[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/his/ - History & Humanities


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: 1760662185501518.jpg (243 KB, 882x1341)
243 KB
243 KB JPG
Is there a chart or reading order for getting the full story of the rise and fall of Rome and everything in between? I'd prefer ancient texts like picrel, but I'd be open to more modern texts.
>>
>>18244038
Livy is a good start
Tacitus and Dio (if you can parse through the court gossip) and Polybius for one of the most rational takes on the Early and Mid-Republic
The late Republican period must not be overlooked though as it set up the Imperial Age. But here you have to be careful, do you go with or against the grain?
The grain being that Caesar did nothing wrong
>>
>>18244042
Thanks. So I should read it in sections like: early Republic -> mid Republic -> late Republic -> early Empire -> mid Empire -> late Empire?
>>
>>18244038
Weird approach might be to start woth Augustine's list of sources from City of God.
>>
>>18244051
nta but that's what I did. It's always worth reading an intro to a period before you start on the sources so you have something to go off on. I also read Plutarch first for each period since character studies and biographies work well as intros. I'd go something like early Plutarch to Livy, Polybius, more Livy and Plutarch, Appian, Sallust, Caesar, Cassius Dio and Cicero for the Republic. Suetonius, Tacitus, more Dio, Josephus and then a combination of Dio and Herodian. Historia Augusta if you want to read that too but it's mostly rubbish. Ammianus and then Procopius are the last major historians you would probably find interesting, because other than them there are dozens of more minor, not so well written works which describe Late Antiquity, which overall is far more than earlier periods but not so comprehensive.
>>
File: lomas.jpg (110 KB, 630x951)
110 KB
110 KB JPG
>>18244038
That stuff is all mythical. It's not real. Look at actual historical works. Those primary sources can barely tell you anything of value. Just how later Romans viewed themselves.
>>
>>18244597
>Female author
Idk man
>>
File: 51creihjYeL.jpg (60 KB, 323x500)
60 KB
60 KB JPG
>>18244038
This is pretty good
>>
>>18244038
Florus' Epitome of Roman history (self-explanatory) this is probably exactly what you are looking for, seeing as though I'm assuming you don't want to get into the autistic details yet, covers history broadly from Aeneas to Augustus.



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.