The most influenetial Roman historian of modern time?

[ray243]

I thought it might be nice to start a discussion on the modern Historians rather than starting another topic about Roman history in general.

There were many Roman History books written by Historians since the time of Gibbon and I would like to ask who do you think is the most influential Roman historian in the modern era? ( which from the late 19th century to the 21st century)

A few of the most prominent Roman Historians that I can easily recall include Theodor Mommsen, J.B Bury, Rostovtzeff, A.H.M Jones and Peter Brown. Of course, this list is by no means definitive and there are many other historians that I have left out. Additionally, I have left out a fair number of non-English Roman Historians due to my general unfamiliarity with other languages.

Bear in mind that I am not saying that the works produced by the other historians is worthless and they are not influential. Also, just because I think that a historian of my choice is the most influential historian does not mean that my views are correct and people are free to disagree and challenge my view.

It would be very nice if others can help in expanding the list and at the same time, name who do you think is the most influential Roman historian in modern times.

In my opinion, I would think that AHM Jones is the most influential Roman historian in modern times. The reason for this choice is mainly due to his work on the later Roman Empire, and the sheer amount of information he has provided for students of Roman history. For example, his work on the late Roman army is still being quoted today even though he did not focus on the Roman army during this period.

Without him, it would be hard to think of works by H. Elton on the late Roman army or the works by Peter Heather.

In my opinion, any historian that tried to explain why did the late Roman Empire fell without citing the work of Jones is an indication of how much research the author has done and whether the historian in question really knows anything about the late Roman Empire.

So, who is the most influential Roman historian in modern times in your opinion?

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

An academic discussion at most, I doubt many historians could be conisderd 'influential' on anything aside from academic discourse.

[ray243]

An academic discussion at most, I doubt many historians could be conisderd 'influential' on anything aside from academic discourse.

Without a doubt. However, since this is a history forum, I believe a fair amount of interesting discussion could be generated, and at the same time, help the newcomers learn a little bit more about what the Roman historians.

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

Newcomers to history arn't going to be interested in the minutia of academic arguments and opinions, more on gaining a firm basis of the period. Its academic for a reason.

[Stavroforos]

Well, I don't see any problem with having an academic discussion on TWC.

I think Syme deserves a mention for sure, and since we're talking about the Late Empire, I want to mention Timothy Barnes, if for no other reason than he was my professor. But he has done some excellent work, though his language is lulz to read.

[SigniferOne]

As far as just plain influence, nobody could come even close to the influence of Gibbon. Even the great Mommsen desisted from writing a Late Roman history, because he knew that he'd have to compete with Gibbon and he knew that he wasn't capable of doing it.

As far as Republican Roman history, probably no more influential historians exist than Mommsen and his teacher Niebuhr. It is they who introduced the doctrine of radical cynicism towards all ancient sources and especially Livy, which has characterized all 'modern' Roman history up to and including several years ago, when Livy had begun to be strongly vindicated.

[ray243]

As far as just plain influence, nobody could come even close to the influence of Gibbon. Even the great Mommsen desisted from writing a Late Roman history, because he knew that he'd have to compete with Gibbon and he knew that he wasn't capable of doing it.

As far as Republican Roman history, probably no more influential historians exist than Mommsen and his teacher Niebuhr. It is they who introduced the doctrine of radical cynicism towards all ancient sources and especially Livy, which has characterized all 'modern' Roman history up to and including several years ago, when Livy had begun to be strongly vindicated.

We are not talking about the 18th century here. So talking about Gibbon is kinda useless here.

If you don't want to contribute and simply wants to attack all modern historians for being "politically correct", then kindly create another thread of your own and stop being a nuisance here.

[Ringeck]

Moses Finley had a huge impact in modern classical studies, I'd say. When not-entirely-informed people (many of them academics themselves) today want to attack the idea of technological stagnation in the roman empire, they tend to go for works of people like Lynn White, when it was in fact Finley, based on Polanyi and Weber, that argued and eventually won wide acceptance for his ideas of the consumer city and his idea of the ancient world's (and by extension, a great deal of the pre-modern/protestant world) preference for promoting personal and civic status as investment objects rather than investing in new technology and economic growth. He got an entire school of classical economic thought named after him. Even today, where that particular issue is in focus and there is a definite backlash against many of Finley's conclusions, there still hasn't been an equally influental work to compare to The Ancient Economy, even if there has been intensive critique of it after the 1990s.

[Fionn son of Cumhaill]

We are not talking about the 18th century here. So talking about Gibbon is kinda useless here.

If you don't want to contribute and simply wants to attack all modern historians for being "politically correct", then kindly create another thread of your own and stop being a nuisance here.

WOAH man relax theres no need to be snide. I agree with his viewpoint whole heartedly... Seeing as each historian is, for lack of a better phrase, standing on the shoulders of giants and as such there really is no influential modern historians on the Roman empire... Im sure in less well documented periods, per chance the Carolingian dynasty, there is room for maneouvre but noone could truly be considered influential in this period and on this topic because its been done to death and any historians who attempted it would be flogging a dead donkey as it where... While i dont dismiss modern academics on this topics i havent come across any respected historians that differ from the traditional interpretation on the subject,unless they do it for shock value and even then its not widely different from the traditional viewpoint... Its too well covered and today all one can do is knitpick on small anachronistic tendencies previous authors published and give a carbon copy of Gibbon et al's work with their own spin on it, ya know using vernacular language and more modern english to make it more accesable to modern students, and as such i havent come across anything ground breaking in my studies...yet

[ray243]

WOAH man relax theres no need to be snide. I agree with his viewpoint whole heartedly... Seeing as each historian is, for lack of a better phrase, standing on the shoulders of giants and as such there really is no influential modern historians on the Roman empire... Im sure in less well documented periods, per chance the Carolingian dynasty, there is room for maneouvre but noone could truly be considered influential in this period and on this topic because its been done to death and any historians who attempted it would be flogging a dead donkey as it where... While i dont dismiss modern academics on this topics i havent come across any respected historians that differ from the traditional interpretation on the subject,unless they do it for shock value and even then its not widely different from the traditional viewpoint... Its too well covered and today all one can do is knitpick on small anachronistic tendencies previous authors published and give a carbon copy of Gibbon et al's work with their own spin on it, ya know using vernacular language and more modern english to make it more accesable to modern students, and as such i havent come across anything ground breaking in my studies...yet

In what way are they repeating the views of the older generation of historians? The view that the Roman Empire starts to fell after the death of Marcus Aurelius?

What about all the research on the late Roman army in particular, or Africa during the late Imperial era? In what way is AHM Jones repeating the works of earlier historians? What about the work that was being done on the Roman Empire during the chaotic third century AD?

I don't think you have really read the works that being done by modern historians, if you seriously believe that modern historians are just repeating what Gibbon has to say.

[Fionn son of Cumhaill]

In what way are they repeating the views of the older generation of historians? The view that the Roman Empire starts to fell after the death of Marcus Aurelius?

What about all the research on the late Roman army in particular, or Africa during the late Imperial era? In what way is AHM Jones repeating the works of earlier historians? What about the work that was being done on the Roman Empire during the chaotic third century AD?

I don't think you have really read the works that being done by modern historians, if you seriously believe that modern historians are just repeating what Gibbon has to say.

While i dont claim to be an expert, or anything of the sort, on any kind of history from my education, and personal interest, ive only covered the Republican Period, The Diadochi (in excruciatong detail at this point) but the Imperial period is being left till third year in detail and to be honest it doesnt really matter to me if you believe my point is valid or not... Im too busy to get drawn into discussions at this point(ive got an exam tomorrow, Monday and Sunday and then ill be a free man to boost my e-peen and deflate others who take this whole internet thing a tad to seriously...when i dont have any real life things taking up my time) but i will keep an eye on this thread just out of curiousity and hopefully learn something new or have any really good books suggested to me(my college library only stocks books that are published in Western Europe and as a result of this i have to pay exorbitant prices in my local bookshop to order things over from the U.S. and Canada)so if you know anything feel free to name names!

[conon394]

Moses Finley had a huge impact in modern classical studies, I'd say. When not-entirely-informed people (many of them academics themselves) today want to attack the idea of technological stagnation in the roman empire, they tend to go for works of people like Lynn White, when it was in fact Finley, based on Polanyi and Weber, that argued and eventually won wide acceptance for his ideas of the consumer city and his idea of the ancient world's (and by extension, a great deal of the pre-modern/protestant world) preference for promoting personal and civic status as investment objects rather than investing in new technology and economic growth. He got an entire school of classical economic thought named after him. Even today, where that particular issue is in focus and there is a definite backlash against many of Finley's conclusions, there still hasn't been an equally influental work to compare to The Ancient Economy, even if there has been intensive critique of it after the 1990s.

Good call Ringeck His is the first name that came into my head last night, but I was too busy to post anything.

[Ringeck]

Good call Ringeck His is the first name that came into my head last night, but I was too busy to post anything.

I still think one of his points stand very solidly, namedly the rejection of using modern economic science theories on ancient (and medieval, and quite a lot of early modern) societies. We just don't have the necessary detail from the sources at hand, for one, and they, in themselves, didn't really have anything resembling real economic theory and could only in a very basic manner function as free-willed economic entities in the way modern economics assume they would. One runs the risk of launching a very banal argument, if one does otherwise.

[Odovacar]

G. Alföldy is another influential historian along with Michael Grant.

[Ludicus]

Yep, Michael Grant

[conon394]

I still think one of his points stand very solidly, namedly the rejection of using modern economic science theories on ancient (and medieval, and quite a lot of early modern) societies. We just don't have the necessary detail from the sources at hand, for one, and they, in themselves, didn't really have anything resembling real economic theory and could only in a very basic manner function as free-willed economic entities in the way modern economics assume they would. One runs the risk of launching a very banal argument, if one does otherwise.

Honestly I would beg to differ and put myself firmly in the camp of the post Moses revisionists. MI makes a great failure is expecting to find Marxists or mercantile theory stated verbatim and when he does not find it he finds no economic theory. Xenophon certainly states things as clearly as A Smith ever did. Demosthenes is clear bankers look to make money by using other peoples capital, and Aristotle and other do elaborate economic theory of one type or another (not just aristocratic gift exchange).

I like Finley but I think his economic arguments are like those of Eva Keuls and Naquet ones that let theory come first and dictate how a selective reading of evidence is used.

[Ringeck]

Xenophon certainly states things as clearly as A Smith ever did. Demosthenes is clear bankers look to make money by using other peoples capital, and Aristotle and other do elaborate economic theory of one type or another (not just aristocratic gift exchange).

My perception there is that we're mainly into wishful thinking land there (an abode occupied by many a scholar of premodern history on this subject at the moment - of any period). But that is a debate for another thread, and I am short on time.

[conon394]

My perception there is that we're mainly into wishful thinking land there (an abode occupied by many a scholar of premodern history on this subject at the moment - of any period). But that is a debate for another thread, and I am short on time.

Like I added I think its all to easy to allow preconception to color this issue. But I'm not exactly overwhelmed with time right now either and since this is drifting OT ... However I hope you might have a bit of time if I break this out to a new thread