sonic

Try supporting a team not in the Premiership! I'm a Burnley fan and we only have a couple of non-British players in our team - simply because we can't afford them! As for who I'm going to support, in the best 'British' tradition I'll be supporting the team that's least likely to win!! Are San Marino in the finals this year??

I've got to admit that I no longer think of the Eastern Empire as ending in 1453. In my opinion, the Roman Empire fell in 1204. Before that it had been shrinking, after the reconquest it was merely a shell of its former greatness. Surely to count as an Empire a political entity needs to rule over more than a few square miles of territory? (Yes, I know, that's simplified - I just don't have the time for detail at the moment!) Without the major trading centre that was Constantinople, the Empire would have been luaghed at for its claims.

The written word.

It's been sold!!

I've finally talked to him - he's so busy at the moment that it's hard to catch him!! The bad news is that, as he's so busy, the earliest that he can see any lecturing in the US is Autumn (Fall) 2009!! Obviously, this also means that he does not have time to join us here - however nicely I asked him. Maybe in the future, if his lifestyle slows down?

Hello all. Due to a recent cock-up, I've got a copy of 'The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, Vol: 3A (Abandanes - Iyad ibn Ghanm) AD 527-641' for sale if anyone is interested. Offers over GBP 45 will be considered. As a guide, I believe it sells for between GBP 100 and 200 in the UK. I've just been on Amazon.com and found it at over $400 - although that may be for both IIIA and IIIB! I don't think that the exchange rate is $4 to the GBP!! It appears to be brand new, but does not have a dust-cover. Anyone interested? _________________

I feel that not enough attention has been paid in the past to the growth of Roman power in Italy. Although the enemies of the Empire do get attention, practically nothing is discussed regarding the enemies of the Republic, such as the Sabines, Samnites, Bruttians etc who fought against Rome before she became a 'Superpower'. Is this because people are not interested enough, or is it due to the lack of sources/information with which to start a discussion?

You know him personally? Thats pretty impressive, how do you know him? Sorry I haven't answered before: very rude of me! Just luck really!! I was at Cardiff University when he was a Research Fellow and I attended the seminars given by Adrian and Louis Rawlings on the 'Republican Army of Polybius'. After that we've kept in touch.

Ah, if only that were often the case, my job as a commissioning editor of ancient military history would be oh so much easier. In fact, there are very very few British authors specialising in this field who are lucky enough to be able to support themselves at it as their 'day job'. Most are academics who earn their bread and butter through teaching posts or enthusiastic 'amateurs' with 'ordinary' jobs. I think the fact that Adrian Goldsworthy is virtually unique in Britain in earning his keep by writing ancient military history as his main income suggests he must be doing something right. I only wish I could afford to commission him myself... Oh, and Sonic, you only had to ask for a higher word count. I'll be expecting an extra 40,000 words on the next one then! No extension on the deadline, obviously . Phil Sidnell. Oh *@$%&

I am in agreement with this. I have read books in the past where I disagree with the writer over interpretation. I actually like to read these books as they give a different viewpoint to what I believe. In that way, I learn about other people's opinions and can formulate my own views accordingly. I have even been known to change my opinion! However, I dislike books where I am told something that is simply not true - such as a Roman legion had 10,000 men or the like. If I read something along those lines, I find it hard to continue reading, since I am then unsure of where further inaccuracies are incorporated into the text. This makes it hard to accept that author's conclusions: trust is everything in these cases. I especially agree with the comment on people's views stagnating and their becoming resistant to new ideas. If an idea is faulty, it needs to be challenged by discussion and argument based on fact: I do not lay claim to the world's largest brain, but I believe it possible that I - and others like me - can have ideas and opinions worth the same as any so-called specialist. It is up to the specialist to convince me of whether their arguments are based on fact or hypothesis. If it's hypothesis, they need a sound basis for their judgement. Goldsworthy gives - or makes the attempt to give - his readers the opinions and judgements of previous 'experts'. He then leaves you to make up your own mind. The difficulty with some of the more 'creative' historians is that they tend to only give their side of an argument, relying instead on blinding the reader with the infallibility of their case. The only time they give the opposite view is where they feel they have a strong case to refute it. This can lead to a biased inerpretation of the sources and may influence people who don't know the sources well enough to dispute the facts. Maybe all of this makes me arrogant, or blinds me to the faults in my own judgements, but that is the reason why I am on this website: I want my opinions challenged by people who have knowledge that I don't, or whose opinions differ from mine but which are still based on valid interpretations of the facts. Authors like Goldsworthy attempt to give you the full spectrum of previous beliefs. To my mind these writers should be treasured, not dismissed as mere 'regurgitators' of fact. Those arguing on these lines are missing the point. Maybe their background reading is so widespread that they can claim that they've read everything that Goldsworthy quotes. For the vast majority of readers this isn't the case, and this explains why Goldsworthy et al are so popular. They allow readers to discuss Roman history with a wider knowledge of the previous opinions, rather than just one person's opinion, whether valid or not. Right, I've gone on enough! I'm outta here!!

I agree. The worst thing to read is an hypothesis where it's obvious the writer's heart isn't in it. From then on, I lose my enthusiasm for the book. However, I know that Adrian feels strongly about the things he is writing. I won't give any examples, as that would ruin the book. Needless to say, his assertions are backed by evidence and long thought. Whether you agree with them is another matter!!

I've also read some early drafts of the new Goldsworthy 'Late Roman Empire' opus. It's looking good - asking questions and promoting thought over things we generally take for granted! I was going to plug it even more once I knew the publication date - but seeing as you're twisting my arm!! Ian Hughes I will let people know when it's coming out. However, please remember that it's my first and don't expect miracles!!! I've simply tried to tell the story as accurately as possible. In effect, I've written the book that I'd want to read (if you know what I mean). Watch this space .....

That's exactly what I mean!! We could easily get 20-25,000 fans at Turf Moor, but that's not enough to take us to the level of Liverpool, Chelsea - or Leeds! The only reason you are where you are is because of financial mismanagement. We are where we are because it's as high a position as as we can realistically maintain. All you need to get back up is good management, both on and off the field. What we need is a millionaire that can bankroll us!! Unless Owen Coyle can amke a difference!! Having said that, it's too easy to go down the Liverpool route and get a financial team that can't work together!!

I played rugby twice at University. The first time I cracked a rib. I then waited for six weeks, went out and played again. Cracked the same d*&%$d rib! No more rugby - it's too dangerous!! I now play footbal (the English version!) every Wednesday and am tryiung to find a team to play for at the weekends. Soccer is the game of the Gods and I've been kicking a ball since I was two. Hopefully, I'll still be doing it on the day I pop my clogs!! PS. Don't waste your sympathy on Leeds fans: they've got a big club and know that they'll soon be back in the Premiership! I'm a Burnley fan. We need the Russian multimillionaire, not Leeds!!

True, but they were still seen as a stage further up the ladder than pagans who denied Jesus' authority.

It is possible to simplify the causes of the English Civil War. It was a fairly straightforward affair: either the King was appointed by God and could do as he pleased, or Parliament, acting as God's agent, had the right to depose him. But even at the end, when he was beheaded, many Parliamentarians did not approve of executing a man possibly appointed by God. It should also be remembered that Cromwell was a Christian - a Puritan who abolished Christmas as 'too frivolous' - so the fact that he may have been leaning towards Catholicism also helped. Basically, though, the whole war was fought over who had control: King or Parliament. Although it was vicious and split families apart, the reasons for the conflict were simple in essence. The above posts show that the American Civil War was anything but simple. From what I can gather, the South decided to secede from the Union, mainly because the trend in US politics was towards centralisation and they wanted to retain control of their own affairs. Although some in the South opposed slavery, they didn't believe that the central government had the right to impose its will on them. This was reinforced because many of the richer and more powerful people were plantation owners who realised that, given the views of Europe on slavery, it would only be a short time before the abolitionists had enough power to promote abolition. They would lose the source of their wealth. The question then became a legal one: did the secessionsts have the right to secede? From what I can gather, the legal issue is dubious and both sides have their points. Whether the issue could have been decided in court is unknown: after the secession of South Carolina, a small Northern military force 'took refuge' in Fort Sumter. They refused to abandon their position, and attempts were made to reinforce and re-supply the 'garrison'. The attempt was blocked and the 'Star of the West' was fired on, beginning the war. Lincoln's part in this was not his personal actions but the nature of his campaign. It was believed that he was running on a 'free-slaves' ticket, reinforced by his humble upbringings: 'even a poor free man could become President'. He won due to his popularity in the North. At the firing of shots at Fort Sumter, war began but Lincoln ordered troops to intervene across the US, causing more States to secede. Is it possible to answer the original question posed in this thread? After following this (very interesting!) thread I would propose the following: Lincoln's presence in the election helped to escalate the speed of secession and, after that, war was inevitable, due to the politics he endorsed before the war. He didn't control or attempt to control events, instead being swept along with them. His early decisions in some ways made things worse. However, many of his speeches and his overall conduct during the war, plus his being the focus of the non-secessionist concept, helped to cement opinion (at least in the North) of a good politician. However he is viewed as a great statesman mainly because in his presidency slavery was abolished. Is this a view that gets 'general' agreement, despite the fact that it is an over-simplification or have I missed something here?

I fully agree with this sentiment. As an Englishman I knew that the events of the 1860's caused a lot of ill-feeling that persists to this day. I didn't quite realise that the whole political question was as clouded as it has been portrayed - as I said in an earlier post, all I knew was the effect the war had on British industry and that a group of British workers had sided with the concept of freeing the slaves. In some ways I am a bit surprised that people still feel as strongly as they do, especially as the 'America' we tend to see abroad is one united in patriotism (the 'War on Terror' etc). However, I know I shouldn't be. The events of the English Civil War can still lead to rows, and that was fought in the 1640's! The portrayal of Americans in news broadcasts and on normal television channels can lead to a belief in a 'monolithic' state where to disagree can be taken as unpatriotic and cause problems. The polite manner in which this subject has been discussed has really opened my eyes . That, plus watching 'The Daily Show' As an ignorant foreigner can I ask a possibly 'naive' question? The major world power at the time of the American Civil War was Britain. Was the decision to declare slavery illegal influenced at all by the North being worried about Britain? I remember reading somewhere (if only I could remember!) that either Lincoln or his advisors were scared in case the British allied themselves to the South. Although we had outlawed slavery etc years before, there was a chance that trade interests (ie cotton) might have seen Britain declaring war to protect her economy. The declaration of freedom for slaves made that impossible, as internal politics in Britain immediately meant that Britain must remain neutral. Is there any truth in this, or is it just an old-wives tale?

But these writers were all of the same class - the 'educated'. There is a little evidence to suggest that the situation was not as simple as this makes it appear. For example, the laws banning the wearing of Germanic-style clothes. This suggests that opinion was not necessarily as straightforward as Grant et al would like it to be. This was not a straightforward 'hatred of Germans', but a reaction both to their masss employment by Stilicho and the previous revolt in Constantinople in AD 400. Although it confirms anti-Germanic feeling, other factors intervened to exacerbate the feelings of the population in Italy. I agree!! Also by this time the Germans themselves had become Arian Christians, so could not really be looked on as uneducated Pagans. On the other hand, the hagiographers do tend to paint a picture of a slightly more complex situation than even this implies. This is a real 'pig' to get a handle on!!

Make that two tantrums!!

Out of context, my statement appears too sweeping. To be clear, Goldsworthy seems a fine military historian; his reconstruction of the battle of Cannae in light of the topography was both novel and highly ingenious. So, I'm certainly not trying to question Goldsworthy's talents generally. I get the feeling that you were short on time in the other responses and only now got chance to put in a more detailed reply?? I didn't say, nor did I mean to imply, that all aspects of history have been discovered. In fact, I've just written a book about Belisarius that attempts to shed new light on his achievements (due out soon - the publishers are at the 'copyediting' stage! Buy one!! I need the money!! ) and I'm just starting on a second detailing another individual's life story. As a writer myself I recognise that writing is not easy. When I was commissioned to write 'Belisarius' I didn't really realise the difficulties I would face. A publisher sets the limit on the number of words allowed for the book and it isn't until you start writing that you understand the limits this places upon you. You are simply not given space to analyse in detail many of the things that you would like. From that point on you can easily get frustrated by your inability to put cogent and detailed arguments in place, simply because there isn't room. This can lead to very 'simplistic' statements that bypass discussion - especially on important topics, where such disussion simply takes up too many words. It is possible that this is the case with your fault-finding of Goldsworthy. Most (if not all) of the writers you name were given space and time to put their arguments: too often this is no longer the case. The second difficulty is the aim of the publisher. The majority of publishers do not want to produce books that are intellectually excellent but are too specialised and go into too much detail. This can be off-putting to the general public and so the book will to fail to sell. (This is why many historical texts are so expensive.) Most publishers want to stay in business!! The whole thing is a balancing act. Whether Goldsworthy or anybody else has managed to balance things properly is a matter of opinion - and I must admit I am worried by the fact that my own book is trying to break new ground. Established scholars may find it to be too innovative, readers like yourself may find that it doesn't go far enough. However, I haven't aimed it at the specialist: I have tried to produce a book with a wide appeal that is both giving an interesting new perspective as well as reinforcing views which I think to be right. Old historians might not be trying to break new ground, but the accepted theories may actually be correct. As I say, it's a balancing act. In my view, Goldsworthy has just about got it right. I just hope that my own production is anywhere near as accessible.

Absolutely! That's why I'm not a fan of Goldsworthy--his account is boring and pedestrian. In your opinion. Others don't share it. Instead they see a writer who is trying to lay out the facts as clearly as he can for the non-specialist. But without both sides you don't get any views to be at odds with. What you appear to be saying is that you don't like 'traditional history', you like 'history' that is argumentative. Surely that's not the attitude of a historian? Furthermore, in your earlier post you said that Goldsworthy "hasn't the intellectual ammunition to stake out a ground and defend it." On what do you base this view? He gives you a few ideas and sometimes his own point of view, but to then assume that he hasn't got 'intellectual ammunition' must surely have some grounds in reality. Have you met him and talked to him about his ideas, or are you merely basing your opinion of him on your desire to see 'alternatives' and his version isn't alternative enough? Which authors do you find 'exciting' and 'dangerous'?

I think the most important book on Caesar is Meier's. He understands the full political context much, much better than Goldsworthy, who I think perennially runs from historical fights because he hasn't the intellectual ammunition to stake out a ground and defend it. Also, on purely military issues, I found J.F.C. Fuller's discussion of Caesar's campaigns to be highly illuminating. Actually, Goldsworthy is trying to give a balanced view on Caesar, not trying to put 'his own view' across. He tries to present a wide range of interpretations and then allows the reader to make up his own mind. So how can Goldsworthy be running away from a fight? Furthermore, I agree that Fuller's account is illluminating, but doesn't having a slightly different take on things help to improve our knowledge and undestanding?

How? The genetic evidence actually points to the 'Pre Roman Germanic England' fairly firmly, and is starting to become a mainstream view. I admit there are holes and flaws in the theory, but not nearly as many as in the traditional one, which is based almost entirely not on scientific process, but assumptions. It is supported not just by oppenheimer, who simply collated the evidence, but also by Colin Renfrew and Barry cunliffe. Lesser experts in this field have said that they always thought the traditional view inaccurate, but were afraid to go against the established academia, who up until now have been VERY conservative in this field. The 'wipeout' theory has largely been dispensed with as Sonic suggests, whilst the view that Britain was entirely occupied by people we now call celts until the Anglian invasions is several hundred years old, and rests very largely on the supposition that lowland Brits spoke Celtic. As can be seen, there is, at best, slight linguistic evidense that some of them spoke Celtic, for some of the time, just as there is an islated Ogham inscription in Silchester, even though this script was used primarily by the Irish. I can add another - there is a reference - I think in Bede - about 'Welsh' speakers residing in the Fens as late as 750. But these data are very slight and sporadic indeed, compared to the significant evidence from many disciplines of the scientific community which suggest otherwise. I can only propose that people read Oppenheimer and weigh the evidence themselves. His is the best and briefest summary of the evidence to date, although even this becomes quite heavy with scientific detail in the middle chapters. Still not convinced: I suppose I'll have to read Oppenheimer for a clearer understanding of the arguments! Anybody got a copy they can give to a poor, starving student of History??

Indeed yes, but the genetic evidence suggests that the input to the English gene pool of these people was something in the order of 5%. The mass immigration of Angles, Saxons and Jutes with a wipeout of the indigenous population is simply not borne out by the evidence. The evidence suggests that what we now call England was ALREADY germanic even prior to the Claudian invasion. This also applies to the Belgae and other Northern Gaulish tribes, who have been assumed to be celtic but may actually not have been. But surely the DNA evidence also suggests that the concept of a 'pre-Roman Germanic England' is also wrong? Anyway, the division of continental tribes arbitrarily into 'Celt' and 'German' rests on evidence in Caesar, and attempts to prove it rest on archaeological evidence which traces 'cultural' identity, not linguistic or DNA-traceable 'genetic' ties. As such, the concept that Britain was 'English' before the Romans is very, very dubious.

There are two distinct viewpoints on this. The first sees the English as a massive influx of barbarians that over-ran the Celts and either enslaved them or drove them back into the highlands (Wales, Cornwall and Cumberland - an old English county) The large numbers of invaders swamped the Celtic languages, leaving no trace of 'Welsh' in modern English, but many traces of English in modern Welsh. This is the linguistic view. On the opposite side, there is the view that only a few English came over and the majority of Celts adopted the English language and assimilated with them to form the 'English'. This is supported, albeit with huge reservations, by DNA testing. It is also supported by some name evidence: for example, one of the leaders of the English in the south was called Cerdic. This is just a translation into English of the Welsh name 'Ceredig'. This shows an input from Celts into the Saxon invaders and doesn't really fit with the 'wipe them out/enslave them' theory. And the two sides will never agree!! Please note that this is a massive over-simplification of the argument, shrunk to fit in a small post!!