I love Mary Beard and highly recommend her SPQR, which is a Roman history more or less with the midpoint as the fall of the Republic and transition to Empire... a very apt piece of history in the current political climate.
I would be happy to hear suggestions of other historian writers to broaden my perspectives.
> it was the first time I realized that disagreement about historical method might be important (rather than something you dutifully nodded to at the beginning of an essay, before moving on regardless)
Now that is something that should be taken and applied everywhere. Realizing the value of disagreement respecting the differences of opinion, and taking action to not just have an obligatory sense of doing so but actually making the effort. These days it seems everybody is right and whoever disagrees is a fool or worse. (and everyone else is silent)
If you enjoy podcasts, then Mike Duncan's History of Rome is an excellent piece of work. Similarly, his book "Storm Before the Storm" is very good, focusing on the events that began the collapse of the Roman Republic: Sulla, and his civil wars. If you enjoy biographies then Adrian Goldsworthy's books "Caesar" and "Augustus" are very good as well.
I can't wait for Mike to come back and finish the revolutions podcast. He's been MIA since april. I know he's busy with his book, but common man, throw us a bone. I miss you mike.
I'm generally fine with the planned breaks, but every time I wonder when it's coming back this time I remember this is the last revolution he's covering.
Tom Holland is great. Really applies a stylistic flare to historic records, with some liberties taken in pursuit of creative narrative, but still keeping grounded and acknowledging when something is mostly deduction due to insufficiently preserved materials.
I found the Cicero Trilogy (Imperium, Lustrum, Dictator) by Robert Harris very enjoyable. They are novels, not 'history books', but well researched and told.
I would be happy to hear suggestions of other historian writers to broaden my perspectives.
> it was the first time I realized that disagreement about historical method might be important (rather than something you dutifully nodded to at the beginning of an essay, before moving on regardless)
Now that is something that should be taken and applied everywhere. Realizing the value of disagreement respecting the differences of opinion, and taking action to not just have an obligatory sense of doing so but actually making the effort. These days it seems everybody is right and whoever disagrees is a fool or worse. (and everyone else is silent)