Andy Goldsworth Lecture

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

This is an interesting lecture which is worth listening to (although I take issue with his Silvanus anecdote and the conclusions drawn from it!) -

http://www.kclibrary.org/event/adria...-how-rome-fell

[Joar]

Nice! Thanks for the link.

[juvenus]

Well...........I already read the book. It's over 500 pages and all I can say it's one of the best and most comprehensive books I've ever read in my life (and I've read them a lot). So many outstanding details, he covered every possible aspect of the Roman state.

[ray243]

Well...........I already read the book. It's over 500 pages and all I can say it's one of the best and most comprehensive books I've ever read in my life (and I've read them a lot). So many outstanding details, he covered every possible aspect of the Roman state.

That might be due to you not reading other works on that topic. Have you read Peter Heather's thesis on the fall of the Roman Empire?

The only problem is, he seems to be arguing against other prominent scholars without mentioning them by name. Really, I'm not too sure about Goldsworthy talking about late antiquity given that he does not focus on that topic most of the time.

[Valentinian Victor]

Adrian Goldsworthy tends to be a bit 'thin' when discussing the Late Empire and its army in a number of his books. A number of historians do not share his views.

[juvenus]

Have you read Peter Heather's thesis on the fall of the Roman Empire?

No, what's the name of his work?

Adrian Goldsworthy tends to be a bit 'thin' when discussing the Late Empire and its army in a number of his books. A number of historians do not share his views.

Well, I know that he got huge acclaim by some historians and it appears that many tend to agree with him as well.
In the end, it all comes to what you expect from a book. If you're into a detailed in-depth cross section of the Roman military then yes, you may find better authors (although his "In the name of Rome" and "Roman Warfare" are considered by many as the high quality works).
But I'm not sure if you read "How Rome fell" at all, because you cannot argue that this book lacks anything. It was not intended to deal solely with the military matters but instead to provide a wide view on the "fall of rome". And that's what it does with great success.

Besides, for comparison, I read Gibbon's "monumental" work and I can say that Goldsworthy is ten times better.

[ray243]

No, what's the name of his work?

Peter Heather's the fall of the Roman Empire.

Well, I know that he got huge acclaim by some historians and it appears that many tend to agree with him as well.
In the end, it all comes to what you expect from a book. If you're into a detailed in-depth cross section of the Roman military then yes, you may find better authors (although his "In the name of Rome" and "Roman Warfare" are considered by many as the high quality works).
But I'm not sure if you read "How Rome fell" at all, because you cannot argue that this book lacks anything. It was not intended to deal solely with the military matters but instead to provide a wide view on the "fall of rome". And that's what it does with great success.

Besides, for comparison, I read Gibbon's "monumental" work and I can say that Goldsworthy is ten times better.

Yeah, but Gibbon views has been outdated for a long time. There are numerous authors that manage to discredit Gibbon's thesis for a long time, before Adrian GoldsWorthy came along.

Additionally, Goldsworthy isn't known as a person who has done a lot of work in regards to late antiquity. Additionally, his thesis is arguing with A LOT of main stream historians who has published their work in regards to the fall of the Roman Empire.

Look at his work in " The complete Roman Army" and see how little work he has done in regards to the Roman army in the late antiquity, and the failure to cover the changes experienced by the Roman army during the third century.

I strongly suggest that you look at other works before coming to a conclusion, as well as take a look at Goldsworthy's bibliography.


One good essay that compiles all the major works that deals with the fall of the western empire in recent years can be found here.


http://standpointmag.com/node/2038/full

It's written by a historians who himself has published his own view as to why the Roman Empire fell.

[The10thLegion]

I think Goldworth's books are worth Gold.

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

I'll pretend I didn't read that . . .

[PSEUDO ROMANUS]

Thanks for the link, SBH.

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

You're welcome! I haven't read his book but from the lecture I can only surmise a nostalgic bent towards the Principate period which biases him against an objective account of the later Roman period. As I mentioned in the first post, his use of the Silvanus episode (an important framing narrative for Ammianus) represents as a microcosm his view of the degeneracy of the later Roman period. Contrast Ammianus with Zosimus who does not mention the episode (if I remember correctly) and that shows you how much a biographical note affects a reading of the later Roman period.

[PSEUDO ROMANUS]

You're welcome! I haven't read his book but from the lecture I can only surmise a nostalgic bent towards the Principate period which biases him against an objective account of the later Roman period. As I mentioned in the first post, his use of the Silvanus episode (an important framing narrative for Ammianus) represents as a microcosm his view of the degeneracy of the later Roman period. Contrast Ammianus with Zosimus who does not mention the episode (if I remember correctly) and that shows you how much a biographical note affects a reading of the later Roman period.

I just got his book yesterday and have only read his preface so far. So I'm not in conditions to give a well-balanced opinion on it, but based on what I've read so far I agree with you on the Principate nostalgia thing. Basically he's saying: Principate -good and powerful; 4th century on -bad and weak. So far he sounds more like a classical-Roman-period fan than anything else, in my opinion of course. I'll keep reading and I'll see if I change my mind.

[juvenus]

Look at his work in " The complete Roman Army" and see how little work he has done in regards to the Roman army in the late antiquity, and the failure to cover the changes experienced by the Roman army during the third century.

I know, and I noticed that already. He's not at his best when it comes to the military aspects.

One good essay that compiles all the major works that deals with the fall of the western empire in recent years can be found here.


http://standpointmag.com/node/2038/full

Good point, I'll try get some of those books. +rep

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

I'll echo that - a good article + rep!

[Joar]

I love you Andy, and if it's quite all right,
I need you Andy to warm a lonely night.
I love you Andy.
Trust in me when I say:
Oh pretty Andy, don't bring me down I pray.
Oh pretty Andy, now that I found you, stay.
And let me love you, oh Andy let me love you...

[juvenus]

I love you Andy, and if it's quite all right,
I need you Andy to warm a lonely night.
I love you Andy.
Trust in me when I say:
Oh pretty Andy, don't bring me down I pray.
Oh pretty Andy, now that I found you, stay.
And let me love you, oh Andy let me love you...

Regardless of your intention and probable sarcasm, this is great

[PSEUDO ROMANUS]

I love you Andy, and if it's quite all right,
I need you Andy to warm a lonely night.
I love you Andy.
Trust in me when I say:
Oh pretty Andy, don't bring me down I pray.
Oh pretty Andy, now that I found you, stay.
And let me love you, oh Andy let me love you...

We have a poet among us and I didn't even know.

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

Finally, a considered response . . . !

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

It's off topic
And somewhat myopic
But a sweet biopic!

[PSEUDO ROMANUS]

Apparently a few members got tired of history and have decided to move their interests to the beautiful world of poetry .