Cartaphilus 16:36 01-22-2009
Nothing better than the classics - Livy et alia.
And Gibbon & Mommsen.
Originally Posted by Cartaphilus:
Nothing better than the classics - Livy et alia.
And Gibbon & Mommsen.
Don't trust Gibbon to a huge extend. Many of his theories about Christianity leading to the fall of the Roman empire is debunked, given that the Eastern empire managed to survive and flourish as a Christian state.
Macilrille 14:08 01-24-2009
Source Criticism is what seperates History from art and allows is to call ourselves scientists.
Gibbon's time was one when it was "necessary" to shed the limitations of religion in order to advance science. Thus he speaks against it and is much influenced by anti-religious feeling, blaming it for much evil in the world.
It was also a time when Rome was looked upon as the ideal, "The Dark Middle Ages" as dark and abjectively stupid (as a medieval historian I would disagree strongly), again, this influenced Gibbon. It is an interesting read as it is well-written and it is a fine source to the mentality of Gibbon's time. It is well-nigh worthless for Roman History.
Frostwulf 05:07 01-27-2009
Originally Posted by ray243:
Von Yann Le Bohec is German if I recall correctly.
Weaker troops and less training is one main example. There is no indication that the later era Roman army is weaker per see.
The whole weak army in the late roman era is based on the assumption that the main cause of the fall of the WRE is a weaker army. If that's the case, then Julian won't be able to launch a successful campaign for instance. Nor can the Eastern empire hold out for so long.
Is Le Bohec the only German author your citing or is there others?
I seem to recall Goldsworthy saying that Rome was growing weaker but I don't ever recall him referring to the armies. Which book did you read where Goldsworthy said the Romans were weaker due to less training?
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
Goldsworthy is sloppy and popularist, well maybe vague would be better than sloppy. He lacks practical experience, for one thing, he's an armchair academic
Hardly the case at all, he was a research fellow at Cardiff. Most reviewers use the terms renowned and highly regarded. From "A Journal of Military History" Ashton Boone writes "The works incorporated in the development of this book are truly vast, including nearly one hundred other pieces of literature from books, materials, and academic journals. Many other sources of information include works printed only from Greek and Latin sources"(This from Goldsworthy's book Roman Warfare).
I would find it difficult to believe that it must be "armchair academics" such as Keagan, Matyszak and others would praise his work if it wasn't good. Perhaps some of his books might be vague(I haven't read them all) in certain areas, but some of his books are not meant to be a Gibbons size piece of work, so in that aspect you may say he is a popularist. You cannot say that of his books Caesar, The Roman Army at War, and apparently Roman Warfare.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
To be honest, there aren't a lot of good books on the Roman Army all over, it's such a huge subject. You have to hit the journals, which is a bit difficult if you are not an academic yourself.
Which books do you consider good? To say the journals are the way to go is not the case either. Are the journals are subjected to the amount of peer review as some books? Are the journals always correct? Do not the information in the most useful journals find their way into books?
I own Greece and Rome at War by Peter Connolly. I think it's pretty good. Lots of info and pretty pictures. Can I get an official approval of this book?
Originally Posted by lobf:
I own Greece and Rome at War by Peter Connolly. I think it's pretty good. Lots of info and pretty pictures. Can I get an official approval of this book?
It gets my vote: a summary of the history, overview of organization, and lots of reproductions of archeological finds - not just for the Greeks and Romans, but Gauls and Iberians too.
Cartaphilus 13:23 01-31-2009
Originally Posted by ray243:
Don't trust Gibbon to a huge extend. Many of his theories about Christianity leading to the fall of the Roman empire is debunked, given that the Eastern empire managed to survive and flourish as a Christian state.
I don't do it (remember that Gibbon wrote his books to hundred years ago, so we know now some things far better than him), but they are well written and a it's a gret pleasure to read them.
Single Sign On provided by
vBSSO