This week, ending in January 07 2016:
Today's thread is for open discussion of:
History in the academy
Historiographical disputes, debates and rivalries
Implications of historical theory both abstractly and in application
Philosophy of history
And so on
Regular participants in the Thursday threads should just keep doing what they've been doing; newcomers should take notice that this thread is meant for open discussion only of matters like those above, not just anything you like -- we'll have a thread on Friday for that, as usual.
Could someone please explain the utility of "modernity" as an explanation in historiography? What it does--or more to the point, doesn't include, as it's pretty easy to find descriptions of what it is--but more importantly, how it is useful to explain things. I come across references to things as a "response to modernity" or "tied in with modernity" or some such. Now, these are good scholars and they go on to specify what particular aspects of modernity they mean. I can grok that. But--medievalists have our quirks and problems, but we don't go around attributing people's actions to medievalitas (...we like Latin), or a general zeitgeist: we focus on the specifics.
Since it seems like scholars of the late 19th/20th century also end up concentrating on the specifics, what use does "modernity" serve?
Is "SPQR" by Mary Beard a good choice to learn more about Rome? Is it disputed by historians or is it pretty accurate? If I'm going to read it, are there any biases by the author that I should keep in mind?