Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
New Book from Adrian Goldsworthy: How Rome Fell
#31
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.
David J. Cord
www.davidcord.com
Reply
#32
Well, David, Goldsworthy leaves much of that variety aside. How much does he really discuss about society? About religion? Even in his military and political topics he is often forgetful.

This review is somewhat closer to how I found the book.

The geographic argument is difficult to maintain. "Yet it was easier to deal with a single neighbouring king than a large number of competing chieftains and war leaders" is one of his claims, and this is not only counter-intuitive, but unjustified. Whenever the Romans lost seriously ground in the East it was in front of united powers, not competing tribes: Avar qaganate, Sassanid Persia, the tide of Islam. Also the Huns were a major threat under Attila, not when they were splintered in factions. Even so, east of Bosphorus there was not only a Sassanid Persia, as the author wants us to believe, so maybe we should be reminded of the Arab conquest (which he mentions at page 403 with a disappointing end-note). Moreover the siege of Constantinople from 626 (even if Goldsworthy's chronology ends in 640, this major event is overlooked in the book) should be proof enough that geography worked against the Romans, with their territory being overrun from two different directions, by two different enemies.

Speaking of Arabs, they were one of those "barbarian groups" permanently settled in the Eastern Roman territory, of which Goldsworthy apparently doesn't know (see W. E. Kaegi's Byzantium and the early Islamic conquests ).
Drago?
Reply
#33
I'm halfway through it and getting more fed up with every chapter that I finish.. :evil:
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Rome and parthia book Quintus Aurelius Lepidus 1 1,164 08-29-2013, 04:40 PM
Last Post: Nathan Ross
  Book on History Of Rome Narukami 5 2,387 12-28-2012, 03:49 AM
Last Post: ANTONIVS MAGNVS
  Cannae by Adrian Goldsworthy ParthianBow 3 1,723 11-20-2012, 06:43 PM
Last Post: Gaius Julius Caesar

Forum Jump: