Adrian Goldsworthy

[M. Porcius Cato]

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.

 

I think we all agree that Goldsworthy attempted to present his book on Caesar as non-judgmental. I just don't think we need another non-judgmental book on Caesar. If AG has some very definite views on Caesar, I'd love to hear them even if I disagree.

 

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.

 

Now that sounds fascinating! If so, three cheers for AG!

[spittle]

Sonic.

The plug for your book would be more successful if forum readers knew your name. Unless, of course, you have it published under the pen name 'Sonic'?

[sonic]

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!

 

Sonic.

The plug for your book would be more successful if forum readers knew your name. Unless, of course, you have it published under the pen name 'Sonic'?

 

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 .....

Edited March 31, 2008 by sonic

[Ursus]

I've read Caesar and In the Name of Rome. It's obvious Goldworthy's strength lies as a military writer. As a writer of a general socio-political overview I feel he does less well. He could say more with less, I feel. Caesar could have been half as long and still conveyed the main points.

 

 

Overturning established academic theories can be exciting, but only if the author has enough evidence to back up his assertions, and only if it is apparent the author truly believes in his assertions. I've read books where the author's contrary view was obviously nothing but a cynical and flimsy attempt to gain attention by naysaying the establishment. Such authors should be raked over the coals mercilessly as hacks.

[sonic]

Overturning established academic theories can be exciting, but only if the author has enough evidence to back up his assertions, and only if it is apparent the author truly believes in his assertions. I've read books where the author's contrary view was obviously nothing but a cynical and flimsy attempt to gain attention by naysaying the establishment. Such authors should be raked over the coals mercilessly as hacks.

 

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!!

Edited April 1, 2008 by sonic

[caldrail]

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.

Novel reconstructions? Thats speculation, not history. And in mentioning these historians you reinforce your view that the only historians worth reading are the ones that agree with your own opinions. Thats not good history. Also what you fail to observe is that Adrian Goldsworthy is a specialist - he writes about military history - and since he tends to leave out all the politics you enjoy then understandably there isn't much for you to read. The trouble with those clever and intellectual historians you so admire is that they often construct these cultural theories from first principles and forget the romans were human beings. There's nothing new about human behaviour, nor was roman politics particularly novel.

[P.Clodius]

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.

Novel reconstructions? Thats speculation, not history. And in mentioning these historians you reinforce your view that the only historians worth reading are the ones that agree with your own opinions. Thats not good history. Also what you fail to observe is that Adrian Goldsworthy is a specialist - he writes about military history - and since he tends to leave out all the politics you enjoy then understandably there isn't much for you to read. The trouble with those clever and intellectual historians you so admire is that they often construct these cultural theories from first principles and forget the romans were human beings. There's nothing new about human behaviour, nor was roman politics particularly novel.

I agree with you both to an extent. I am a longtime fan of AG and was pleased with his "Caesar", it was in the end, agenda free. This is important to me as I wish to form my own opinions and not be told what to think Fox News style. In general it is helpful to know the socio-political context of the authors background, from this you can somewhat gauge the 'agenda'. Two examples in MPC's list are Momssen and Syme. Momssen came from the Victorian age/pro-imperialism/white mans burden context. Syme from the first half of the twentieth century, rise of totalitarianism/fascism context. Once you understand this you can put the agenda aside (if desired) and pull from the book that which you wish. When MPC refers to "novel re-constructions" he of course means interpretation, and when boiled down, isn't a historian a professional speculator? Its when these "novel re-constructions" become revisionism, and there's a fine line, I become wary. My favorite authors are; Goldsworthy, Gelzer, Meier (surprised to see one of mine on your list MPC), Baker, Dodge, and don't we all have our favorites, authors on which we rely and tend to 'agree' with?

[M. Porcius Cato]

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.

Novel reconstructions? Thats speculation, not history. And in mentioning these historians you reinforce your view that the only historians worth reading are the ones that agree with your own opinions.

 

You really don't know what you're talking about. I'm assuming you've read none of the authors on my list. Almost all the historians on my list are those with whom I have grave disagreements. These aren't small disagreement either, but the big ones that we have fought about in the past. For example, my theory on the fall of the republic is diametrically opposed to almost everyone on the list with the exception of Gruen and Millar.

 

And if you think that it's possible to put forward an ancient historical narrative without reconstruction--that is, without going beyond the raw evidence given--you must have a crystal ball. Lacking such magical devices, every historian is forced to put forward some kind of reconstruction of events from the limited information given. In this they're no different from a prosecuting attorney: not eye-witnesses, but forced to put together a theory of who did what where when and how and why from a less-than-complete record. (Actually, their position is even worse than that of a prosecuting attorney, who at least can choose not to prosecute cases with insufficient evidence.)

Edited April 1, 2008 by M. Porcius Cato

[spittle]

A recent biog of Augustus speculated that Livia poisoned him (I, Claudius revisted) but, and here's the novel twist, he was aware of the deed all along!

The theory went that He and Livia were partners in his assisted suicide! Either that or Augustus knew Livia was murdering him but went along with it for reasons of posterity (?!).

 

Does anyone accept that even the author of this book believed his own work?

 

It was a cynical attempt to re-write history but unlike the revisionist conjecture of serious historians works, it was based on the flimsiest of evidence connected by huge leaps of faith.

 

Whenever Roman history becomes popular to a wider audience, due to TVs ROME or Cinema's GLADIATOR, several second rate books appear to cash in.

It is the same with Mob stuff. There are dozens of pseudo-factual organised crime titles from the early to mid 70s. Timed simply to jump on the GODFATHER band wagon.

[M. Porcius Cato]

A recent biog of Augustus speculated that Livia poisoned him (I, Claudius revisted) but, and here's the novel twist, he was aware of the deed all along!

The theory went that He and Livia were partners in his assisted suicide! Either that or Augustus knew Livia was murdering him but went along with it for reasons of posterity (?!).

 

What's this recent biography? Is the theory based on any newly uncovered facts? In either case, a good reconstruction of events adheres to Occam's Razor and does not make any more assumptions to piece together what is known than is necessary. In your example, the author assumes that the ancient slander against Livia was correct, which simply isn't necessary to explain why an old man would die.

[Primus Pilus]

A recent biog of Augustus speculated that Livia poisoned him (I, Claudius revisted) but, and here's the novel twist, he was aware of the deed all along!

The theory went that He and Livia were partners in his assisted suicide! Either that or Augustus knew Livia was murdering him but went along with it for reasons of posterity (?!).

 

What's this recent biography? Is the theory based on any newly uncovered facts? In either case, a good reconstruction of events adheres to Occam's Razor and does not make any more assumptions to piece together what is known than is necessary. In your example, the author assumes that the ancient slander against Livia was correct, which simply isn't necessary to explain why an old man would die.

 

Anthony Everett's. The author presents no evidence other than conjecture and does not revisit the premise that he puts forward in the early stages at any point throughout the work.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Anthony Everett's. The author presents no evidence other than conjecture and does not revisit the premise that he puts forward in the early stages at any point throughout the work.

 

Ugh. This kind of thing gives historical imagination a bad name. What I have in mind as a good reconstruction is Italian Manpower, where Brunt essentially takes a small number of population statistics from ancient sources and considers what they imply in light of modern demography. Or, as another example, how Syme used prosopographical evidence to reconstruct stemmata for the leading figures in the late republic and thereby trace possible family connections that might cement long-term political alliances. Or, as still another example, how Keith Hopkins traced the birth and death rates of leading aristocratic families to shed light on the relative stability of the Augustan regime. In all three cases, the historical narratives that emerged were novel, but they were clearly rooted in evidence that previous historians had not considered systematically. I hope the difference between these reconstructions and those of Everett are clear.

[caldrail]

You really don't know what you're talking about. I'm assuming you've read none of the authors on my list. Almost all the historians on my list are those with whom I have grave disagreements. These aren't small disagreement either, but the big ones that we have fought about in the past. For example, my theory on the fall of the republic is diametrically opposed to almost everyone on the list with the exception of Gruen and Millar.

But what is there to make me believe that you know what you're talking about? Quoting the names of your favourite authors? Right. How much original research have you done? Because if all you do is rely on reading others works then you're effectively the same as me, an armchair historian who's opinion is based on what we read. So if my opinion is of no value then... erm... neither is yours.... The difference however, is that I'm not worried if one author or another doesn't meet intellectual criteria. It doesn't matter if that author writes the same old weary passages or covers the same familiar ground - its his bread and butter, his day job. Of course he's going to write about the stuff he knows. And if thats the case, how would you know that some clever speculation isn't a complete load of nonsense written by some guy who's bluffing, who doesn't actually understand everything but can write good enough prose to suggest he does?

 

And if you think that it's possible to put forward an ancient historical narrative without reconstruction--that is, without going beyond the raw evidence given--you must have a crystal ball. Lacking such magical devices, every historian is forced to put forward some kind of reconstruction of events from the limited information given. In this they're no different from a prosecuting attorney: not eye-witnesses, but forced to put together a theory of who did what where when and how and why from a less-than-complete record. (Actually, their position is even worse than that of a prosecuting attorney, who at least can choose not to prosecute cases with insufficient evidence.)

But being novel for the sake of it, or just to please one particular customer, is of no value except possibly to promote someones career if the guy can get enough media attention for his novel reconstruction. History is about what happened. What might of happened is fun to speculate about (the source of your pleasure, as you describe) but if all you want to read is a list of learned 'what-ifs' then you're not actually dealing in history. Speculation can be very misleading. The UFO genre is based on little else and do you seriously expect me to believe everything these people write? Or that they actually know anything concrete?

 

Anyways, if novel reconstructions are your thing, there's plenty of novels out there.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Very illuminating. I guess if you're looking for a paraphrase of other's work, Adrian Goldsworthy is your man.

[caldrail]

Yeah ok, but ultimately, how original is any historians work? To some extent its going to be derivative, because their basing their efforts on what they've already learned which is pretty much the same as the rest of us since they're looking up the same original texts and tramping around the same sites. Personally I'm not interested whether a particular author is 'clever' or 'run-of-the-mill'. From my perspective, there's every possibility that the author has uncovered some fact I wasn't aware of, and their opinion is as valid as anyones. Naturally I have my opinion, and it may not agree. So? I know I don't know everything, I know their are people even on this site who can run rings around me on some subjects, but does that bother me? Not a lot. You can learn a subject but understand nothing. Understanding requires you ask questions. If we aren't challenged, then we stagnate, we sit on our laurels. That in my view is a failure, because people who sit on laurels generally become obstructive to those who want to llearn and understand more and surely the whole point of this site is enlighten?

 

Having said all that, I must confess I come across books I won't bother with. There are those pitched at people of a younger age or people entirely ignorant of things roman. Its not that I discount such works, they do have some value but its likely I've passed that point, and therefore I tend to conserve my funds for something deeper. As long as there's something I can learn from its pages, thats ok with me. Even if I feel the authors conclusions are hopelessly incorrect it doesn't actually matter because to understand the subject I have to discover why he reached those conclusions. It might just be I'm wrong, and there's been occaisions on this site where other people have changed my mind entirely. Then there's the sort of book that masquerades as history. Caligula: Divine Wrath for instance, where *or* disguises itself as intelligent commentary on the vices of emperors past. Please don't bother with it, it really is a smutty book that teaches nothing. Why? Because the book is relying on its readers not knowing too much about roman history and accentuates every sexual reference to draw some conclusions that are in some cases physically impossible. Its a fantasy. And therefore not history.