07-29-2010, 05:34 PM
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 ).
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?
