Veeky Forums taught him that any academics involving women is out to cut off his tiny penis.

The next paragraph is entirely about archaeology

How can someone with a self-professed interest in history be so lazy?

And the fact you seen it as that shows you are close-minded. You walked out simply because you didn't like how the lecturer looked, and assumed the topic would be a waste of time when you had no evidence of such. That lecture could have drawn important parallels.

Had this happen as well
>See a book called "Varangian"
>Oh wow cool, there aren't a lot of books on this subject
>Buy it, take it home
>Not only is it a """"""historical"""""" novel
>The author is a literal cuck.

I was so goddamn pissed.

>Classics prof is qt asian
>She straight up told a student this isn't gender studies and she doesn't want a paper about the "oppression of women"
>BTFO the student's argument by explaining social power Athenian women had

>can't even be bothered to open up a book at the store or read the dust jacket to find out if it's a novel or non-fiction before you buy it

That's on you.

Yeah that was entirely on me, I didn't expect tumblr to have reach in a subject as esoteric as the Varangian guard, luckily I bought a proper book on the subject recently.

What is the name of the new book. There is as you said precious little on the Varangian Guard.

BTFO
T
F
O

OP confirmed for humongous faggot

That's subjective

Please consider suicide

Thats the kind of people that post on Veeky Forums. That explains why the board is so shit.

She's just an attention whore who says controversial things to stay relevant in the media and sell books. I don't even think she believes half the things shes says.

itt: children from /pol/ trying to read a book and failing hard

>Cogito ergo not.

kekity-kek

>dismissing scholarship after two pages because an idea clashes with your preconceived notions and desire for historical narrative

I don't think studying history is for you mate.

Why wouldn't you want to know how the Romans viewed gender identity and sexuality? You don't think that every single civilization has had the same views throughout history, do you?

because to people like him, history is a progression of battles and speeches, any other historical analysis that might actually shed light society, culture, economics and such in a way that doesn't vaguely proclaim "man they were so much better than degenerate modern society" is useless.

Now I've got to MA level, novels disguised as Historical Books drive me up the wall

I don't blame you user I would have done the same.

I'm willing to bet the majority of romaboos on Veeky Forums only give a rat's ass about its military and political history. Notice how almost every thread centers on emperors and their wars.

It's great that you hold so tightly to our ideological convictions concerning academia that you criticise things you claim to have actively avoided listening to or engaging with. really gives you a strong leg to stand on.

My interests are mostly medieval and ancient history, at the moment I'm doing some research into the role of fate in Icelandic sagas.

Saying that I love military history but it's never been a big focus of mine, it's more something I read about in my spare time.

Understanding the differing roles of men and women helps scholars to understand elements of Roman culture, politics, the economy, interactions with other cultures, perceptions of contemporary figures and the social life of average Romans. Furthermore, history as a discipline is about more than special events, it's an all-encompassing discipline of studying the past that requires intense nuance and attention to the most minute details. Think of how complex any given society is. Consider something as small as a modern high school. Think of how all the student interact, their social connections, what cultural groups they belong to, their family life, the state of their community and educational system, and how all that effects their decision making and various skills. Any given group is incredibly complex, ignoring aspects of their society because of reddit-tier memes is ridiculous.

>Read the phrase "gender identity"
>Get so triggered that you stop reading a good history book

You r9k (or pol?) faggots are just as sensitive as the SJWs you despise.

amazon.com/Varangians-Byzantium-Sigfús-Blöndal/dp/052103552X

No need to be a cunt m8.

How was I a cunt. I just wanted the name of a book.

Tbf I don't think he was being a cunt desu senpai. There genuinely isn't much on the Varangian Guard.

>Buy book called Rise of Rome or something like that expecting it to be about life of Romans during the time period, because it was fiction
>First perspective is from some girl that gets raped by a giant retard who gets saved by Hercules who then fucks her
>She gives birth to Romulus and Remus so now no one knows if a retard is the originator of Rome
>Later on some guy tries to fuck Scipio Africanus in the ass
There was a lot of gay in this book.

Yeah my bad, I misread what you typed, sounded cunty in my head.

falling for manfredi trap, it's your fault
You should have just red Anabasis

lmao

she wasn't even discussing the history of Rome there, but the historiography and how changing priorities affect modern historical writing

sjws are faggots but op got triggered just as badly as they do.

you gotto give the womens studies professors some credit. they managed to monetize a completely bullshit and useless theory into a high paying reeducation profession.

That word apparently triggers him.

Roma was a really nice book. The next one has traps.
Drawings are included