What are the best non-fiction books on Ancient Greece and Rome?

>>9464676
Mary Beard is a legit respected Rome historian, it's good.

mary beard sounds like an insult like if a woman is really masculine then you tell her you're such a mary beard hahaha

File: IMG_5256.gif (512KB, 227x252px) Image search: [Google]

512KB, 227x252px

>>9464711
Kek.

>>9464676
I just finished http://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/books-that-matter-the-history-of-the-decline-and-fall-of-the-roman-empire.html and the professor (emeritus at harvard) cited beard a great deal for pre-constantine discussions, and called SPQR an "excellent introduction to Roman civilization".

That said, you would be well served reading Livy from the founding, followed by Polybius and Tacitus, and maybe Suetonius, and Sallust, Caesar, Appian, Cassius Dio, etc and then reading the relevant criticisms of said authors on JSTOR or Wikipedia and its citations. Reading Gibbons' Decline and Fall is also of great value, not only for its literary styling, but for his meticulous research. His final assumptions must be made realizing he is a man of his time (he does not consider the sincere practice of faith, and thinks that Byzantium is falling for over 1000 years), but the first 3 volumes are still widely respected.

Plutarch's Lives are also of great value.

If you want scholarly and much more dry versions, type in "Cambridge Companion to X"

>>9464676
That book has quite a bibliography I recall, if you dont like her presentation or the fact that she likes social/cultural history, consider using her sources

>>9464757
>and then reading the relevant criticisms of said authors on JSTOR
OP might have other plans for the next few decades, though.

>>9464676

It is good but you should read more than her. She focuses on social history to make up for the "cicero and caesar" bias. Sometimes she goes way too far though, hearing her lectures you wonder if she even likes to read the classics. She has very little respect for the literature.

A more "neutral" history of Rome would be Mommsen. For a professional scholar it is dated but he's basically on point on most things afaik. He definitely had a better command of the primary sources than nearly anyone alive today.

>>9464783
With a little effort you can find consensus on someone like Livy, even if you are using open courses. Its always repeated that he is only as good as his sources, obsesses over the death of culture, and has little to no understanding of military matters, but seems to be relating a lot of very accurate political history.

Gibbon himself celebrates Ammianus Marcellinus as someone who is obviously trying as hard as he can to relate unbiased history, and his JSTOR quickly relates how he is unfortunately forgotten for how competent he is.

I dont want to write OP off as a hack pleb who thinks one pop history is going to make him a master of subject matter. I guess.

>>9464794
>his JSTOR
Eh? What does that mean? How does he have 'a JSTOR'?

>>9464802
Use the google box under jstor results and you can scroll through relevant articles with a small blurb and date, as opposed to the more datacentric results on the website itself.

>>9464802
Can tell you didn't college, senpai.

>>9464815
I universitied for many years. Just seems that 'his JSTOR quickly relates' is a very weird thing to say given that JSTOR is a big archive of academic articles and academics are not known for having one view on... well, anything much.

Seems like saying 'his Google Books says'.

>>9464831
Okie dokie, you did university.

>>9464757
/thread

I would add J.E. Lendon's Empire of Honour to that list, and his Soldiers & Ghosts for military practice from Greeks to Romans.

>>9464676
it sucks, trust me. its just garbage for white people heavily marketed. not bother