Mark Rizk Farag’s Reviews > SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome > Status Update
Mark Rizk Farag
is on page 183 of 606
The cynical disdain for Hannibal and the undermining of the accounts of his tactics is strange.
The insistence on focusing on themes and self perception as opposed to historical events, battles and reigns makes this less of a history book and more of a discussion on specific topics. It isn't even chronological.
— 8 hours, 25 min ago
The insistence on focusing on themes and self perception as opposed to historical events, battles and reigns makes this less of a history book and more of a discussion on specific topics. It isn't even chronological.
Like flag
Mark’s Previous Updates
Mark Rizk Farag
is on page 200 of 606
Brother this book SUCKS.
Given how critically acclaimed and widely read this book is in genuinely surprised.
It's the worst history book I've read this year!
— 7 hours, 42 min ago
Given how critically acclaimed and widely read this book is in genuinely surprised.
It's the worst history book I've read this year!
Mark Rizk Farag
is on page 139 of 606
It is fascinating that a civilisation as advanced and consequential as the Romans, appear to have had no idea who their kings prior to the republic were, and how their republic actually emerged. We don't understand ourselves in the modern era as a result
Meanwhile the Egyptians had an entire kings list, the Athenians could describe many historical figures accurately and even the Israelites had Kings & Chronicles 1&2
— 19 hours, 53 min ago
Meanwhile the Egyptians had an entire kings list, the Athenians could describe many historical figures accurately and even the Israelites had Kings & Chronicles 1&2
Mark Rizk Farag
is on page 23 of 606
Initial points of contention:
1. Hannibal was not a 'Warlord' he was one of histories finest generals (use of that term specifically for an African leader and not for others is interesting...)
2. The Romans didn't 'fight him off', the Fabian strategy was specifically not to fight him.
— Sep 21, 2026 03:19PM
1. Hannibal was not a 'Warlord' he was one of histories finest generals (use of that term specifically for an African leader and not for others is interesting...)
2. The Romans didn't 'fight him off', the Fabian strategy was specifically not to fight him.