Give me the rundown on this. Is it worth reading for someone whose familiar with Rome?

In fairness she doesn't mention Trump (or even specify the president). The passage that person is talking about is in the bottom paragraph of the attached image.

David Irving is retarded but at least he has the balls to go against the establishment, while Mary Beard just shills the establishment's political agenda.

Ah, thanks for actually posting that. I stand corrected.

How is she a bad historian?

>I laughed out loud to her comparing Cicero wearing a metal breastplate during his oration against Catiline to Trump giving a speech with an assault rifle slung over his shoulder.
Academia is a meme.

see

It'd be hard to mention Trump's presidency in the book considering it was written before he was president

david irving deliberately lies which is the worst trait a historian could have.

You could make a scenario where there are blacks in Roman-era britain and such events did happen historically, though it was infrequent. Mary Beard going along with this is DISHONEST and MISLEADING

David Irving claiming the holocaust never happened and is a massive Jewish conspiracy is a LIE.

This is the difference

>BCE

SKIP

they are both lying in order to advance their retarded politics. This shit disgust me when normies do it, so its even worse when "historians" do so as well.

She probably meant well, and in all honesty isn't entirely wrong about Roman-Britain being somewhat cosmopolitan.

independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/chinese-skeleton-discovery-roman-history-society-southwark-cemetery-asian-remains-a7330666.html

Wow good job catching onto the obvious bait behind this thread.

It's funny watching her squirm throughout trying to reconcile her leftist bias with the fact those concepts in her personal philosophy lead directly to the destruction of Rome, Last chapter was the best for that reason alone, pretty good otherwise though. It's hard to find a decent book on Rome without it throwing out buzzword bullshit on "equality" and "problematic gender standards", etc. Storm Before the Storm is written by a boy and it still suffers from that.

>David Irving claiming the holocaust never happened and is a massive Jewish conspiracy is a LIE.
He never claimed that. In fact, he's the only historian that's provided direct evidence from the Nazi's themselves that substantiates the deaths of over a million jews for the purposes of select extermination. That didn't involve two days being worked over by British interrogators at least.

This is a shitty post. She has no issue in addressing aspects of Roman history that'd be deemed problematic, nor does she divulge to soap-box preaching. All that I can remember that'd even be relevant to this post is her discussing how Roman history has a legacy of incorporating rape into formative events, which is true.

good post

>her personal philosophy lead directly to the destruction of Rome

lmao

>This is a shitty post.
I'm the first motherfucker to bring up Mary Beard on this board when I read her book over a year ago. Before that, there was nothing on on her or any specifically else. Find a thread and I'm probably in it.
>She has no issue in addressing aspects of Roman history that'd be deemed problematic
Read the end when she's talking about Caracalla and his policies. She wrestles with it when she introduces him, then admits to there being an issue with modern perspectives being applied to the classical age. I'll find the page number in a minute.
>nor does she divulge to soap-box preaching
Never said that. But if you pay attention to the buzzwords, it is painful.

Just off the top of my head read page 535, where the struggle is obvious. She even goes as far to say that the history is straight up just not applicable anymore and tops it with a shit cherry about how Caesar's tactics don't mean anything for the time period they were used in, and tacticians who talk about it are basically LARPers. Now that I think about it, Beard is shit.

>BCE

>good post
You just got bamboozled my friend.This faggot right here>Her infrequent, yet still notable references/comparisons between Rome and modern day American politics certainly made me roll my eyes at times
Needs to read about how she really felt about drawing comparisons. I'm not saying she didn't-she did- but she had equal contempt for it.Did anyone itt claiming to read the book actually read it? I see a screen cap but no hard evidence.

Stop making shit up, she didn't mention Trump at all. She didn't even mention America, she's a British professor why would she mention America? The actual quote is

>By the summer of 63 BCE, Cicero appears to have got wind of definite danger from Catiline, who was trying his luck as a candidate again. Using his authority as consul, Cicero postponed the next round of elections, and when he finally did let them go ahead, he turned up at the poll with an armed guard and wearing a military breastplate clearly visible under his toga. It was a histrionic display, and the combination of civilian and military kit was alarmingly incongruous, rather as if a modern politician were to enter the legislature in a business suit with a machine gun slung over his shoulder. But it worked. These scare tactics, combined with Catiline’s vociferously populist programme, made sure that he was once more defeated. Claiming that he was a down-and-out standing up for other down-and-outs could hardly have endeared him to elite voters.

What's more, the book was published in mid 2015, so it would have been in the process of being written long before Donald even announced his candidacy.

Was gonna pick up this book but didn't for two reasons: a) it's written by a woman, and b) it seemed to be more about forcing modern day sociopolitical comparisons than retelling actual history. Based on this thread it seems I made a wise choice.

>Just off the top of my head, read a segment from her own personal conclusion/opinion-piece separate from the rest of the book as evidence that she is a hack.

Also she refers to people in the modern day military claiming to follow Caesar's tactics, which is valid in my mind.

>She probably meant well,
Maybe in a delusional progressivist's mind, just like lying about holocaust numbers in "meaning well" in a neonazi's mind.

What I meant is I'm doubtful she had the handy screencap of the cartoon that always floats around here emphasizing the worst bits of historical insertcoloredpersonhere-ism.

I read you're post two different ways. You mean that it's valid that military thinkers claim to understand Caesars methods, or it's valid that Beard thinks that's silly?

>just like lying about holocaust numbers in "meaning well" in a neonazi's mind.
Fucking christ how much evidence do you need before you realize 11 million is not a real number. Pic related. A week afterward, news came out that the number was over 20 million. They literally doubled down on the first claim.

I fucking love Rome.

I shall win pic related
dailystoic.com/giveaways/ancient-roman-coin/?lucky=19602

>inb4 banned for 5 years

I mean that it's valid that Beard considers it disingenuous when modern military leaders cite Caesar as anything more than a nominal influence, especially when people claim to follow his tactics.

This opinion section of her troubled me as well, but I respected her opinion as her work here was clearly a tremendous effort and a testament to historiography, clearly the work of a dedicated historian.

>especially when people claim to follow his tactics
This should clue you in she is a bullshitter. How many generals do you catch on any media platform talking about how they used Caesars pilum tactics? None whatsoever. She was grasping for an example and fabricated one on the spot. It's one thing to understand Caesar's influence in his period, but no military commander in the first world is claiming to reissue his doctrine into modern times.
>when modern military leaders cite Caesar as anything more than a nominal influence
It'd be a viable opinion if it were constructed out of a modicum of truth.

Not even mad, I'd love for a fellow Veeky Forumstorian to win that coin. Good luck user!

Likewise, user!

How many generals do you catch on any media platform giving their opinion period? Let alone using their time in the public eye as an autistic historical digression? What's definitely apparent is Caesar's lasting influence on military generalship through history, off the top of my head Napoleon was brought to fucking tears when the Brits compared him to Caesar.

>How many generals do you catch on any media platform giving their opinion period
Literally youtube. I'm watching an admiral and a USAF general give a talk on airsea battle doctrine right now.Not to mention the retired generals writing a fuckload of books on top of also having youtube videos given as lectures at schools. You could've spent the last 60 seconds bothering to check out a single one of this mass of people doing this very thing right now. So low effort it's insulting, and frankly, disgusting.
>off the top of my head Napoleon was brought to fucking tears when the Brits compared him to Caesar.
Are you British? I promise this is relevant.

> left wing bourgeois labour propaganda

Thanks for breaking my neck.

I think you're taking it far too literally. I'm still not convinced Beard's mentioning of generals seeing Caesar as a model of strategic and tactical prowess is something she pulled entirely out of her ass. Generals and military leaders the world over throughout history have likened themselves to Caesar, or at the very least looked up to him as an example. If not Caesar himself, the Roman marital legacy he's played a major part in facilitating.
>So low effort it's insulting, and frankly, disgusting.
You really think I'm about to watch some old farts whose premier military accomplishment involves dropping ordinance on illiterate ragheads drone on about doctrine in hopes that they'll mention Caesar at one point?

And I'm not British.

Complete garbage

This thread isnt bait, I heard some unsavory things about her and when I relayed them to a history discord I'm in, they called me a delusional right wing fanatic. So I'm trying to get the full picture.

If you actually read this full article from its original source, the point is that they think even more people died in the Holocaust and it may eclipse the number of Jews killed. Not that the holocaust is a conspiracy hoax

fucking /pol/ retards I swear

Fucking Taleb.

The fact she went along with the "there were blacks in Roman Britain and to think otherwise is racist" claptrap pretty much means I'm never giving the book a chance. Same way Duncan going along with it ensured that I'm never picking up The Storm Before the Storm. If someone is so willing to engage in complete dishonesty just to try and score political points why even bother supporting them?

Duncan's a political science major so lefty/liberal arts bullshit should be expected, especially now as he's become more overtly political in his stuff.

And I mean "overtly" in the sense that the 1848 episodes he's been doing have been highly sympathetic to radicals and largely dismissive in tone of anyone more moderately liberal.

>says Caracalla granting citizenship to everyone in the empire was a good thing

that was the second I dropped her

Isn't the whole reason why he did it was that they'd pay higher taxes?

not everyone reading is going to immediately realize this a bait thread, half this website's users migrated within the last year

Pretty much. It was the only way he could keep paying the army.

OP here, this is not a bait thread. Legitimately curious

This is less a history book and more of a historiography book. You won't be treated to long ruminations on what went down during the Punic Wars, or given immense details and chronologies to early conflicts of Rome. What you will get, however, is an understanding of how the Romans operated, how they felt about the world around them, how they felt about certain political mechanizations, and an appreciation for how this information was uncovered and recorded through a lens of healthy skepticism.

Exactly what Im looking for, thanks.

Enjoy, user.

...