Adrian Goldsworthy

[Adelais Valerius]

I'm dying to see him lecture, does anyone know where he might in the midwest area, or if he even still does??

[M. Porcius Cato]

Here's a nice interview with Goldsworthy.

[Adelais Valerius]

Here's a nice interview with Goldsworthy.

That interview was pretty interesting, and motivating when he talked about living in Wales and going to the Roman ruins that he lived near by. This interview made me want to hear him even more. So damn you and thank you very much all at once

[sonic]

Here's a nice interview with Goldsworthy.

That interview was pretty interesting, and motivating when he talked about living in Wales and going to the Roman ruins that he lived near by. This interview made me want to hear him even more. So damn you and thank you very much all at once

 

At the moment he's writing a new book, so lecture tours are pretty much on the back burner. It also depends on who invites him to give a lecture. I know that he still gives papers around the world, but when he'll be back in the US I don't know. I'll ask him next time I speak to him.

[spittle]

Thanks, M.P.C, Very interesting interview. Although I'd wager you don't share Goldworthy's opinions on G.G.C....?

 

If you (or anyone else) could post more interviews or mini lectures they would be much appreciated.

[Adelais Valerius]

Here's a nice interview with Goldsworthy.

That interview was pretty interesting, and motivating when he talked about living in Wales and going to the Roman ruins that he lived near by. This interview made me want to hear him even more. So damn you and thank you very much all at once

 

At the moment he's writing a new book, so lecture tours are pretty much on the back burner. It also depends on who invites him to give a lecture. I know that he still gives papers around the world, but when he'll be back in the US I don't know. I'll ask him next time I speak to him.

 

You know him personally? Thats pretty impressive, how do you know him?

[M. Porcius Cato]

Although I'd wager you don't share Goldworthy's opinions on G.G.C....?

 

I don't share his evaluation of Caesar, but--more fundamentally--I don't agree with his approach to source materials.

 

First, his approach is to treat competing source materials as if they were merely supplementary. That is, to simply take all available accounts of an event, purge them of obvious local contradictions, and then report them all as if one historical source could supplement the details lacking in another account. The problem with this approach is that it yields non-local contradictions in the historical narrative. I've given an example in an earlier thread re: Goldsworthy's account of the lex Iulia agraria and lex Iulia agraria Campania.

 

Second, I think Goldsworthy relies far to little on Cicero's letters for evidence, and he relies far too much on Caesar's own writings and those of his followers. The simplest explanation for this is that Cicero's letters are not easy reference materials (historical bombshells often occurring in asides on other matters), and it's not economical to focus on these when you're attempting to put out another book every 11 months.

 

So--Yes, I don't share Goldworthy's opinion of Caesar, but that's probably due to a difference in our reading of the facts themselves.

[Adelais Valerius]

Although I'd wager you don't share Goldworthy's opinions on G.G.C....?

 

I've given an example in an earlier thread re: Goldsworthy's account of the lex Iulia agraria and lex Iulia agraria Campania.

 

where was that located?

 

Who do you think did a better job...I'm looking for books

I just want to cover all the bases so to speak. I like Grant's style of writing, but there's so many books on Rome, I don't want to just buy anything and everything, and its just the same thing over and over

[M. Porcius Cato]

Who do you think did a better job...I'm looking for books

 

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.

[sonic]

Who do you think did a better job...I'm looking for books

 

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?

[M. Porcius Cato]

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.

Example? He sure doesn't take this tack with the lex Iulia agraria, which he describes as a perfect piece of legislation that could not be improved at all.

 

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?

Absolutely! That's why I'm not a fan of Goldsworthy--his account is boring and pedestrian. In contrast, I like authors to present a consistent and coherent view of historical events, that IS at odds with others' opinions but not any of the facts. That's the fun of ancient history. The jigsaw puzzle is missing pieces, and there are alternative possibilities about what the missing pieces are and thus how it all fits together.

[sonic]

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?

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.

 

In contrast, I like authors to present a consistent and coherent view of historical events, that IS at odds with others' opinions but not any of the facts. That's the fun of ancient history. The jigsaw puzzle is missing pieces, and there are alternative possibilities about what the missing pieces are and thus how it all fits together.

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'?

Edited March 22, 2008 by sonic

[M. Porcius Cato]

In contrast, I like authors to present a consistent and coherent view of historical events, that IS at odds with others' opinions but not any of the facts. That's the fun of ancient history. The jigsaw puzzle is missing pieces, and there are alternative possibilities about what the missing pieces are and thus how it all fits together.

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?

You seem to assume that all alternative "sides" have already been discovered (by whom I wonder, if not historians?), and historians are merely to regurgitate the arguments that others have presented. I'd say that that's not history--it's elementary school. My view is that the job of an ancient historian (inter alia) is to discover novel re-constructions of events that better fit new and old information. That certainly is the attitude of great historians, like Momssen, Munzer, Meier, Hopkins, Syme, Millar, Brunt, Gruen, and Rosenstein. Each of these figures presented bold new appraisals of the available evidence in light of novel advances in fields like philology, prosopography, archaeology, sociology, economics, demographics, and so on.

 

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?

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.

 

Rather, what I said was that Goldsworthy ignored much of the evidence on Caesar's career from Cicero's letters; these letters form the critical "intellectual ammunition" needed to enter into the large controversies on Caesar's career, which Goldsworthy generally avoids. For example, Goldsworthy appears to accept uncritically that Caesar's civil war was motivated by Caesar's desire to avoid prosecution. The counter-argument comes from evidence from Cicero's letters, which detail Caesar's peace offers to Pompey (which was to enter Rome as a private citizen, to run for the consulship for the standard time of two weeks, and thereby placing himself at total risk of prosecution), as well as the fact that Cicero had never heard from Caesar that he was motivated by the desire to avoid prosecution (Cicero thought Caesar had gone mad). This is just one example of a hot-button issue that Goldsworthy side-steps completely. Others include his agnosticism regarding the role of clientele in Roman politics, the extent to which "factions" were sufficiently stable to influence long-term policies in Rome, whether Caesar's career is continuous with previous legislative agendas or not, etc.

 

Which authors do you find 'exciting' and 'dangerous'?

 

For 'exciting', see above. I certainly don't think all of these historians were necessarily correct, but they all provided an analysis that was novel and generalizable (e.g., the prosopographical approach could be applied to any historical period, not just ancient Rome). In this, the historians I mention were not just good classicists, but good historians.

[sonic]

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?

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??

 

Rather, what I said was that Goldsworthy ignored much of the evidence on Caesar's career from Cicero's letters; these letters form the critical "intellectual ammunition" needed to enter into the large controversies on Caesar's career, which Goldsworthy generally avoids. For example, Goldsworthy appears to accept uncritically that Caesar's civil war was motivated by Caesar's desire to avoid prosecution. The counter-argument comes from evidence from Cicero's letters, which detail Caesar's peace offers to Pompey (which was to enter Rome as a private citizen, to run for the consulship for the standard time of two weeks, and thereby placing himself at total risk of prosecution), as well as the fact that Cicero had never heard from Caesar that he was motivated by the desire to avoid prosecution (Cicero thought Caesar had gone mad). This is just one example of a hot-button issue that Goldsworthy side-steps completely. Others include his agnosticism regarding the role of clientele in Roman politics, the extent to which "factions" were sufficiently stable to influence long-term policies in Rome, whether Caesar's career is continuous with previous legislative agendas or not, etc.

 

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.

Edited March 23, 2008 by sonic

[Maty]

I'm with Sonic on this one. Whilst Adrian Goldsworthy has some very definite views on Caesar (with which, as a member of the 'can we assassinate him again, please?' squad, I don't fully agree), he did try very hard to present his book on Caesar as a non-judgmental piece which allowed the reader to make up his own mind. However, I've also had a look at his next book, 'The Fall of the West', which should kick up enough of a storm to please you, Cato! In this he takes a line that goes more than somewhat contrary to the currently fashionable academic theory, and seems set to cause a few hissy fits.

 

He's also, I believe, due to be appearing on TV introducing episodes of a particular programme, but this may not be confirmed as yet.