Is this the most outrageous statement in a book?

[sonic]

I would assume ValVict. is talking of the assumption that the De Rebus was 1. actually read by valens; 2. dated so securely.

Or 3. that Valens had a "rather deficient strategic knowledge" which he apparently could supplement "with the new manual 'De rebus bellicis'". hock:
A) Valens was too ambitious, but his strategic abilities (at least our views on them) are heavily influenced by the unfortunate outcome of his last battle, not those before that.
B) There is hardly any strategic knowledge to be had from this manuscript. It's a nice booklet, but written by someone whose knowledge was on the financial side. Perhaps a banker with a hobby. :twisted:

I agree with Robert here. I'm currently doing research on Valentinian and Valens (yes - it's for the new book :roll: ) and am starting to doubt all of the 'bad' things I've read about Valens. It seems that everything is based on a combination of a negative comparison to Valentinian and the loss at Adrianople.

Further, the De Rebus Bellicis doesn't necessarily include what Lenski assumes it includes.

I also agree with Nik. I have found numerous 'mistakes' in many books I have read (sadly including my own: Stilicho - it's about half way down the page) but that shouldn't necessarily make you discard the whole book - a concept that should really be known as 'baby-bathwater syndrome'! If you agree with what Lenski says and what he says makes sense, why not reference it? In even the most 'outrageous' of books can be found the germs of valuable ideas!