Ilkka Syvanne's book Military History of Late Rome 284-361 (Pen & Sword) has been listed as close to publication for over a year now, but the release date keeps getting put back. Does anyone know if it's likely to come out this year?
Nathan, Ilkka contacted me a month ago and said that the book should be available by the end of this year.
Thanks Jyrki. I hope it is!
Quote:Amazon says November 19
It's the Amazon release dates that have been constantly changing - every time the publication date approaches it mysteriously jumps forward a few months!
The book was originally listed for publication in 2013. I presume there's been some problem either with publishing schedules or with the book itself, but I'm glad to hear that it should be finally available soon.
*EDIT - incidentally, Jyrki (or anybody else) - do you know if the focus of this book is more on the military developments of the period and the evolution of the army in detail, or is it more of an historical narrative of the campaigns of the era?
Pen and Sword says November 30
They also claim that The Military History of Late Rome 361-395 is due out at the same time.
Pen & Sword are now listing the publication date as 30th January 2015... :neutral:
Quote:Pen & Sword are now listing the publication date as 30th January 2015... :neutral:
:o
I see this book is now available at last! Has anybody read it?
http://www.pen-and-sword.co.uk/Military-...ack/p/4115
I'd be interested to know how and why Syvanne arges "that the Roman shift from infantry to cavalry as the dominant arm occurred considerably earlier than usually accepted". How much earlier, I wonder?
I am almost finished with about 20 pages to go. Those who admire Julian may find some questionable statements in this book!
There is a harsh but well-argued review on Amazon.com. I still like to read the book for myself, but if the quoted passages are indeed correct, the author seems to have made some 'high leaps of faith'!
(11-13-2015, 12:22 PM)Robert Vermaat Wrote: [ -> ]a harsh but well-argued review on Amazon.com.
I had skimmed through that, but hadn't read it carefully; nor had I read the lengthy correspondence following the review between reviewer and author, nor the long and very impassioned article by the author on academia.edu refuting the reviewer's points... All extrememely bizarre! And not, I'm afraid, likely to make me want to read the book...
I am almost finished now (tonight's bedtime reading!) and remain deeply conflicted over it. It appears to encapsulate some deep flaws over methodology and bias while also providing necessary correctives to certain inherited views. It also covers in depth a period not normally dealt with in military histories. I suspect that - to paraphrase Nennius - the book has become a heap of all that could be found . . .