Best ancient roman history books according to redditors

We found 957 Reddit comments discussing the best ancient roman history books. We ranked the 285 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top Reddit comments about Ancient Roman History:

u/Forlarren · 70 pointsr/movies

I wouldn't call being verbose awesome. As for the message in the text you should either read The Forever War, or watch the film again to learn why it's flowery but wrong.

> War is not violence and killing, pure and simple; war is controlled violence, for a purpose.

The problem is that political purpose is often dictated by evil, power hungry, short sighted politicians (many of whom have had military experience and are often the worst when it comes to starting more pointless wars), and is counter productive to the continuation of the species (we came damn close to destroying the world many times during the cold war, like seconds away close). For a more contemporary example it was the chicken hawks elevated by military rhetoric that leveled Iraq just to hand out rebuilding contracts for their buddies, laying economic waste to both nations.

Plus I preferred Michael Ironside's delivery, juxtaposed with his missing hand. You don't need a bunch of prose to show violence as authority, "because fuck you" is it's own proof.

Other points that can be easily picked apart (and I'm not the first to do so).

> Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure" --Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson was talking about rebellions and the rebellious as the patriots. The removal of tyrants, makes Heinlein's statement disingenuous at best. It's a reversal and celebration of authority, that is ironically only possible due to Jefferson's original rebellion.

> It's never a soldier's business to decide when or where or how—or why—he fights; that belongs to the statesmen and the generals.

This is the Nuremberg Defense, nobody should have to explain why it's wrong.

Too many people read Starship Troopers then praise it without reading it's critiques or counter examples. Heinlein's theories haven't held up well in the years following his book. It's a good story, and a great window into the mind set of a WWII soldier, but as a model for society it's woefully inadequate.

If you really want to understand war and it's wide ranging ramifications in an easily approachable format I would suggest starting with John Keegan's: A History of Warfare. Then read Joe Haldeman's: The Forever War as a Vietnam era perspective counter example to Starship Troopers. Then try watching Verhoeven's Starship Troopers again as it was intended to be viewed, as an intelligent satire.

u/The_YoungWolf · 64 pointsr/AskHistorians

Because by the time of Constantine's conversion, Christianity was no longer an obscure cult made up of subversive elements from the lower classes, but was firmly entrenched among the class of urban professionals and rising new military and bureaucratic officials that made up a very influential chunk of the Empire's demographics.

The Crisis of the Third Century brought substantial social and cultural changes to the Roman Empire. Most notably, it brought a rising tide of "new men" from outside the traditional upper classes of the empire to prominence. Their avenue to power was primarily through the military, for the Crisis was a series of divisive and devastating civil wars between self-proclaimed emperors:

> For the Roman Empire was saved by a military revolution. Seldom has a society set about cutting out the dead wood in its upper classes with such determination. The senatorial aristocracy was excluded from military commands in about 260. The aristocrats had to make way for professional soldiers who had risen from the ranks. These professionals recast the Roman army.

> ...

> The soldiers and officers [who fought in the Danubian campaigns], who had seemed so raw to the Mediterranean aristocrats of a previous age, emerged as heroes of the imperial recovery of the late third and early fourth centuries...The army was an artesian well of talent. By the end of the third century, its officers and administrators had ousted the traditional aristocracy from control of the empire.

These "new men" formed the basis of a new imperial bureaucratic and military administration that would preside over a recovery that spanned the fourth century. Their rise heralded the dawn of a new system of advancement that relied more on merit than birth. As a result, men from disparate regions, cultures, ethnic groups, and religions could rise to high positions with the administration.

This new culture and influx of talent allowed for men with Christian beliefs to quickly entrench themselves into the highest levels of Roman governance once Constantine converted to Christianity.

> The reign of Constantine, especially the period from 324-337, saw the final establishment of a new "aristocracy of service" at the top of Roman society...After the conversion of Constantine in 312, the emperors and the majority of their courtiers were Christians. The ease with which Christianity gained control of the upper classes of the Roman empire in the fourth century was due to the revolution that had placed the imperial court at the centre of a society of "new" men, who found it comparatively easy to abandon conservative beliefs in favour of the new faith of their masters.

So now the question is how Christianity was so appealing to this wave of "new men" (outside of how conversion allowed them to rise more quickly in the court of a Christian emperor).

Christianity offered a few distinct advantages compared to other religions at the time, chiefly its culture of community, exclusivity, and egalitarianism. Anyone could become a Christian no matter their ethnic, economic, or former religious background. And once you were a Christian, you were part of an exclusive community, of which many were men from well-off economic backgrounds and invested their wealth in improving that community. Thus, Christianity appealed to men who felt they lacked a social identity, and/or were trying to carve out a new niche for themselves in post-Crisis Roman society; and since the turmoil of the Crisis uprooted many people and produced a new group of ambitious, talented social risers, Christianity found itself with a wealth of new converts.

> The Church was also professedly egalitarian. A group in which there was 'neither slave nor free' might strike an aristocrat as utopian, or subversive. Yet in an age when the barriers separating the successful freedman from the declasse senator were increasingly unreal, a religious group could take the final step of ignoring them. In Rome the Christian community of the early third century was a p[lace where just such anomalies were gathered and tolerated: the Church included a powerful freedman chamberlain of the emperor; its bishop was the former slave of that freedman; it was protected by the emperor's mistress, and patronized by noble ladies.

> For men whose confusions came partly from no longer feeling embedded in their home environment, the Christian Church offered a drastic experiment in social living...

-----

> The Christian Church suddenly came to appeal to men who felt deserted. At a time of inflation, the Christians invested large sums of liquid capital in people; at a time of increased brutality, the courage of Christian martyrs was impressive; during public emergencies, such as plague or rioting, the Christian clergy were shown to be the only united group in town, able to look after the burial of the dead and to organize food-supplies...Plainly, to be a Christian in 250 brought more protection from one's fellows than to be a civis romanus.

> ...

> What marked the Christian Church off, and added to its appeal, was the ferociously inward-looking quality of life...the wealth of the community returned to the members of the community alone, as part of the "loving-kindness of God to His special people.

> ...

> The appeal of Christianity still lay in its radical sense of community: it absorbed people because the individual could drop from a wide impersonal world into a miniature community, whose demands and relations were explicit.

Once Christians gained access to the highest levels of government via the "new men", and those "new men" carved out their own position among the elite classes of the Roman Empire, Christianity continued the process of adapting to the new culture of the classical world. The Crisis of the Third Century had brought more than civil war - foreign powers hostile to the Empire, such as Sassanid Persia and the Germanic tribes along the Rhine, had taken advantage of the weakness of Roman borders and launched raids and invasions into imperial territory. The mood of the apparent collapse of the "civilized", classical world took deep hold across the Roman Empire, and the narrative of Christianity was well-suited to adapt to this new mood:

> Hence the most crucial development of these centuries: the definitive splitting-off of the "demons" as active forces of evil, against whom men had to pit themselves. The sharp smell of an invisible battle hung over the religious and intellectual life of the Late Antique man...To men increasingly pre-occupied with the problem of evil, the Christian attitude to the demons offered an answer designed to relieve nameless anxiety: they focused this anxiety on the demons and at the same time offered a remedy for it. The devil was given vast but strictly-mapped powers. He was an all-embracing agent of evil in the human race; but he had been defeated by Christ and could be held in check by Christ's human agents.

-----

> The early fourth century was the great age of the Christian Apologists...They claimed that Christianity was the sole guarantee of [classical] civilization - that the best traditions of classical philosophy and the high standards of classical ethics could be steeled against barbarism only through being confirmed by the Christian revelation; and that the beleaguered Roman empire was saved from destruction only by the protection of the Christian God.

When Constantine very publicly converted to Christianity, he was inundated by a flood of Christian "new men" who desired his patronage either for their own advancement within the government or for the advancement of their community's interests under his rule. By surrounding himself with Christians, Constantine surrounded himself with Christian propaganda, and allowed that propaganda to spread throughout the empire. And because Christianity was already entrenched among the urban middle class, combined with the eastern empire (the focus of Constantine's power and attention) being considerably more urbanized and developed than the western empire, this led to the majority of the entire empire becoming firmly Christian from the bottom up, despite the resistance of the traditionalist pagan aristocracy:

> This prolonged exposure to Christian propaganda was the true "conversion" of Constantine. It began on a modest scale when he controlled only the under-Christianized western provinces; but it reached its peak after 324, when the densely Christianized Christianized territories of Asia Minor were united to his empire.

Constantine's nephew, Julian the Apostate, who became emperor after the death of Constantine's son Constantius II, was a firm pagan who sought to roll back Christian infiltration within the upper levels of Roman government. But his premature death on the battlefield in 363, only three years into his reign, smothered those plans in the crib. The new Christian domination of the Roman world was here to stay.

Source: The World of Late Antiquity, by Peter Brown (pub. 1971)

I encourage you to seek out further replies and sources to this question. My sole source is a secondary one, and an old one, despite being an extremely influential work in the historiography of the late Roman Empire.

u/PrimusPilus · 63 pointsr/AskHistorians

From the Harper Encyclopedia of Military History, 4th Ed, pp. 89-90:

The typical army of the Ch'in and Han periods was a combined arms force of infantry, cavalry, chariots, and crossbowmen. The principal element had been heavy armored infantry, but increasing reliance was placed on cavalry as time went by. Shih Huang Ti did not introduce the crossbow into Chinese armies, since we know that these weapons were in extensive use as early as the Battle of Ma Ling (353 BCE). He seems, however, to have relied upon crossbowmen more heavily than his predecessors and may have been responsible for establishing a substantial contingent of mounted crossbowmen in his army. He also coordinated the employment of the reflex longbow with the crossbow, but (unlike the Mongols) does not seem to have had mounted longbowmen.

The combined arms concept seems to have been adopted for units as small as a 1,000 man equivalent of a modern regiment. Thus, the Chinese appear to have been able to deploy units capable of decentralized, independent action, as well as to combine them into large, massed, but articulated armies, in which the major units were brigades of 2 or 3 regiments. Heavy armored infantry predominated. Light unarmored infantry--archers, crossbowmen, and spearmen--functioned as skirmishers and provided security by screening flanks and rear.

The bulk of the soldiers, infantry and cavalry alike, had bronze-tipped--or iron-tipped--spears as their primary weapons. The secondary weapon for most soldiers, archers or spearmen, mounted or dismounted, was a single-edged sword nearly three feet long, suspended in a scabbard from a waist belt. All, except apparently for lightly-armed skirmishers, wore armor made up of small metal (bronze) plates attached by a form of rivent to a quilted fabric base. Some protection seems to have been provided even those without armor by a heavy quilted robe. The Chinese apparently relied entirely upon their armor for passive protection and did not carry shields.

Op. cit., p. 134:

The Han Dynasty inherited the government and military institutions of the Ch'in Dynasty. The basis of Han military power was the militiaman. Han law required males between the ages of 23 and 56 to undergo on month of military training each year at provincial training centers. Each man was also required to serve a 1-year tour with the Imperial Guards army in the capital and a 3-year tour at a frontier post. The militia was also called up during local emergencies and for foreign campaigns, such as those of Wu Ti against the Hsiung-nu.

The Roman army structure, equipment, etc under the Principate has been exhaustively documented ad nauseum in many many sources, some of which I'll list below. If asked to compare the two systems, I'd say that the Roman armies were strategically and tactically more flexible, and were by design able to be deployed from one end of the empire to the other for decades on end, versus the inherent limitations of a militia-type system. The testudo and gladius would have likely made the Roman legionary superior to his Han counterpart in melee combat.

However, the crossbow would be the central, pivotal piece of technological difference between the two armies, with its great range and its ability to penetrate virtually all known sorts of personal armor, one would have to conclude that, all else being equal, a Roman army's only chance would involve either a) surprise, or b) tactics wherein the main bodies of the legions closed the distance with the Han to precipitate a melee as soon as possible. This assumes that a crossbow bolt could penetrate the testudo, which seems reasonable, but may not have been true as a rule.

SOURCES:

Goldsworthy, Adrian. The Complete Roman Army. Thames & Hudson, 2003.

Coulston, J.C. Roman Military Equipment: From the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome. Oxbow Books, 2011.

u/onsos · 53 pointsr/AskHistorians

Weight training is old. Touring old castles and museums you see weight training gear.

Standing armies tended to be smaller than they are now, but the soldiers would train (as they do now).

While modern training techniques are almost certainly more efficient than medieval/ancient regimes, there was considerable incentive to have stronger soldiers.

Stronger soldiers can walk with heavier loads, wear heavier armour, wield heavier weapons, throw and shoot dangerous weapons further and more accurately. Where soldiering has some prestige or privilege, there would be a tendency for tall, muscular men to be chosen.

Basic training often consisted of drill wielding heavy weapons and armour, and marching wearing armour, carrying weapons, and carrying the equivalent of up to ten days of food (not modern dried food; heavy old food). Soldiers have always been required to do labour (building impromptu fortifications, shifting heavy weapons, etc.). The work of soldiering, in a serious army, would resemble heavy labour.

Most men will get quite muscular if they work hard for a few hours every day. Some will get ripped.

All up, you could expect pre-modern soldiers in a standing army to be taller than average, and quite muscular. Some will be really quite ripped. This will be much more the case for elite units.

Source: Lots of reading, but this more recently than anything else.

u/dhmontgomery · 45 pointsr/history

Bryan Ward-Perkins' The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization documents using quantified archaeology how the collapse of Roman hegemony devastated the economies in not just the ex-imperial West but also the still-imperial East. Coins, manufactured pottery, and other goods are all sharply less evident after the Fall; animal skeletons are smaller, and there's generally pretty consistent evidence all around of much lower standards of living, even in the areas that maintained Roman culture and governance.

A big reason: the loss of the network effects the stable Pax Romana gave to the entire region. The Roman economy was surprisingly specialized, because trade meant everyone didn't have to produce everything themselves. When the trade routes broke down, people had to become less specialized — and thus, less wealthy.

u/southern_boy · 41 pointsr/pics

Pollice Verso, while visually appealing and a widely believed fact, isn't quite how the folks in the Flavian Amphitheater threw hands... the popular imagery is born of a painting of the same name from the late 1800s. Written history tells us that 'pollicem verte' and 'pollicem premer' were the rule of the day - to turn or to press the thumb, respectively... extended thumb for death, thumb in contact with the hand to issue a missio. This is seen here in a relief from the time. This is a very cursory and accessible site than can be a great first step on the adventurous road that is studying Roman history. And when you finally feel like getting elbow deep in the imperium romanum pick up this work (the same set Theodore Roosevelt purportedly read by the campfire during the Spanish-American War)... when you're done reading it pass it along to the next budding historian you meet.

u/miss_j_bean · 38 pointsr/history

A lot of people here are giving shitty answers and not helping because they disprove of your use of "dark ages."
On behalf on the internet I apologize. They are giving you crap for not knowing something you have expressed interest in learning about.
I am fascinated by the "Dark ages" and I have a history degree and I'm still using the term. I understand it to usually mean "the medieval times" or "the huge time-span that is not usually taught to the average student." Most history in public schools (at least that I've seen) tends to gloss over the time from the Romans to the early renaissance so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that's the era you want. It's my favorite era to study for that reason - most people know so little about this 1000 year span in history.
A good starter book for you would be A world lit only by Fire I loved this book. It's not overly scholarly and is a good read.
Another great one is Mysteries of the Middle Ages... Thomas Cahill is a great writer and if this version of the paperback is anything like my copy it is a visually stunning read. I discovered him through "How the Irish Saved Civilization" which was also great.
Mark Kurlansky's books (Salt and Cod specifically come to mind) are well written, specific histories that cover parts of this time period.
I wish my books weren't still packed (recently moved) because I want to dig through the stack and share them all. :) I suck at remembering names of stuff. I recommend browsing the amazon pages section of "Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought" for other good recommendations.
Happy Reading!! :)
edit - just remembered this one on the byzantine empire of all the books I've read on the Byzantines, that one is my favorite.

edit I'm getting a lashing for "A World Lit Only By Fire" due to the fact that it contains historical inaccuracies.
Please read this one instead In the year 1000.
I'm not trying to recommend dry scholarly tomes, I am trying to think of books that are fun, interesting, and entertaining to read while still being informative.

u/davidreiss666 · 25 pointsr/history

Confirmed that this is Lars Brownworth of the 12 Byzantine Rulers and Norman Centuries podcasts. Two very excellent podcasts.

12 Byzantine Rulers even pre-dates the History of Rome podcast from Mike Duncan.

Lars homepage and a link to his Amazon page, and his book: Lost to the West: The Forgotten Byzantine Empire That Rescued Western Civilization.

Thank you for agreeing to do this, sir.

u/oievp0WCP · 22 pointsr/history

What are the best books on Hannibal (particularly ones that may have been overlooked)?

Personally I like Lazenby's Hannibal's War (for the academically inclined) and Dodge's Hannibal (for a general audience).

EDIT:

For those interested in learning more about Hannibal, here are my top picks from books actually on my book shelf:

  1. Hannibal's War by J. F. Lazenby (little dry, but well documented history)
  2. The First Punic War: A Military History by J. F. Lazenby (can't really understand Hannibal without the prelude)
  3. The Punic Wars by Adrian Goldsworthy (dude knows more about the Roman Army than anyone)
  4. Hannibal by Theodore Ayrault Dodge (Dodge was a Union officer in the Civil War and wrote some great books on Hannibal, Caesar, Alexander, etc. ... probably the best companion to primary source material on a first read through -- and it's out of copyright so you can find free copies online)
  5. Scipio Africanus: Greater Than Napoleon by B. H. Liddell Hart (was Scipio the real, and somewhat overlooked, genius of the Second Punic War?)

    And recommendations and from /u/gevemacd :

  6. Hannibal A Hellenistic Life by Eve MacDonald (/u/gevemacd herself!)
  7. Cannae: The Experience of Battle in the Second Punic War by Gregory Daly (I haven't read this, but the slow trapping and butchery 70,000 men on a hot day seems like a fascinating topic for history as it was actually experienced)
u/timoleon · 22 pointsr/history

All those things?

That would be a the sizeable part of the entire late antiquity and middle ages.

If there's public library in your neighborhood, I would suggest browsing through their offerings on these periods. There's probably no one book that covers all subjects, especially not one that is accessible enough to non-historians, and doesn't cost a fortune.

On the Eastern Roman Empire, these could be a good introduction:

u/jimmythemini · 21 pointsr/AskHistorians

Based on my reading of The Inheritance of Rome by Chris Wickham, the short answer is that in the early medieval period, there wasn't a particularly strong conception in the lands of the Western Empire between a 'Roman' and 'post-Roman' era. Obviously this was even less of the case in the Eastern Empire, but I assume OP is mainly asking about the West.

In part, this is because the Western Empire fizzled out quite slowly and in an amorphous fashion, and wasn't replaced by what we might call 'coherent' nation states. Mediterranean trade - the lifeblood of the Empire - also declined terminally but very slowly. There was no set date for the Fall of the Empire as we conceive now - the Sack of Rome in 410 would most likely have been received with the same sense of shock that 9/11 was felt throughout the Western world. But at no point was it conceived as marking the end of the Roman world as 'Rome' at this point was centered in the East, and within the Italian peninsula the city of Rome had long been in decline.

Above all, 'Europeans' would also have conceived of themselves as members of Christendom, from which we can draw a pretty straight line from Constantine. So its for this reason that Charlemagne conceived of his Empire as a continuation of Rome, and not some sort of revival.

u/runeaway · 20 pointsr/Stoicism

> I feel like I don't stand for anything, I don't have an identity I feel confident in.

That requires a lot of self-reflection, thinking about what you value and how/if you act according to those values.

> the person I was in high school seems alien to me now.

In a few years, you're probably going to feel the same way about the you right now.

> in the age of social media it feels like everyone's eyes are on me

Most people are too concerned with what other people think about them to spend much time thinking about you.

> I can't control what they think of me

It's good that you realize that.

> but I can't help but feel like most see me as a goofy, disinterested nice guy

Maybe they do, maybe they don't. There's no way for you to know what other people think about you. Even if they say they think you're goofy, there's no way to know if they're telling the truth. If you choose to believe everyone else thinks you're goofy, you can do that, but it's a choice you've decided to make. Your time is better spent trying to be the sort of person you want to be than on worrying about what other people think of you.

> When I push away those fears I instead become an asshole and don't think before I speak.

That's another choice you make. No one forces you to speak without thinking. No one forces you to act like an asshole. If you want to be a kind, virtuous person, that's in your control.

> I've read Meditation and checked out the sidebar on the topics but I'm having trouble implementing the ideas into my daily life

We generally advise that new people do not start with Meditations, as it wasn't intended as an entry point to Stoicism. It's the working journal of an advanced student, and Marcus assumes the reader is already familiar with all of the concepts.

Here's a short list of recommended places to start:

  • Stoicism and the Art of Happiness by Donald Robertson is a practical introduction on what Stoicism is and how to implement it in your life.


  • Epictetus - Discourses, Fragments, Handbook translated by Robin Hard is a book containing the lectures of the Stoic teacher Epictetus. Marcus Aurelius studied Epictetus specifically and quotes him several times in Meditations.

  • Seneca's Dialogues and Essays, especially the essays "On The Shortness of Life" and "On the Happy Life" and Letters from a Stoic contain Seneca's useful writings on a number of topics and is another popular place to begin learning about Stoicism.
u/wildeastmofo · 19 pointsr/MapPorn

I scanned r/askhistorians for a minute and it seems that many people are recommending The Punic Wars by Adrian Goldsworthy.

u/Juz16 · 18 pointsr/history

The Byzantines had plenty of big beefy guys standing around, so the Varangians weren't too big a problem. They were hired specifically because they were from incredibly far away (Scandinavia, the Byzantines were based mostly in Greece and Asia Minor) and didn't have any ties to the various political factions within the empire.

Source: Lost to the West by Lars Brownsworth

u/corndoggeh · 18 pointsr/paradoxplaza

I can highly recomend "The Complete Roman Army" by Goldsworthy for military related stuff.

u/Frodiddly · 16 pointsr/ancientrome

I would say in the period immediately following the Second Punic War.

Rome had just defeat it's greatest enemy, and would have no serious threats to it's existence for hundreds of years. The spoils from Carthage greatly enhanced the wealth of it's people (especially the elite), yet it was not quite to the point where decadence and corruption had completely overtaken the people.

The army was strong, and still owed loyalty to the state, instead of individual generals in the post-Marian reforms era. Of course, some of Rome's greatest commanders (namely, Scipio Africanus) were still alive and kicking. Territories in Spain, Sicily, and North Africa were in the process of annexation (so, perhaps dock a few points for stability there).

It would be quick turnaround in a few years, once the Glory-Seekers (i.e., Marius, Sulla, the Triumvirates), came around. But at the end of the 3rd century BCE, things were going pretty well for Roma.

I'd really disagree with the "Pax Romana" period of Augustus' reign being the best. To me, even that period looked nice on the outside, but was rotten to the core. We have a tendency to romanticize the early empire, I think. Check out Ronald Syme's book, The Roman Revolution. One might make the argument that it's a bit dated at this point, but I think it gives some very interesting insight into the Caesars, and helps de-romanticize them.

u/Red_Spork · 14 pointsr/ancientrome

If you're set on a book that's a fairly broad discussion of Rome, Mary Beard's SPQR is one of the better ones I've read, though it stops at 212 A.D. and doesn't go all the way through the fall of the Western Roman Empire, so you will want something else for that. Anytime this question comes up though, I have to add a caveat: the best introductory material on Rome I've ever found isn't a book but a podcast: The History of Rome podcast by Mike Duncan. There really is no better introduction to get the basic story of the whole history of Rome from it's mythical beginnings to the end of the Western Roman Empire and in my opinion this is the true answer to your question.

u/leaftrove · 13 pointsr/books

The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

This is the abridged version.

If you feel brave have a look at the unabridged set(warning it's very very long):

Penguin Unabridged Version

u/saturn_v · 12 pointsr/getdisciplined

Dude, you're worried about what other people think of you. Don't be. It's not something under your control. Time spent letting it bother you is time wasted. You will never be in control of what other people think. Some will like you, some will dislike you, most won't really care. That's how life is.

"I often marvel how it is that though each man loves himself beyond all else, he should yet value his own opinion of himself less than that of others. ... So much more regard have we for our neighbours' judgement of us than for our own." -- Marcus Aurelius, The Meditations

u/TimONeill · 12 pointsr/badhistory

> The last of which was a gradual morphing into a mostly-but-not-completely Germanic society in place of a mostly-but-not-completely Greco-Latin society.

It didn't morph into "A Germanic society". It collapsed over a relatively short period and was replaced by a patchwork of several such societies, which established themselves in its ruins. That's a fallen empire by any definition. See Bryan Ward-Perkins, The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization (Oxford, 2005) for a solid refutation of the "gradualist" idea that "the Empire never fell it just changed". The consensus is that the speed and extent of the impact of the fall varied from place to place, with the northern and fringe regions that were effectively propped up by the Army and administration and an economy dependent on them going far more "Mad Max" than Italy or Africa. But Ward-Perkins shows pretty conclusively that the post-War tendency to downplay the fall as kind of gentle "morphing" is essentially nonsense, as a mass of archaeological and documentary evidence indicates.

u/svatycyrilcesky · 12 pointsr/badhistory

My favorite combo is Rome and the Barbarians: 100 BC to 400 AD, which argues that Rome and the Barbarians slowly developed a sort of synergy or acculturation that gradually transitioned into a Roman-barbarian hybrid society by the 400s. This is contrasted with The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians, which argues that in the 400s there was a major shift in the balance of power that ultimately lead to aggressive barbarians invasions actively destroying the Western Empire. It's just interesting to me because whenever I read one of the books, I nod my head and agree 100%, and when I read the second book, I nod my head and am thoroughly convinced, and then I realize that they are arguing opposite positions.

u/omaca · 12 pointsr/ancientrome

Rubicon by Tom Holland is perhaps the most popular of recent histories. It's a very well written history of the fall of the Republic. Holland has a particularly modern style. I recommend it.

Swords Against the Senate covers roughly the same period, but focuses on the influence and actions of the Roman Army during the period. Slightly more "scholarly", but equally interesting, particularly if you have an interest in the Roman military.

Anthony Everritt's much lauded biographies of famous Romans includes the excellent Cicero and Augustus, both of also deal with the autumnal years of the Republic, but obviously in the context of these two great men and the events that they lived through. I think Cicero is perhaps one of the best biographies I've ever read. Everitt also wrote a bio of Hadrain, which I have yet to get to, and the fascinating sounding The Rise of Rome, to be published later this year.

On a more broad scale, there is Robin Lane Fox's best selling The Classical Age, which covers Greek and Roman history from the earliest times to the Fall of the Empire.

Finally, Emperors Don't Die in Bed sounds exactly like what you're looking for. It's not the cheapest book, but it does offer potted biographies of the the most famous Roman Emperors and their down-fall. Fascinating stuff!

More?

u/jumpstartation · 11 pointsr/ancientrome
  • The Complete Roman Army by Adrian Goldsworthy (2011).

  • Roman Warfare by Adrian Goldsworhy (2005).

    From the /r/AskHistorians book wiki:

  • Ancient Rome: A Military and Political History by Christopher S. Mackay (2004). A survey primarily covering political and military history. It provides a solid understanding of events, their significance and implications on the Roman state. It covers both Empire and Republic very efficiently. (This book is required reading for history undergrads at my university)
u/adlerchen · 10 pointsr/AskHistorians

Of course. The Carolingian kingdom even used roman law, and as a direct result so did Charlemagne's 3 successor states and thus so did medieval France and the Holy Roman Empire.

And it's not like there wasn't a roman empire during the medieval period. While western Rome collapsed in the 5th century, eastern Rome did not, and the indigenous inhabitants of what we now in English call the Byzantine Empire considered themselves Romans and were considered as such by their contemporaries. When Odoacer took the crown of Rome he himself didn't claim the title of imperitor, he sent the crown to the eastern Emperor as he felt it was his rightful property. And furthermore hundreds of years after that both the Arabs and Turks called eastern Rome "Rum" and the inhabitants of the eastern Roman empire "Romans".

  • Wickham 2009 - The Inheritance of Rome: Illuminating the Dark Ages 400-1000.
  • Gabriele 2011 - An Empire of Memory: The Legend of Charlemagne, the Franks, and Jerusalem before the First Crusade.
u/alfonsoelsabio · 9 pointsr/Christianity

Here are a few specifically about the so-called Dark Ages:

The Inheritance of Rome

Barbarians to Angels

The World of Late Antiquity

u/Stoic_MOTD · 7 pointsr/Stoicism

MOTD #28: "A consciousness of wrongdoing is the first step to salvation."

(Previous) // (Next One)

Seneca’s Letters are a must read for Stoics. Amazon Link

Want to read more books on Stoicism? checkout these lists: r/Stoicism’s the Stoic Reading List | Ryan Holliday’s Lists 1 & 2Goodreads

As always if you have a favorite part of Meditations or want to see any other stoic passage in future posts, please feel free to message me or comment anytime. Anyways, have a nice day/night where ever you happen to be… All the best, Chris.

u/Leveraged_Breakdowns · 7 pointsr/FinancialCareers

First, actually find a therapist.

​

Second, since you probably won't actually find a therapist (even though you should), below are a few strategies that got me through my roughest patches in investment banking and private equity:

  • Life will challenge you at every corner, a new career will also be stressful in its own right
  • Maximizing every decision leads to undue stress, learn to satisfice (Barry Schwartz TED Talk on the Paradox of Choice)
  • Learn to control your mindset to identify and note negative thought patterns (Headspace teaches Mindfulness -- try it for forty lessons and be amazed at your improved perspective)
  • Treat yourself to purposeful rest every day. You probably don't have rest time every day. But when you have a bit of a weekend or a couple hours before bed, set aside a strict portion of that time for purposeful relaxation. Don't half-work -- watch TV, play video games, do something stupid and unproductive that makes you happy and relaxed.
  • Stay fit, even if it's a couple core exercises, some foam rolling, and some stretching
  • These books helped me: Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Zorba the Greek, Seneca: Letters from a Stoic, Truth in Comedy
u/Erithal · 7 pointsr/Minecraft

The class ended its reading with the conclusion of the British campaign; but that was the point at which all of Gaul rose up behind him... so I finished it in English. I was never good at getting the right ending of anything in Latin, and all the pronouns and tenses are entirely within the endings. Knowing the Latin roots of words, though, that stuck with me. And the slide shows our classics teacher had of ancient roman archeological sites were incredible. He visited Italy and Greece every summer, and made his own slides. The stories from antiquity he told with the slides made classical history come alive for me in a way that enriched my life.

As for books: I'd recommend reading Caesar's book. It's a cunning piece of pro-ceasar propaganda, but the military details are quite accurate, because one of the primary ways to become a Roman citizen was to serve in the army, and this portion of the citizenry was the memoir's target audience. If you're looking for a more scholarly work on the Roman Army, this is the one I read in college for a War & Ancient Society class. It has a very high level of detail, to match its very high price, but it is also quite good.

u/celsius232 · 7 pointsr/history

Complete novice? Extra Credits.

Seconding the Podcasts from Carlin, "Punic Nightmares" and Duncan's History of Rome and Born Yesterday. Seriously, Duncan is amazing. Major history hard-on.

Also, the History Channel has a pretty fun website, and there aren't any pawnshop aliens American Trucker-Pickers.

And if you want to read something that was written a tad earlier, Appian's histories cover the Second Punic War in several sections: The Spanish Wars, The Hannibalic War in Europe, and The Punic War and Numidian Affairs about Scipio in Africa (he also writes about the First Punic War), Livy deals with the Second Punic War in chapters 21-25 and 26-30, Polybius uses the Punic Wars to extol (and for us, explain) Roman virtues and institutions, and Plutarch gives two Generals treatment in his Parallel Lives, Fabius and Flaminius.

Modern books, I liked Adrian Goldsworthy's [The Punic Wars] (http://www.amazon.com/The-Punic-Wars-Adrian-Goldsworthy/dp/0304352845), and had WAY too much fun reading this book about Scipio and this book about Hannibal in tandem.

Oh... after you're done with all/any of that you might want to go buy Rome Total War and play as the Scipii. Extra points if you download Europa Barbarorum. Rome 2 is out and presumably awesome (and EB2)

u/xRathke · 7 pointsr/AskHistorians

A very good, easy to read book about this whole story of the late republic is Tom Holland's Rubicon: The Last Years of the Roman Republic

Now, I've read quite a bit on the period, and this might not be THE most complete or precise book, but it's very entretaining, and does a good job on telling the whole story (that, as you can see, is quite complex!).

The already mentioned Dan Carlin's podcast, Hardcore History, has a great series on this, "Death Throes of the Republic" is what got me hooked on the subject, and I wholeheartedly recommend it (also, it's free!), the 6 episodes combined are almost 13hs long, and worth every minute.

u/LarryMahnken · 7 pointsr/badhistory
u/wedgeomatic · 6 pointsr/AskHistorians

If you only read one book on the subject it should be Robert Grant's Augustus to Constantine. It's a tremendous piece of scholarship, in-depth without being overwhelming or boring, and Grant does an excellent job of situating the rise of Christianity against the background of the larger Roman Empire.

Other suggestions:
Henry Chadwick's The Early Church is a classic survey, but it's a bit dated now. Still a very accessible introduction, cheaper and shorter than the Grant.

Peter Brown is, in my opinion, one of the greatest historians who's ever lived and he has written extensively on Late Antique Christianity. For this specific topic, I'd suggest The World of Late Antiquity or The Rise of Western Christendom: Triumph and Diversity. The advantage of Brown is that he's also a fantastic writer.

Another interesting source is Robert Louis Wilken's *Christians as the Romans Saw Them. While it won't give you a full survey of Christianity's rise, it provides the perspective of pagan thinkers reacting to the strange, barbarous, troubling religion that is Christianity. This one is more of a supplement to the other listed works, but I think it helps really understand Christianity against the religio-cultural background of the Roman Empire.

Finally, the great primary source on the subject is Eusebius's *History of the Church. Obviously Eusebius, the 4th century bishop, doesn't match up to modern standards of historical accuracy, but you still get a comprehensive picture of the rise of Christianity that's pretty darn fun to read. Read with a critical eye, it's a terrific source. Also, it's available for free online. (also Eusebius basically invented documentary history, so that's kinda neat)

If you want more recommendations, or want more specific suggestions, I'd be glad to help out. My strongest recommendation are the Grant and the Brown.

u/ProUsqueTandem · 6 pointsr/AskHistorians

Rubicon, by Tom Holland is a great book if you want to learn more about Roman history.
It is mainly about Caesar and his contemporaries, but almost every famous Roman of the Republic era passes the revue.

In my opinion it focuses on the most interesting century of Roman history, and is my favourite book about the Romans

u/pal002 · 6 pointsr/ancientrome

Tom Holland's Rubicon

u/ludefisk · 6 pointsr/Stoicism

Well, Seneca, for instance, took 254 pages.

And, seriously - if you're concerned with this sub being short on brevity, I sincerely think that's a bummer. There's a lot of great, complicated thoughts on stoicism that can't be contained in the bumper sticker quotes that always make it to the front page here.

u/bigomess · 6 pointsr/books

I have the Penguin Great Ideas edition translated by Maxwell Staniforth. I liked it. The translation flowed well and was easy to read.

There is a newer translation by Gregory Hays I haven't read this one, but this review gives a couple of side by side comparisons.

u/100002152 · 6 pointsr/AskHistorians

One of the best books I've read on the history of the late (Western) Roman Empire was Peter Heather's The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians. He provides a great deal of the latest research on the origins and movements of the different "barbarian" tribes and their relationships with the Roman Empire, including the Visigoths. The book is excellently written and accessible to someone (like myself when I first read it) who is new to the topic.

For more information on the Visigoths after the official end of the Western Roman Empire in 476 CE, Chris Wickham's The Inheritance of Rome: Illuminating the Dark Ages 400-1000 provides a very detailed chapter on the Iberian peninsula under the Visigothic kingdom.

If you do decide to check these books out, I'd recommend reading Heather first for both the obvious reason of chronology and because Wickham is a much more daunting read.

u/SynapticStatic · 6 pointsr/history

Also, check out Lost to the West, it's an audiobook by Lars narrated by Lars which covers the East, and it's pretty amazing.

u/XenophonTheAthenian · 5 pointsr/AskHistorians

For starters, there really isn't such a thing as a "middle-class citizen" in the Roman Empire. Roman social classes did not work that way, and wealth actually had less bearing on your existence than social status, inherited mainly from your ancestors.

The best resource for this sort of thing would be Jerome Carcopino's Daily Life in Ancient Rome. Carcopino was the premier classical social historian of his day, and most of what he says is still very much to date. To say more than that would honestly not get you anywhere. The lives of citizens varied pretty wildly depending on social status, wealth, and of course location (life within the city would be very different from life in certain provinces, which would differ even more from each other). A very few things can be said in general, however. The vast majority of the Roman Empire was enjoying the benefits of peace, a blessing that was not lost on them after nearly a hundred years of civil wars and nearly a hundred and fifty years of political strife within the noble orders. The reign of Augustus was also blessed with an extreme degree of wealth, which Rome and her empire had not seen the likes of before, and which was even more welcome considering the extreme deprivation that most people had suffered duing the destructive civil wars. Among the lower social orders the climate of Augustus' reign from the period after the War of Actium was incredibly welcome, providing great social freedom and opportunity, as well as unheard-of wealth. The upper social orders, mainly the survivors of the nobility, were a mixed bag. Most of the remaining prominent members of the senate and nobility had originally been lowlives under Caesar or Octavian, and had joined them because they had hoped that supporting them would help pay off their massive debts from extravagance. The rest were the few survivors of the old nobility that had been sure to kiss up to the dictators, as well as aspiring tyrants like Pompey and Crassus. Since the beginning of the 1st Century, B.C. the political climate at Rome had increasingly been one of power slipping more and more firmly into the hands of private individuals, and as a result there were throughout the century great purges, either through proscriptions or wars, of the members of the nobility. As a result, there was great dissatisfaction with Augustus' seizure of power among the nobles, but for them Rome was rather like a police state, since any disloyal actions would result in Praetorians knocking on their doors. These attitudes are echoed by Virgil and Livy, who had mixed feelings about Augustus, by Cicero (for example, in his Philippics--although all of this is technically before Augustus' reign, it still very much applies, as the loss of political freedom had already been cemented in place following Caesar's victory over the Pompeians), and even by Horace, who owed Augustus and Maecenas everything but who nevertheless could not quite bring himself to agree with the autocracy. For more on the destruction of the Roman political system, see Ronald Syme's groundbreaking work, The Roman Revolution, which was the first study (on the eve of Hitler's declaration of war, to whom Augustus is implicitly compared) to challenge the old Victorian view of Augustus as the "benign dictator."

u/boriskruller · 5 pointsr/books

While Gibbon is a lot of fun to read, he is in no way authoritative, his work is over 200 years old after all. I think there may have been some new research since then. :)

There are always the Romans/Greeks themselves of course, Tacitus, Livy, Seutonius, Plutarch, Polybius etc. but they can be a bit overwhelming for a newcomer.

Here's some newer stuff.

M. Carry A History of Rome Came out in the mid 1960s. Meant for undergrads. Very readable.

Robin Lane Fox The Classical World This came out in 2006 and is meant for the educated general reader. Very well written and sourced. A breeze to read and as a bonus you get the Greeks too.

Michael Grant was an excellent classicist who wrote for the educated general public. A great writer, always a fun read and you can often find some of his works at used bookstores.

Ronald Symes The Roman Revolution This is for once you've got a few books under your belt because the names and terms are going to come at you fast. You have to know your Claudius from your Clodius. An account of how Augustus managed to do what Caesar couldn't.

It's a fascinating history. I've been reading it for 25 years, I envy you your first plunge.

u/bitparity · 5 pointsr/AskHistorians

I point you to Bryan Ward-Perkins, history professor of oxford, and one of the main proponents of collapse theory, because though the literary evidence shows a peaceful transition, the archaeological evidence shows a very destructive collapse in complex society.

In fact, modern scholarship is shifting back towards the, as you put it, "barbarians over running western europe" because archaeological evidence has multiplied a hundred fold and confirms this collapse in ways the earlier (and purely literary based) theories of Peter Brown and Pirenne didn't.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Fall-Rome-And-Civilization/dp/0192807285/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1343195688&sr=8-1&keywords=the+fall+of+rome+and+the+end+of+civilization

Also, adopting roman customs does not mean they were roman, any more than the holy roman empire was roman itself because of the name. The hallmarks of Roman society, centralized bureaucracy, a standing military, taxation and mediterrenean wide trade, all vanished, taking along with it the highly urbanized society that Rome was noted for, and replacing it with feudal and rural aristocracies with the bare vestiges of continuation, mostly in the guise of the church, but not the state.

Keep in mind too, the literary evidence also shows that the Germanic successor states in Italy and Gaul governed themselves under primarily their own Germanic customs and common law, as opposed to the populace who were subject to Roman law. Hardly the full integration you're implying.

u/GeneralLeeFrank · 5 pointsr/AskHistorians

It's a good read for historiographies, but I'm sure ancient historians have gone past some of his theories. Nevertheless, it's still regarded as a classic.

If you want more modern books, check out: Peter Brown's World of Late Antiquity and Peter Heather's The Fall of the Roman Empire

There are different theories on the fall, you could probably go through an entire library of them. I just picked selections I had from class, as I think these were more readable.

u/methinks2015 · 5 pointsr/AskHistorians


Have you read Fall of Roman Empire by Peter Heather (not to be confused with more famous book by Gibbon)? If so, what's your opinion on it?

From that book, I got an impression that in principle Rome could have held it together if it had clear succession of strong rulers. Every once in a while a strong general like Stilicho or Aëtius would emerge, consolidate power, drive back the barbarians, and start reconquering land. Then they'd face a setback, be deposed, and a period of chaos would follow when Visigoths, or other Germans, or whoever else, would reclaim the territory and then some.

u/TheByzantineEmperor · 5 pointsr/history

Lost to the West: The Forgotten Empire That Saved Western Civilization. A great great book that really helped me learn a lot about the Byzantines. Like how we think of the Roman Empire ending in 476AD, but that was only the western half. The Eastern, more Greek half, lived on for 1000 more years! Imagine that! A Roman Empire in the Middle Ages!

u/caesar10022 · 5 pointsr/AskHistorians

The average legionary never rose very far up the ranks. However, if you knew people back in Rome or farther up the hierarchy in the army, then you had a much better chance of getting promoted. An exception to my opening sentence is the emperor Maximinus Thrax. He was a normal legionary who became emperor when his legion assassinated the current emperor and elevated him to the position.

Veterans were still very good soldiers right up through their forties.

I'm going to recommend Adrian Goldsworthy's The Complete Roman Army because it's frankly quite good and an excellent starting point into the world of the Roman military. If you want some heavier primary sources, Vegetius, Josephus, and several other writers speak in great detail on the Roman army.

u/Kirjava13 · 5 pointsr/AskHistorians

The historian Adrian Goldsworthy has made quite a successful career out of writing (normally very good) books about Rome and her military- depending on which era, I'm sure you can find something in his published works that could suit. Personally I'm very fond of In The Name of Rome: The Men Who Won The Roman Empire, which examines the changing nature of Roman warmaking using specific personalities (starting with Fabius Maximus and Claudius Marcellus in the Second Punic War, he works his way through to Belisarius and the Battle of Dara).

u/dittbub · 5 pointsr/rome
u/Oeriys · 5 pointsr/worldnews

Hard to answer that question accurately. I've read a lot of books, but it's a long time ago now. I seem to recall that SPQR - A History of Ancient Rome. By Mary Beard was interesting. /r/askhistorians has a fairly comprehensive list of books on the topic of Ancient Rome. And I am sure if you ask around in those areas of reddit you might get better suggestions than I can provide.

Also here is a list of thread about the Gracchi on askhistorians

u/Celebreth · 4 pointsr/IWantToLearn

Interesting idea! Coming in from /r/AskHistorians here :)

Unfortunately, I have some ehhhh news for you. You've got the right armour for a legionary in the time period of the Principate (ca. 30 BCE -ca. 200 CE - the first lorica segmentata that we've found was made in ca. 6 CE). So we'll base you off of a Roman from the time of the Principate! Here's a picture of a centurion who was killed in Teutoburg. Note something about his armour - he's depicted either wearing a muscled cuirass (rather common for tombstones when the person portrayed is wearing armour) or lorica hamata - or chain (the detail may have worn away). It's commonly believed that this was the panoply for the Roman Centurion. Note the lorica hamata rather than the lorica segmentata, the medals across the chest (they were the equivalent of modern...well...medals), the greaves (Which may have been a later addition in the Principate, as a response to the Dacian falx. The gladius is sheathed on the right side of the soldier (whether it was a legionary or a centurion), while the scutum (shield) would be wielded in the left hand. Finally - the belt. This might not seem like a big thing today, but the belt was HUGE - it was essentially the Roman badge of honour for being in the military. If you saw someone wearing one of those trademark belts, they were part of the army. Finally - the helm. Make sure you (as another user noted) get a true helm, rather than the mass-produced "infantry helm." Imperial Gallic is the more generic type (As shown in the picture), and a centurion would have a transverse crest. If you'd prefer to go for the look of an optio, you could do the vertical crest - but that part isn't confirmed, and we have no proof to support it.

Next thing to remember! No beard.

If there's more you want to know about the centurions of Rome, just let me know! I'm a bit short on time, which is why I'm cutting this short, but I'll be happy to give you a complete outline as soon as I can! If you're interested in more without listening to me ramble, check out The Complete Roman Army by Adrian Goldsworthy - it's a complete, EXTREMELY well written book that details every aspect of the Roman army, focusing most on the Principate.

u/Oakley_HiDef · 4 pointsr/totalwar

The best book I recommend is specifically called "Roman Battle Tactics" which comes from Osprey Publishing. The book comes in a short digestible form with great insights and graphics on the basic tactics used by the Romans during the late Republic and early empire.

https://ospreypublishing.com/roman-battle-tactics-109bc-ad313-pb

I would also recommend the book "In the name of Rome" by Adrian Goldsworthy. This one is definitely longer but focuses specifically on the great generals throughout Rome's history and the ways in which they wielded their armies.

http://www.amazon.com/In-Name-Rome-Empire-Phoenix/dp/0753817896

u/Darragh555 · 4 pointsr/history

Tom Holland's Rubicon is a really good narrative history of the last two centuries BCE. It mostly focuses on the fall of the Republic and includes the civil wars but there's a few chapters that go back earlier than that too. One of my favourite books in general!

edit: formatting

u/Moontouch · 4 pointsr/philosophy

For those interested in Seneca, I can highly recommend this superb collection. Reading him played a major part in sparking my interest in philosophy.

u/limeythepomme · 4 pointsr/history

Yep, Polybius was an eye-witness to the fall of Carthage during the 3rd Punic war. He was a Greek but worked for the Scipii family as a historian/chronicler. All his work must be tempered by the knowledge that he was essentially writing pro-Scipii propaganda but never the less he was an eye-witness and wrote a very sober account.

This book
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Fall-Carthage-265-146BC-PAPERBACKS/dp/0304366420

Is also good, tells a decent account of the punic wars, the author doesn't jump to too many conclusions and tries to set out a narrative based on the most reliable sources available.

u/Ambarenya · 4 pointsr/AskHistorians

Well, in the old Byzantine Empire AKA the Eastern Roman Empire, the typical mode of inheritance was non-familial. Generally, the successor to an Emperor would be adopted early in life, serve time in the military or civic offices, and then was elevated to co-emperor, gradually taking on the Imperial roles as the old Emperor aged. The accession of Emperor Justinian I is a good example of the old mode of "Late Roman" succession.

During the reign of Emperor Heraclius, in the era of the Arab Conquests (when the Empire saw the loss of the vital provinces of Africa, Egypt, and Syria), the Empire begins its drastic "medievalization", a necessary change in order to preserve what was left of the once-great Eastern Roman Empire. Included in this transformation is the disappearance of "adoptive succession", the traditional mode of Imperial succession stretching back all of the way to the time of Augustus. During the transition period, we begin to see a tendency towards hereditary succession, which becomes fully fledged by the era of iconoclasm and which would persist in Imperial succession until 1461.

In the era of the Komnenoi, a successor was generally appointed from the current Imperial family and would be elevated to the title of "co-emperor" or "σεβαστοκράτωρ" for a time. The then-Emperor or "βασιλεύς", would rule for life, or until retirement (which surprisingly, did occur several times) at which time the co-emperor would take his place. But other than usually being from the Imperial family, there was never really an organized method of succession like in modern monarchies, and as observed during the period, there was a lot of political strife, even amongst family members.

For relevant literature, I would certainly recommend reading the Alexiad by contemporaneous historian Anna Komnena. She provides a lot of insight into the events that occurred in the Imperial court during the Komnenian period.

Some recently-published books, such as Byzantium: The Surprising Life of a Medieval Empire and Lost to the West, both provide well-written overviews of the history of the period. These will help you get a feeling for the Byzantine political scene in the High Middle Ages.

u/CrimsonCuntCloth · 3 pointsr/minimalism

Thanks for sharing your story.

As far as book recommendations go: (Marie Kondo)[https://www.amazon.com/Life-Changing-Magic-Tidying-Decluttering-Organizing/dp/1607747308] gets a lot of praise, although I haven't actually read her myself (There was an interesting episode of the Tim Ferris podcast featuring her that was some good listening, and I like the systematic approach to decluttering).

Slightly tangentially: stoic philosophy fits well with minimalism, with other related ideas about how to live. Both Seneca's Letters and Epictetus' Handbook are good introductions.

“It is not the man who has too little, but the man who craves more, that is poor. ”
― Seneca

u/ericxfresh · 3 pointsr/BettermentBookClub

off the top of my head:

Meditations, with The Inner Citadel as a reader

Letters from a Stoic

A Guide to the Good Life by Irvine

Do The Work by Pressfield as well as The War of Art by Pressfield

Managing Oneself by Ducker

Man's Search for Meaning by Frankl

What Predicts Divorce by Gottman

Nicomachean Ethics

Models by Manson seems to be popular on reddit

So Good They Can't Ignore You by Newport, as well

I'm currently reading Triumphs of Experience by Vaillant and find it insightful.

u/Aetheus · 3 pointsr/GetMotivated

I have this one myself, lying in my bag right this moment. It's a small little thing, and seems like the best edition of the book to carry around if you've got limited space.

My copy is dog-eared, frayed and puffy from exposure to rain water, but still holds up relatively well. It's a great book to just flip over whenever you've felt like you've lost your cool and need a moment to step back and relax. Marcus Aurelius had to deal with near constant illness, a motherfucking Germanic horde and the usual posse of sycophants who linger in the shadows of rulers. Compared to that, my problems are peanuts.

u/dokh · 3 pointsr/AskHistorians

Few things focus on just that period, so far as I can tell. Fewer if you want it written for popular audiences; lives of Charlemagne are thick on the ground, but before him, there's not much. Bachrach's Early Carolingian Warfare is good for the military side of things, mostly focused on Martel's army. It's dense, and written primarily for academics, but if you're interested in how a Roman-style military worked in post-Roman Europe (and in particular the military that brought about a lot of the consolidation of what would become the Holy Roman Empire), I know of nothing better.

More layman-oriented, The Carolingians: A Family who Forged Europe by Riche is a broad history of the entire Carolingian dynasty, focused mostly later but has some relevant bits. And I hear good things about The Age of Charles Martel, but haven't read it myself.

Also, The Inheritance of Rome is excellent; it's broad in geographic scope, so not limited to the Frankish-ruled realms, but it starts with a Western Roman Empire in decline and continues until two centuries after Charlemagne was given his Imperial title. It's pretty much the best introduction to early medieval European history I know of.

I wish I knew a good biography of Charles Martel to recommend. (For that matter, if anyone else knows one, I'd love to read it!) The Franks had already expanded a bit before he became Mayor of the Palace, and continued to do so after his death, but it was during his tenure that the largest, fastest period of expansion and consolidation of Frankish power occurred; he's also of course known for the battle of Tours, which helped make the Pyrenees the northern border of an otherwise-expansionist al-Andalus. (I am not a fan of great man history for the most part, but Charles Martel was at the center of a lot of big events.)

u/Integralds · 3 pointsr/AskSocialScience

Here is some stuff I recommended recently, which itself links back to stuff I recommended less recently.

> I am most interested in is medieval european economics so anything specific to that time period/area would be even better.

Oh, that's different and interesting.

A good general history of early medieval Europe is Wickham, The Inheritance of Rome, 400 to 1000. Amazon link. That might be a little early for you, but he has a great chapter on economics and society therein.

This book picks up where Wickham leaves off and apparently focuses solely on social/economic affairs, but I have not personally reviewed it so I can't vouch for its quality.

u/LegalAction · 3 pointsr/AskHistorians

Syme's The Roman Revolution is in my opinion still the orthodox text almost 100 years after it was written (1939 I think). There's several biographies of Caesar that come to mind, most powerfully Meier's and Goldsworthy's. Of these two I prefer Meier's, but I think Badian had a fairly scathing review of it published somewhere. The most recent thing I'm aware of (although I haven't read it) is Goodman's Rome's Last Citizen.

And of course there's always Plutarch, Appian, Cicero's letters (which contain some written by and to Cato). I don't think there's any substitute for starting with the ancient sources.

u/lichlordgodfrey · 3 pointsr/KotakuInAction

I was going off of what I remembered - the info is from this book, The Fall of the Roman Empire

I apologize and may have gotten some things wrong (or maybe a lot). Edit I'll stand by my post, not even strikethrough - downvote please for inaccuracies, if you've the time, point out said inaccuracies (though it was a really dirty/fast summary).

u/FlavivsAetivs · 3 pointsr/Imperator

The standard textbook history right now appears to be The Romans: From Village to Empire.

Klaus Bringmann's A History of the Roman Republic also still seems to be the standard introduction to that period (i.e. the time period of Imperator).

If you want to read about the end of the Roman Republic and Caesar/Augustus, it's hard to turn down Caesar: Life of a Colossus which is great for the general reader, alongside his Augustus: First Emperor of Rome.

He also writes pretty solid books on other major Roman figures, such as In the Name of Rome: The Men who won the Roman Empire.

If you want to get a pretty good introduction to Roman History, but more of what life was like for the average citizen, SPQR by Mary Beard is actually a good choice.

Older, but still solid, is Peter Garnsey's The Roman Empire: Economy, Society, and Culture which covers a lot of things Beard doesn't.

For the Roman army, Adrian Goldsworthy's The Complete Roman Army is a solid introduction.

However you'll want to break that down into several books if you want to go deeper:

Roman Military Equipment by MC Bishop and JCN Coulston

The Roman Imperial Army of the First and Second Centuries AD by Graham Webster

A Companion to the Roman Army by Paul Erdkamp

For the collapse of the Western Roman Empire I'd recommend both Peter Heather's The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians combined with the more scholarly Guy Halsall's Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West.

For the forgotten half of Roman History, often mistakenly called the "Byzantine Empire," it's hard to cover with just one book, but Warren Treadgold's A History of the Byzantine State and Society has become the standard reading. John Haldon's The Empire that would not Die covers the critical transition during the Islamic conquests thoroughly.

Of course I have to include books on the two IMO most overrated battles in Roman history on this list since that's what people love:

The Battle of the Teutoberg Wald: Rome's Greatest Defeat by Adrian Murdoch

The Battle of Cannae: Cannae: Hannibal's Greatest Victory is sort of the single book to read if you can only pick one. However, The Ghosts of Cannae is also good. But if you actually want to go really in depth, you need Gregory Daly's dry-as-the-Atacama book Cannae: The Experience of Battle in the Second Punic War. When I say dry as the Atacama, I mean it, but it's also extraordinarily detailed.

I'd complement this with Goldsworthy's The Punic Wars.

For other interesting topics:

The Emergence of the Bubonic Plague: Justinian's Flea and Plague and the End of Antiquity.

Hadrian's Wall: Hadrian's Wall by Adrian Goldsworthy

Roman Architecture: Roman Architecture by Frank Sear (definitely a bit more scholarly but you can probably handle it)

I may post more in addendum to this list with further comments but I think I'm reaching the character count.

u/mearco · 3 pointsr/totalwar

I would recommend, "Roman Army at War" by Adrian Goldsworthy. I'm only half way through but it really is fascinating and very rigorous. http://www.amazon.com/The-Roman-Army-War-100/dp/0198150903

u/brian5476 · 3 pointsr/AskHistory

The only way Hannibal could have won doing that is if he caused the Romans to panic enough to immediately sue for peace. You have to remember that Hannibal was operating far from the Punic bases of supply with no reinforcements apart from what he received from local city states that he had conquered or otherwise persuaded to join him against Rome.

In ancient and medieval warfare sieges were often as bad or worse for the attacking army than they were for the defenders. Hannibal also did not posses a siege train and thus any attempt to invest Rome would take months if it were successful at all. He would be pinned down the entire time which would give the Romans a chance to attack him with their remaining armies. The reason why Hannibal was able to win his spectacular victories was because he always was able to pick when he gave battle. If he were stuck around Rome then he would not have that option and would risk losing everything.

Finally besieging Rome was not part of what we know of Hannibal's strategy. His strategy was to raid and pillage Rome's allied and confederated city states causing them to switch sides while defeating Rome's armies in the field. He hoped to cause Rome to sue for peace and thus allow Carthage to regain the position it held before the first Punic War.

This book is a great account of all three Punic Wars and talks about what Hannibal was trying to do and why he didn't march for Rome in the aftermath of the Battle of Cannae.

u/riffleman0 · 3 pointsr/CrusaderKings

I just finished reading Lost to the West, and it was a very fascinating and in-depth look at the broad history of the ERE as well as all the number of colorful and interesting people who sat on the throne. Although it does do some time skips, and glosses over some of the less important or less interesting emperors, I still enjoyed it none the less.

u/tw-mahgah · 3 pointsr/history

Well my source is the fact that there's no archaeological evidence for Rome's founding being 753 BC. You're asking me to prove a negative.

If you want to read up on the history of Rome, this is a fairly comprehensive text:
https://www.amazon.com/History-Rome-Down-Reign-Constantine/dp/0312383959/ref=sr_1_12?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1492808749&sr=1-12&keywords=history+of+rome

This hardcover version of Gibbon's history (which does not cover the beginning of Rome) has an introduction in which they discuss Rome's founding as well:
https://www.amazon.com/Decline-Roman-Empire-Everymans-Library/dp/0307700763/ref=mt_hardcover?_encoding=UTF8&me=

Again, you need to keep in mind that the same people who stated Rome was founded in 753 BC are the same people who thoroughly believed the myth of Romulus.

u/cdtCPTret · 3 pointsr/TheRedPill
u/Louis_Farizee · 3 pointsr/Judaism

I haven't read it myself, but this is the book everybody recommends when this question comes up: https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0825436559/ref=pd_aw_sim_sbs_14_3?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=TRDYYESNHZ2DE7D8QV8T&dpPl=1&dpID=51NrgC7XX4L

This book, which I have read, has some useful insights too: https://www.amazon.com/History-Warfare-John-Keegan/dp/0679730826

u/persiangriffin · 3 pointsr/totalwar

Reading John Keegan is what really got me into history, especially The Second World War. I strongly recommend any avid TW player pick up A History of Warfare.

u/DaGoodBoy · 3 pointsr/fantasywriters

A History of Warfare by John Keegan [Goodreads] Gives a clear understanding of how different cultures influence military organization and tactics. I was looking for a book to help someone who doesn't have a military background (me) understand and describe how the military and culture intersect and influence each other.

The Teachings of Don Juan: A Yaqui Way of Knowledge by Carlos Castaneda [Goodreads]. Uses an interesting, anthropological POV to describe an alternative view of perception and reality. Very handy if you want to create a magic system that does not conform to clearly explainable rules of logic and order, but is still believable and self-consistent.

u/tfmaher · 3 pointsr/booksuggestions

Oh, man, there's a lot of great literature about ancient Rome. It really depends on what part of that era you want to focus on, but my favorite non-fiction are:

  1. Rubicon by Tom Holland. Really beautiful telling of the death of the republic. Great.

  2. Augustus by John Williams.

  3. Plutarch's Lives. Now before you poo-poo this one because it's from an ancient source, let me just say that it's an incredible bit of writing on several famous Romans. Very readable and highly entertaining.

  4. The Twelve Caesars by Suetonius. Although it's biased due to political and family connections, still highly readable and gives good insight into the culture of the time from someone who was (not quite) there.

    I hope this helps!
u/hjrdmh · 3 pointsr/AskHistorians

I just got finished reading Rubicon, by Tom Holland, which was great. It goes into quite a bit of detail on the Roman constitution, and how political life worked before the breakdown of the Republic. A few minutes ago I just needed to double check which assemblies voted for which offices, so I popped over to wikipedia. The articles on the Century Assembly and the Tribal Assembly are fantastic. I'm half way through reading about the Century Assembly now, and there's a tonne of stuff in there I didn't know.

I'm always on the lookout for a book about just about the Roman Republic's constitution, or basically the legal mechanics behind its political system. I have yet to find one, so if anybody out there has any recommendations I'd love to hear them. Most books on the period supply a chapter or two on the subject, which I always gobble up with enthusiasm.

u/Ron_Santo · 3 pointsr/books

Everyone seems to like Rubicon

u/ASnugglyBear · 3 pointsr/booksuggestions

This is fantastic. He has written one book about Rome as well.

https://www.amazon.com/Storm-Before-Beginning-Roman-Republic/dp/1610397215

The audio quality at the beginning of THoR is meh, but he really gets that down, as well as his presentation by about 8 episodes in.

His Revolutions podcast is superb as well, but not at all about Rome.

u/Sylar_25 · 3 pointsr/totalwar

Well I am not sure if it would count as pop history or not but The Storm Before The Storm it highlights a very under-covered part of Roman history. Not the fall of the Republic, but the event and the people that led up to it's collapse. It's written by the creator of the history Rome podcast and is both well researched but is written in a very consumable way.

u/mrhaleon · 3 pointsr/news

There’s a lot of good original sources, but if you want an easy read that focuses on this period, I recommend The Storm Before The Storm, by Mike Duncan. It talks about the late Roman Republican period, from the Gracchi brothers through Sulla. This is the generations just before Pompey and Julius Caesar - the people who essentially created the conditions that allowed Caesar to do what he did. It even has a forward that talks about parallels to today (Duncan was finishing the book during and just after the 2016 election).

If Duncan’s name is familiar, it’s because he is the creator of the History of Rome podcast, which is an awesome (and quite long) summarization of Roman history and culture from the founding through Constantine. I loved it and heartily recommend it to anyone who likes history and podcasts.

u/ChitinMan · 3 pointsr/nfl

I’m reading SPQR right now since Roman history is cool and I don’t really know much about it aside from what you pick up in popular media like Gladiator

u/[deleted] · 3 pointsr/norge

Det at de tok til seg andre gudetroer er helt korrekt, det du ikke tar med er at de med andre gudetroer/religioner MÅTTE forholde seg til, akseptere og ofre til de romerske gudene også, derfor var blant annet kristendommen så i konflikt med romerne i starten, siden de ikke lenger ville ofre dyr pga Jesus. Det ble til og med notert og ført lister over alle som hadde ofret og ikke enda hadde ofret, noe man måtte gjøre for å respektere Roma. Kulturen måtte de også akseptere og assimileres til, selvom de fikk beholde mye av sin egen kultur. Det er denne grunnen at Cambridge professoren i "Classics" Mary Beard som faktisk er for multikultur, EU og imot blant annet Trump tar opp dette.

Anbefaler denne https://www.amazon.com/SPQR-History-Ancient-Mary-Beard/dp/1631492225

u/Guckfuchs · 2 pointsr/AskHistorians

The Constitutio Antoniniana which granted Roman citizenship to all free inhabitants of the empire was issued in 212 AD and there is quite a lot of Roman history after that. Soon follows the so called “crisis of the 3rd century” between 235 and 284 AD throughout which the empire was shaken by internal as well as external problems. Next comes Late Antiquity, a period which has attracted a lot of scholarly attention in recent decades. It saw some huge changes like Christianity’s rise to dominance or the final partition of the empire into a western and eastern half that you mentioned. And while the western part already disappeared throughout the 5th century the Eastern Roman Empire would survive for a long time further. The rise of the first Islamic caliphate in the 7th century AD cost it much of its territory and caused further transformations. This surviving remnant of the Roman Empire, now centred around Constantinople, is usually called the Byzantine Empire. Its eventful history would continue through the entire Middle Ages until 1453 AD when it was finally conquered by the Ottomans. So all in all there is more than a millennium of further Roman history to cover.

u/Learnincurve · 2 pointsr/books

I fear I made the titles up, roman warfare and the complete roman army might have the information you seek though.

u/HatMaster12 · 2 pointsr/worldbuilding

Since it looks like you're interested in some general overviews, I'm going to recommend books that give just that. If you're looking for books that go more in depth on Roman topics, I'm more than happy to supply some.

For a brief introduction to Italian history in general, I would recommend Valerio Lintner's
[A Travelers History of Italy]
(http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/review/1566565219/R1B2MURVDQWPAT/ref=mw_dp_cr?cursor=2&qid=1407607391&sort=rd&sr=8-1). This offers a great overview of Italian history for someone with little exposure to the topic. It will show you plenty of topics you might want to investigate further.

As general overviews of Roman history (survey-level books that provide a contexualized narrative of Roman history), I'm going to recommend two books. [The Romans: From Village to Empire: A History of Rome from Earliest Times to the End of the Western Empire] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0199730571/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1407608174&sr=8-1&pi=SY200_QL40), by Mary Boatwright and others, and [Ancient Rome: A Military and Political History] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0521711495/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1407608616&sr=8-1), by Christopher Mackay.
Boatwright's book provides an excellent in-depth overview of the general trends of Roman history, from the origins of the city of Rome itself until Late Antiquity. Though focusing on the political development of the Roman state, there are decent introductions to social and cultural history of the Empire. As the title implies, Mackay's work presents a survey-level overview of the political and military history of Rome, with emphasis placed on the Republic and Principate.

The best introduction to the history and workings of the Roman military is [The Complete Roman Army] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0500288992/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1407609072&sr=8-1&pi=SY200_QL40) by Adrian Goldsworthy. Goldsworthy is one of the leading Roman military scholars, and provides an incredibly readable yet detailed overview of the Roman army. Seriously, if you read only one book on the Roman military (but please don't!) read this.

While much more academic than the other books I've recommended, Arthur Eckstein's [Mediterranean Anarchy, Interstate War, and the Rise of Rome] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0520259920/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1407610158&sr=8-1) is the preeminent text on the rise of Rome. Using ideas from the modern Realist school of international relations, Eckstein argues that Rome became preeminent in the Mediterranean not because they were "tougher" than other states, but rather because they more effectively understood and exploited the power dynamics of the Mediterranean world. This is probably not the easiest book for someone just being introduced to Roman history, but if you can get through it it'll be worth it.

Since you mention Venice, I have a book in mind that might be useful, but I'm blanking on the title. I'll get back to you if I can find it ( I'm on mobile right now). I hope you find these titles useful, and if you need any other recommendations please let me know!

u/mycroft2000 · 2 pointsr/AskReddit
u/charfei70 · 2 pointsr/totalwar

In the Name of Rome - Adrian Goldsworthy

This book gave a lot of interesting insight into the thought processes and decisions of many of Rome's greatest generals and I found it an enjoyable read.

u/umbama · 2 pointsr/worldnews

If you'd like something covering a later Roman period, the collapse of the Republic and the rise of the Empire, Tom Holland's 'Rubicon' is very good for non-specialists.

Review in The Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2003/nov/08/featuresreviews.guardianreview10

Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Rubicon-Last-Years-Roman-Republic/dp/1400078970

u/airchinapilot · 2 pointsr/movies

I read a good popular history of Rome at that time called The Rubicon: The Last Years of the Republic. It was fascinating seeing the visuals on screen while reading the book. The same characters. Roughly the same events.

u/ovnem · 2 pointsr/history

If you like Monty Python you should like Terry Jones' books. Post-Python he became a medieval historian and written Medieval Lives, Barbarians, and The Crusades. I just read Barbarians (about those who the Romans called barbarians) recently and loved it.

Rubicon by Tom Holland is an excellent account of the fall of the Roman Republic.

I'm currently reading Warriors of God by James Reston about the 3rd Crusade. Its very entertaining but lacks footnotes so I doubt its accuracy. Still for a casual understanding of the 3rd crusade I recommend it.

If you're interested in military history check out Osprey Publishing. These books are very specific but also only 90 pages or with great illustrations.

Finally, if you're looking for historical fiction check out Bernard Cornwell whose written tons of historical novels. He's best known for the Richard Sharpe series about the Napoleonic wars but has also written on Anglo-Saxon England, the American revolution, and elsewhere.

u/MSamsara · 2 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

I don't know much about the subject, but I can point you to a book that might be able to.

Rubicon: The Last Years of the Roman Republic by Tom Holland is a book that details the later years of Rome and its fall. I haven't read it myself, but I've heard good things about it from other redditors. If you're into this kind of stuff, I suggest giving it a spin.

u/SacredVoine · 2 pointsr/politics

There's a book called Rubicon that did a pretty good layperson's version of it.

I think you may see some parallels.

u/doctordeimos · 2 pointsr/ancienthistory

Rubicon by Tom Holland.

u/ODBC · 2 pointsr/asoiaf

Man I love the ASOIAF series. It truly got me into history.

After I learned that the Wall was inspired by Hadrian's Wall, I read a book about that.

If you haven't read Rubicon by Tom Holland, it's a great if fast-paced introduction to Roman history, especially the end of the Republic leading into the Empire. Reading ancient history especially really made me appreciate fantasy for its foundation in history of a simpler time.

u/SuchPowerfulAlly · 2 pointsr/ChapoTrapHouse

He wrote a book about the beginnings of the fall of the Republic. Haven't read it myself, but I've heard good things.

Now, I have listened to the podcast, and I enjoyed it.

u/steveotheguide · 2 pointsr/Conservative

I know I'm in someone else's space right now, but I'm gonna make a recommendation. If you follow the Revolutions podcast or the History of Rome podcast, the man who did both of those just finished writing a book on exactly this topic.

Mike Duncan is a great historian, his stuff is always well researched, and his opinion is always heavily flagged as opinion not historical fact. I heartily suggest that you get yourself a copy of his book, The Storm Before the Storm: the Beginning of the End of the Roman Republic.

It's literally exactly what you're looking for.

u/Aetylus · 2 pointsr/dataisbeautiful

It a metaphor comparing *America* to the late Roman Republic. You can read the details here: https://www.amazon.com/Storm-Before-Beginning-Roman-Republic/dp/1610397215

u/FecklessFool · 2 pointsr/Philippines

The Storm Before The Storm by Mike Duncan

​

https://www.amazon.com/Storm-Before-Beginning-Roman-Republic/dp/1610397215


It's to help pump me up for Imperator which releases on Steam in a couple of hours.

u/IntravenusDeMilo · 2 pointsr/italy

Assuming you read in English and are interested in the history of some of the sites, I suggest reading this book before you go:

http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Rome-Rise-Fall-Empire/dp/1846072840

It has a nice pace to it if you're into Roman history and will give you an idea of what happened at various places, or even might spark some new ideas on what you want to see in and around Rome. If I could do it again, I'd have read this or something like it before my first visit to Rome. If the history interests you, then you end up getting a lot more out of the sightseeing than just being out looking at stuff.

u/NorskTorsk · 2 pointsr/totalwar

I'm reading Ancient Rome: The Rise and Fall of An Empire by Simon Baker right now. It's a great book!

http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Rome-Rise-Fall-Empire/dp/1846072840

u/Thomas12255 · 2 pointsr/totalwar
u/articleofpeace · 2 pointsr/Fitness

It depends. If you're looking for personal reasons then you don't really need academic works: I'd stick to the main ancient figures - Zeno of Citium (the 3rd C philosopher, not to be confused with the 5th C presocratic Zeno of Elea), Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius. No complete work of Zeno's has survived so we're stuck with fragments, but there's a lot of Seneca (his Epistles, or 'Moral letters to Lucilius' are available for free in archaic but readable translation here) - there's a Penguin Classics collection of them too but it's incomplete so I wouldn't recommend it - but you could always pick that up for the better translations and just read the that are missing in the archaic online translation I linked above. On Epictetus the Discourses and Handbook as well as his fragments are collected in a new World Classics Epictetus: Discourses, Fragments, Handbook (which is very cheap: ~$7) and in a modern translation. I strongly recommend that. Marcus Aurelius you already have covered.

But there are probably some select academic works that might be useful to you:

  • Ierodiakonou, K. (1993), 'The Stoic division of philosophy', Phronesis 38:57–74.

  • Long A. A. (1978), 'Dialectic and the Stoic sage', in his Stoic studies, Cambridge, UK: CUP, 85–106.

  • Sellars, J. (2013), The art of living: The Stoics on the nature and function of philosophy^3, Bristol, UK: Classical.

    I've uploaded the PDFs of the two articles here.^[1][2] I can get away with this as educational under UK copyright laws - but you'll have to get the book yourself from your library because that isn't covered.

    If you get through all of that and still want more then feel free to PM me and I can point you in the right direction.
u/jermizzle · 2 pointsr/nursing

Letters from a Stoic (Penguin Classics) https://www.amazon.com/dp/0140442103/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_X054CbP3Q9RF4

Stoicism is a philosophy that helps counter your emotions. In turn, keeping you more level headed especially in dire situations

u/GreenWizard2 · 2 pointsr/Stoicism

I have read through two different versions of Seneca's Letters. The first version I read was Letters from a Stoic. I thought that it was decent, even though it only contains a selection of Seneca's Letters. It got me interested enough in Seneca to seek out more of his work.

I then read through the Loeb editions of Seneca's moral essays, and while I did enjoy them for the most part, I found the translation to be a little dry, perhaps old fashioned, for my tastes, and I ended up returning them. I also cannot read Latin, so having Latin on the reverse side of the page was of little benefit to me besides the coolness factor.

Note that Seneca's works are for the most part divided into 3 sections, his Letters (Epistles), his Essays (Dialogues), and his Tragedies. This confused me for a while as I was not sure what I would be getting with certain books.

I second version of Seneca's Letters that I read through was Letters on Ethics and in my opinion the translation is excellent. To quote the book itself "the translations are designed to be faithful to the Latin while reading idiomatically in English". The footnotes are also extensive and insightful. This is however, potentially one of the most expensive versions of Seneca's letters you will find out there, so you might want to try and find it at a book store first and read through it. Amazon's "Look Inside" does let you read through a large portion of the Introduction as well as the first few letters, so you could try to use that to gauge your interest.

That being said, Seneca is currently my favorite of the 3 Roman Stoics to read, however I do enjoy reading from all 3 Roman Stoic authors for different reasons.

u/Acid_Bach · 2 pointsr/NoFap

There is a public domain translation of Marcus Aurelius's Meditations available on MIT
The translation used here is by Maxwell Staniforth It's a very nice book with lots of helpful quotations, and highly relevant to NoFap. I suggest it.

u/virgil_squirt · 2 pointsr/AskMen

Read the Maxwell Staniforth translation of Marcus Aurelius' "Meditations". Here is a link.
Beyond that, always live at the edge of your comfort zone - wherever that is for you. Don't get caught in the trap of building a life of safety and escapism. Identify who you want to be and what you want for your life and go after it. You'll know you're on the right path when you're scared as shit half the time while drawing upon inner resources to make it happen anyway.
What you are essentially doing is cultivating character which is one of the greatest things you can do.
And don't skip the Meditations book. Read it.

u/ok_go_get_em · 2 pointsr/TheRedPill

Speaking of redpill reading, I feel the need to shout out Jack Donovan here. Two of his books, "The Way of Men" and "Becoming a Barbarian" have been absolutely revolutionary for me. These are dangerous books, full of dangerous ideas. The former one, in particular, is an excellent primer in masculine virtue. I bet I've given half a dozen copies away. Read them, learn them, commit them to memory. Also recommended: "Meditations" by Marcus Aurelius and "Letters from a Stoic" by the one and only Seneca.

u/BookQueen13 · 2 pointsr/AskHistorians

You might like The Inheritance of Rome for more information about that. It was one of my textbooks for my early middle ages course. The author makes some really good points about the collapse, or rather "unwinding", of the Western Roman Empire and the deteriorating relationship between East and West. If I remember correctly, there were some chapters solely on the Byzantine Empire as well.

u/ciarogeile · 2 pointsr/europe

I'm currently finishing this: "Brian Boru and the Battle of Clontark, by Seán Duffy. It's excellent.
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18181699-brian-boru-and-the-battle-of-clontarf

This one, "Diarmait King of Leinster", by Nicholas Furlong, is also fairly interesting and covers a slightly later period:
https://www.amazon.com/Diarmait-King-Leinster-Nicholas-Furlong/dp/1856355055

There is a chapter in "The Inheritance of Rome", by Chris Wickham, which also deals well, albeit briefly with this period in Ireland and is quite nice in how it compares Ireland to other polities.
https://www.amazon.com/Inheritance-Rome-Illuminating-400-1000-Penguin/dp/0143117424

u/Cyradis · 2 pointsr/books

It's on Gutenberg, as it's out of copyright. Volume 1 is here.

It's extraordinarily long--there are actually 6 volumes. The copy you're looking at on Amazon must be heavily abridged. This is a classic, but it also has some ideas that have since fallen out of favor with historians. (Still worth reading if you have the time.)

As an early medievalist, I would argue that Rome doesn't so much of collapse/disappear as fragment heavily, and then the fragments change into something else.) I'd suggest reading Chris Wickham's "Inheritance of Rome" or Julia Smith's "Europe After Rome: A New Cultural History." This is just to give you an alternate perspective.

The last two I don't think are available as ebooks...

u/fun_young_man · 2 pointsr/ancientrome

Ronald Syme's Roman Revolution would be my 'scholarly 'recommendation.

Chronicle of the Roman Republic/Empire would be my recommendation for a true introductory look and for use as a quick reference when reading more in depth texts, plus its pretty.

A good middle of the road intro text to the republic although the translation is a little clunky

This book also comes highly recommended but I haven't read it myself.

u/LegioXIV · 2 pointsr/politics

No, it really did fall.

See The Fall of Rome: And the End of Civilization by Ward-Perkins.

Roman Gaul, Spain, Italy, and Briton all had significant urban centers. These all disappeared after the barbarian conquests. Rome was a city of over a million people in it's heyday. It's population collapsed to less than 50,000. The grand buildings were turned into stone quarries.

London had a population of 60,000...and was almost completely deserted after the Saxon conquests.

That same story was written over and over again across urban centers across the Roman empire. The population dispersed, or killed, or enslaved by the Germanic or Hunnic invaders.

u/philman53 · 2 pointsr/AskHistorians

I tell you what, i'll give you the booklist from a class i took called "Fall of Rome," and you can go to the library and check them out and read them and make your own evaluation.

The Roman Empire, a Study in Survival, by Chester G. Starr

The Later Roman Empire by Avril Cameron

The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization, by Bryan Ward-Perkins

Byzantium, by Judith Herrin

Then there's a book on Charlemagne by Matthias Becher and another book by an Italian whose name i cannot remember right now. Also, look up Henri Pirenne and his thoughts on the rise and fall of Rome, both East and West.

u/Ahuri3 · 2 pointsr/france

Un livre intéréssant sur le sujet : https://www.amazon.fr/Fall-Rome-End-Civilization/dp/0192807285

Edit : Qui mentionne le plomb dans les calottes glacieres d'ailleurs. Je ne sais pas pourquoi ça fait re-surface comme actualité

Edit 2 : Le livre est dans la /r/Askhistorians recommended booklist

u/superherowithnopower · 2 pointsr/Christianity

It's a massive load of bantha poodoo, and only goes to illustrate the person's ignorance of history.

You might take a look at a book called Atheist Delusions: the Christian revolution and its fashionable enemies by David Bentley Hart. He addresses basically this exactly line of reasoning and dismantles it.

Another fun book is The Fall of the Roman Empire by Peter Heather. That's a more secular work, focused on the history, not on Christianity, though you simply cannot discuss the end days of the Western Roman Empire without addressing Christianity in some sense. It will give you a bit more context as to 1) why, exactly, the Empire fell, and 2) what led to the so-called Dark Ages.

Here's a hint, though: The reason most any knowledge at all was preserved during the "Dark Ages" was due to its being preserved both in Christian monasteries in the West and in the Christian Byzantine Empire in the East (the Renaissance being partly kicked off by the flight of Byzantine humanists to the West as the Turkish invaders were approaching Constantinople).

In fact, the Medieval Period was very much not a time of stagnation; there were advances in metallurgy and agriculture, for example, the latter, combined with a period of warmth, led to a population boom which, ultimately, led to the devastation of the Black Death, which caused a massive upheaval in European society helping to pave the way to the modern world. Also cannons!

u/plsTRUMPavengeBERNIE · 2 pointsr/worldnews

Rome fell because they let millions of barbarians into their territory in a failed bid to increase their tax coffers.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195325419/brusselsjournal-20/ref=nosim

u/Agrippa911 · 2 pointsr/AskHistorians

The books that really shaped my 'model' of how it wall went down are:

Romans: The Roman Army at War 100BC - 200AD

Greek: Greek Warfare: Myths and Realities

u/kinda_witty · 2 pointsr/Metal

Seconding the recommendation you got about the Peloponnesian Wars, and for the Punic Wars I would say try Adrian Goldsworthy's The Punic Wars. I haven't read that specific one but I've read some of his other works and they came recommended for pop-reading by a friend of mine who studies classics.

u/Thibaudborny · 2 pointsr/history

For the Punic Wars the book by Goldsworthy (“Fall of Carthage”) is a must read. Goldsworthy is a keen writer that knows how to captivate his reader.

u/rkmvca · 2 pointsr/AskHistorians

The podcast comprises large chunks of his book Lost to the West. While Popular History, it has gotten good reviews all around, including from academics. I recommend it.

By the way, there is another ongoing podcast, History of Byzantium, which goes over the same territory but in more detail. It is done in the same mold as the famous History of Rome podcast, and is quite good. I also recommend it.

u/justhereforacomment4 · 2 pointsr/DesignPorn

https://www.amazon.com/Lost-West-Forgotten-Byzantine-Civilization/dp/0307407969


easy read, pretty pop-history but still a decent introduction.

u/benjermanjoel · 2 pointsr/Catacombs

I'm looking forward to reading this book: http://www.amazon.com/Lost-West-Forgotten-Byzantine-Civilization/dp/0307407969/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1334803636&sr=8-1

Also check out this article: http://blog.acton.org/archives/11693-review-how-the-byzantines-saved-europe.html

Byzantium, in brief, was the pinnacle of European civilization prior to modern times due to its location and strength. While surviving for a millennium, the empire had intimate contact with other cultures and traditions, as well as a long history of recording and transmitting ancient texts. While the Franco-latins were busy de-Christianizing the west and the Catholic Church subverting Christian doctrine and culture to their theocratic hegemony, Byzantium flourished and sustained itself as Christian Rome. Consider the following: No other region or society has had three successive stages of history. Western Europe has ancient, medieval, and modern. The rest have ancient and modern. The latter being characterized by western hegemony since the so-called "Holy Roman Empires". Food for thought!

u/Lookmanospaces · 2 pointsr/YouShouldKnow

Coincidentally, I finished reading this book last night. I'd highly recommend it as a brisk, light read that gives a great overview of the Eastern Empire.

Fascinating stuff.

u/BamaHammer · 2 pointsr/TrueChristian

I've all but stopped coming to this sub.

The idea that Christianity is a matter of opinion and personal interpretation has done immeasurable harm to those truly seeking Christ. Without guidance, "every man his own Pope" quickly becomes every man his own god, and his own holy writ.

I genuinely despair for the honest one seeking Christ that comes to this place in hopes of finding Truth. So much half-understood Scripture, so much heresy masked as "this is what I feel is true," and so much outright mental illness using the name of Jesus where someone else might use Xenu or Bigfoot.

This post will get downvoted all to hell and back, but to the true seekers, I say: don't look for Christ on an anonymous internet forum. Read the Epistle to the Romans – this new translation is amazing. Read Lost to the West, a great book on the history of the early Church in context of the Eastern Roman Empire. And find a church where you can be guided properly.

u/bill2070 · 2 pointsr/bookshelf

Thank you! I believe this is what you’re asking about.

The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: Volumes 1-3, Volumes 4-6 https://www.amazon.com/dp/0307700763/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_LstDDbYWAMCHZ

u/MusicandWrestling · 1 pointr/short
u/suninabox · 1 pointr/philosophy

Just read Seneca Epistles 1 and Episltes 2.

These two include pretty much everything you'll find in Letters from a Stoic, which is one of the best books.

I highly recommend the letters on the Shortness of Life, On the Torment of Death, and On Rest and Restlessness.

You can pretty much ignore ignore anything he has to say about factual aspects of the universe, since by that time the Ionian scientific revolution had already started to fade, so there isn't much of value there, although Seneca tends to take a refreshing humility to the limits of knowledge, although occasionally he over steps the boundaries of what is reasonable to claim to know (specifically about the nature of "Nature").

u/runit8192 · 1 pointr/minimalism

Seneca's Letters from a Stoic is a great philosophy book that has many suggestions on how to live a simple and fulfilling life. It was written ~2000 years ago, but it still blows me away at how relevant the material is to today. Here's the translation I have read: http://www.amazon.com/Letters-Penguin-Classics-Lucius-Annaeus/dp/0140442103

u/Catafrato · 1 pointr/LucidDreaming

This is a very good video introduction to Stoicism.

The main ancient Stoic books that have survived are Marcus Aurelius's Meditations, Epictetus's Discourses and Enchiridion, which is basically a summary of the Discourses, and Seneca's Letters to Lucilius and Essays. All these editions are relatively new translations and, in Seneca's case, abridged, but they will give you an idea of what Stoicism is about. I suggest you first read the Enchiridion (it is no longer than 40 pages) and then the Meditations (around 150-200 pages), and then dig deeper if you get interested.

There are other ancient sources, and quite a lot of modern work is being done currently, but those are the ones I suggest you begin with.

Then there are very active modern Stoic communities, like /r/Stoicism, the Facebook group, and NewStoa, with its College of Stoic Philosophers, that lets you take a very good four month long course by email.

The great thing about Stoicism as a way of life is that it has neither the blind dogmatism of organized religion nor the ardent skepticism of atheism. It puts the soul back in the universe, in a way, and, on the personal level, empowers you to take responsibility for your actions and to take it easy with what you cannot control.

u/Pithy_Lichen · 1 pointr/AskMen

Epictetus and Seneca are the two other big names in stoicism, although I'll cop to not having read either (or Marcus Aurelius - my reading list is seriously backed up).

u/illegalUturn · 1 pointr/Stoicism

I have Letters from a Stoic (Penguin Classics) https://www.amazon.com/Letters-Penguin-Classics-Lucius-Annaeus/dp/0140442103

But there are only letters 90 and 91.

u/exmos_gf · 1 pointr/exmormon

Yes!!!

Philosophy: Love of Wisdom.

I've found that the stoics, especially, are really great. The Greeks were constantly looking to answer the question of "How, then, should we live?" It's the same question that we look to answer as we turn away from a TSCC church, isn't it? You can read one of Seneca's "Letters from a Stoic" every day in place of scripture and get more out of it than you ever did from BoM.

u/ctolsen · 1 pointr/philosophy
u/Sector17 · 1 pointr/minimalism

Seneca: Letters from a Stoic.
Short letters from Seneca, a wise Roman statesman and the tutor and political advisor of the Emperor Nero.

Really well written, poetic letters with many words of wisdom in them!

  • It is not the man who has too little, but the man who craves more, that is poor.
  • A great fortune is a great slavery.
  • Money, which ever since it began to be regarded with respect, has caused the ruin of the true honour of things; we become alternately merchants and merchandise, and we ask, not what a thing truly is, but what it costs
u/admorobo · 1 pointr/suggestmeabook

The Inheritance of Rome: Illuminating The Dark Ages 400-1000 covers The Carolingian Dynasty as well as other ruling powers throughout the time period.

u/Its_all_good_in_DC · 1 pointr/MapPorn

My favorite book on the subject is The Inheritance of Rome by Chris Wickham. The book is very detailed and it was thoroughly eye-opening to read.

u/CMStephens · 1 pointr/history

This book: The Inheritance of Rome is a rather good one on the time period.

But yeah, as said, there's 1100 years of history. Man didn't have to 'rediscover reason' - that's way too simplistic.

u/TacticusPrime · 1 pointr/MapPorn

Eh, no, not many. If you want a good overview of the end of the Roman system and the transition to various "feudal" ones I would suggest this book.

u/grashnak · 1 pointr/AskHistorians

If you're looking for a broad survey book of the time period 400-1000, I would recommend Chris Wickham's The Inheritance of Rome (2009)

Great book. Goes a little beyond (a lot beyond) Italy to basically talk about every part of the Roman Empire, plus some stuff in Ireland and Scandinavia for comparative purposes, but really gives you a good broad sense of everything going on in the post-Roman world.

u/veluna · 1 pointr/AskHistorians

I'll suggest two:

Augustus: Introduction to the Life of an Emperor (Karl Galinsky). This is recent, realistic but not jaundiced.

The Roman Revolution. This is a classic work, tough to read, now old, but a very interesting way of getting at the character and life of Augustus (by examining the course of events rather than dissecting his background and personality).

I'm not personally fond of Everitt's work. He seems to make unfounded conjectures (like his speculation at the beginning of his book on Augustus) and unjustifiable statements (like calling Cicero Rome's greatest politician...that one belongs to Augustus.)

u/Daynebutter · 1 pointr/ancienthistory

I've been listening to Fall of the Roman Empire by Peter Heather. He goes into detail on the multiple factors of why it fell and focuses on the human element of it through personal accounts of the time, and how modern historians understand it.

Here is the link to the paperback version:

The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians https://www.amazon.com/dp/0195325419/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_Ps2pDbWPZ9QQS

u/Leadpipe · 1 pointr/AskReddit

There's an awful lot of fiction in this thread. My reading tends more toward the classical history end of things.

Favorites in this regard are:

Caesar: Life of a Colossus

Ghost on the Throne

The Fall of the Roman Empire

u/Irish_machiavelli · 1 pointr/changemyview

You are clearly a “true believer” in your own system, because you are defending an abstract concept with passion and vigor. Not necessarily a bad thing, but own up to it, because that's what you're doing and that's what you advocate; a non-existent system; you know, like heaven or nirvana. With that said, let’s try to grapple with a couple chunks of your reasoning.

First off, it's not bullshit. You are advancing a theoretical model that has, by your own admission, never existed. So then, how is one supposed to critique this model in a way that you can't defend in some equally rhetorical way? One probably cannot, therefore it's on par with a religious ideology. However, I’m going to give it a try, because I like to think people have the ability to change positions when confronted with new arguments.

On the Roman bit, I’m not critiquing that you didn’t write a thesis, I’m saying you lack nuance because you clearly don't know what you're talking about, yet insist on debating me on the particulars of a system of which you lack a sufficient amount of knowledge; again much like a religious argument against something like evolution.

Patronage was the dominant societal glue that transcended the fall of the republic into the era of empire. That’s not just my position, that’s the position of almost every Roman scholar who has written on the topic. Further, the only scholars that I’ve read who disagree are also the ones who also believed in the genetic inferiority of the “barbarians.”

“Corruption” is like the devil/Satan of your way of thinking. It’s a throwaway term that can be used to vilify everything, but actually means nothing. On that note, monarchy is still the norm, and I'd bet you'd agree, but the problem is that you agree for the wrong reasons. A strong executive branch was central to the Roman Republic and it is central to our own system, because the framers were essentially obsessed with the Roman model. In fact, the attendees of the Constitutional Convention debated the merits of a triumvirate, when figuring out how the Executive branch would function. So, in saying it was outside the scope of the debate, I was attempting to allow you to politely bow out of a topic in which you are outclassed. It is well within the scope, but I just don’t suppose that the finer points can be debated meaningfully until you attain more knowledge on the topic. Rest assured “corruption” is not really the answer you think it is.

So, you see, your understanding of Roman history doesn't require a thesis, but guess what? Corruption is baked into the entire system. The Constitutional framers knew it, just as the Romans did. Corruption is part of the political process, and arguably is the political process itself.

Now, let’s move away from Rome, and talk about your proposition itself. Am I defending our democracy as it stands? Of course not; it has many problems. However, you’re seemingly more interested in rhetoric than logic, so let’s play the rhetorical game. Democracy is bullshit, because the people don’t know their ass from a hole in the ground. Guess who ordered that Socrates be put to death? Guess who wanted to maintain segregation in the south? Guess who has stood in the way of LGBT rights? It wasn’t a monarch, the corporate system, or any other abstract evil; it was the people.

Now more rhetoric: What system has higher quality? I’d say your model is totally lacking in quality, because it would assure majority rule. You think of the people in highly vaunted terms, but you should not. The people are every bit as tyrannical and misguided as the leaders that they elect, and that’s the true problem with our current system. Our government is designed, in part, to safe guard the minority against the very system you advocate. Could the civil rights bill have been passed with your system? No. Nor could any of the other laws founded on progressivism. The majority doesn’t know shit about shit. PERIOD. Your majority rule concept is shallow, but that’s no matter, because you know in your heart of hearts that you’re right. You know; just like the religious.

“actually, yes it does. my approval +50% of people.” Okay, so do I really need to point out the flaw here? You say we don’t have a democracy, then say you plus 50% is required for approval. I struggle to articulate the silliness of this statement, so I guess I’ll merely say that you know exactly what I was saying. You advocate a non-existent system, yet democracy has and does still exist. Therefore, your definition is completely irrelevant. Also, what if me plus 50% agreed you’re totally wrong? Would you still be wrong, or would you suddenly advocate Gandhi’s position that “the truth is still the truth in a minority of one?” Hmmm…

So, have I come across as a condescending dick? Yes. Is there a purpose behind it? Yes. I believe a lot of the same things you do, but when you run around talking about invisible chains and the subverted will of the people, you make progressives look just as dogmatic as ultra conservatives, because you are advancing a belief, not a logical argument. Below is a list of books I’d suggest you read, if you really, REALLY want to know about the topics upon which you currently so freely expound, and the ones which have informed my viewpoint. Your dogmatic tone and the fact that I have little faith that your viewpoint is changeable makes me trust that you’ll need to have the last word on the topic, so I’ll give it to you. However, I do implore you to actually allow the holes in your way of thinking to bother you… at least some day.
Here’s the list
http://www.amazon.com/Fall-Roman-Republic-Penguin-Classics/dp/0140449345

http://www.amazon.com/The-True-Believer-Movements-Perennial/dp/0060505915

http://www.amazon.com/Brilliant-Solution-Inventing-American-Constitution/dp/0156028727

http://www.amazon.com/The-Fall-Roman-Empire-Barbarians/dp/0195325419

u/WanderAndDream · 1 pointr/ancientrome

This is one of my favorite books on Roman history, and it focuses closely on the relationship of the Empire and the Germanic tribes on its borders. It's written in an engrossing narrative style and is very easy to read.

"The Fall of the Roman Empire" by Peter Heather.

https://www.amazon.com/Fall-Roman-Empire-History-Barbarians/dp/0195325419/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

u/Hezekiah_the_Judean · 1 pointr/history

Here are two possible books. One is "How Rome Fell" by Adrian Goldsworthy: http://www.amazon.com/How-Rome-Fell-Death-Superpower/dp/0300164262

And here is "The Fall of the Roman Empire" by Peter Heather: http://www.amazon.com/The-Fall-Roman-Empire-Barbarians/dp/0195325419

u/erkomap · 1 pointr/serbia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qh7rdCYCQ_U

Poslusaj video ukoliko imas vremena.

Svi izvori upotrebljeni u ovom videu:

The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0307700763/?tag=freedradio-20



Ancient Rome: The Rise and Fall of An Empire by Simon Baker
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1846072840/?tag=freedradio-20


The History of the Ancient World: From the Earliest Accounts to the Fall of Rome by Susan Wise Bauer
http://www.amazon.com/dp/039305974X/?tag=freedradio-20


The Rise of Rome: The Making of the World's Greatest Empire by Anthony Everitt
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0812978153/?tag=freedradio-20


A History of Ancient Rome by Mary Beard
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0871404230/?tag=freedradio-20


Rubicon: The Last Years of the Roman Republic by Tom Holland
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1400078970/?tag=freedradio-20


The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0195325419/?tag=freedradio-20


The Twilight of American Culture by Morris Berman
http://www.amazon.com/dp/039332169X/?tag=freedradio-20


The Fate Of Empires by Sir John Glubb
http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf

u/quatefacio · 1 pointr/history

I have many books on SPQR. Pre-occupation Iron age and the cusp of occupation and revolt i enjoy.
..
A few of my favourites...

Cassivellaunus v. Cesar

Togodumnus

Cunobelin

Caratacus and brothers...

Prasutagus /Boudica

A favourite I do not see mentioned is The Roman Army at War 100 BC - AD 200 (Oxford Classical Monographs) Adrian Goldsworthy.

https://www.amazon.com/Roman-Army-War-100-Monographs/dp/0198150903/ref=mp_s_a_1_31?ie=UTF8&qid=1541525660&sr=8-31&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=roman+army&dpPl=1&dpID=51Yjtp7MmtL&ref=plSrch

I believe you can get a reissue. I have the original hardcover, id be interested to know if there are any changes. Its an incredibly thorough, detailed and fantastic.

u/T_grizzle · 1 pointr/AskHistorians

Adrian Goldsworthy wrote a book on the Punic Wars. He is an excellent writer and a great military historian. His book is quite comprehensive, however there is no other book that I would recommend to someone just starting out.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Punic-Wars-Adrian-Goldsworthy/dp/0304352845

Hope this helps!

u/barab157 · 1 pointr/AskHistorians

I really enjoyed this one here - though it's more about the Punic wars and mostly from Rome's perspective. It has some background on Carthage. My understanding is that there isn't a whole lot of information about Carthage outside of the Punic wars, though.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Fall-Carthage-265-146BC-Paperbacks/dp/0304366420

u/qwteruw11 · 1 pointr/history

Alexander of Macedon 356-323 B.C.: A Historical Biography

https://www.amazon.com/Alexander-Macedon-356-323-B-C-Historical/dp/0520071662

Lost to the West: The Forgotten Byzantine Empire That Rescued Western Civilization

https://www.amazon.com/Lost-West-Forgotten-Byzantine-Civilization/dp/0307407969

Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War (General Military)

https://www.amazon.com/Shadows-Desert-Ancient-General-Military/dp/1846031087

u/hugemuffin · 1 pointr/writing

On top of that, you can get all of the classics for free online. You can either spend $133 for a set of classic history, or you can buy a $25 e-reader and have that (and so much more) for free.

u/hyugo_kw · 1 pointr/ancientrome

No, here it is - The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: Volumes 1-3, Volumes 4-6 (Everyman's Library) https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0307700763/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_ThT3CbXT70B9S

u/Sarcadmus · 1 pointr/videos
u/onlysane1 · 1 pointr/history

The classic go-to book for the Christian period of Rome seems to be Edward Gibbon's The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, covering the years 98-1590. I suggest an abridged version though, I didn't read much of it but it tends to draaaaaag at parts. Main thing is that Gibbon is criticized for having an overly anti-Christian slant to it.

http://www.amazon.com/Decline-Roman-Empire-Everymans-Library/dp/0307700763/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1426051623&sr=8-2&keywords=rise+and+fall+of+the+roman+empire

kindle version
http://www.amazon.com/HISTORY-DECLINE-EMPIRE-COMPLETE-VOLUMES-ebook/dp/B00BFFY6T0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1426051623&sr=8-1&keywords=rise+and+fall+of+the+roman+empire


For a more general viewpoint, Susan Wise Baur gives an account of many ancient civilizations throughout the world in her book, The History of the Ancient World: From the Earliest Accounts to the Fall of Rome. I did read all the way through this one and it's what I recommend for anyone needed a basic crash course of ancient world history.

http://www.amazon.com/History-Ancient-World-Earliest-Accounts/dp/039305974X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1426051683&sr=8-1&keywords=susan+bauer+history+of+the+world

u/CptBuck · 1 pointr/AskHistorians

FYI: in the /r/askhistorians booklist, the Byzantine recommendations are (of course) split between several different sections, so some are in Europe and some are in Middle East.

The word "Byzantium" or "Byzantine" isn't even necessarily mentioned in some of them, so for instance one of the standard introductory texts about the transition from "Rome" to "Byzantium," namely, Peter Brown's The World of Late Antiquity (which is excellent, read it!) might not appear at first glance.

Anyways, the point being that the book list is in general quite extensive, even if it's not always especially searchable : )

u/skeptidelphian · 1 pointr/totalwar

Some of the good Rome books I've read over the years:

In the Name of Rome by Adrian Goldsworthy

Caesar: Life of a Colossus by Adrian Goldsworthy

The Complete Roman Army by Adrian Goldsworthy

Rubicon: the Last Years of the Roman Republic by Tom Holland

A Day in the Life of Ancient Rome by Alberto Angela

Now, as someone lucky enough to have lived 6 weeks in Rome, the best prep is to somehow get yourself to La Città Eterna and visit where it all went down. The Palatine Hill and the Appian Way are places with less tourists and allow you to contemplate the power and splendor of Rome.

u/johnriven · 1 pointr/AskReddit
u/malpingu · 1 pointr/books

Whilst I second John Keegan's A History of Warfare for the longer historical perspective, I recommend Robert R. Leonhard's The Principles Of War For The Information Age for a view on how classic strategic doctrine should change to be adapted for warfare in our time.

u/Under_the_Volcano · 1 pointr/booksuggestions

These 2 span a huge range of recorded (and pre-recorded) history rather than a single era, but are two of the history books I've learned the most from:

Plagues & Peoples by William McNeill (the -- often subtle & surprising -- influence of infectious disease on political and social issues throughout history).

A History of Warfare by John Keegan (exactly what it sounds like, from prehistorical hunter-gatherer bands to modern armies; chock full of fascinating & oftentimes-counterintuitive observations that you probably didn't get in a high school or college intro course).

u/roland19d · 1 pointr/reddit.com

Not to jack your thread but I would like to put in a plug for John Keegan. He is a wonderful author and has a terrific style of writing (usually a combination of narrative and analytical) that is very hard to put down, once started.

Edit: And his A History of Warfare is an excellent read as well.

u/mixmastermind · 1 pointr/history

In the Name of Rome by Adrian Goldsworthy, is a pretty damn good look at Roman strategy and tactics over the course of the Republic/Empire.

u/RobSpewack · 1 pointr/aSongOfMemesAndRage

You won't get any disagreement from me. I'm on my second full re-watch, and I begrudgingly stopped it to watch the last 2 eps of GoT S3 and the S4 premiere.

If you're a fan of Rome, check out Rubicon. I bought it based on the recommendation of some folk from the Rome subreddit, and I haven't been disappointed. As a strict show watcher, I get the feeling reading Rubicon regarding Rome is going to be a lot like reading the ASOIAF series after watching GoT. All those little gaps in knowledge, all those things briefly mentioned...all spelled out in glowing prose.

If you have any interest in learning about the Gracchi, Sulla, young Pompey, young Cicero, or the rise of Caeser before the show starts, you'll love Rubicon.

u/NLight381 · 1 pointr/history

For anyone looking for an easy and entertaining introduction to this period, I highly recommended Rubicon by Tom Holland

u/Blizzaldo · 1 pointr/videos

https://www.amazon.ca/Rubicon-Last-Years-Roman-Republic/dp/1400078970

Holland combines the cultural, political and military history of Rome into a fast-moving narrative. It starts with a summary from the creation of the Republic through the Gracchi brothers up to the beginning of the Social Wars, then settles in to thoroughly explore the end of the Republic.

u/RUacronym · 1 pointr/Unexpected

If we're comparing ourselves to the Roman Empire timeline than we're probably somewhere near the fall of the Republic which could be attributed to the reasons you mentioned. But the golden age of the Empire lasted a good 200 years after that, so we still have a good time ahead of us.

The guy who did The History of Rome podcast wrote a book about this very period in the Empire just before the fall of the Republic.

u/gedankenexperimenter · 1 pointr/Cortex

A random selection of non-fiction recommendations for /u/MindOfMetalAndWheels:

u/ezk3626 · 1 pointr/DebateAChristian

> Shortly afterward, the Roman Republic ended.

Mike Duncan of the History of Rome podcast fame wrote a history of the two generations before Caesar. The history of Rome was filled with class warfare and the fall of the Republic happened many times in its history.

u/yugias · 1 pointr/ColinsLastStand

I have always been fascinated with ancient Greece. I'm currently more than half way through Ancient Greece, Pomeroy et. al so a natural progression would be reading something on the roman empire.
I've been eyeing SPQR. It is a widely praised book, so it could be a good substitute of "The Storm Before the Storm", although it covers a wider period. "The Storm Before the Storm" also looks good, and I would be more than willing to read it. "Red famine" and "1491" also attracted my attention, I remember hearing about "1491" in Rogan's conversation with Colin.

u/alriclofgar · 1 pointr/AskHistorians

As a general rule, historians love books -- and this one, if he hasn't read it already, is a great text for someone who loves Rome: https://www.amazon.com/SPQR-History-Ancient-Mary-Beard/dp/1631492225

Beyond that, it's hard to give advice without knowing him. Possible gifts could include books, movies, documentaries, games, jewelry and other reproductions, militaria, or real (or replica) Roman coins.

I'm personally always fond of reproduced artefacts, and you can get pretty much anything depending on his taste. For myself, the perfect gift would be some reproduction Roman pottery or glass -- but I'm always looking for something cool to eat or drink out of, and other people like other sorts of things so it's difficult to advise without really knowing him.

u/fluffy_warthog10 · 1 pointr/Gunpla

Get out of my head.

For the last week or so (I recently read a new history of Rome and have been wanting to do an 'imperial' paintjob on a model. Apparently there's already a white/gold Zaku in "Build Fighters Try," so I was thinking of adding violet stripes onto gold trim on a white background to resemble a Roman senator or priest's toga.

u/RepublicanFoetus · 1 pointr/politics

I promise, I do not receive any remuneration from this link:

https://www.amazon.com/SPQR-History-Ancient-Mary-Beard/dp/1631492225

This book is amazing, even if you're not into Roman poop. Audiobook available too.

I was washing dishes today and listened to it again, chapter six, for the, hmmmm, fourteenth-time?

u/lookininward · 1 pointr/books

Posted this about a week back: In the last six months it has to be "Ancient Rome: Rise and Fall of an Empire" by Simon Baker. If you are going to read just one book on Rome, read this one. The man can write and had me hooked for days on end. Plus it ignited my current interest in the early European history, especially about the Franks and Eastern Empire after partition. Great stuff.

u/Just_Call_Me_Cactus · 0 pointsr/Military

Read this back in high school.

u/Discoamazing · 0 pointsr/history

By far the most interesting and well written "popular history" of republican Rome that I've read is "Rubicon" By Tom Holland.

He paints a beautiful picture of the city itself and life within it, as well as of the various people who lived there.

Here's the Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Rubicon-Last-Years-Roman-Republic/dp/1400078970

I highly recommend that you look over the first few pages at least, you'll be hooked right away.

u/Wylding · 0 pointsr/Christianity

Here’s a professor at Cambridge...check it out https://www.amazon.com/SPQR-History-Ancient-Mary-Beard/dp/1631492225/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_img_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=GF7KG2HEHPB7148QEDFZ

If this isn’t up to your standards, perhaps you’re not honestly searching for the truth.

u/Buffalo__Buffalo · 0 pointsr/philosophy

>For those interested in Seneca anybody ever, I can highly recommend this superb collection. Reading him played a major part in sparking my interest in philosophy.

FTFY