New Book from Adrian Goldsworthy: How Rome Fell

[sonic]

I think not. Most Anglosaxon historians, professionally trained or not, are unaware that the study of history involves working knowledge of things like: what is an explanation? how do you establish what is comparable and what is not? what is a fact? how do you find out which examples are representative?

Why only 'Anglosaxon' historians? Many people, whether they consider themselves to be historians or not, continue to work in ignorance of the more scientific approach to history.

Paul Cartledge's opinions about Thermopylae are a case in point. More than a century ago, Ed. Meyer argued that the Persian Wars had been decisive: had the Persians won, we would not have seen Athenian democracy, freedom, philosophy, the arts. Max Weber showed that this was unsound reasoning. He mercilessly pointed at Meyer's logical fallacies. Now we see that Cartledge repeats the nonsense of Meyer.

It may be that Cartledge did not agree with you about Weber's 'merciless' analysis and decided instead that he agreed with Meyer. Or maybe that he has not read Weber and has failed to recognise that there are concerns regarding the analysis.

This either means that he is unaware that logic happens to be an element of science and scholarship, or that he is simply a bad historian.

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. Maybe it's just part of human nature to want history to follow a set pattern, and that we then mould history to the pattern rather than forming the pattern around history?

No doubt I also fall into the same trap.