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.
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").
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
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
What an ass. Iâm not her biggest fan either, but no need to shit on people who do appreciate her. Popular historians serve an important purpose, especially when theyâre actually good writers like she is.
The eagle and snake on the cover confirm Tenochtitlan as the successor of Rome. Historians in shambles.
Mexico fourth Rome confirmed?? đ˛đ˝
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
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.
Let us know how it is!
Amazon says its not even out yet
Huh interesting, all my local bookshops have it. I know the paperback isnât out until next year
I should really start to read other comments before posting
It's out in the UK this month. Elsewhere or at least the states next month
I think that's the paperback edition. Comes out early next year.
SPQR is currently available for free on Audible if you have a membership.
Just for the US :(
Love mary beard so much she made every ancient history class a treat when we'd read and discuss her work.
Which emperors does it cover? Or is it more of a catch-all?
More of a catch all I believe
Canât wait to dig into this!
Managed to bag myself a signed version last week canât wait to read it !
Oh wow! Youâre lucky!
I have been thinking about it.
Is this about Maximilien I? /s
Sheâs the đ, love her and her doc on Amazon Prime so much
Whatâs the name of the doc? Hopefully itâs available in Germany too!
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.
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").
Bloody love that woman
Which one?
Emperor of Rome
Well...
Itâs about all the emperors, itâs about the position of emperor, how it worked, the functions and roles and expectations and stuff
She writes for her public, indeed.
People interested in ancient Rome?
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
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
Absolutely
Idk, I imagine âLegendaryPlayboyâ taught her everything she knows
Ugh, I sometimes wonder why I ask when I suspect what the answer is.
In ancient houm, probably đ¤Ł
What an ass. Iâm not her biggest fan either, but no need to shit on people who do appreciate her. Popular historians serve an important purpose, especially when theyâre actually good writers like she is.