Roman Historians

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

Who do you think is the best Roman historian?

 

Which one is the most reliable or the most entertaining?

[Ursus]

While obviously biased in some respects, Caesar's record of the Gallic wars is a rare insight into the look of ancient warfare from the perspective of one of its principle leaders. In Caesar we also find the best personal observations on the ancient Celts and Germans, two cultures which are otherwise poorly documented thanks to their own distaste for literacy.

 

And all of this written in a simple, clear prose that is largely devoid of the moralizing which infests other historians.

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

I'm a fan of Suetonius mainly because his was the first work from the ancients that I read, he has a nice flowing easy to read style and his stories are very entertaining, it wouldn't be my first choice if I wanted to do some serious research because we all know that he liked to stretch the truth a bit but for pure entertainment value you can't go wrong.

[DecimusCaesar]

I agree that Suetonius is entertaining and he doesn't pursue scandal half as much as Procopius (read up what he wrote about Theodora, not to mention Justinain's wars in Africa...talk about over exaggeration).

 

Other than that I also enjoy Plutarch's short biographies on the leading figures of the Greek and Roman worlds. They are easy to read and entertaining as well, although some of his biographies are better than others.

Tacitus is another good read, although his text is not as easily digestable as Suetonius or Plutarch's. Even so, I did enjoy the annals as well as his accounts in the Agricola and the Germania, even if he does like to stress the brilliance of his old father in law, Julius.

 

I also like the work of Amminaus Marcellinus, considering that he's the best historian of the Later Empire, although his work isn't nearly as good as that of Republican or early Principate writers.

[Primus Pilus]

I've always been partial to Tacitus. His style makes for a wonderful read while he is among the best of the ancient historians for attempting to validate his work. Certainly his opinion comes through, and his bias can be understood in "The Agricola", but I don't believe any of his fellow historians were as interested in accuracy as he was.

 

Tacitus, Annals Book 1

Hence my purpose is to relate a few facts about Augustus- more particularly his last acts, then the reign of Tiberius, and all which follows, without either bitterness or partiality, from any motives to which I am far removed.

 

I love Cassius Dio's style as well, but prefer his later work from a historical perspective simply because he often doesn't corroborate the works of earlier historians. (See theilians thread on Cicero's hands as one small example.)

 

I believe that Appian is under rated and under appreciated for his work on the civil war era.

 

Despite Livy's rather difficult style from a pure reading perspective, without him we are left even more clueless about the earliest eras of Roman history. He is indispensable.

 

As for pure entertainment, one might immediately think of Suetonius, which is clearly understandable. However, I rather like to read passages from Pliny (the elder) for a humanizing effect on history.

[Gracchi]

Polybius, plutarch,

history as moral learning, not as facts like today.

 

as your founding fathers knew very well.

[Divi Filius]

I am the most partial to Tacitus. His synical witty cynicism, irony, duplicity(his Histories is filled with moments where he stears towards a certain position only to contradict himself later), and, most importantly, his veracity.

 

Ammianus is also in this list, however it should come to little surprise since he models his work after Tacitus.