Legions of Rome

[Jona Lendering]

It's a very difficult problem to solve.

I beg to differ. We pay our universities. The problem is theirs, and they have the means to solve it. The problem is that they refuse to do so.

[Praefectusclassis]

Hi Jona
Yes, I left that out as I discussed only the commercial markets. I beg to differ that it's the fault of the universities. The answer lies in political decisions (and thus: criteria) about what a university ought to do. At the moment a university that chooses to use its means to reach out to the general audience, shoots itself in the foot.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

I am in disagreement where Tom Holland and his so called danger is positioned by Jona.

History needs its narrative authors, if only to make the subject more interesting for future generations.

Same with Adrian Goldsworthy, Fik Meijer and other authors who use a mixture of narrative history, proper research combined with the joy of painting an image of what it might have been like back then.
Of course Gibbon is still read, because he wrote superbly, and really makes the reader feel the undertone of his work.
So 19th century ideas are not all bad, and overspecialisation in a subject is, as jona also put correctly, devastating to the grander view, the larger inter and intraregional aspects of history, especially classical history.

I for one think it is a good thing that people still write popular history for the masses.
Let the narrow viewed scholar write for his peers, and the open minded broader scholar write for everyone remotely interested in history itself.

Historical research will not get worse by university standards, since enough people are trained still in the techniques.
I personaly would like a new view on history alltogether, a historian who is not only historian, but also uses multidisciplinary tricks and trades...
Someone who is broad minded, knows how to interpret archaeological, social, philosophical and other disciplines and is able to use those disciplines
combined to get to a point in his or her research.

The more you narrow your view, the less space there is for originality, new theories, and breakthrough science.

If as a teacher on a secondary school i dont spice up the historical facts with anekdotes, stories, try to paint a picture for and with my
pupils of a certain era, how in the hell can i make history interesting at all ?

That is why we need narrators, re-enactors, archaologists, scientists, scholars, and people from lots of other disciplines to come together and
renew history and the way we view it.

The reason we all laugh about Dando Collins is his clame on definitiveness... The definitive history of the Roman legions, and other such claims, and maybe also some of his strange conclusions based on bad research...
The difference with von Daniken and other pseudo scholars who wrote massively entertaining nonsense is that some of the newer authors write nonsense with a claim on thorough research, as if they are scholars (cf Dan Brown and his bullsh*t)

The reason Universities do not seem to adhere to trouble in the scientific world is not only one of money, but also the fact that most institutions are back-logged massive mastodonts which move in slower ways than a snail on the tracks of Circus Maximus...
Scholars often overstate their own self-importance and knowledge of a certain subject, and by this unbending attitude, scare away students and others who might indeed have grown into world class scholars. Its a self fulfilling prophecy to say the least.

We need new blood, radical new ideas, and people who bring the fun back in scholarship and research, and above all, in history.

M.VIB.M.

[Jona Lendering]

At the moment a university that chooses to use its means to reach out to the general audience, shoots itself in the foot.

On the contrary, I think/hope: they will make a lot of money and have an awful lot of "soft publicity" if they invest in good books.

If I look at the costs and profits of my own books, and if I look at what those page-sized advertisements in the newspapers cost, I think that universities should spend their money on nice and good books, and earn money instead of spending it on advertisements...

I am in disagreement where Tom Holland and his so called danger is positioned by Jona.

He has not read the books he claims to have read, and has made himself -perhaps unintentionally- a parrot, repeating propaganda claims of the late Shah. Whatever you think about narrative history, it may never become tainted with politics.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

Of course, You are right that politics should never come into the equasion, but so far i have only read Rubicon and that was quite thorough imho.

His views on ancient Persia/Parthia/Seleucia i do not know.

M.VIB.M.

[Narukami]

I have read both of Holland's books in question (Rubicon and Persian Fire) and I did enjoy the former much more than the latter. Now I attributed this to my deeper interest in Rome than Persia, but in reading Jona's critique of Persian Fire it seems clear there are some problems with that book's scholastic roots (so to speak).

Perhaps Holland was on firmer ground or more familiar with the territory of Republican Rome than he is ancient Persia. Or it my be that the success of Rubicon induced Holland to crank out another book without spending sufficient time doing the research. This is really a shame for it is a fascinating topic and Holland writes enticing prose. As Neil Faulkner put it in the notes to his book Rome: Empire Of The Eagles, "T. Holland's Rubicon has been deservedly praised: when has Roman history ever been such a compelling and convincing read?" (It should be noted, for the sake of full disclosure, that Faulkner and Holland worked together on a TV series so there may be some bias in that judgement.)

You make several good points Jona, and I agree with you that we must be vigilant lest we lose history to those who would re-write it for their own ends, political or economic.

However, I do think that Holland's book Rubicon is a better introduction to the history of the Late Republic than say the HBO/BBC series Rome, or any number of films like Gladiator.

Finally, I bow once again to the scholarship on this site -- I am reminded, almost on a daily basis, just how much more I have to study. :oops:

:wink:

Narukami

[Tim Edwards]

On his website:

?Exploding myths such as Caesar’s bulls, Octavian’s Capricorn, and the ‘universal’ thunderbolt emblem.

Which myths are these..?

[Graham Sumner]

Hi

In all honesty I have never read any of the books by S. Dando Collins!

(Adopts Brian Blessed's voice from I Claudius or even Frankie Howard's from Up Pompeii)

"Do I detect some titters!"

Graham.

[Narukami]

Hi

(Adopts Brian Blessed's voice from I Claudius or even Frankie Howard's from Up Pompeii)

"Do I detect some titters!"

Graham.

"A radish may know no Greek, but I do."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzh8xr25 ... re=related

:wink:

Narukami

[D B Campbell]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzh8xr25S...re=related

Wonderful stuff - Brian Blessed will always be Augustus.

[mcbishop]

Wonderful stuff - Brian Blessed will always be Augustus.

No, Brian Blessed will always be Brian Blessed, whatever the role. i think what you mean is Augustus is forever doomed to be Brian Blessed! ;-) ) Difficult to trump that death-bed scene, though.

Mike Bishop

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

Excuse me?

Augustus



Brian Blessed



Max Pirkin



I know who i'd vote for.....

M.VIB.M.

[D B Campbell]

Excuse me?

Who's the bloke at the top? Augustus I recognise in the middle! :wink: (And Midshipman Blakeney at the bottom.)

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

LOL !!!

well this also would have been a good one to play Augustus.





M.VIB.M.

[Graham Sumner]

Hi

Not as good as Roddy, who then went on to play a chimp called Cornelius!

Graham.