New Book from Adrian Goldsworthy: How Rome Fell

[D B Campbell]

I would not accuse anyone of being a 'bad' historian, simply because that is based upon personal judgements and preferences. However, I will completely agree with you that there are many who appear to be unaware that logic is a key element of historical scholarship. Too often have I read works in which authors contradict themselves logically without appearing to realise it.

That's just bad writing, Ian. A good editor should notice that sort of thing.

I think Jona means something different: one element is trying to write about a topic without sufficient awareness of the wider context. The "good" historian will generally only write about his/her specialist subject. This is a good thing because they have researched the subject in detail, they are aware of any controversies, they are in touch with recent (even unpublished) developments, and (generally) they are moving from a general knowledge to a particular expertise. (If I have understood Jona correctly ...)

Of course, there is nothing wrong with someone who has a peripheral interest in, say, Demetrius Poliorcetes, then writing an article on that subject for a history magazine, say Ancient Warfare. But the resulting article will have less credibility, and should be subjected to less stringent criticism, than the considered work of an historian whose specialist subject is (say) Demetrius Poliorcetes. :wink: There are historians, and there are the rest of us who happen to write about history.