Talk:The History of Rome (Mommsen)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The History of Rome (Mommsen) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Classical Greece and Rome Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Titling was chosen with the expectation that History of Rome would be either WP's general history or history of the city, plus there are several works titled History of Rome. Mommsen's German title is translated variously, but History of Rome without "The" seems most common. Stan 14:41, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Vague =

This article is vague and therefore weak! What is the thesis that Mommsen's history propounds? What is is point? More information is needed! THIS ENTRY IS UNSOURCED.

Only practicing historian

Not only is there Churchill, whose History of the English-Speaking Peoples was certainly precticing history, there is also Bertrand Russell, who won the Nobel Prize for Literature for his History of Western Philosophy. Can we tone this down to only professional historian or only classicist to win the Nobel Prize, with the same footnote for the pseudo-Nobel. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Section on book's influence

"Under construction". Really? Meerta (talk) 01:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. It would appear that the original contributor tired at writing this extensive -- if not overlong -- article on an admittedly important work, & has not returned to finish the task. IMHO, what would be best done with this article is to prune back a good deal of what is here, then provide more information on the book's influence. (To be frank, E.H. Carr's observation that Mommsen's book reveals equally much about Republican Rome & 19th century Germany is almost a truism: every historian's account is not only a window to a distant period but a mirror for his own time. Syme, writing The Roman Revolution, was quite aware of how too similar Augustus was to various larger-than-life figures of his own age, & how the Roman Civil War transformed its age as much the impending Second World War would his.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Title

Would there be any objection to boldly moving this to The History of Rome (Mommsen)? I've checked the published English editions of the book, and the vast majority include "The". The only cases where it doesn't include "The" might even be citogenesis, print-on-demand versions affected by the English Wikipedia article's title, as they're from 2021 and the like. See WP:THE - for something like The Great Gatsby, it's fine to include a prepended "The". SnowFire (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]