|
|
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
Like most threads that one disappeared but I was going to reccomend my latest read, "The Balkans" by Misha Glenny. It is a history of the Balkan Pennisula dealing with the decline of the Ottoman Empire, the effect of the "Great Powers" on that area on up through the 1990's. I was left with what I think is a much better understanding of this highly misunderstood and critical area of the world today. Probably like most people I believed the much quoted myth that most of their problems are ancient and go back centuries.(Somewhat similar to the Israeli Palestine dispute) This myth is even quoted in the book. There is some truth in this myth, but most of the problems in the Balkan pennisula, can be traced to the meddlings of the Great Powers, and not so great powers. It gave me a completely new perspective on this area and period of time. In school I used to use Highlighters to note important passages and write notes on the liner. I seldom do this when reading for enjoyment because I think it is almost like vandalizing your book, but I wish I would have here. In fact I think you almost need a room with a dozen blackboards to write down who is in what country and what they are doing. Talk about a cast of thousands, this is it. Like Sailing from Byzantium, this easily could have been divided into several books. -- " "A Man must have a Code" The Bunk "Its what a war is. Once you in it you in it." Slim Charles "That Halibut is good enough for Jehovah!!! " Mathias, Son of Deuteronomy of Gath
|
Posts:
1,559
Registered:
10/18/05
|
|
(39 of 39)
Re: Roman Reader Revisited
Aug 26, 2009 8:32 PM
|
> aretzios wrote:
> > ... " So, without understanding the strong
> fissures of the Roman society, fissures that
> originally appeared after Rome's expansion in the
> East, one cannot understand Caesar and the Late
> Republic. The history of Rome was not one of
> personalities, it was one of mass movements.
> Julius Caesar would have been wildly unsuccessful in
> the fateful year of his consulship unless tens of
> thousands of Romans had not rallied to the cause,
> their cause, at the crucial time. Nor would Augustus
> would have managed to prevail against the Cassius and
> Brutus if the people of Italy did not man his armies
> because of their fear of the return of the repressive
> aristocrats. Those who knew how to ride the waves
> became successful but the waves were caused by a
> turbulent society."
>
> I question whether any period of history is really
> dominated by "mass movements" to the exclusion of
> dominant personalities if - by that term - you mean
> the majority of the population. To my mind, the
> majority of the populace (excluding government
> employees) seldom participates in national politics
> or activities in any meaningful way.
There was a misunderstanding here. I pointed out that mass movements are far more important than "dominant" personalities and that the given age restricts individuals. I simply reiterated Braudel's case here, not necessarily my own. And the term "mass movement" indicates a movement of a numerous group, not necessarily the totality of the society.
In addition, your view of "mass movements" is to a great degree bounded by your experience in the US in the last 60 years in which no particular mass movement of any note apart from the anti-Vietnam protests has taken place. This is not so in other contemporaneous societies that were influenced by a greater number of mass movements.
For example, the installation of democracy in Athens and many other cities was a mass movement that involved many (or most) of the average citizens. If they were going to stand in a phalanx next to the "aristocrats", they demanded equal rights..and they got them. Kleisthenes did not manage to get democracy started in Athens all on his own in the absence of a mass movement.
They are
> content to look after their own personal well being
> along with that of their families and (perhaps)
> tribes. Barring catastrophes such as pestilence,
> plague, famine and war these people are pretty much
> uninvolved. Always have been and ever will be, in my
> opinion.
Well, there is definitely a good amount of truth in that although one does not have to await pestilence and plague for a mass movement. The depression in the US sparked a number of mass movements some successful some not. The revolutionary situation that descended upon Rome in the middle of the 2nd century BCE was a mass movement unless you want to believe that it was all started with the Gracchi.
>
> There are, of course, relatively small groups within
> nations that adopt ideologies such as Marxism,
> sectarian religion, trade unionism, political
> affiliation and so on. Within these groups,
> charismatic personalities arise and are able to
> persuade (with the backing of their followers) the
> majority of the populace to accept their leadership.
Again, you are judging from the US and imperfectly so. First of all, unionism has decayed in the US and this is why corporate interests are beating the pants of the average worker, but it was once a mass movement. However, sectarian religion is a mass movement in the US and wields a substantial amount of power (it waxes and wanes but it is always there). Yes, personalities, charismatic or not, get to the leadership of these mass movements and have a certain influence but the influence is bounded by their capabilities and the limitations of the age.
> Would the history of Rome (or any other nation) have
> been the same without Julius Caesar, Augustus,
> Brutus, Cassius and the others we study?
I think that the answer to this is mostly yes. The revolutionary situation called for a leader and where Catiline failed, Caesar was successful. If Caesar was not, then another leader would have taken control for of the populares. The society would have descended to the elevation of a single ruler but, without Augustus, it may have had a different form. Societies have dynamics that are influenced partly by people but rarely do these people reverse the flow of history. For example, the British Empire was decaying since the last decade of the 19th century and series of charismatic leaders such as Loyd George or Churchill hardly managed to stop the decline; sometimes they managed it well, sometimes not. Thus, although Suleiman the Magnificent was a charismatic personality, even he could not transcend the limitation of the Ottoman state. The individuals that change history are very, very few. Off the cuff, I can only identify Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan but I am sure that a few more can be added to this list.
> Would the
> european WWII scenario have played out the way it did
> in the absence of Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini,
> Churchill and Roosevelt? Possibly, but possibly not.
Oh, yes, but not with the same details. There is little doubt that German desire for revenge would have sparked a new war but it would have been a very different war than what was actually fought. In the Pacific, the clash of the Japanese and American Empires was inevitable, so that war would have happened irrespective of anything going on in Europe.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,604
Registered:
10/30/05
|
|
(38 of 39)
Re: Roman Reader Revisited
Aug 26, 2009 3:50 PM
|
aretzios wrote:
> ... " So, without understanding the strong fissures of the Roman society, fissures that originally appeared after Rome's expansion in the East, one cannot understand Caesar and the Late Republic. The history of Rome was not one of personalities, it was one of mass movements. Julius Caesar would have been wildly unsuccessful in the fateful year of his consulship unless tens of thousands of Romans had not rallied to the cause, their cause, at the crucial time. Nor would Augustus would have managed to prevail against the Cassius and Brutus if the people of Italy did not man his armies because of their fear of the return of the repressive aristocrats. Those who knew how to ride the waves became successful but the waves were caused by a turbulent society."
I question whether any period of history is really dominated by "mass movements" to the exclusion of dominant personalities if - by that term - you mean the majority of the population. To my mind, the majority of the populace (excluding government employees) seldom participates in national politics or activities in any meaningful way. They are content to look after their own personal well being along with that of their families and (perhaps) tribes. Barring catastrophes such as pestilence, plague, famine and war these people are pretty much uninvolved. Always have been and ever will be, in my opinion.
There are, of course, relatively small groups within nations that adopt ideologies such as Marxism, sectarian religion, trade unionism, political affiliation and so on. Within these groups, charismatic personalities arise and are able to persuade (with the backing of their followers) the majority of the populace to accept their leadership.
Would the history of Rome (or any other nation) have been the same without Julius Caesar, Augustus, Brutus, Cassius and the others we study? Would the european WWII scenario have played out the way it did in the absence of Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Churchill and Roosevelt? Possibly, but possibly not.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,559
Registered:
10/18/05
|
|
(37 of 39)
Re: Roman Reader Revisited
Aug 22, 2009 1:29 AM
|
> Your evaluation of the works of Goldsworthy and his
> like not only seems to be "harsh opinion", it is so
> in fact. As I see it, Braudel and others from
> The Annales School set a historiographical
> l standard that is much too high for even the
> well-read to meet when perusing history for general
> personal background. Goldsworthy, Grant and similar
> authors are writing for the informed general public -
> not academia.
Hmmm...Braudel was not writing for academia either. In fact, there are hundreds of historical journals for any subject in which academics publish the results of their work. Braudel's book was addressing the general public and was meant to relay a very precise information about the Mediterranean world in the 16th century. However, Braudel used it to expound on several philosophical points such as the the influence of the individual in the development of history. He used the good example of Don Juan of Austria, a man of great ambition and some talent, as an example. So, irrespective of the talents of Don Juan, the fact that Lepando did not end up a much bigger disaster for the Ottomans were the limitations imposed on Don Juan by logistics, technology and politics of his age. It is an excellent essay within the book, worth reading.
> Besides, I'm not a believer that this general
> approach works all that well, particularly for
> ancient history. Although you don't agree, there is
> a paucity of quantitative data (upon which the
> Annales historians must depend) for Greco-Roman
> cultures and their peers.
I partly disagree. We have far more information than the trash that Goldsworthy is writing actually let you know. For example, we know very well all the period of inflaction, deflation, prices and price controls and many other details. You would be amazed of how much information is there. Take for example numismatics. There is detailed information of the number of coins found in Roman cities per strata and the numbers provide very good information regarding the financial impact of several crises. If you just want to have fun, go to the UC Berkeley library (you live close by, right?) and check out all the journals (dozens) on Roman history and archaeology published monthly. You would be amazed by the torrent of information.
> Also besides, The Annales School is largely
> French; hence, not to be trusted.
He, he. he....True enough in the beginning but I would say that most serious modern historians now subscribe to the notions of this school.
> >..."So, without understanding the strong fissures
> of the Roman society, fissures that originally
> appeared after Rome's expansion in the East, one
> cannot understand Caesar and the Late Republic. The
> history of Rome was not one of personalities, it was
> one of mass movements. Julius Caesar would have been
> wildly unsuccessful in the fateful year of his
> consulship unless tens of thousands of Romans had not
> rallied to the cause, their cause, at the crucial
> time. Nor would Augustus would have managed to
> prevail against the Cassius and Brutus if the people
> of Italy did not man his armies because of their fear
> of the return of the repressive aristocrats. Those
> who knew how to ride the waves became successful but
> the waves were caused by a turbulent society."
>
> While I generally agree with your concept, I am very
> skeptical that a comprehensive grasp of Roman culture
> at its core can really ever be attained. By this I
> mean that we will ever be limited as to what the
> "masses" really cared about or thought in ancient
> times. Only a scattered few writings survive and
> these were mostly created by a handful of authors.
> There were roughly 60 million Romans in the third
> d century CE. I'd bet that only a few thousand ever
> heard of Cicero or gave a damn.
Well, not true. Cicero had a long career in the courts and the courts were a "spectator sport". Plus, they voted for him as consul and that would have included some tens of thousands. He was around the Forum all the time, another spectator arena.
In any case, you would be surprised if you read a very academic analysis of Roman history, of how much information is out there. We certainly do not have as much information as we would like, but my guess is that for some crucial periods of Roman history, we have more than you think possible.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,003
Registered:
11/3/05
|
|
(36 of 39)
Re: Roman Reader Revisited
Aug 21, 2009 7:57 PM
|
> Although you don't agree, there is
> a paucity of quantitative data (upon which the
> Annales historians must depend) for Greco-Roman
> cultures and their peers.
It's quite one thing to determine factual events with certainty, i.e., when and where a particular battle took place and who was the victor. It's quite another to know, for example, what the life of a Roman slave was like. Much has been made of the "evidence" of tomb inscriptions indicating that some slaves were beloved members of their owners' families, but it's impossible to know how widespread those benign attitudes were. Those sort of things will in all likelihood never be known, which leaves a lot open to interpretation. That interpretation filters through the culture of whomever is writing about it.
> Also besides, The Annales School is largely
> French; hence, not to be trusted.
Oh, INDEED! ![]:)](http://boards.hbo.com/images/emoticons/devil.gif)
> I'm really curious as to how our perceptions of
> Cleopatra VII came to be as they are today.
Now, THIS would be a fascinating subject that would press a lot of hot political and psychological buttons!
To one extent or another, the character of a person living in antiquity can only be surmised, never completely known. That person must always be an object of the projections of the historian or dramatist who portrays them.
When that historical person is a woman, the projected portrait becomes even more suspect, informed as it must be by the (usually male) author's personal feelings about women and sex and his prevailing culture's assessment of women and sex.
I'm not implying that a female historian would be free of prejudice, sexual or political. Far from it! But an historiographical portrait of the study of Cleopatra would certainly be an interesting look at changing political and sexual mores.
Nomad
--
Edited by nomad661 at 08/21/2009 4:59 PM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
1,604
Registered:
10/30/05
|
|
(35 of 39)
Re: Roman Reader Revisited
Aug 21, 2009 5:31 PM
|
aretzios wrote:
>"...No, the Scullard text is not about historiography at all. It is a historical text. It is far more than an introductory overview of Roman history. Of course, any book that covers a period of 200 years, cannot go into a great level of depth, but the Scullard book is an excellent primer for understanding the social fractures of thte Roman society and comprehending the role of the individuals within it. In comparison, the Goldsworthy books are simple trash.
>This may seem like a harsh opinion, but I view historical evolution as a process of mass and social struggle within which the individual has a role but it is limited by the society and the circumstances. Thus, too much emphasis on the personality and not enough on the overall society and its pressure points makes events rather incomprehensible. For me, history should be written very much along the lines of Braudel's "The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World at the Age of Philip II". This is the paramount text of history of the 20th century but it may be a hard reading for some. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernand_Braudel "
Your evaluation of the works of Goldsworthy and his like not only seems to be "harsh opinion", it is so in fact. As I see it, Braudel and others from The Annales School set a historiographical standard that is much too high for even the well-read to meet when perusing history for general personal background. Goldsworthy, Grant and similar authors are writing for the informed general public - not academia.
Besides, I'm not a believer that this general approach works all that well, particularly for ancient history. Although you don't agree, there is a paucity of quantitative data (upon which the Annales historians must depend) for Greco-Roman cultures and their peers.
Also besides, The Annales School is largely French; hence, not to be trusted.
>..."So, without understanding the strong fissures of the Roman society, fissures that originally appeared after Rome's expansion in the East, one cannot understand Caesar and the Late Republic. The history of Rome was not one of personalities, it was one of mass movements. Julius Caesar would have been wildly unsuccessful in the fateful year of his consulship unless tens of thousands of Romans had not rallied to the cause, their cause, at the crucial time. Nor would Augustus would have managed to prevail against the Cassius and Brutus if the people of Italy did not man his armies because of their fear of the return of the repressive aristocrats. Those who knew how to ride the waves became successful but the waves were caused by a turbulent society."
While I generally agree with your concept, I am very skeptical that a comprehensive grasp of Roman culture at its core can really ever be attained. By this I mean that we will ever be limited as to what the "masses" really cared about or thought in ancient times. Only a scattered few writings survive and these were mostly created by a handful of authors. There were roughly 60 million Romans in the third century CE. I'd bet that only a few thousand ever heard of Cicero or gave a damn.
Ever thus, even today.
Nomad661 wrote:
>"Beagle, in my lexicon, "historiography" is the history of the study of history. In this sense, my interest is threefold; the history of Rome, the prevailing ideas at the time a particular history of Rome was written and how those ideas evolved over time and place.
>Historians cannot help but view history through the lenses of their own cultures, which vary significantly over time and place. I offered as an example that of the Soviet era historian who had what some might consider a very unusual take on the fall of Rome...unusual in the sense that it is one not encountered in capitalist democracies.
>Historiography informs on many levels, a discipline in itself."
I agree with your thoughts.
I'm really curious as to how our perceptions of Cleopatra VII came to be as they are today.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,003
Registered:
11/3/05
|
|
(34 of 39)
Re: Roman Reader Revisited
Aug 21, 2009 4:27 PM
|
> Nomad661 wrote:
> >..."I'd be interested in reading a book on the
> historiography of Ancient Rome if you ever run
> across one."
>
> aretzios responded:
> > ..."Oh, Nomad, this is a huge subject. If you
> can be more specific, I would be glad to oblige. In
> case you have not read it yet, here is my strong
> recommendation for the essential book of the late
> Republic: Scullard's "From the Gracchi to Nero" -
> http://www.amazon.com/Gracchi-Nero-History-Rome-133/dp
> /0415025273. I would not suggest that you read any
> text on Julius Caesar before reading this text, which
> is by now a classic."
>
> I'm not sure how the term "historiography" is
> being used here.
>
> I use that term to describe: "1. The principles,
> theories, or methodology of scholarly historical
> research and presentation." I don't suppose that
> would apply to Scullard's many works, (although I
> must admit to not having read any).
>
> As I understand it, "From the Gracchi to Nero"
> is basically an introductory overview of Roman
> history. It was originally published fifty years
> ago, for what that's worth.
Beagle, in my lexicon, "historiography" is the history of the study of history. In this sense, my interest is threefold; the history of Rome, the prevailing ideas at the time a particular history of Rome was written and how those ideas evolved over time and place.
Historians cannot help but view history through the lenses of their own cultures, which vary significantly over time and place. I offered as an example that of the Soviet era historian who had what some might consider a very unusual take on the fall of Rome...unusual in the sense that it is one not encountered in capitalist democracies.
Historiography informs on many levels, a discipline in itself.
Nomad
|
|
|
Posts:
1,559
Registered:
10/18/05
|
|
(33 of 39)
Re: Roman Reader Revisited
Aug 21, 2009 1:20 AM
|
;
> I'm not sure how the term "historiography" is
> being used here.
>
> I use that term to describe: "1. The principles,
> theories, or methodology of scholarly historical
> research and presentation." I don't suppose that
> would apply to Scullard's many works, (although I
> must admit to not having read any).
When I commented on historiography, I understood the term correctly and asked for a better definition of the request
> As I understand it, "From the Gracchi to Nero"
> is basically an introductory overview of Roman
> history. It was originally published fifty years
> ago, for what that's worth.
No, the Scullard text is not about historiography at all. It is a historical text. It is far more than an introductory overview of Roman history. Of course, any book that covers a period of 200 years, cannot go into a great level of depth, but the Scullard book is an excellent primer for understanding the social fractures of thte Roman society and comprehending the role of the individuals within it. In comparison, the Goldsworthy books are simple trash.
This may seem like a harsh opinion, but I view historical evolution as a process of mass and social struggle within which the individual has a role but it is limited by the society and the circumstances. Thus, too much emphasis on the personality and not enough on the overall society and its pressure points makes events rather incomprehensible. For me, history should be written very much along the lines of Braudel's "The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World at the Age of Philip II". This is the paramount text of history of the 20th century but it may be a hard reading for some. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernand_Braudel
So, without understanding the strong fissures of the Roman society, fissures that originally appeared after Rome's expansion in the East, one cannot understand Caesar and the Late Republic. The history of Rome was not one of personalities, it was one of mass movements. Julius Caesar would have been wildly unsuccessful in the fateful year of his consulship unless tens of thousands of Romans had not rallied to the cause, their cause, at the crucial time. Nor would Augustus would have managed to prevail against the Cassius and Brutus if the people of Italy did not man his armies because of their fear of the return of the repressive aristocrats. Those who knew how to ride the waves became successful but the waves were caused by a turbulent society.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,604
Registered:
10/30/05
|
|
(32 of 39)
Re: Roman Reader Revisited
Aug 21, 2009 12:10 AM
|
Nomad661 wrote:
>..."I'd be interested in reading a book on the historiography of Ancient Rome if you ever run across one."
aretzios responded:
> ..."Oh, Nomad, this is a huge subject. If you can be more specific, I would be glad to oblige. In case you have not read it yet, here is my strong recommendation for the essential book of the late Republic: Scullard's "From the Gracchi to Nero" - http://www.amazon.com/Gracchi-Nero-History-Rome-133/dp/0415025273. I would not suggest that you read any text on Julius Caesar before reading this text, which is by now a classic."
I'm not sure how the term "historiography" is being used here.
I use that term to describe: "1. The principles, theories, or methodology of scholarly historical research and presentation." I don't suppose that would apply to Scullard's many works, (although I must admit to not having read any).
As I understand it, "From the Gracchi to Nero" is basically an introductory overview of Roman history. It was originally published fifty years ago, for what that's worth.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,559
Registered:
10/18/05
|
|
(31 of 39)
Re: Roman Reader Revisited
Aug 20, 2009 6:46 PM
|
> Thank you for the greeting, Aretzios. Nice to see
> you still here. Who would have thought it??? 
>
> I scanned the Kindle edition, not read it yet. There
> appears to be nothing other than footnotes which are
> used to explain things like locations and modern
> names of places mentioned, definitions of currencies,
> etc.
> Translation by H.G. Dakyns. There is no index, no
> table of contents, even. Hey! What can I expect for
> .99 cents?
Why would one have to pay eve $0.99? These books are all in the public domain. I am sure that you would have been able to read it with Google Reader etc, although the Kindle may make for a better experience. If you have a laptop, you may want to load a number of readers to get access to a lot of copyright-expired material.
> I also ordered Adrian Goldsworthy's Caesar and
> How Rome Fell.
You know that I have been a rather severe critic of Goldsworthy "Caesar" and my negative review of his "How Rome fell" is in this threat in my answer to Beagle.
He is probably the worst of the "popular" historians. In previous threads I have indicated my own preferences for the biographies of Julius Caesar.
> I've read a number of books on
> both subjects.
> I'd be interested in reading a book on the
> historiography of Ancient Rome if you ever run > across
> one.
Oh, Nomad, this is a huge subject. If you can be more specific, I would be glad to oblige. In case you have not read it yet, here is my strong recommendation for the essential book of the late Republic: Scullard's "From the Gracchi to Nero" - http://www.amazon.com/Gracchi-Nero-History-Rome-133/dp/0415025273. I would not suggest that you read any text on Julius Caesar before reading this text, which is by now a classic.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,003
Registered:
11/3/05
|
|
(30 of 39)
Re: Roman Reader Revisited
Aug 20, 2009 4:48 PM
|
> Nomad, nice to hear from you. Is the electronic
> version of the "Anabasis" annotated? Actually, an
> annotated text would be great in an electronic format
> as one can click and read the annotations along with
> the text.
>
> The "Anabasis" is an amazing text and what is most
> captivating is that it was written by the actual
> protagonist. The sad part of course is that Xenophon
> himself was not a very nice human being. He was very
> much like a Victorian aristocrat with a deep and
> abiding disdain and mistrust of "hoi polloi". He did
> not hesitate to become a traitor and fight alongside
> Sparta against Athens because of his political
> orientation. In middle age, very much like these
> Victorian aristocrats, he joined the landed gentry,
> raising cattle and horses in a large estate near
> Olympia and writing books!!! Some notable books, many
> of which should also be available in English
> translation and very cheap are: "The education of
> Cyrus" (Kyrou Paedia), "on Hellenic
> Affairs" (Hellenika) and "The Apology of
> Socrates". Of course, we has written many others
> that we also have but they may not be easily
> available such as "On Horsemanship", "The Cavalry
> General", "On economic affairs", "the Constitution of
> Sparta" and others.
>
> In any case, Xenophon was actually a joy to read
> after Thucydides, because he wrote in simplified
> Attic which was becoming the basis of the Greek
> Common (Koine). His prose differs a bit but not
> dramatically from New Testament Greek. If anybody is
> attempting to learn or read in the original,
> Xenophon's texts are excellent exercises.
>
> --
Thank you for the greeting, Aretzios. Nice to see you still here. Who would have thought it???
I scanned the Kindle edition, not read it yet. There appears to be nothing other than footnotes which are used to explain things like locations and modern names of places mentioned, definitions of currencies, etc.
Translation by H.G. Dakyns. There is no index, no table of contents, even. Hey! What can I expect for .99 cents?
I also ordered Adrian Goldsworthy's Caesar and How Rome Fell. I've read a number of books on both subjects. The most amusing take I ever read on the "fall" of Rome was written by a committed Soviet-era communist. (Such that "committed" means "strident" and not "locked up in the mad house")! I don't remember his name.
I'd be interested in reading a book on the historiography of Ancient Rome if you ever run across one.
Nomad
|
|
|
Posts:
1,559
Registered:
10/18/05
|
|
(29 of 39)
Re: Roman Reader Revisited
Aug 18, 2009 12:29 PM
|
> Weeellll....testostereone notwithstanding (and I SO
> dearly love its scent), I have four new book
> recommendations from this thread, one of which (The
> Anabasis by Xenophon) is available in a Kindle
> edition for only .99 cents!
>
> Thank you, erm...gentlemen! 
>
> Nomad
Nomad, nice to hear from you. Is the electronic version of the "Anabasis" annotated? Actually, an annotated text would be great in an electronic format as one can click and read the annotations along with the text.
The "Anabasis" is an amazing text and what is most captivating is that it was written by the actual protagonist. The sad part of course is that Xenophon himself was not a very nice human being. He was very much like a Victorian aristocrat with a deep and abiding disdain and mistrust of "hoi polloi". He did not hesitate to become a traitor and fight alongside Sparta against Athens because of his political orientation. In middle age, very much like these Victorian aristocrats, he joined the landed gentry, raising cattle and horses in a large estate near Olympia and writing books!!! Some notable books, many of which should also be available in English translation and very cheap are: "The education of Cyrus" (Kyrou Paedia), "on Hellenic Affairs" (Hellenika) and "The Apology of Socrates". Of course, we has written many others that we also have but they may not be easily available such as "On Horsemanship", "The Cavalry General", "On economic affairs", "the Constitution of Sparta" and others.
In any case, Xenophon was actually a joy to read after Thucydides, because he wrote in simplified Attic which was becoming the basis of the Greek Common (Koine). His prose differs a bit but not dramatically from New Testament Greek. If anybody is attempting to learn or read in the original, Xenophon's texts are excellent exercises.
--
Edited by aretzios at 08/18/2009 9:30 AM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
1,559
Registered:
10/18/05
|
|
(28 of 39)
Re: Roman Reader Revisited
Aug 18, 2009 12:13 PM
|
> > > Aretzios and "Remarkable restrain" don't
> seem
> > to go
> > > together.
> > >
> > > long winded, over analyzed, pseudo
> > > intellect....that's another story
> altogether.
> > >
> > > It's like telling ghost stories in a
> way...huh?
> >
> > The only ghost story here is you who wants to
> > continue insulting me. I think that the rest
> here
> > can draw their conclusions regarding your
> infantile
> > behavior
>
> Yes....but I AM trying to be infantile. You see
> the problem is something you created by being what I
> can only think of as pompus and rude and going over
> the top. You included me by mistake and I am simply
> sick of being mixed up in your half baked posts.
How was it pompous and rude by giving a bad review to the Glenny book? Yes, it should have been a response to DavidDuval suggestion. So what? Where did you find any "pomposity" or rudeness in that comment? Glenny's books may sounded OK to those not aware of the history of Eastern Europe and even providing some new answers to some. But it is a journalistic and paternalistic mismatch of information. In any case, was this an excuse for you to attack me in such a manner? In fact, I think those who have read the thread can easily make up their minds of whose behavior has been rude here. I would suggest that apologies should be in order.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,003
Registered:
11/3/05
|
|
(27 of 39)
Re: Roman Reader Revisited
Aug 18, 2009 1:34 AM
|
Weeellll....testostereone notwithstanding (and I SO dearly love its scent), I have four new book recommendations from this thread, one of which (The Anabasis by Xenophon) is available in a Kindle edition for only .99 cents!
Thank you, erm...gentlemen!
Nomad
--
Edited by nomad661 at 08/17/2009 10:34 PM PDT
--
Edited by nomad661 at 08/17/2009 11:16 PM PDT
I'm not really editing this post, I'm testing to see why my signature line is not appearing.
--
Edited by nomad661 at 08/17/2009 11:18 PM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
3,056
Registered:
12/22/06
|
|
(26 of 39)
Re: Roman Reader Revisited
Aug 18, 2009 1:26 AM
|
> > Aretzios and "Remarkable restrain" don't seem
> to go
> > together.
> >
> > long winded, over analyzed, pseudo
> > intellect....that's another story altogether.
> >
> > It's like telling ghost stories in a way...huh?
>
> The only ghost story here is you who wants to
> continue insulting me. I think that the rest here
> can draw their conclusions regarding your infantile
> behavior
Yes....but I AM trying to be infantile. You see the problem is something you created by being what I can only think of as pompus and rude and going over the top. You included me by mistake and I am simply sick of being mixed up in your half baked posts.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,559
Registered:
10/18/05
|
|
(25 of 39)
Re: Roman Reader Revisited
Aug 18, 2009 12:31 AM
|
> Aretzios and "Remarkable restrain" don't seem to go
> together.
>
> long winded, over analyzed, pseudo
> intellect....that's another story altogether.
>
> It's like telling ghost stories in a way...huh?
The only ghost story here is you who wants to continue insulting me. I think that the rest here can draw their conclusions regarding your infantile behavior
|
|
|
|
|
