05-02-2001, 03:58 PM
I am quite familiar with the work, but can make no claim to be an academic and really cannot say how it is viewed in those circles. My professor commented that it was a slightly 'odd' work, but did not really go into the matter.<br>
<br>
Regarding the work, it was one of the principle secondary sources I used to help clairify Ammianus. His maps were especially invaluable, as I had no access to detailed maps of the region around Ctesiphon. In fact, the only other detailed map of that area I could find was a copy of pilots maps from the gulf war. Interestingly enough, most of the cities Matthews lists are shown as ruins on the modern maps.<br>
<br>
I understand your pattern of reading it; the author has an alarming tendency to go on multi-page tangents. He does seem to back up his conclusions with logic and facts, unlike many other authors.<br>
<br>
WWB <p></p><i></i>
<br>
Regarding the work, it was one of the principle secondary sources I used to help clairify Ammianus. His maps were especially invaluable, as I had no access to detailed maps of the region around Ctesiphon. In fact, the only other detailed map of that area I could find was a copy of pilots maps from the gulf war. Interestingly enough, most of the cities Matthews lists are shown as ruins on the modern maps.<br>
<br>
I understand your pattern of reading it; the author has an alarming tendency to go on multi-page tangents. He does seem to back up his conclusions with logic and facts, unlike many other authors.<br>
<br>
WWB <p></p><i></i>
