>he quotes Livy
>He thinks there is an 'end of history'
>>12274
What's wrong with Livy?
>>12391
he tended to embellish his works to be readable as entertainment for the plebs of the patricians essentially
he also used the worst fucking sources you can imagine for early roman history like Licinius Macer
he also just straight up made shit up sometimes for whatever reason
>>12540
How would anyone know though? Wasn't he and Polybius the only ones to properly document Roman history from the beginning?
"right side of history"
>>12601
Honestly a lot of sources for Roman history are pretty dubious.
>>12613
Fucking this
>>12601
archaeology for the most part, tombs found bearing inscriptions contrary to the orthodox viewpoints which use such sources as "evidence"
you should read link related
https://books.google.ie/books?id=aEfvR1Qcd0gC&redir_esc=y
he really fucking digs in to Livy in it and he'll make you question most everything you read in history
>>12745
Huh, this is great. Are there similar works that shed some light on revised Roman history?
>>13016
from what I've seen books on early roman history in general tend to be scanty, Cornell is recommended by the author of the book I linked as another fine historian
>>12274
Projecting modern morality onto people who lived centuries ago.
>Source: Buzzfeed
>he only considers historical opinions, thoughts, or dicussions valid if they fit his/her own
>>13268
ever read the abridged version of gibbon's history of the decline and fall of the roman empire?
literally everything gets criticized by some priests who hated him for bashing christians
>>13268
This. So many discussions with people that only hate a historical figure because they were sexist or racist.
>>13425
Not being a moralfag, but some people in history did do some pretty atrocious shit.
>>13505
I realize. I mean hating someone because they made an off handed sexist comment. Not hating someone because they were a genocider.
>>1
Sorry
I didn't realize this board existed before now
