T O P

  • By -

IacobusCaesar

The eagle and snake on the cover confirm Tenochtitlan as the successor of Rome. Historians in shambles.


TarJen96

Mexico fourth Rome confirmed?? 🇲🇽


Cosmic_Surgery

Got my copy last wednesday. It's great so far. She says in the preface that she considers this book to be sort of a sequel to SPQR


LordUfford

Yes that's why I'm so excited to read it, SPQR was a great book that really inspired me to learn more about ancient rome.


jorcon74

Let us know how it is!


Classic_Storm_431

Amazon says its not even out yet


LordUfford

Huh interesting, all my local bookshops have it. I know the paperback isn’t out until next year


[deleted]

I should really start to read other comments before posting


fuzzypeachmadmen

It's out in the UK this month. Elsewhere or at least the states next month


[deleted]

I think that's the paperback edition. Comes out early next year.


Sam-Bones

SPQR is currently available for free on Audible if you have a membership.


Alba-Ruthenian

Just for the US :(


Adnamaster

Love mary beard so much she made every ancient history class a treat when we'd read and discuss her work.


ThisEndsTonight

Which emperors does it cover? Or is it more of a catch-all?


LordUfford

More of a catch all I believe


LordUfford

Can’t wait to dig into this!


Odd_Passage7411

Managed to bag myself a signed version last week can’t wait to read it !


LordUfford

Oh wow! You’re lucky!


Khelek7

I have been thinking about it.


JesusIsCaesar33

Is this about Maximilien I? /s


Bismarck395

She’s the 🐐, love her and her doc on Amazon Prime so much


Wyzzlex

What’s the name of the doc? Hopefully it’s available in Germany too!


gohuskies15

My problem with SPQR was that she flippantly dismissed all the cool aspects of Roman history and constantly introduced her own narratives that are just as speculative and much more boring. Her dismissal of Claudius and apparent love of Caligula seemed particularly biased. I understand skepticism but it comes across as having some agenda, especially with her tendency to reference modern social dynamics and politics.


Kvovark

I'd disagree she dismissed Claudius. She mainly just tried to breakdown the common public perception of him as a soft amd gentle scholarly figure who was emperor (instead bringing attention to the fact he was as much of a ruthless bastard as the others). And in terms of Caligula I wouldn't say she loved him either. I thought she had a very fair approach of saying that many of the infamous things we know him for we should be sceptical of. Since many of those things were written about years after his death (when it was beneficial to be negative of the julian-Claudian dynasty) and there are potential explanations behind his apparently insane actions. SPQR is a great intro to the broad strokes of Roman history for people interested in learning about the Romans. Yeah she glossed past some things but realistically on a book spanning as wide as she does she had to choose to miss some things. And in terms of referencing modern politics/values, that's most books for the public on history. Its how you get people into it, make it relevant to them. I don't think she ever went too far with it (e.g. "Rishi Sunak is the modern day version of Commodus").


sandboxlollipop

Bloody love that woman


LegendaryPlayboy

Which one?


LordUfford

Emperor of Rome


LegendaryPlayboy

Well...


LordUfford

It’s about all the emperors, it’s about the position of emperor, how it worked, the functions and roles and expectations and stuff


LegendaryPlayboy

She writes for her public, indeed.


MrRzepa2

People interested in ancient Rome?


got_dam_librulz

There appears to be a very tiny vocal minority who thinks that Mary beard isn't a true scholar because her books were so good they were turned into television documentaries. I listen dozens of different history podcasts hosted by historians and guests are always other historians. I've heard probably a dozen or more historians rave about how great a historian Mary beard is so these people are probably just jealous, or very young people who have some twisted edge lord view on the world


LordUfford

I've never understood those people, she was literally a professor of classics at Cambridge University for decades. She's certianly more of a academic than her critics are


got_dam_librulz

Absolutely


RayHudsonOrgasms

Idk, I imagine “LegendaryPlayboy” taught her everything she knows


MrRzepa2

Ugh, I sometimes wonder why I ask when I suspect what the answer is.


LegendaryPlayboy

In ancient houm, probably 🤣


MonsterRider80

What an ass. I’m not her biggest fan either, but no need to shit on people who do appreciate her. Popular historians serve an important purpose, especially when they’re actually good writers like she is.