Reviews for The History Of Rome, Books Xxvii-Xxxvi

The average rating for The History Of Rome, Books Xxvii-Xxxvi based on 2 reviews is 5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2018-12-04 00:00:00 Leo Smalls Live succeeds where others fail I am always impressed by greatness . And Livy showed how great a historian he was. He immortalized hundreds of men whose actions and deeds would have been lost.

Review # 2 was written on 2008-04-05 00:00:00 Norman Greenhalgh I remember during my time in school, we were taught what seemed to me, an unusually scant amount of history on the Confederation which formed our nation. We, of course, were all taught to some detail, about John A. MacDonald, but not a great deal more. A grand contrast to our southern neighbours, who from the cradle are taught to revere their "good" presidents as no-less than deities. And although I will give some nodding to refraining from this devotion, it has resulted in having to learn about it independently. Not to say that's a bad thing, but for one's own country does seem odd. Anyways, such ventures lead me to this book some months ago. As far as I'm aware, it's the sole major book McGee wrote and published in his lifetime, and certainly seems to be the longest. It was more out of curiosity that I paid any attention to it, admittedly. Given at the time, back around 2 months ago, I was getting interested in Irish history and wanted a good place to start: and one by a figure who had already interested me, seemed like a good match. Least, that was until I read the book. But I am reassured, that it does appear my consensus is no more different than many others. It's a very dull history, to say the least. McGee's attempt at recording history in a "just-so" manner of argument, does not work at all with it's rather Catholic-sided interpretation of history. It's as if Gibbon composed his rationalist, Christianity-grudged interpretations of Roman and Byzantine history, without the biting, eloquent prose I love him so much for. Not only that, his prose in general isn't very good altogether. Hardly is it out of it's dichotomy of attitudes - the style is just poor to start with. It's clunky, dry, and; as Nicholas noted in his review, almost a substitute for chloroform in it's dreary descriptions of Ireland. Whether it be in the time of the old Kings, or the invasions of the Normans, or in the Unionization of 1801: there isn't a moment where one wishes for some liveliness to stir up the tales a bit. However, it does have one benefit, albeit a rather minor one in this case: concision. McGee is at least concise and relatively to-the-point with things. Not always - his digressions on literature, religion, and politics are rather loose - but usually he is. As said, however, it becomes a minor aspect when combined with his lifeless cataloguing of history. If any, the lesson to be learned from this book: don't always aspect highly of something, just because it's composer was a noted figure in some country's history. I doubt I'll remind myself the next time it occurs of this, but at least I should in the aftermath - whatever it may be. All things considered, however, a better starting place will have to be found, this obviously was not a very apt choice.