A History of the Roman World, 753 to 146 BC

Another review has been completed for our Roman Books section, thanks to Ursus.

As I trudge about Romanophilia in my own amateur way, I have discovered that books written in bygone eras offer an enthralling Old School view whose charm is seldom replicated in modern times. They are often dated, but not always outdated. They offer a straightforward presentation of facts rather than a tableau of convoluted revisionist theories. They are imbued with a prosaic language rather than postmodern jargon. Finally, they seem possessed of a genuine conviction and enthusiasm rather than the cynical nay saying of modern academia. It is with regards to such virtues that I devoured H.H. Scullard

Nice review, Ursus.

Thanks for a great review, Ursus! I'll be checking my library today to see if we have a copy of this book in the collection. And, if not, I'll be ordering one. There's much to be said (and you said it extremely well) for the "Old School" presentation of history.

-- Nephele

That first paragraph is beautiful... I completely agree.

Great review, Ursus. Although I have Scullard's Gracchi to Nero I have never actually read this 'prequel'. And as I am sure it will come as no surprise to anyone, being still stubornly 'one of the Old School' myself, it is nice to see an 'old master' reviewed with a modern eye.

That first paragraph is beautiful... I completely agree.

Ditto!

It's one of the reason why the William Smith Dictionaries from the 19th Century are still so valid.

Great review sir

An excellent anti-fashion review.

Scullard always struck me as the greatest Roman historian of the 19th century. Which would fine if it weren't for the fact that he wrote in the 20th century, and it's now the 21st.

I guess if you really want to kick it Old School, you'd be better off reading Dio Cassius: those 19th century revisionists are just pedantic academics seeking to make a name for themselves, right?

I guess if you really want to kick it Old School, you'd be better off reading Dio Cassius: those 19th century revisionists are just pedantic academics seeking to make a name for themselves, right?

Perhaps a valid point. Too bad you didn't expound on it into something resembling a full length review that could grace our front page.

I guess if you really want to kick it Old School, you'd be better off reading Dio Cassius: those 19th century revisionists are just pedantic academics seeking to make a name for themselves, right?

Perhaps a valid point. Too bad you didn't expound on it into something resembling a full length review that could grace our front page.

Nice reply. I tip my hat.

Nice review PP, very well-written.

That first paragraph is beautiful... I completely agree.

I liked most the last one. Old School historians have a great way to provide data and broader views. For a specific detail and for informed readers I think the narrow focus and better data tip the advantage for the contemporary ones.

Nice review PP, very well-written.

Thanks Virgil... too bad I didn't write it.

Ursus, Ursus, he's your man.

I liked most the last one. Old School historians have a great way to provide data and broader views. For a specific detail and for informed readers I think the narrow focus and better data tip the advantage for the contemporary ones.

The prose of the older ones are easier on the brain.

The prose of the older ones are easier on the brain.

In general I agree heartily agree with you. But there are exceptions. Peter Heather was easy to read, and Tom Holland was pure pleasure.