I attempted to fix the "Resume with the Romans" chart that's been getting posted around here lately, but I don't know what font is being used here, can anyone tell me?
Replace the Humphries Ovid with Melville
Also, I'd suggest asking >>>/wsr/
>>8046718
I'm the guy who rabidly denounces the original Roman chart on every possible occasion as being dogshit, and while I still don't think yours is perfect, you have really nicely improved it.
My only comments (and it's up to you as the one actually working on the chart whether or not to change anything) are:
* Some more content on the Republic. At the very least a book on the punic wars, which would help encapsulate the morality of the Republic while telling some of its greatest stories and introducing some of Rome's greatest heroes (and villains!) and shedding light on the various events (fall of Macedon, fall of Antiochus, destruction of Carthage and Corinth) which different writers heralded as harbingers of decline of the state. To us, it's easy to see all Rome as just Rome, but to citizens of the empire, the republic was already this ancient, lost state with truer virtue and more impressive morality. That's an important distinction to understand when reading all the (undeniably important) content from the empire. A selection of Polybius would be ideal (Penguin offers basically an abridged selection of his whole history, while Oxford's Polybius is only 7 out of 40 books, although in their entirety); Livy's books on the 2nd punic war, while more exciting (would definitely recommend them for anyone with the time!), have far narrower scope, although any decent intro will fill you in a bit.
*Include Plutarch (if only some of his Roman Lives), possibly in place of Josephus; the jewish events were a speck on the empire's radar. Also Plutarch is just so well known that it's a shame to gloss over him. Maybe at least point to his Moralia alongside suggesting Plotinus, at least to let people know those essays exist.
*Maybe include Sallust. He's brief, fun, covers largely ignored events of the late republic, and is an excellent commentator on the moral decline I mentioned above, especially given that he writes in the dying days of the republic.
All in all, great work; this is much better than the first chart. I hesitated to make my own since I'm not done with Roman primary sources, and so will limit myself to commenting on your efforts instead :)
Hope you'll consider my suggestions, but either way, well done!
>>8046915
>I'm the guy who rabidly denounces the original Roman chart on every possible occasion as being dogshit, and while I still don't think yours is perfect, you have really nicely improved it.
Thank you.
> Some more content on the Republic. At the very least a book on the punic wars,
Fair enough, I'll definitely be considering that.
>A selection of Polybius would be ideal (Penguin offers basically an abridged selection of his whole history, while Oxford's Polybius is only 7 out of 40 books, although in their entirety)
It shall be fucking done. Thank you for actually recommending a specific edition for once, instead of just saying "read some shit by this guy."
>Livy's books on the 2nd punic war
Well, Livy's entire history of Rome (or the surviving parts anyway), are already up there. So, I'm not sure if what you're referring to is a seperate work, or...?
>Include Plutarch (if only some of his Roman Lives)
Already up there. Just below the Twelve Caesers.
>Maybe include Sallust. He's brief, fun, covers largely ignored events of the late republic, and is an excellent commentator on the moral decline I mentioned above, especially given that he writes in the dying days of the republic.
Again, thanks for the recommendation. I'll be sure to look it up.
>All in all, great work; this is much better than the first chart.
Again, thank you. It feels good to get compliments on this board for once.
>>8046718
Why is Epicurea on there?
>>8047144
Because he was left off the Greeks list, he needs to be read to understand Roman Philosophy, and the Hellenists aren't important enough for their own chart.
>>8047210
Fair enough, I thought it was some sort of mix up with Epictetus.
>>8046718
I still can't believe there wasn't a chart like this until recently.
Why does /lit/ disrespect Romans so much?
Where's Caesar you fucking retards?
>Penguin
What comes after the Romans though?
Meander with the Monks?
>>8047530
Christians. Germanics. Arabs. Also, the Fenian cycle if you give a fuck about Ireland.
>>8047564
Byzantine Empire literally has zero worthwhile literature.
>>8046718
Looks like you maybe changed the order of Ovid / Virgil. Who should I read first? Or does it not matter?
>>8047109
>Livy
Yeah I see that you mentioned all the books, but maybe point out that he's published in multiple volumes, and "the early history of rome" is just a modern title of his first 10 books. Pic related.
With that in mind, maybe mention Loeb editions as reference material/resources for complete editions of texts that are usually abridged or only offered as small selections of a larger work. Honestly figuring out what an author had actually written was one of the most confusing parts of primary sources, since most publishers don't want to openly admit that they're not offering the whole work. Once I started referencing the loeb wiki page it became a lot easier to know what I was buying from penguin, oxford, etc. For example the oxford polybius has books 1-6 and 12 and claims to be all of Polybius' complete books, but what they don't mention is the other 28 books which still survive in often significant fragments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loeb_Classical_Library
>Plutarch
I see Plautus but no Plutarch. Plutarch is a huge victim of the abridgements/selections I just mentioned; penguin and oxford offer probably a dozen different editions of him under names like "on sparta" or "the makers of rome," but only loeb and modern library offer complete editions.
PS just realized there's nothing on the list about the 1st century bc civil wars. Caesar's text is more famous, but Appian has larger scope, from about 90bc to the defeat of brutus and cassius and then some.
Cheers!
>>8048114
If you're doing TV recommends (which cheapens this) then you need I Claudius, not fucking Rome.
>>8049510
>Just for fun, watch HBO's Rome.
>Just for fun
>>8049518
>I know
>It's still wrong
>you're not good at taking
>critique
