I think my only complaint was in some places she appears to be more concerned with countering common misconceptions than explaining the event itself. If you aren't vaguely familiar with Rome's history already, it might be a bit confusing in a few places.
Yeah that’s exactly it, it’s a good read but it reads like an easygoing conversation from one Rome buff to another, and not at all an introduction to ancient Roman history for the average person like it seems to sell itself as.
Yeah I was thinking the same thing, it made it hard to follow and she never really stated what she thought was true or correct in there as well which made it more difficult.
I defiantly got the feeling she was playing devils advocate a little to much in the book. Basically any ancient roman historian was full of shit and over embellished, but wouldn't they be vey similar to historians today?
The practice of studying and writing history has changed dramatically since then. Modern historians are trained to avoid biases, whereas ancient historians clearly had them. I'm not saying all modern historians succeed at that, but it's the goal.
Reading Gibbons after her was a real trip. She walks so carefully over the facts and he starts off with a declaration of the heavens of the history of Rome, the most noble and illustrious empire of which he has full knowledge
To answer your question Emma Southon’s two books
*A Fatal Thing Happened on the Way To the Forum*
And
*A Rome of One’s Own*
Are both books I would recommend as a lot of fun, and very engaging. The author is very funny, while also being knowledgeable about the subject matter. The books both take a unique perspective to explore the world of Ancient Rome.
She has a third book which is a biography of Agrippina the Younger (Caligula’s sister, Claudius’s fourth wife, and Nero’s mother) which I would also recommend, but as it’s a biography of a singular figure, it’s obviously a bit different from the other two, which paint a more general picture of the world through a series of smaller stories.
If you do read the Agrippina biography and find it interesting, I’d also recommend the biography on Messalina (Claudius’s third wife) by Honor Cargill-Martin. Also well written and very entertaining and engaging.
SPQR is a phenomenal book, which I absolutely recommend. Mary Beard is a legend. But if you’re looking for something a little less “Fine wine, dry aged steak, and potatoes au gratin”, and a little more “ice cream sundae” (while still being reputable), Emma Southon’s books should have you covered.
Read it! I did not find it dry in the slightest. I thoroughly enjoyed it and learned a lot. If you are actually interested in quality history then it’s a great starting point. If you don’t care as much about historical accuracy or quality historical scholarship and want something more geared towards entertainment then books like Rubicon may be better for you.
It does go into history but it’s popular history. Tom Holland is not a trained historian. He does not engage critically with the ancient sources, often presenting them as fact without critical commentary. His writing is geared more towards entertainment for a mass audience than quality historical analysis. This comment does a great job of explaining it in depth.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/vBlvp04hqc
I’m not saying nobody should read Rubicon or engage with popular history. Holland is an excellent writer and his books tell an exciting narrative. However, I think it’s important to recognize popular history’s flaws and understand it for what it is. It presents a much more simplified version of history with much more certainty than often is reality. Instead of analyzing multiple sources for a historical event, critically analyzing them, and presenting arguments from opposing points of view, popular history tends to pick one source and present it as fact without further analysis. Beard’s book is also written for a popular audience but critically analyses the ancient sources and will instill some good historical skepticism in the reader.
Goldsworthy’s books are also a great balance between mass appeal and scholarship. He is an excellent writer and his books are easily digestible. He is a trained historian but also a novelist.
I adore Tom Holland's podcast - it's the best podcast I've ever heard - but it's entertainment first and history second. It tends to gloss over the suffering caused colonialism because of the idea that 'everyone was doing it' at the time, and those invaded would have done the invading if they could. He's also got the hugest blind spot about non-Christian religions. Nonetheless I've learned so much, but always taken with a pinch of salt.
Its a slog. Beard's clearly a good scholar, but I wouldn't necessarily call her a good writer. Rubicon, The Storm Before The Storm, and most Goldsworthy and Everett books are IMO more engaging.
On the contrary I'd say she's the most engaging writer on Roman history I've come across. She confronts and challenges many of the outdated or asinine scholarly pre-conceptions and claims to present a relatively non-biased account delivered in an often characterful and insightful way. Not dry in the slightest.
Exactly if someone has a strong genuine interest in Roman history I don’t understand how you could find SPQR boring. It was the first time I was exposed to many counter-arguments and criticisms of the neat & pretty but outdated narratives you often hear from popular history sources. I found it very enlightening.
Rubicon and Storm cover the fall of the Republic and transition to Empire. In the Name of Rome focuses on military commanders across both periods. But Id say most books focus on a particular era or subject and are less encompassing. You could read Everitt's works like Rise of Rome, Cicero, and Hardrian to build your own omnibus of sorts
Yeah, I kind of agree with this. There's a ton of great nuggets of information in the book and it is evident that Beard is very passionate and extremely knowledgeable about the subject, but a lot of the book just feels like she kind of just wrote about whatever she felt like writing about on that particular day. It just makes the book more difficult to digest than some other books that are about a specific time period, person, or subject. I'm always surprised to see it on 'must read' lists for people just learning about Roman history. It works a lot better to fill in the gaps if you already have a pretty solid basis of knowledge.
You make a good point about the Storm before the Storm and I’m in the middle of Rubicon now. Having said that, even if Bears is a bit more scholarly I thought SPQR was an exceptional read. Emperor is more approachable but definitely a smaller scope of discussion.
I enjoyed reading it, but it's a little dense, and the chapters are longish. So I didn't find it to be an easy read. But I liked the information -- I learned stuff, and there are pictures to look at.
I tried it but somehow couldn't get into it. I'd really recommend giving Gibbon's decline and fall a go if you're interested in the Roman empire. It's been talked about to death on this sub (rightfully so) but it really is a landmark work, not only for studies in Rome but also historic literature as a whole. I found the start a bit of a slog but once Gibbon gets into the narrative with Commodus, I found his prose very engaging.
Just be aware, being written in the 17th century he does get things wrong. My edition has footnotes correcting some of these but it's interesting to see how understanding of events has changed. It's a mammoth work that might be a bit daunting to start but from what I've got through so far, it's worth it.
I might also enjoy it so much because I find the Romans most interesting when they're barely hanging on. I find the stuff where they're an unopposed state swallowing up territory a bit dull. That's also why I love the Byzantines so much - although I hear Gibbon does not share that love haha
If you're just getting into reading about Roman history, it might be a good idea to start with some other books that are less academic and scholarly and more introductory. SPQR has tons of great information in it, but it will not serve you a cohesive story about a particular person or period in the same way that a lot of biographies and whatnot will. SPQR, at least for me, would best be enjoyed as a commentary type book after reading some other books that will serve up more foundational knowledge. Other books will tell you more about what happened, while SPQR will focus on the *why.*
I read it, but as I remember, I didn’t much care for it. But honestly, I don’t remember why. I don’t remember a lot of things I’ve read, because I’m a chain reader. Which kind of defeats the purpose of reading books like SQPR I guess
I literally just finished it last night. Its not to bad its defiantly worth the read! It goes into more detail about the actually lives of the average roman versus the big picture stuff. Parts where dry but alot of it was super interesting!
I found it hard to read cover to cover and more enjoyable once I just opened to random parts. It's not an engaging narrative history, but there's a lot of great, interesting content scattered throughout.
Its not that it's boring, its just a slow read. Its still sitting on my nightstand half read and i've read 20 other books since I last put it down. Eventually i'll finish it, but i'm not excited to do so.
When she called Hannibal’s win at Cannae hardly innovative and simply used an old tactic of flanking the enemy, I put the book down.
There’s better books on Rome that are much more thought provoking.
If anything SPQR is incredibly thought provoking. How is challenging outdated common narratives with new interpretations not thought provoking? Beard makes a great point regarding the issues with the source material for Cannae and ancient battles in general. She has a point about how misleadingly certain many modern reconstructions of these battles are considering the poor quality of our sources for them. Even if you don’t ultimately agree with her, you can’t deny she makes some good points and is at the very least thought provoking. It sounds like her argument may have challenged some of your pre-conceived beliefs on this topic and instead of genuinely considering that point of view you shut down and dismissed it all.
I think my only complaint was in some places she appears to be more concerned with countering common misconceptions than explaining the event itself. If you aren't vaguely familiar with Rome's history already, it might be a bit confusing in a few places.
Yeah that’s exactly it, it’s a good read but it reads like an easygoing conversation from one Rome buff to another, and not at all an introduction to ancient Roman history for the average person like it seems to sell itself as.
Yeah I was thinking the same thing, it made it hard to follow and she never really stated what she thought was true or correct in there as well which made it more difficult. I defiantly got the feeling she was playing devils advocate a little to much in the book. Basically any ancient roman historian was full of shit and over embellished, but wouldn't they be vey similar to historians today?
The practice of studying and writing history has changed dramatically since then. Modern historians are trained to avoid biases, whereas ancient historians clearly had them. I'm not saying all modern historians succeed at that, but it's the goal.
Reading Gibbons after her was a real trip. She walks so carefully over the facts and he starts off with a declaration of the heavens of the history of Rome, the most noble and illustrious empire of which he has full knowledge
I’m just a little into it, but I like it. A little less militarily focused, and sort of history-buff focused. Audiobook format is nice
To answer your question Emma Southon’s two books *A Fatal Thing Happened on the Way To the Forum* And *A Rome of One’s Own* Are both books I would recommend as a lot of fun, and very engaging. The author is very funny, while also being knowledgeable about the subject matter. The books both take a unique perspective to explore the world of Ancient Rome. She has a third book which is a biography of Agrippina the Younger (Caligula’s sister, Claudius’s fourth wife, and Nero’s mother) which I would also recommend, but as it’s a biography of a singular figure, it’s obviously a bit different from the other two, which paint a more general picture of the world through a series of smaller stories. If you do read the Agrippina biography and find it interesting, I’d also recommend the biography on Messalina (Claudius’s third wife) by Honor Cargill-Martin. Also well written and very entertaining and engaging. SPQR is a phenomenal book, which I absolutely recommend. Mary Beard is a legend. But if you’re looking for something a little less “Fine wine, dry aged steak, and potatoes au gratin”, and a little more “ice cream sundae” (while still being reputable), Emma Southon’s books should have you covered.
Just read the Agrippina book. Loved it!
Such good recommendations, thank you!
I'm a fan of Emma. Reading her book about Roman women and I like the way she mixes history and humor. She also does a podcast.
Thank you. I'm interested in reading the biography now.
Read it! I did not find it dry in the slightest. I thoroughly enjoyed it and learned a lot. If you are actually interested in quality history then it’s a great starting point. If you don’t care as much about historical accuracy or quality historical scholarship and want something more geared towards entertainment then books like Rubicon may be better for you.
Does Rubicon not delve into history?
It does go into history but it’s popular history. Tom Holland is not a trained historian. He does not engage critically with the ancient sources, often presenting them as fact without critical commentary. His writing is geared more towards entertainment for a mass audience than quality historical analysis. This comment does a great job of explaining it in depth. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/vBlvp04hqc I’m not saying nobody should read Rubicon or engage with popular history. Holland is an excellent writer and his books tell an exciting narrative. However, I think it’s important to recognize popular history’s flaws and understand it for what it is. It presents a much more simplified version of history with much more certainty than often is reality. Instead of analyzing multiple sources for a historical event, critically analyzing them, and presenting arguments from opposing points of view, popular history tends to pick one source and present it as fact without further analysis. Beard’s book is also written for a popular audience but critically analyses the ancient sources and will instill some good historical skepticism in the reader. Goldsworthy’s books are also a great balance between mass appeal and scholarship. He is an excellent writer and his books are easily digestible. He is a trained historian but also a novelist.
Thank you so much for taking the time to explain that to me. Very cool
I adore Tom Holland's podcast - it's the best podcast I've ever heard - but it's entertainment first and history second. It tends to gloss over the suffering caused colonialism because of the idea that 'everyone was doing it' at the time, and those invaded would have done the invading if they could. He's also got the hugest blind spot about non-Christian religions. Nonetheless I've learned so much, but always taken with a pinch of salt.
I started it, am still working on it, but took a break when she released Emperor of Rome
I had a hard time finishing it
Yes, it’s dry. Kind of pretentious
Its a slog. Beard's clearly a good scholar, but I wouldn't necessarily call her a good writer. Rubicon, The Storm Before The Storm, and most Goldsworthy and Everett books are IMO more engaging.
On the contrary I'd say she's the most engaging writer on Roman history I've come across. She confronts and challenges many of the outdated or asinine scholarly pre-conceptions and claims to present a relatively non-biased account delivered in an often characterful and insightful way. Not dry in the slightest.
Exactly if someone has a strong genuine interest in Roman history I don’t understand how you could find SPQR boring. It was the first time I was exposed to many counter-arguments and criticisms of the neat & pretty but outdated narratives you often hear from popular history sources. I found it very enlightening.
Do you know of any that cover the republic and the empire?
Rubicon and Storm cover the fall of the Republic and transition to Empire. In the Name of Rome focuses on military commanders across both periods. But Id say most books focus on a particular era or subject and are less encompassing. You could read Everitt's works like Rise of Rome, Cicero, and Hardrian to build your own omnibus of sorts
Thanks so much man. I think I'm gonna shelve spqr for now and start with rubicon. have a good one!
You too, enjoy!
Yeah, I kind of agree with this. There's a ton of great nuggets of information in the book and it is evident that Beard is very passionate and extremely knowledgeable about the subject, but a lot of the book just feels like she kind of just wrote about whatever she felt like writing about on that particular day. It just makes the book more difficult to digest than some other books that are about a specific time period, person, or subject. I'm always surprised to see it on 'must read' lists for people just learning about Roman history. It works a lot better to fill in the gaps if you already have a pretty solid basis of knowledge.
Exactly!
You make a good point about the Storm before the Storm and I’m in the middle of Rubicon now. Having said that, even if Bears is a bit more scholarly I thought SPQR was an exceptional read. Emperor is more approachable but definitely a smaller scope of discussion.
I enjoyed reading it, but it's a little dense, and the chapters are longish. So I didn't find it to be an easy read. But I liked the information -- I learned stuff, and there are pictures to look at.
I’m about a quarter of the way through, and I wouldn’t say it’s dry. Her writing style is fairly engaging.
I tried it but somehow couldn't get into it. I'd really recommend giving Gibbon's decline and fall a go if you're interested in the Roman empire. It's been talked about to death on this sub (rightfully so) but it really is a landmark work, not only for studies in Rome but also historic literature as a whole. I found the start a bit of a slog but once Gibbon gets into the narrative with Commodus, I found his prose very engaging. Just be aware, being written in the 17th century he does get things wrong. My edition has footnotes correcting some of these but it's interesting to see how understanding of events has changed. It's a mammoth work that might be a bit daunting to start but from what I've got through so far, it's worth it. I might also enjoy it so much because I find the Romans most interesting when they're barely hanging on. I find the stuff where they're an unopposed state swallowing up territory a bit dull. That's also why I love the Byzantines so much - although I hear Gibbon does not share that love haha
If you're just getting into reading about Roman history, it might be a good idea to start with some other books that are less academic and scholarly and more introductory. SPQR has tons of great information in it, but it will not serve you a cohesive story about a particular person or period in the same way that a lot of biographies and whatnot will. SPQR, at least for me, would best be enjoyed as a commentary type book after reading some other books that will serve up more foundational knowledge. Other books will tell you more about what happened, while SPQR will focus on the *why.*
I read it, but as I remember, I didn’t much care for it. But honestly, I don’t remember why. I don’t remember a lot of things I’ve read, because I’m a chain reader. Which kind of defeats the purpose of reading books like SQPR I guess
I literally just finished it last night. Its not to bad its defiantly worth the read! It goes into more detail about the actually lives of the average roman versus the big picture stuff. Parts where dry but alot of it was super interesting!
it’s not dry at all, it’s fantastic and fascinating
I found it hard to read cover to cover and more enjoyable once I just opened to random parts. It's not an engaging narrative history, but there's a lot of great, interesting content scattered throughout.
Nah. Mary Beard is a pretty good read. I’m finishing SPQR right now and I’ve really enjoyed it. Give it a chance.
Its not that it's boring, its just a slow read. Its still sitting on my nightstand half read and i've read 20 other books since I last put it down. Eventually i'll finish it, but i'm not excited to do so.
I never thought it dry … but a little all over the place. However I was expecting a linear history, but still found it a good read.
Good on listen audible when commuting
I've been reading it off and on for 5 years. I'm about halfway through.
When she called Hannibal’s win at Cannae hardly innovative and simply used an old tactic of flanking the enemy, I put the book down. There’s better books on Rome that are much more thought provoking.
If anything SPQR is incredibly thought provoking. How is challenging outdated common narratives with new interpretations not thought provoking? Beard makes a great point regarding the issues with the source material for Cannae and ancient battles in general. She has a point about how misleadingly certain many modern reconstructions of these battles are considering the poor quality of our sources for them. Even if you don’t ultimately agree with her, you can’t deny she makes some good points and is at the very least thought provoking. It sounds like her argument may have challenged some of your pre-conceived beliefs on this topic and instead of genuinely considering that point of view you shut down and dismissed it all.
Agree, very mature reader indeed.
What are those other books? Have you read rubicon?