New Book from Adrian Goldsworthy: How Rome Fell

[Jona Lendering]

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.

It's pretty much an Anglosaxon phenomenon. German historians read English books, but American and British historians do not read German. Another aspect is that the British have a great tradition of writing biographies, but it was only in the 1970s that historians like Moses Finley showed the importance of the social sciences and their methodology.

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.

Weber's analysis is irrefutable, and Meyer - who was a really great scholar - admitted as much. I am afraid that your second option is the right one: Cartledge has never read a book on method, which makes one ask how he can have become a professor in Cambridge.

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.

A good editor... an extinct race. I am happy to own a book by a Dutch ancient historian containing more than 250 factual errors, more than half of them easily spotted by an editor up to his task.