Best Roman Historian and Why?

[Adelais Valerius]

In everyone's opinion, who is the best roman Author? give examples of these 3 categories: Writing Ability, Scholarly adaptation, Overall Best...

 

 

I've really only read Everitt, and I know he isn't the most scholarly by far. I ordered some Adrian Goldsworthy Books today, so I guess I'll see about him.

Edited April 12, 2007 by mikeal1917

[The Augusta]

In everyone's opinion, who is the best roman Author? give examples of these 3 categories: Writing Ability, Scholarly adaptation, Overall Best...

 

 

I've really only read Everitt, and I know he isn't the most scholarly by far. I ordered some Adrian Goldsworthy Books today, so I guess I'll see about him.

 

Good grief, this is a tough one - but as its personal opinion....

 

Most people on the Forum will know that I am still quite an avid fan of Ronald Syme. His prose style is somwhat dry, to be sure, but he attacks the facts and presents his theses in a persuasive way. He is heavily academic, however, so he's not one to tackle until a more general author has been consumed, IMHO.

 

If you are looking for someone who writes in a lighter style and combines scholarly interpretation with engaging prose, try Michael Grant. He manages to convey much accurate information without theorising too much and he has a little of the 'story-teller' about him. For a much more modern treatment, try Tom Holland's Rubicon. He brings the vivid flair of the novel-writer to his work and his easy-flowing style masks some heavy scholarly research underneath. Although, I have to say that I enjoyed his Persian Fire more than his Rubicon, but that was perhaps because I knew less about the facts of the Persian Wars than I did about the fall of the Republic, so it was enjoyable and instructive to read the book.

 

However, I am a Brit, and the three above are also Brits. I am not yet totally au fait with the more modern American authors, but I am sure our member Marcus Porcious Cato will give you more examples.

 

I confess to not having read Everitt or Goldsworthy - something I must rectify before too long.

 

You could also try visiting the Libri sub-forum for recommendations on Roman historians.

 

And welcome to the Forum, BTW, Mikeal.

Edited April 12, 2007 by The Augusta

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

If you take a look at Michael Grant's bibliography then you will see just why this man is one of the finest modern historians of our time, I'm currently re-reading his 'History Of Rome'.

[The Augusta]

If you take a look at Michael Grant's bibliography then you will see just why this man is one of the finest modern historians of our time, I'm currently re-reading his 'History Of Rome'.

 

I would agree wholeheartedly, GPM. I think I still possess more books by Grant than by any other single author, and I've even recentlly got a copy of his The Antonines. I will never grow out of him, and I know he will never let me down. His passing was greatly mourned.

[Ti. Coruncanius]

From the British Isles, how about Fergus Millar?

 

To add an American (Austrian by Birth, I think) to the list, I would suggest Erich Gruen. I've sat in on a couple of his lectures. They were very thought-provoking.

[Maladict]

From the British Isles, how about Fergus Millar?

 

Millar is outstanding. I was just reading his latest book yesterday, 'A Greek Roman Empire : power and belief under Theodosius II (408-450)'. It's excellent, obviously

Edited April 12, 2007 by Maladict

[Divi Filius]

I would say Michael Grant was one of the finest in publishing a fine library of mainstream introductory books, however this is one of the reasons why I would refrain from calling him the best.

 

I would go with somewhere between Syme and Mommsen.

[The Augusta]

From the British Isles, how about Fergus Millar?

 

Millar is outstanding. I was just reading his latest book yesterday, 'A Greek Roman Empire : power and belief under Theodosius II (408-450)'. It's excellent, obviously

 

Indeed, I was very impressed with his 'Crowd in Rome' - but as this is the only work of his I have read so far, I did not feel able to comment on him fully. However, I found that while I loved his prose (again, he has an easy style while still retaining a great depth of academic research), that particular work only endorsed beliefs I had held before, and some time ago. But I do intend to read more of Millar.

[The Augusta]

I would say Michael Grant was one of the finest in publishing a fine library of mainstream introductory books, however this is one of the reasons why I would refrain from calling him the best.

 

I would go with somewhere between Syme and Mommsen.

 

Yes, I agree with you, DF. There do seem to be two layers here. I do love Grant - and he's become as comfortable as an old pair of slippers to me. Syme does still remain my own favourite for in-depth study of 'my' period - but I am always grateful to Grant for intoroducing me to other eras.

 

As for Mommsen, strange as it may seem I have only very recently managed to 'obtain' him via the Gutenberg Project, and I have not yet digested enough of him to form a useful opinion.

[Maladict]

But I do intend to read more of Millar.

 

Try 'The Emperor in the Roman World', it's a monumental work.

Make sure you get the second edition, the first (1977) is starting to show its age, or so I've been told.

[Northern Neil]

My favourite is Ward Perkins. For some years I had been swayed by revisionist writers into thinking that Western civilisation did not undergo a Dark Age,it simply 'evolved'. I somehow felt comforted by this idea, and I embraced this theory, whilst at the same time never quite dispensing with a niggling doubt.

 

Ward Perkins, in his 'The Fall of Rome', took everyone by the scruff of the neck and said: Here is evidence which confirms what everyone until the '70's was saying anyway. The fall of Rome was calamitous, and led to massive decline in population, living standards, education and civilisation in general.

 

He is right- all the evidence points to it, and I admire him for having the courage to oppose what was until very recently a trendy but misinformed view.

[Adelais Valerius]

In everyone's opinion, who is the best roman Author? give examples of these 3 categories: Writing Ability, Scholarly adaptation, Overall Best...

 

 

I've really only read Everitt, and I know he isn't the most scholarly by far. I ordered some Adrian Goldsworthy Books today, so I guess I'll see about him.

 

Good grief, this is a tough one - but as its personal opinion....

 

Most people on the Forum will know that I am still quite an avid fan of Ronald Syme. His prose style is somwhat dry, to be sure, but he attacks the facts and presents his theses in a persuasive way. He is heavily academic, however, so he's not one to tackle until a more general author has been consumed, IMHO.

 

If you are looking for someone who writes in a lighter style and combines scholarly interpretation with engaging prose, try Michael Grant. He manages to convey much accurate information without theorising too much and he has a little of the 'story-teller' about him. For a much more modern treatment, try Tom Holland's Rubicon. He brings the vivid flair of the novel-writer to his work and his easy-flowing style masks some heavy scholarly research underneath. Although, I have to say that I enjoyed his Persian Fire more than his Rubicon, but that was perhaps because I knew less about the facts of the Persian Wars than I did about the fall of the Republic, so it was enjoyable and instructive to read the book.

 

However, I am a Brit, and the three above are also Brits. I am not yet totally au fait with the more modern American authors, but I am sure our member Marcus Porcious Cato will give you more examples.

 

I confess to not having read Everitt or Goldsworthy - something I must rectify before too long.

 

You could also try visiting the Libri sub-forum for recommendations on Roman historians.

 

And welcome to the Forum, BTW, Mikeal.

 

Well thank you for the welcome, and I am HOPELESSLY addicted to the forum,lol. Just another way of learning about the greatest civilization the world has ever known.

 

Everitt writes in a much more "story-telling"approach, like one of those great uncles that always tells epic tales at family reunions(sorry for the cliche, but I truely thought of it that way). Instead of pushing massive amounts of information on you at once, and having the reader have to analyze what they just read, it goes at a pace that you can understand, be intrigued, and entertained all at once. I really enjoy his style.

 

Thanks so much for the recommendations, I ordered that Michael Grant "History Of Rome" book, and I can't wait to get my hands on it.

 

 

What do you think of Gibbon? I began reading his "Decline and Fall Of the Roman Empire", but had to stop to get some college books done, and haven't had the chance to pick it back up.

[M. Porcius Cato]

From the British Isles, how about Fergus Millar?

 

To add an American (Austrian by Birth, I think) to the list, I would suggest Erich Gruen. I've sat in on a couple of his lectures. They were very thought-provoking.

 

Fergus Millar, Erich Gruen, and Nate Rosenstein are currently my favorite modern historians on the Republic, although I'll always have a soft spot for Lily Ross Taylor. Meier and Lintott are also very good. I wouldn't recommend that anyone start with these writers, however.

[Divi Filius]

As for Mommsen, strange as it may seem I have only very recently managed to 'obtain' him via the Gutenberg Project, and I have not yet digested enough of him to form a useful opinion.

 

I say Mommsen simply because of the fact that he was a pioneer.

[Publius Nonius Severus]

There are some excellent suggestions in this thread!

 

Divi, I agree with you on Mommsen. His work was monumental and almost every serious historian that has followed him has cited his work or at least used it as a reference I'm sure.

 

I would also like to add T. Robert S. Broughton. His massively important work, Magistrates of the Roman Republic, which took him over 30 years to complete is an invaluable (yet expensive!) resource. This opus essentially contains the name and brief overview of everyone recorded in the ancient sources who was an elected magistrate during the Republic

 

When reading other modern history books you will often see MRR in the footnotes (You can see this all throughout the Penguin Classics series of the ancient authors as well). if you need to find out who someone was and how the fit in, this is the work for you. It is in two masssive volumes (I onlt have one at present) and they are expensive, but they are indispensable.