04-04-2008, 01:57 PM
Martin,
Your initial argument was first of all to express surprise that 'someone of [my] qualifications' should be surprised to hear of 'evidence' for an invasion of Ireland, and then to assert that that must be because I'm not a specialist in Irish prehistory, the implication being that if I was then I would agree with you. In other words 'if you knew what you were talking about you'd know I was right'. Then you say you don't have time to set out your arguments but give a bibliography (from another work) and assert that if I read that I'd see that you were right, and then claim (incorrectly, I'm afraid) that everyone who does know about this period agrees with you and that there is more evidence for a Roman invasion than for a Celtic one (which really is just not true).
I don’t wish to cause offence, but that is not how one conducts an historical debate. If someone said to me "Guy I disagree with your reading of late Roman history and the barbarians; can you defend your view?" and I responded by saying "well, clearly you don't know what you're talking about; read everything on the 80-page bibliography to my book; then you'll know what you're talking about and thus see that I'm right" that would correctly be derided as the height of arrogance. If I took the tone of your reply somewhat amiss then that is why. I hope you can see that. Thanks for the apology, though.
You’re right: I am not a specialist on things Irish - I would not pretend to be - but I think I'm fairly well informed on the area as part of my work on the relationships between the Empire and the polities beyond the imperial limites, and indeed as part of my other early medieval historical research. Certainly your bibliography contained little that I wasn't aware of.
You state: “Granted, we've not found a dead Roman soldier buried in the middle of St. Patrick street in Cork with a piece of paper stuck in his hand saying "Go forth young man and kill the Paddy's [sic]" or "Guinness - by Royal appointment to his majesty Hadrian Caesar Augustus" but by the same token the writings and finds to date can hardly be described as circumstantial.â€
Your initial argument was first of all to express surprise that 'someone of [my] qualifications' should be surprised to hear of 'evidence' for an invasion of Ireland, and then to assert that that must be because I'm not a specialist in Irish prehistory, the implication being that if I was then I would agree with you. In other words 'if you knew what you were talking about you'd know I was right'. Then you say you don't have time to set out your arguments but give a bibliography (from another work) and assert that if I read that I'd see that you were right, and then claim (incorrectly, I'm afraid) that everyone who does know about this period agrees with you and that there is more evidence for a Roman invasion than for a Celtic one (which really is just not true).
I don’t wish to cause offence, but that is not how one conducts an historical debate. If someone said to me "Guy I disagree with your reading of late Roman history and the barbarians; can you defend your view?" and I responded by saying "well, clearly you don't know what you're talking about; read everything on the 80-page bibliography to my book; then you'll know what you're talking about and thus see that I'm right" that would correctly be derided as the height of arrogance. If I took the tone of your reply somewhat amiss then that is why. I hope you can see that. Thanks for the apology, though.
You’re right: I am not a specialist on things Irish - I would not pretend to be - but I think I'm fairly well informed on the area as part of my work on the relationships between the Empire and the polities beyond the imperial limites, and indeed as part of my other early medieval historical research. Certainly your bibliography contained little that I wasn't aware of.
You state: “Granted, we've not found a dead Roman soldier buried in the middle of St. Patrick street in Cork with a piece of paper stuck in his hand saying "Go forth young man and kill the Paddy's [sic]" or "Guinness - by Royal appointment to his majesty Hadrian Caesar Augustus" but by the same token the writings and finds to date can hardly be described as circumstantial.â€
Guy Halsall
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/hist/staff/halsall.shtml">http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/hist/staff/halsall.shtml
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/hist/staff/halsall.shtml">http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/hist/staff/halsall.shtml