>woman as the author Should've thought about not purchasing that instead

>>25641922 There wasn't a big selection

>Is this a good book about Roman history? No, it is written by Mary Beard.

>>25641930 Also if I recall she is a pretty bad author and is also, quite 'wokist', I think there some exceptions as far as women go and books but very, very few of them should be read to start with unless it's a niche topic

>>25641932 :sad-Heinrich:

>>25641935 I have volumes on the history of Washington DC, for example, it's not really something that people write about so kind of a niche topic but it's by a woman. They atleast have a better reputation than Mary Beard.

It's a well-known fact that women can't write good books. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agatha_Christie As Hercule Poirot would agree... [alerta de satire]

I like Rubicon by Tom Holland. However I do not read for historical accuracy.

>>25641935 If you want a great classic on Rome, get the abridged version of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon. This will introduce you to Rome very well I think and it's quite a chuddy booke.

>>25641935 Or, if you just want to know about the facts in a brief overview you can also get a Very Short Introduction on the Roman Empire by Oxford University Press.

Or, you can just read an article on the Internet or Bernd's ramblings.

Mary Beard though? Not the greatest choice. God I hate women.

>>25641988 Bernd doesn't post about rome anymore, I assume rome is too lowbrow for nukc

https://thehistoryofrome.typepad.com/the_history_of_rome/2007/07/index.html Here is a podcast Here is a book he wrote https://www.amazon.com/History-Rome-Republic-1/dp/0692681663

Looks like a shitty opinionated work. Just read dry academic stuff instead.

>>25641935 It's hard finding good books nowadays, sorry. Everything is communist now.

>>25641959 Did you just compare pulp fiction detective novels to a history book, miss?

It's alright for the general social history of Rome like the Marian reforms, Gracchi reforms, Socii wars, block voting. It lacks the interesting topics like wars and conquest and lacks the detailed explanations of its political machinations.

>>25642605 Nein, Fräulein; I gave one example of a lady who wrote a large number of successful books set in her own universe which is similar to, but not quite like, England. I could also have quoted Mary Renault.

>Mary Nope. It's clearly a shit book.

>>25644377 Yes. Nobody called Mary could possibly ever write a good book. Yanks: sheesh...

>>25644404 It's not a good book though. The only reason people talk about it is Hollywood. And even then Hollywood never made a single movie close to the source material. All Frankenstein movies are the product of screenwriters' writing rather than the source. All women books are fanfic-tier.

>>25644404 Also, you point at silly fiction books, so naive and incoherent that it can't be called sci-fi even. A book on history you have to have a robust, cold, logical, and sound mind. You have to write more or less objectively even if the conclusions from the facts you talk about go against your beliefs. A woman can never do that.

Most like pop literature, maybe good for some light reading but I wouldn't expect much

>>25644435 That's your opinion. Mine is that Hollywood trashed it, as it trashes everything it touches. Which is why Hollywood is constantly stealing other peoples' stories to trash them as well.

Also SPQR SPCR SPCNR PCNR POCCNER Russia is third rome

I really enjoyed it. It actually helped me understand why Rome was successful. Bernds are going to say it's evil because the author is le female but I didn't find anything biased in it. She was actually really skeptical of most previous historians which was good.

>>25644705 t. didn't read the book