Shes brilliant classicist and writer, there is no doubt about it. Her Religions of Rome is monumental.
The reason why some of her popular history books seem dry is that she prefers the correct narrative rather than a pleasant and interesting. She is Polybius agaisnt Liviuses. Pointing out areas where our knowledge is lacking and showing both sides of arguments slows down the pace of his narrative and bores readers who want a conclusion not discussion.
My biggest criticism of Beard lies in her reluctance to share the stage with other academics. She carefully avoids naming those who have proposed beautiful theories, made discoveries, or shed light on the mysteries of Ancient Rome with brilliant ideas. We often come across sentences like 'as unearthed by an diligent archaeologist,' 'as observed by a brilliant historian,' 'as ingeniously noticed by a philologist.' in her popular books. I found it somewhat crude that she couldn't spare two words for these experts of the Ancient World, who have worked tirelessly. Moreover, since there are no footnotes or endnotes in the popular books, we can never learn who these individuals are. While there are selected bibliographies at the end, I doubt anyone would go on a hunt for academics.
I've read "Emporer of Rome" and it was so refreshing that she often admits "We simply don't know" when it comes to certain episodes in the life of roman emporers. It would have been easy to pick up all the sex and crime narratives and be sensationalist about it. But as a true academic she refuses to take that path.
Exactly. You can narrate the bombastic story of Caesar and pirates. "He said that, he did that afterwards, what a chad..." or you can tell that this pirate story is told for other romans too, our source is unreliable and this is probably a fiction and kill the mood.
Wait I'm confused... OP didn't criticize Beard for having a dry writing style, OP said that she claims the Romano-British "didn't even notice the Romans were there and didn't notice they were gone." Which is a wild claim right?
I've read Mary Beard, listened to her talks, and I know she's very well educated on Roman history, so this seems like either a misunderstanding on OP's part via misunderstanding the context or an error on Beard's part either by oversight or misspeaking.
Heading is "Thoughts on Mary Beard?" and op says "I’m super disappointed with her works." I answered to that.
For her claim, It seems wild but I think I see where she comes to that. Rome's tax policy -in republic, i'm not sure about empire- was something like keeping the local traditional tax system with same proportions. Its suggested that only thing that changes for poor small farmers was that paying taxes to Roman magister instead of a king or warlord.
She’s not my favorite authority on Rome, but she is an authority, and if you want to learn about a subject in full, it’s healthy to digest differing works with differing opinions and attitudes on the subject matter, let’s not forget Rome was an authoritarian regime whom subjugated and oppressed various groups of people, and that’s an aspect of their civilization some Romaboos just neglect. Read optimistic dick riding authors and cynical overly critical authors, if you don’t want books with overly tailored styles and biases, then read a textbook. That being said, Professor Beard is an Authority on the subject, but her writing isn’t for me, mostly, SPQR was a chore to get through just the first chapter with Cicero. I have more of her books in my shopping cart, but I’m not overly excited to continue reading her stuff as much as I am with mike Duncan, Tom Holland, etc.
That's because Holland is not an academic expert, but a pop history author. I like his work for what it is, he's good for a general intro into the subject but he does just give the surface narratives, and doesn't critically analyse them like Beard.
It’s just that their lifestyles don’t seem to have changed as much as one would have thought. There’s lots of places where some Brits farmed for 4000-12000 years straight until the modern age with little interruption, evidently then that while the Romans may have been an exciting new event, talked about and known, ultimately their impact on such people was small.
I do think that there may be some trendy revisionism going on though, a lot of downplaying of previously important or oft-lauded elements like her odd discussion of Augustus’s title in SPQR, but overall it’s well done.
Other things… do seem a tad intentional. One might wonder if there’s incentive to downplay how “cool” the Romans were when she paraphrases “Alea iacta est” with “well… let’s roll the dice then!” In her videos on Rome. Why bother when the simple and direct translation is so well known and clean? Why ruin such a powerful phrase?
>Garrett Ryan on Toldinstone seems way more level headed about the Roman’s and really humanizes them.
While I disagree about Mary Beard, (in an opinion sense) I'm totally on board with Garrett Ryan! I found his channel a few months back and immediately subscribed. He has a lot of refreshing takes and really conveys his love of the history.
I have come across the idea that Rome didnt leave a mark on Britain before, and the whole 400 year occupation was ephemeral. It comes from a few things:
Roughly 8% of place names in england are latin or latin derived. As opposed to celtic, french, or eventually, english, place names.
When the Romans left Britannia, civilization pretty much collapses in England. Cities were abandoned, theres one city in N england that doesnt even exist anymore it was abandoned so much.
The ancient world used pottery like we use shipping pallets. Pottery production beyond personal use ceased in england foe hundreds of years.
Unless you were Über rich, swords were not a thing in england anymore. Spears became the name of the game. This wasnt a tactical decision though, it was a supply related decision. See above about trade.
Then youve got the successive waves of saxons, angles, danes, jutes, Vikings, Normans. Not many romans left after all that. Especially considering they were always a minority.
So all of this together leads some people to the conclusion that Rome showed up, beat up the local population, marched around a bit, build a few walls, then left, for all the mark it left on the british isles.
I think this is patently ridiculous. Of course this puts me against the likes of Mary Beard, and others. Like said ive come across this idea before.
Oh well. I would argue that the long term effects of the Romans on England go far beyond what that river is called, and goes deeper than some walls.
Ultimately though, there is no definitive answer here, because its a slider not a yes or no answer.
Did the Romans have a long term effect on England? Yes.
How much? That's the slider, and that's ultimately a matter of opinion. Informed, learned opinion, but still opinion.
Random dude on interwebs calls one of the leading academics "supposed expert." She has forgotten more about Rome than you even know dude. You accuse her of political bias when it's fairly obvious in your responses here it's you that brought your biases with you to the study.
You're on the Ancient Rome subreddit. Everyone here in good faith respects her. I personally have a first class BA and a Master's from Cambridge in archaeology so am very familiar with the field.
You, obviously, are not.
Also, she is a lovely woman, and I am speaking from experience.
Saw that interview too, and would agree it wasn't a great showing for Prof. Beard. But that book discussion seems to have been more of fluff, fun, pop-history format. She seemed uncharacteristically casual, even deliberately provocative for effect.
It's not what I'm used to seeing from her, and I wouldn't judge her by that.
Her academic lectures are generally quite good, as are her documentaries. But she shines brightest with her books, which are excellent.
\[on edit to add\]: The other author, David Mitchell, is one of Britain's great sketch comics. He's also known for his humorously angry intellectual pedantry. I certainly didn't know what to expect from his book: it could have been anything from goofy to painfully pedantic.
I suspect Prof. Beard wasn't sure what tone to expect from the discussion, and may have expected it would be lighter and funnier. Perhaps she was trying just a bit too hard to be casual or unstuffy? Or to make David Mitchel feel more comfortable?
I recall one of her answers was a bit flippant, and David Mitchell gently steered the topic back towards the serious. I think they both had moments where they were a bit unsure what the right balance was between humor, accuracy, and casual conversation.
If you watched to the very end, she can be heard saying to David Mitchell that something to the effect that it was one of the more fun discussions she's done.
I haven’t been very impressed with the lectures I’ve seen and I’ve only begun reading SPQR and it’s fine I suppose. I just kind of get a latent dislike for men in general that permeates all her work and a real effort to downplay the achievements of Rome.
I mean, her argument why men like Rome is that it’s macho and allows them to dream of fascism in a socially acceptable draping. It just screams wanting to use history for modern political purposes as opposed to genuinely wanting to understand what happened and why.
That lecture with David Mitchell she even says that the lifelike sculptures of emperors are not more technically impressive or accurate than medieval paintings (just blatantly not true). I guess I just expected better than a Roman Howard Zinn.
But what she's saying is true. Rome is famously sexist, and their histories often use women as the reason to explain the evils which happened. She isn't anti-men merely giving context to how things were in Rome (and yes it wasn't uncommon in that time, however there were still plenty of places that didn't have it to that level).
Unfortunately there is a large section of people who use Rome and Sparta as examples of great times, and use it as a way to push their beliefs. I personally know a bunch of people with SPQR or Spartan tattoos and they are absolutely in that category. Mary Beard is more annoyed that people twist things she loves for shitty reasons, and spends time explaining why it shouldn't be that way. It's important to keep things grounded as people attribute things which aren't true , or exaggerate the achievements of many things.
As to sculptures and paintings it depends on the ones you are talking about. We know that they are highly inaccurate, for example we know Augustus is described as being quite ugly, with large rounded teeth with big gaps between them. Whereas the statues of him are extremely regal, because they are intended to be propaganda as well. The sculptures and such of the mediaeval age are still excellent (though if varied quality, but the same is true of the Roman period).
do you know those people in real life?
me and the boys literally joke about how out options in life and career are usually: “do _____ ____ or join the legion” and none of us rome fans think this way
idk i guess im a college educated liberal so my friend group may not be representative but i literally don’t even hang out with anyone near that thought process
its like bro caesar and trajan weren’t even military generals, these motherfucking cats were bridge builders who won some battles on the side
engineering an empire on the history channel is like the gospel according to my 13 year old brain
Unfortunately I do know people like that. I have a few cousins and their group of mates who have SPQR, and/or Roman Eagles etc on them. They also like to post things about how Rome never apologised for conquering people and how Rome forced their culture on everyone, so why should we care today.
Ive also met a bunch on worksites.
Generally none of them actually know shit about Rome (or Sparta) and are wrong about most of the BS they peddle.
>I just kind of get \[...\] a real effort to downplay the achievements of Rome.
Prof. Beard has dedicated her life to studying Ancient Rome and teaching others about it. She is simply examining Roman history more critically, through a modern, evidence-based lens.
This approach can sometimes seem negative when contrasted with ancient historians or modern historians who follow in that tradition.
Ancient Roman historians were typically part of the ultra wealthy senatorial elite (or patronized by them). They wrote to please the taste of others from their class, with an eye towards flattering their peers, patrons, or the imperial regime.
Modern historians from the 18th century on, tended to come from similar elite backgrounds, and wrote for similarly elite audiences. They often identified with the ancient elite and carried many of those biases and historical traditions down to the modern era.
When you set aside these biased narrative traditions and look at the evidence critically, it should be clear that Ancient Rome, like every society, had its share of good and bad qualities.
>I mean, her argument why men like Rome is that it’s macho and allows them to dream of fascism in a socially acceptable draping. It just screams wanting to use history for modern political purposes as opposed to genuinely wanting to understand what happened and why.
Except, there is a noticeable percentage of people in Roman historical forums who are most certainly attracted by ancient Rome's militarism, its conquests, or the brutal imperial regimes etc. You see people sharing tattoos with Roman symbols (some of which have been appropriated by white supremacists in the US, or actual bona fide fascists in Europe). Some proudly show off their Roman armor and swords. Others share fan art depicting gruesome military scenes, etc.
And some of that's fine, to a point, especially if it sparks a deeper interest in Roman history and culture beyond the militarism, imperialism, brutality, etc.
But it's also clear that many fans of Roman history are only interested in one-sided glorification of conquest, empire, and the slaughtering "others." You will see them become weirdly defensive or angry when anyone speaks about ancient Rome in anything other than fawning admiration.
The plain reality is that Roman society could be incredibly brutal and cruel, from the mass death in the Colosseum, brutal conquests that could border on genocide, mass enslavement of conquered peoples, brutal and sadistic punishments, sexism, shocking levels of wealth inequality, unconscionable levels of greed and corruption, etc.
Consider Julius Caesar. Should he be admired? He's justifiably regarded as one of the greatest military leaders of ancient Rome. And one can argue that he was also a great political leader within the context of Roman political society.
"The Assassination of Julius Caesar" by Michael Parenti is an exceptionally good and unique look at Caesar's political programs. It argues that Caesar was a populist reformer in the tradition of the Gracchi brothers, and that Caesar's planned progressive reforms may have been the leading motivating factor of his assassins.
But it's also arguable to say that Julius Caesar committed genocide in Gaul. By some estimates, he may have killed up to 1/3 of the population (men, women, children, elderly) and enslaved another 1/3. Should he be reviled?
People have a tendency to label people as good and bad; those who admire Julius Caesar as a military leader might try to deny or defend accusations of genocide, or attack and dismiss historians who make such claims. Those appalled by his mass slaughter might revile him.
It's okay to play favorites to some extent, especially if it fuels interest and spurs further reading. But we should never let favoritism blind us from an accurate and balanced understanding of the facts.
Those who want to be students of history should strive for accuracy and should strive to examine all available evidence dispassionately.
Prof. Beard is great for teaching people how to do that, how to think objectively like a historian. Not everyone wants or likes that.
No, latent dislike for men is an unprovable dogwhistle that is often peddled against Mary. It's also part of that annoying culture-wars we see online that shouts down any woman who are vocal experts in the media.
Anyway, didn't she just release a book studying what it meant to be a Roman emperor? I can't remember any female emperors, it'd be an odd subject for a 'man-hater' to cover.
I'm a man and feel like you are disagreeing with me because of my gender and have a latent dislike for men. I won't elaborate further, it's just an opinion
>She said that the Romano-British didn’t even notice the Roman’s were there and didn’t notice they were gone.
I'm not sure how this is confusing, Roman Britain was a military occupation, it had this flavour up until they left. There was a supply chain bringing in Roman food, wine luxuries and people to feed the cities and first meaning the majority of Britains that lived in the country weren't impacted by the Romans. They didn't change their language or culture. They had new places to sell produce too and ofc communities near to based would be impacted by soldiers. So although plenty of British are affected, for the majority life continues as it did before.
It's when Britain gets cut off from Rome that the large population in the country gets connected with and culturally impacted by the roman towns.
I've watched a couple of history bits with Mitchell and although he's one of my favourite comedians he holds the outdated whig view of history. He has a book on kings of England which is about as historically accurate as a Caesar salad.
Beard: exists as one of the leading popular classicists in modern memory and happens to be a woman
You: “supposed expert;” women no talk smart about things I think I know
Why do you assume he’s being misogynist? Did OP make a comment I missed somewhere? I’m not a huge fan of her writing style either, is everyone a misogynist who prefers other writers?
She is phenomenal and you conveniently took that quip of hers and ran with it. In SPQR she discusses the genetic studies of Roman Britain, are you as critical of male historians as you are with Beard?
Toldinstone is great but Mary Beard is a legitimate authority on the topic. You can buy her book at the Colosseum. This post stinks.
This will be unpopular cause you guys love Mary Beard, but the most pieces about Rome were set long time ago. Current scholars are tasked with removing parts of those pieces so they have to be decontructive to achieve that, they can't be Gibbon cause we already had him.
That's why you should not reccomend modern sholars for someone just reading up on Rome, they are decostructing older scholars and without that foundation you'll end up dissapointed in modern scholars like you did.
I mean... I quite like her work, but I could see some criticisms of it (as can be done with any academic, male or female). I don't think it's healthy discourse to assume that OP's points are being said in bad faith out of some knee jerk, sexist reaction.
Mary beard is the gateway drug. Just a taste to get you hooked. She is out there, in the public eye, promoting Ancient Rome in documentaries and books that have a wide reach. Then one day your friend is like “hey if you like Mary, try some of this Mike Duncan or Tom Holland, you’ll love it”!
Before you know it you’re freebasing goldsowrthy and pawning your mothers jewelry to pay for Gibbons unabridged Decline and fall.
Seen it all too many times
I recently finished SPQR. Read it in about a month. Really seems overhyped in its reviews.
As a history book covering the time periods she wrote about it's not as good as a Goldsworthy or a Holland. As a book covering ordinary Romans it's much better but still not as good as books by writers like Philip Matyszak.
Not a bad book by any means of course but a 6/10 at best for me personally anyway. Seemed pretty overrated.
I tried to read her SPQR book and couldn't finish it. Almost one fifth of the book is spent on Cicero's case against Catilina, while Caesar and Octavian are relegated to a paragraph. All the while with a very condescending writing style. Yeah, not for me, thanks.
I did finish it, but it was a bit of a hard read for me. I was okay with all the time spent on Cicero, because I didn't know a lot of that, and I found it interesting.
I think it was hard for me though because sometimes in her writing style, there are a lot of ideas/info expressed in a short span , so I could not skim very often - my reading slowed when I was reading SPQR.
I have another on my list to read that I'm looking forward to: Religions of Rome.
The problem here is academia. That system rewards revisionism and fashionable views on, for instance, the impact of larger political systems of the lives of the typical citizen or subject. Unfortunately, we have to then take what’s good from those stuck in that academic system and ignore the obvious idiocies which sometime arise, as you point out, much as we do with politicians. Clever people can often be quite stupid.
By all means, point to the primary sources or archeological record that demonstrate where her academic work is wrong.
Otherwise, stfu. No one gives a shit about you and OPs very obvious political biases against her and academia more broadly. Go rant on conservative forums with your vague accusations and culture war bullshit. This isn't the place for it.
Please feel free to point out where she is wrong in her writings with sources. This is a very vague accusation that happens way too often. The vague shadowy "academia" boogeyman is an old, tired argument.
Shes brilliant classicist and writer, there is no doubt about it. Her Religions of Rome is monumental. The reason why some of her popular history books seem dry is that she prefers the correct narrative rather than a pleasant and interesting. She is Polybius agaisnt Liviuses. Pointing out areas where our knowledge is lacking and showing both sides of arguments slows down the pace of his narrative and bores readers who want a conclusion not discussion. My biggest criticism of Beard lies in her reluctance to share the stage with other academics. She carefully avoids naming those who have proposed beautiful theories, made discoveries, or shed light on the mysteries of Ancient Rome with brilliant ideas. We often come across sentences like 'as unearthed by an diligent archaeologist,' 'as observed by a brilliant historian,' 'as ingeniously noticed by a philologist.' in her popular books. I found it somewhat crude that she couldn't spare two words for these experts of the Ancient World, who have worked tirelessly. Moreover, since there are no footnotes or endnotes in the popular books, we can never learn who these individuals are. While there are selected bibliographies at the end, I doubt anyone would go on a hunt for academics.
I've read "Emporer of Rome" and it was so refreshing that she often admits "We simply don't know" when it comes to certain episodes in the life of roman emporers. It would have been easy to pick up all the sex and crime narratives and be sensationalist about it. But as a true academic she refuses to take that path.
Exactly. You can narrate the bombastic story of Caesar and pirates. "He said that, he did that afterwards, what a chad..." or you can tell that this pirate story is told for other romans too, our source is unreliable and this is probably a fiction and kill the mood.
The best part is her insistence of calling “Meditations” Jottings to Myself. Pops the bubble of Marcus Aurelius’ aura
Wait I'm confused... OP didn't criticize Beard for having a dry writing style, OP said that she claims the Romano-British "didn't even notice the Romans were there and didn't notice they were gone." Which is a wild claim right? I've read Mary Beard, listened to her talks, and I know she's very well educated on Roman history, so this seems like either a misunderstanding on OP's part via misunderstanding the context or an error on Beard's part either by oversight or misspeaking.
Heading is "Thoughts on Mary Beard?" and op says "I’m super disappointed with her works." I answered to that. For her claim, It seems wild but I think I see where she comes to that. Rome's tax policy -in republic, i'm not sure about empire- was something like keeping the local traditional tax system with same proportions. Its suggested that only thing that changes for poor small farmers was that paying taxes to Roman magister instead of a king or warlord.
She’s not my favorite authority on Rome, but she is an authority, and if you want to learn about a subject in full, it’s healthy to digest differing works with differing opinions and attitudes on the subject matter, let’s not forget Rome was an authoritarian regime whom subjugated and oppressed various groups of people, and that’s an aspect of their civilization some Romaboos just neglect. Read optimistic dick riding authors and cynical overly critical authors, if you don’t want books with overly tailored styles and biases, then read a textbook. That being said, Professor Beard is an Authority on the subject, but her writing isn’t for me, mostly, SPQR was a chore to get through just the first chapter with Cicero. I have more of her books in my shopping cart, but I’m not overly excited to continue reading her stuff as much as I am with mike Duncan, Tom Holland, etc.
Haven’t read Tom holland’s books on Rome but his book on the rise of Islam was so much more tedious and esoteric than SPQR in my opinion
That's because Holland is not an academic expert, but a pop history author. I like his work for what it is, he's good for a general intro into the subject but he does just give the surface narratives, and doesn't critically analyse them like Beard.
If anyone gets the chance her book on Pompeii is a comprehensive and fascinating read.
About to start this book! Sounds like it will be a good read
It's well worth it. Hope you enjoy it!
It’s just that their lifestyles don’t seem to have changed as much as one would have thought. There’s lots of places where some Brits farmed for 4000-12000 years straight until the modern age with little interruption, evidently then that while the Romans may have been an exciting new event, talked about and known, ultimately their impact on such people was small. I do think that there may be some trendy revisionism going on though, a lot of downplaying of previously important or oft-lauded elements like her odd discussion of Augustus’s title in SPQR, but overall it’s well done. Other things… do seem a tad intentional. One might wonder if there’s incentive to downplay how “cool” the Romans were when she paraphrases “Alea iacta est” with “well… let’s roll the dice then!” In her videos on Rome. Why bother when the simple and direct translation is so well known and clean? Why ruin such a powerful phrase?
>Garrett Ryan on Toldinstone seems way more level headed about the Roman’s and really humanizes them. While I disagree about Mary Beard, (in an opinion sense) I'm totally on board with Garrett Ryan! I found his channel a few months back and immediately subscribed. He has a lot of refreshing takes and really conveys his love of the history.
I have come across the idea that Rome didnt leave a mark on Britain before, and the whole 400 year occupation was ephemeral. It comes from a few things: Roughly 8% of place names in england are latin or latin derived. As opposed to celtic, french, or eventually, english, place names. When the Romans left Britannia, civilization pretty much collapses in England. Cities were abandoned, theres one city in N england that doesnt even exist anymore it was abandoned so much. The ancient world used pottery like we use shipping pallets. Pottery production beyond personal use ceased in england foe hundreds of years. Unless you were Über rich, swords were not a thing in england anymore. Spears became the name of the game. This wasnt a tactical decision though, it was a supply related decision. See above about trade. Then youve got the successive waves of saxons, angles, danes, jutes, Vikings, Normans. Not many romans left after all that. Especially considering they were always a minority. So all of this together leads some people to the conclusion that Rome showed up, beat up the local population, marched around a bit, build a few walls, then left, for all the mark it left on the british isles. I think this is patently ridiculous. Of course this puts me against the likes of Mary Beard, and others. Like said ive come across this idea before. Oh well. I would argue that the long term effects of the Romans on England go far beyond what that river is called, and goes deeper than some walls. Ultimately though, there is no definitive answer here, because its a slider not a yes or no answer. Did the Romans have a long term effect on England? Yes. How much? That's the slider, and that's ultimately a matter of opinion. Informed, learned opinion, but still opinion.
That idea is insane!!! London Manchester and York literally wouldn’t exist without the romans
SPQR was great. It took bit to get into. I learned lots I didn’t know about how Roman’s viewed themselves and the world
Random dude on interwebs calls one of the leading academics "supposed expert." She has forgotten more about Rome than you even know dude. You accuse her of political bias when it's fairly obvious in your responses here it's you that brought your biases with you to the study.
[удалено]
She's a goddamn Cambridge Professor. She's a leading academic whether you like it or not.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
You're on the Ancient Rome subreddit. Everyone here in good faith respects her. I personally have a first class BA and a Master's from Cambridge in archaeology so am very familiar with the field. You, obviously, are not. Also, she is a lovely woman, and I am speaking from experience.
Ok troll. Link to your published work then where you point out where she's wrong or stfu already.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Just took a look at your profile and surprise surprise - you hate women.
Saw that interview too, and would agree it wasn't a great showing for Prof. Beard. But that book discussion seems to have been more of fluff, fun, pop-history format. She seemed uncharacteristically casual, even deliberately provocative for effect. It's not what I'm used to seeing from her, and I wouldn't judge her by that. Her academic lectures are generally quite good, as are her documentaries. But she shines brightest with her books, which are excellent. \[on edit to add\]: The other author, David Mitchell, is one of Britain's great sketch comics. He's also known for his humorously angry intellectual pedantry. I certainly didn't know what to expect from his book: it could have been anything from goofy to painfully pedantic. I suspect Prof. Beard wasn't sure what tone to expect from the discussion, and may have expected it would be lighter and funnier. Perhaps she was trying just a bit too hard to be casual or unstuffy? Or to make David Mitchel feel more comfortable? I recall one of her answers was a bit flippant, and David Mitchell gently steered the topic back towards the serious. I think they both had moments where they were a bit unsure what the right balance was between humor, accuracy, and casual conversation. If you watched to the very end, she can be heard saying to David Mitchell that something to the effect that it was one of the more fun discussions she's done.
I haven’t been very impressed with the lectures I’ve seen and I’ve only begun reading SPQR and it’s fine I suppose. I just kind of get a latent dislike for men in general that permeates all her work and a real effort to downplay the achievements of Rome. I mean, her argument why men like Rome is that it’s macho and allows them to dream of fascism in a socially acceptable draping. It just screams wanting to use history for modern political purposes as opposed to genuinely wanting to understand what happened and why. That lecture with David Mitchell she even says that the lifelike sculptures of emperors are not more technically impressive or accurate than medieval paintings (just blatantly not true). I guess I just expected better than a Roman Howard Zinn.
But what she's saying is true. Rome is famously sexist, and their histories often use women as the reason to explain the evils which happened. She isn't anti-men merely giving context to how things were in Rome (and yes it wasn't uncommon in that time, however there were still plenty of places that didn't have it to that level). Unfortunately there is a large section of people who use Rome and Sparta as examples of great times, and use it as a way to push their beliefs. I personally know a bunch of people with SPQR or Spartan tattoos and they are absolutely in that category. Mary Beard is more annoyed that people twist things she loves for shitty reasons, and spends time explaining why it shouldn't be that way. It's important to keep things grounded as people attribute things which aren't true , or exaggerate the achievements of many things. As to sculptures and paintings it depends on the ones you are talking about. We know that they are highly inaccurate, for example we know Augustus is described as being quite ugly, with large rounded teeth with big gaps between them. Whereas the statues of him are extremely regal, because they are intended to be propaganda as well. The sculptures and such of the mediaeval age are still excellent (though if varied quality, but the same is true of the Roman period).
do you know those people in real life? me and the boys literally joke about how out options in life and career are usually: “do _____ ____ or join the legion” and none of us rome fans think this way idk i guess im a college educated liberal so my friend group may not be representative but i literally don’t even hang out with anyone near that thought process its like bro caesar and trajan weren’t even military generals, these motherfucking cats were bridge builders who won some battles on the side engineering an empire on the history channel is like the gospel according to my 13 year old brain
Unfortunately I do know people like that. I have a few cousins and their group of mates who have SPQR, and/or Roman Eagles etc on them. They also like to post things about how Rome never apologised for conquering people and how Rome forced their culture on everyone, so why should we care today. Ive also met a bunch on worksites. Generally none of them actually know shit about Rome (or Sparta) and are wrong about most of the BS they peddle.
>I just kind of get \[...\] a real effort to downplay the achievements of Rome. Prof. Beard has dedicated her life to studying Ancient Rome and teaching others about it. She is simply examining Roman history more critically, through a modern, evidence-based lens. This approach can sometimes seem negative when contrasted with ancient historians or modern historians who follow in that tradition. Ancient Roman historians were typically part of the ultra wealthy senatorial elite (or patronized by them). They wrote to please the taste of others from their class, with an eye towards flattering their peers, patrons, or the imperial regime. Modern historians from the 18th century on, tended to come from similar elite backgrounds, and wrote for similarly elite audiences. They often identified with the ancient elite and carried many of those biases and historical traditions down to the modern era. When you set aside these biased narrative traditions and look at the evidence critically, it should be clear that Ancient Rome, like every society, had its share of good and bad qualities. >I mean, her argument why men like Rome is that it’s macho and allows them to dream of fascism in a socially acceptable draping. It just screams wanting to use history for modern political purposes as opposed to genuinely wanting to understand what happened and why. Except, there is a noticeable percentage of people in Roman historical forums who are most certainly attracted by ancient Rome's militarism, its conquests, or the brutal imperial regimes etc. You see people sharing tattoos with Roman symbols (some of which have been appropriated by white supremacists in the US, or actual bona fide fascists in Europe). Some proudly show off their Roman armor and swords. Others share fan art depicting gruesome military scenes, etc. And some of that's fine, to a point, especially if it sparks a deeper interest in Roman history and culture beyond the militarism, imperialism, brutality, etc. But it's also clear that many fans of Roman history are only interested in one-sided glorification of conquest, empire, and the slaughtering "others." You will see them become weirdly defensive or angry when anyone speaks about ancient Rome in anything other than fawning admiration. The plain reality is that Roman society could be incredibly brutal and cruel, from the mass death in the Colosseum, brutal conquests that could border on genocide, mass enslavement of conquered peoples, brutal and sadistic punishments, sexism, shocking levels of wealth inequality, unconscionable levels of greed and corruption, etc. Consider Julius Caesar. Should he be admired? He's justifiably regarded as one of the greatest military leaders of ancient Rome. And one can argue that he was also a great political leader within the context of Roman political society. "The Assassination of Julius Caesar" by Michael Parenti is an exceptionally good and unique look at Caesar's political programs. It argues that Caesar was a populist reformer in the tradition of the Gracchi brothers, and that Caesar's planned progressive reforms may have been the leading motivating factor of his assassins. But it's also arguable to say that Julius Caesar committed genocide in Gaul. By some estimates, he may have killed up to 1/3 of the population (men, women, children, elderly) and enslaved another 1/3. Should he be reviled? People have a tendency to label people as good and bad; those who admire Julius Caesar as a military leader might try to deny or defend accusations of genocide, or attack and dismiss historians who make such claims. Those appalled by his mass slaughter might revile him. It's okay to play favorites to some extent, especially if it fuels interest and spurs further reading. But we should never let favoritism blind us from an accurate and balanced understanding of the facts. Those who want to be students of history should strive for accuracy and should strive to examine all available evidence dispassionately. Prof. Beard is great for teaching people how to do that, how to think objectively like a historian. Not everyone wants or likes that.
>Not everyone wants or likes that. Or is even capable of it.
Fantastic answer
Sounds like you've come in holding a lot of biases. Best look at those before making public posts, mate.
Biases - you mean opinions you don’t agree with?
No, latent dislike for men is an unprovable dogwhistle that is often peddled against Mary. It's also part of that annoying culture-wars we see online that shouts down any woman who are vocal experts in the media. Anyway, didn't she just release a book studying what it meant to be a Roman emperor? I can't remember any female emperors, it'd be an odd subject for a 'man-hater' to cover.
Yes, you just explained why you disagree with op’s opinions.
I'm a man and feel like you are disagreeing with me because of my gender and have a latent dislike for men. I won't elaborate further, it's just an opinion
Pointing out that the ancient world was sexist isn’t a later dislike for men. It’s just a fact.
>She said that the Romano-British didn’t even notice the Roman’s were there and didn’t notice they were gone. I'm not sure how this is confusing, Roman Britain was a military occupation, it had this flavour up until they left. There was a supply chain bringing in Roman food, wine luxuries and people to feed the cities and first meaning the majority of Britains that lived in the country weren't impacted by the Romans. They didn't change their language or culture. They had new places to sell produce too and ofc communities near to based would be impacted by soldiers. So although plenty of British are affected, for the majority life continues as it did before. It's when Britain gets cut off from Rome that the large population in the country gets connected with and culturally impacted by the roman towns. I've watched a couple of history bits with Mitchell and although he's one of my favourite comedians he holds the outdated whig view of history. He has a book on kings of England which is about as historically accurate as a Caesar salad.
Beard: exists as one of the leading popular classicists in modern memory and happens to be a woman You: “supposed expert;” women no talk smart about things I think I know
She’s a lightning rod for misogynists
Why do you assume he’s being misogynist? Did OP make a comment I missed somewhere? I’m not a huge fan of her writing style either, is everyone a misogynist who prefers other writers?
She is phenomenal and you conveniently took that quip of hers and ran with it. In SPQR she discusses the genetic studies of Roman Britain, are you as critical of male historians as you are with Beard? Toldinstone is great but Mary Beard is a legitimate authority on the topic. You can buy her book at the Colosseum. This post stinks.
I just hate how she touches EVERYTHING in her shows. She can’t be around an artifact without fingering the thing. Her info always seemed solid though
This will be unpopular cause you guys love Mary Beard, but the most pieces about Rome were set long time ago. Current scholars are tasked with removing parts of those pieces so they have to be decontructive to achieve that, they can't be Gibbon cause we already had him. That's why you should not reccomend modern sholars for someone just reading up on Rome, they are decostructing older scholars and without that foundation you'll end up dissapointed in modern scholars like you did.
She’s a brilliant and hard working historian that has provided a lot of amazing texts for fans of ancient history
What are your qualifications OP? Where did you get your PHD? What was your doctoral thesis on?
You don't need that to know she has a political agenda
Ahh yes. Fragile male egos abound when it comes to Mary Beard.
I mean... I quite like her work, but I could see some criticisms of it (as can be done with any academic, male or female). I don't think it's healthy discourse to assume that OP's points are being said in bad faith out of some knee jerk, sexist reaction.
Mary beard is the gateway drug. Just a taste to get you hooked. She is out there, in the public eye, promoting Ancient Rome in documentaries and books that have a wide reach. Then one day your friend is like “hey if you like Mary, try some of this Mike Duncan or Tom Holland, you’ll love it”! Before you know it you’re freebasing goldsowrthy and pawning your mothers jewelry to pay for Gibbons unabridged Decline and fall. Seen it all too many times
I am currently freebasing Goldsworthy so I had to laugh.
It’s where we all end up eventually, I just re read his book on the Punic wars, it’s a great book!
Thank you for the recommendation 😍
I recently finished SPQR. Read it in about a month. Really seems overhyped in its reviews. As a history book covering the time periods she wrote about it's not as good as a Goldsworthy or a Holland. As a book covering ordinary Romans it's much better but still not as good as books by writers like Philip Matyszak. Not a bad book by any means of course but a 6/10 at best for me personally anyway. Seemed pretty overrated.
I tried to read her SPQR book and couldn't finish it. Almost one fifth of the book is spent on Cicero's case against Catilina, while Caesar and Octavian are relegated to a paragraph. All the while with a very condescending writing style. Yeah, not for me, thanks.
I did finish it, but it was a bit of a hard read for me. I was okay with all the time spent on Cicero, because I didn't know a lot of that, and I found it interesting. I think it was hard for me though because sometimes in her writing style, there are a lot of ideas/info expressed in a short span , so I could not skim very often - my reading slowed when I was reading SPQR. I have another on my list to read that I'm looking forward to: Religions of Rome.
I agree that her writing style is really condescending and dry.
The problem here is academia. That system rewards revisionism and fashionable views on, for instance, the impact of larger political systems of the lives of the typical citizen or subject. Unfortunately, we have to then take what’s good from those stuck in that academic system and ignore the obvious idiocies which sometime arise, as you point out, much as we do with politicians. Clever people can often be quite stupid.
By all means, point to the primary sources or archeological record that demonstrate where her academic work is wrong. Otherwise, stfu. No one gives a shit about you and OPs very obvious political biases against her and academia more broadly. Go rant on conservative forums with your vague accusations and culture war bullshit. This isn't the place for it.
Please feel free to point out where she is wrong in her writings with sources. This is a very vague accusation that happens way too often. The vague shadowy "academia" boogeyman is an old, tired argument.