Opinion on Classicist Michael Grant.

[longshotgene]

I am finishing a research paper on Michael Grant and wanted to ask you all what you thought of Grant's works? What do you think of him as a professional? Do you consider his works a good source for academia as well as the lay reader? Any professors who would be interested in allowing me to cite them, I would appreciate. The rough draft is due next Monday, but I thought this would add an interesting touch to the paper if I could get the opinions of some members from academia.

 

Thank you

[Gaius Octavius]

It's too bad that you didn't ask earlier. You might try Richard Fazzini, a curator of Egyptian Art at the Brooklyn Museum.

[Primus Pilus]

Michael Grant may not have been the most ground-breaking in terms of new information, but I personally found that his approach and style of presentation helped develop my own passion for ancient history. He may not have been the sort of historian that one equates with the likes of a Mommsen or a Syme, but Grant's work was respected by contemporaries while it also maintained a relatively unique appeal to the average/casual reader.

[DecimusCaesar]

I personally think he's a brilliant historian. I own a few books written by him on subjects ranging from Cleopatra to the Fall of the Roman Empire. I even think I reviewed one of his books for this site. I also believe that 'The History of Rome' is one of the best single volume books I have on Rome's history. It covers everything from the Etruscans up to Romulus Augustulus, and it really is brilliant at explaining the development of Rome's culture and society. It's a shame he isn't alive today.

[Ursus]

I reviewed one his books on the Hellenistic era. I thought it was quite excellent. It discussed the limits of Hellenization, something many historians overlooked.

[The Augusta]

Longshotgene - I think you would be quite safe in offering Grant as a source to ANY professor. As others have pointed out, he may not be in the class of Mommsen or Syme, but he still remains a highly respected authority on the subject. Being accessible to a wider readership does not always mean you are less of a scholar.

 

I have many of Grant's works on my shelves - and those I do not possess are still on my 'to buy' list to this day. Like Decimus Caesar, I own his 'Cleopatra' - a wonderful study of a woman I personally loathe - so that you should tell you how highly I regard the man for the fair treatment of his subjects.

 

IMHO, no Romanophile should be without a Grant or two.

Edited April 28, 2008 by The Augusta

[Nephele]

IMHO, no Romanophile should be without a Grant or two.

 

Absolutely. Though I have but one Grant in my personal collection (The Jews in the Roman World), I've made certain that my public library is well-stocked in Grants.

 

-- Nephele

[longshotgene]

Cool. I appreciate the opinions on his work. I am about 200 words away from making the finish. I have never had to review or research an historian before. I have to admit that this assignment was kind of boring and painful. I equate it to pulling teeth. One last question for you all. Do you think the Classical History field would be what it is today if it was not for Grant? I think of the Feminist movement which he helped through his work, the many translations that he did of classical works, and many other accomplishments. The man wrote over 50 works without the help of being attached to a University. And what makes that even more fascinating is that he wrote the bulk of his work over topics in the classical world other than the military! Any way. If you guys could respond to my final question, that would be great. Thank you for the help.

[Primus Pilus]

Do you think the Classical History field would be what it is today if it was not for Grant? I think of the Feminist movement which he helped through his work, the many translations that he did of classical works, and many other accomplishments. The man wrote over 50 works without the help of being attached to a University. And what makes that even more fascinating is that he wrote the bulk of his work over topics in the classical world other than the military! Any way. If you guys could respond to my final question, that would be great. Thank you for the help.

 

This ties into what I was attempting to say in my first response. Grant helped popularize the study of ancient history and distribute it to people other than what we might consider scholars and students. He is not solely responsible for the popularization of ancient history by any stretch, but Grant was a leader (whether intentioned or not) in making such history accessible to the general public. Being unattached to a single university was actually the key. It was ultimately responsible for allowing him the freedom to choose subject matter, style, audience, etc. He unquestionably still would have been a fine writer had circumstances been different, but we are left only with the what if.... would he have been as prolific or as widely popular had he been beholden to a single academic institution?

[Gaius Octavius]

Not an academician. I have three of his books on my shelves. I like his "Atlas of Ancient History (1700BC to 565AD)"

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

Grant's ' The History of Rome' was the first (academic) book I ever bought on ancient Rome, although I found it pretty hard going at the time, basically because my knowledge of Rome back then was very limited, it still made me want to know more. I tend to go back and read the book every now and then and the more I've learnt the more I realise just how good and how in depth Grant's work is.

 

A man who's produced this amount of work in a lifetime has got to be applauded.

 

• From Imperium to Auctoritas (1946/Rev ed, 1971?), Treatise on bronze coins
  
• Ancient History (1952)
  
• Roman Imperial Money (1954)
  
• Roman History from Coins (1958/ Rev ed, 1968)
  
• The World of Rome (1960/ Rev ed, 19??/1974/1987)
  
• The Ancient Mediterranean (1961/ Rev ed, 1969)
  
• Myths of the Greeks and Romans (1962/new biblio:1986)
  
• Greece and Rome: The Birth of Western Civilization (1964/ Rev ed, 1986)
  
• The Civilizations of Europe (1965)
  
• The Gladiators (1967)
  
• The Climax of Rome: The Final Achievements of the Ancient World, AD 161-337 (1968/ Rev ed, 19??/1974)
  
• Julius Caesar (1969)
  
• The Ancient Historians (1970)
  
• The Roman Forum (1970)
  
• Nero (1970)
  
• Herod the Great (1971)
  
• Roman Myths (1971)
  
• Cities of Vesuvius: Pompeii and Herculaneum (1971)
  
• Atlas of Classical History (1971/ Rev ed, 1974/1986/1989/1994) [AKA Ancient History Atlas]
  
• Cleopatra (1972)
  
• The Jews in the Roman World (1973/ Rev ed, 1984) [AKA *The Jews and the Roman World]
  
• Caesar (1974)
  
• Army of the Caesars (1974)
  
• The Twelve Caesars (1975)
  
• The Fall of the Roman Empire (1976/ Rev ed, 1990)
  
• Paul (1976)
  
• Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (1977)
  
• History of Rome (1978)
  
• Greece and Italy in the Classical World (1978/ Rev ed, 19??)
  
• The Etruscians (1980)
  
• Greek and Latin Authors: 800 BC - AD 1000 (1980)
  
• Dawn of the Middle Ages (1981) -- coffee table book
  
• From Alexander to Cleopatra: the Hellenistic World (1982) [AKA The Hellenistic Greeks (1990)]
  
• The History of Ancient Israel (1984)
  
• The Roman Emperors: A Biographical Guide to the Rulers of Imperial Rome 31BC - 476 AD (1985)
  
• A Guide to the Ancient World: A Dictionary of Classical Place Names (1986)
  
• The Rise of the Greeks (1987)
  
• The Classical Greeks (1989)
  
• The Visible Past: Greek and Roman History from Archaeology, 1960-1990 (1990) [AKA The Visible Past: An Archaeological Reinterpretation of Ancient History]
  
• Founders of the Western World: A History of Greece and Rome (1991) [AKA A Short History of Classical Civilization]
  
• Greeks and Romans: A Social History (1992) [ AKA A Social History of Greece and Rome]
  
• The Emperor Constantine (1993) [AKA Constantine the Great: The Man and His Times (1994)]
  
• The Antonines: The Roman Empire in Transition (1994)
  
• St Peter: A Biography (1994)
  
• My First Eighty Years (1994), Autobiography
  
• Greek and Roman Historians: Information and Misinformation (1995)
  
• The Severans: The Changed Roman Empire (1996)
  
• Art in the Roman Empire (1996)
  
• From Rome to Byzantium: The Fifth Century (1998)
  
• Sick Caesars (2000)
  
• Saint Paul (2000)
  

 

 

Translations

• Cicero, Selected Works (1965)
  
• Cicero, Selected Political Speeches (1969)
  
• Cicero, Murder Trials (19??)
  
• Cicero on the Good Life (1971)
  
• Cicero, Letters to Atticus (19??)
  
• Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome (1956/ Rev ed, 1977)
  
• Cicero, On Government (1993)
  

<a name="Editor.2FReviser" id="Editor.2FReviser">

 

 

Editor/Reviser

• Roman Readings (1958/67) [AKA Latin Literature: An Anthology (1979/new biblio 1989)]
  
• Roman Literature (19??/ Rev ed, 19??/1964)
  
• Greek Literature (19??)
  
• Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars: An Illustrated Edition (1979; Trans, Robert Graves, 1957)
  
• Civilization of the Ancient Mediterranean (with R. Kitzinger, 1988)
  
• Readings in the Classical Historians (1992)
  

http://' target="_blank">

 

 

[Artimi]

After reading these posts, I checked my books, I have 2 M. Grant books and time and money permitting will add more.

 

The importance of knowledge of past history brought to mind the following movie.

 

The Stranger (1946) with Orson Welles, Loretta Young and Edward G. Robinson, which takes place in a small New England college town.

One line from that movie refers applying the solution the Carthaginian solution by Rome to the Germans after WW2 by Orson Wells' character. The movie did explain some of the implications, but also assumed some knowledge of ancient history. This is a chilling movie.