07-29-2010, 04:42 AM
I think Goldsworthy’s approach is correct – in that it was probably a variety of political, military, social and perhaps even geographical reasons why the East survived – but I’m also not comfortable with some of his points.
Robert, regarding the capitals: yes, you make a great point. Actually, I wasn’t sure where Goldsworthy was going with the discussion of capitals. I almost didn’t list it because I was confused of where he was going with it. It wasn't a strong argument, to say the least.
Personally, I’m simply unable to judge on some issues at this point. (I need to “withhold assent,” as my namesake suggests. :wink: ) I said at the outset that I had never studied the late Roman army, for instance, so I had never heard of Anastasius’ reforms. If Gibbon mentioned them, I don’t remember it. The only thing I know about the reforms is what Goldsworthy said, so I would need to do significantly more research to try and judge if he has a case or not.
But anyway sometimes you learn a lot from books you don’t agree with, besides being entertained, so I still recommend it.
Robert, regarding the capitals: yes, you make a great point. Actually, I wasn’t sure where Goldsworthy was going with the discussion of capitals. I almost didn’t list it because I was confused of where he was going with it. It wasn't a strong argument, to say the least.
Personally, I’m simply unable to judge on some issues at this point. (I need to “withhold assent,” as my namesake suggests. :wink: ) I said at the outset that I had never studied the late Roman army, for instance, so I had never heard of Anastasius’ reforms. If Gibbon mentioned them, I don’t remember it. The only thing I know about the reforms is what Goldsworthy said, so I would need to do significantly more research to try and judge if he has a case or not.
But anyway sometimes you learn a lot from books you don’t agree with, besides being entertained, so I still recommend it.
David J. Cord
www.davidcord.com
www.davidcord.com
