Mark Rizk Farag’s Reviews > SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome > Status Update

'Roman women were by far allowed more Independence than their Greek and Near Eastern Counterparts...'. Says the author before proceeding to compare them to the wildly repressive Athenian society to prove her point.

No thought is given to the 'Near Eastern' women. The Ancient Egyptians and the Arab women of the time arguably had far more independence, and even held political office (which roman women never did).

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.

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

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.