Take a photo of a barcode or cover
nelsta 's review for:
SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome
by Mary Beard
SPQR is a good book, but it struggles to be an honest claimant of a “history of Ancient Rome” due to a few major faults.
1. SPQR does not include any history past 200 CE because the author, Mary Beard, claims that the Roman Empire had changed substantially by that date. This would be like writing a history of the United States, but stopping before FDR became president because the government had changed from what it was beforehand. It is an incomplete account of the Romans.
2. The first half of the book focuses on Cicero, the legends of the Kings of Rome, and other important Senators and their letters, while avoiding common topics that would interest a reader like, “What was Roman culture like?” and “How did the Romans decide on democracy?” Instead, Mary Beard often stops her narrative to explain that history is written by the victor, so we shouldn’t jump to conclusions about any one person or event. It becomes rather tiresome to read this over and over again. I wish she had mentioned that in the prologue and then spent considerable more time explaining Rome like she did in the last half of the book.
If the entire book had been written like the last half of the book, this book could easily earn four or five stars. The latter portion focuses on Roman expansion, the bureaucracy of the Empire, and the life of the average urban and rural Roman.
1. SPQR does not include any history past 200 CE because the author, Mary Beard, claims that the Roman Empire had changed substantially by that date. This would be like writing a history of the United States, but stopping before FDR became president because the government had changed from what it was beforehand. It is an incomplete account of the Romans.
2. The first half of the book focuses on Cicero, the legends of the Kings of Rome, and other important Senators and their letters, while avoiding common topics that would interest a reader like, “What was Roman culture like?” and “How did the Romans decide on democracy?” Instead, Mary Beard often stops her narrative to explain that history is written by the victor, so we shouldn’t jump to conclusions about any one person or event. It becomes rather tiresome to read this over and over again. I wish she had mentioned that in the prologue and then spent considerable more time explaining Rome like she did in the last half of the book.
If the entire book had been written like the last half of the book, this book could easily earn four or five stars. The latter portion focuses on Roman expansion, the bureaucracy of the Empire, and the life of the average urban and rural Roman.