Books to read about roman warfare

The internet is a fairly lousy source of information, unless of course it is citing a reputable source. IN my opinion, "the fall of carthage" and "the roman army: 100BC to 200AD" (both authored by A. Goldsworthy) are definitive and exhaustive in the scope and detail. Adrian Goldsworthy is both a roman historian and military historian and in my view is perhaps the most fair and objective author I have ever read (besides Arthur Keaveney of course). My main thought here is that a lot of people are citing internet sources and just recently someone cited a book that was rather outdated in its conclusions. I just wanna say be careful, really anyone can write a book, if they have someone to publish for them (or they can just publish it themselves), it doesn't mean they actually know what they're talking about.

Also if anyone knows where I can grab a hardcover copy of "Sulla: the last republican" by Arthur Keaveney for less than $110.00 I would be very happy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paramedicguyer

I just wanna say be careful, really anyone can write a book, if they have someone to publish for them (or they can just publish it themselves), it doesn't mean they actually know what they're talking about.

---

Meh... it costs not a small sum to author and publish a book. I suppose the publisher, in the contract, would force the author to allow an editor to read the book and check for soundness. And I highly doubt that someone would endure the monetary expenses to put out a book by himself on a subject that he has no clue about.

My advice is: check the credentials of the author and consider the date of the book. A publication date of 1980 doesn't necessarily mean that everything in the book is wrong, but it also doesn't mean that everything is absolutely correct.

See I work at Barnes and Noble, on our order lists are quite a few books (history in general and roman specifically) that are known as self-published. If you are not familiar with this, this is how it works: An author will buy from a publishing comany "time" to print out their book, the author then subsequently markets it themself or again hires someone else. This process is relatively cheap, it is employed by low level teachers, or enthuseists out to make a name for themselves. This diferes from normal publication whereby a publishing company actually purchases the manuscript from the author (and subjects it to an editing process). While this is a grossly simplified description, it does serve as an warning that certain books are not subjected to rigorous scrutiny before publishing.
I personally hate internet sources, specifially because they are not scrutinized. While they are helpful for general facts, like who was consul in 324 BC (i don't know off the top of my head), searching for thourough conclusions, one should find themselves in a library or in a classroom.
Additionally never formalize your own conclusion off of a single source, I have a virtual library of books that argue with one another. :book:

This is not a thread designed to start a discussion, merely a heads up to people

Personally any roman history book pre-WWII I find rather distasteful. I know that is a fairly unfair an general statment but it is simply an opinion and generalization.
An easy way to gauge the credibility of a roman history book is to examine it political contexts, if the author(s) describe politcail parties or factions (beyond the optimate/popularis usage) it is fair to asume the author is placing a modern bias upon the roman political system.
Another way, and this is not a joke, if a book conatins any segments, even a sentence, such as "the superiority of the european races" (this is not a joke, this is a segment heading on "sulla felix" 1928), then the book is probably outdated.
Generally speaking views regarding the roman state have evolved drastically since gibbon. It is true for roman hisory as it is for any subject, that the most recent sources are generally the most reliable

But then again they are only reliable because we think in the same timeframe as current authors. If you look at the whole ´Romanisation´ debate you see a distinct line of colonialism but also of decolonialism. Where will authors nowadays stand in about 50 years?

A simple way to 'know' a books credibility is by looking up some reviews (could be online, but preferably in magazines like Classical Review or something, though access to those kinds of magazines is restricted for most people). And you can test it yourself by looking up interesting footnotes. I actually found an author of two oversimplifying theories of others. Most of the time it comes down to a bit of common sense, logic and seeing what others have to say about the matter.

Reliability is always a relative concept in this context. In 50 years archaelogical or maybe even a single lost letter, may completely change the way historians view a topic. SInce gibbon first began writing, the evidence has been greatly expanded, and no doubt that with increased knowledge gibbon himself would change many of his conclusions.


The truth is always up for debate

And narcissistic ethnocentrism, race theories and such have thankfully been junked since them not-really-so-olden days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paramedicguyer

See I work at Barnes and Noble, on our order lists are quite a few books...

---

Okay, thank you for the enlightenment. :yes: Must be something of a dream to work at a bookstore, no?

you'd think it would be. It was great for like a year, now it actually really sucks, ever since the economy took the hit the fun and dream factor left and now its just about selling, I'm quitttin in about a month to tutor at my school.