|
|
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.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:
2,968
Registered:
12/22/06
|
|
(24 of 39)
Re: Roman Reader Revisited
Aug 17, 2009 11:45 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?
--
Edited by MarkMiller at 08/17/2009 8:47 PM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
1,187
Registered:
7/14/07
|
|
(23 of 39)
Re: Roman Reader Revisited
Aug 17, 2009 9:21 PM
|
*reminder for Alexios*
Stand back from that campfire. I don't want certain important parts...err, uh, chapters...to gets singed  .
|
|
|
Posts:
1,100
Registered:
12/13/04
|
|
(22 of 39)
Re: Roman Reader Revisited
Aug 17, 2009 7:23 PM
|
It sure is good to see people here having fun again. Sorry to have missed all the fun, but I just got back from seeing A Ride with Bob, which if you are not familiar with it it is a musical biography about Bob Wills cowritten by Ray Benson leader and Guiter Player for Asleep at the Wheel. We saw it in the Beautiful Spencer Theatre in Downtown Alto New Mexico (as close as you can get to downtown Alto, there is no downtown in Alto) Of course it was written for Asleep at the Wheel to play and play they do, mostly Old Bob Wills tunes (There are no New Bob Wills tunes) and it was very very good and funny. The audience probably averaged close to 70 and they were all rocking away.
If you are not familiar with Ray this little piece from the Musical tells a little about him.
"The premise is an imagined conversation between Benson and Wills. In it, Wills asks Benson how ?a Jewish boy from Philadelphia? can play western swing music. Benson responds: ?The same way that a white, hayseed hillbilly from the West Texas panhandle? can play, as Wills did, blues and jazz."
To which Bob replys I ain't no Hillbilly, There ain't no hills in West Texas.
Before you get down on the accuracy of the play, Ray himself did say at the end that 100% of their facts were about 90% correct, so in your reviews lets not forget that.
One good thing about the Internet is that anybody can post a review or opinion express an opinion and it does not matter what they have to back it up with. I would place a similar weight to Malinovski's review as I would to an Osama Bin Laden review of Leon Uris' Exodus, or perhaps a Uris review of Mein Kampf.
It is however very good to see everybody back to roasting weinies and gathering round the Campfire to sing some of those good old cub scout (and Brownie, have to be PC, can't sleight the ladies here) campfire songs, it just warms the heart.
--
Edited by DavidDuval at 08/17/2009 5:33 PM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
1,309
Registered:
3/8/07
|
|
(21 of 39)
Re: Roman Reader Revisited
Aug 16, 2009 9:18 PM
|
> > > *High fives Mark*
> >
> > Two self-satisfied immature jerks!!!
True, attempting to walk away from the online equivalent of a slap-fight between 6-year olds is the height of immaturity.
Anyhow, I thank Elare for bringing up Goldsworthy's latest (as I completely forgot about it!), and I'm quite happy to read that Beagle finds it a good read.
It was a treat to see Dr. Goldsworthy speak during a History Channel International special on the Battle of Cannae a few months ago; I only regret that he isn't featured more. I've read up on the man a bit, and he seems to be highly regarded as a gentleman as well as a historian.
--
www.pollywalkeronline.com
Now you are yourself, but not yourself; an ideal state for a meeting between lovers.
-Vargtimmen
|
|
|
Posts:
1,556
Registered:
10/18/05
|
|
(20 of 39)
Re: Roman Reader Revisited
Aug 16, 2009 8:46 PM
|
> > > *High fives Mark*
> >
> > Two self-satisfied immature jerks!!!
>
> If ever there was a post that proved a
> point.......it's this one.
>
> Let's forget that it's a personal attack and has no
> baring in the subject of his public criticism of
> another member incorrectly with no apology, but look
> directly at the words he uses and the the level of
> his...maturity.
And your personal attack and references to assholes had a bearing on the subject? And since when do you get to be so sanctimonious about "public criticism" (which it was not, it was a statement about a book) after launching an offensive personal attack on me? Did you bother to re-read your post? I reacted with remarkable restrain to your extreme provocation for no reason whatsoever. Not to mention Alexios, who had really no reason to butt in apart from taking the opportunity to launch an ad hominem attack.
And I would be very careful regarding "reporting" of anything like this considering the tone and the words you used in your attack against me.
> You have a very similar writing style and reaction
> level to another member here that posts very little.
I do not have dual identities in this board, I assure you. Whoever this other person is, maybe he/she is as upset by your behavior as I am.
> I think we can clearly see that the member Aritzios
> has stuck around to attempt to insult and disrupt
> these boards as much as possible. We a re done to a
> fine few that he insists on harassing and criticizing
> and chasing others away. I recognise what is going on
> here and I am not going to simply lay on the ground
> and be run over.
I have no intention of chacing anybody away. In fact, quite the opposite. I hope that more people participate in the discussions here.
> Aretzios behave yourself while you are here or expect
> to be reported for attempting to chase away members.
There are certain proverbs that come to mind here!!!
> You can have a critical view of Rome, though I have
> no Idea why you would want to be here if you dislike
> the HBO production. You can be critical of a book or
> film, but remember constant negative comments and
> replies become more than annoying. They are unwelcome
> and cause conflict.
And somebody appointed you here as the welcoming committee???? Or did you decide to take up the role all by yourself. I pay my subscription to HBO and I would use the boards and if you do not like my opinions you can disagree politely. Going into rants and curse words is not my thing, it is yours (check your post again). If you wanted more information as to my negative review of Glenny's books, fine....I still do not comprehend your outrageous response.
> You are doing all of this on purpose.
And what that may be????
> I wish you would just stick to the political boards
> and let others post here in the style and way that
> they are comfortable with without any further
> personal attacks.
You are empowered, as anybody else is, to ignore anything I post. This is fine with me. I can only post a bit of a text, I cannot do anything more than this. If you do not like what I am stating, you can disagree with me (and feel free to use as strident a tone as I adopt) or just go to another thread. What's the issue? Do you feel compelled to answer my posts?
Again, just check your comments to me and see if they were warranted or not. I am sure that you would find that they were not.
--
Edited by aretzios at 08/16/2009 5:46 PM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
2,968
Registered:
12/22/06
|
|
(19 of 39)
Re: Roman Reader Revisited
Aug 16, 2009 8:14 PM
|
> > *High fives Mark*
>
> Two self-satisfied immature jerks!!!
If ever there was a post that proved a point.......it's this one.
Let's forget that it's a personal attack and has no baring in the subject of his public criticism of another member incorrectly with no apology, but look directly at the words he uses and the the level of his...maturity.
You have a very similar writing style and reaction level to another member here that posts very little.
I think we can clearly see that the member Aritzios has stuck around to attempt to insult and disrupt these boards as much as possible. We a re done to a fine few that he insists on harassing and criticizing and chasing others away. I recognise what is going on here and I am not going to simply lay on the ground and be run over.
Aretzios behave yourself while you are here or expect to be reported for attempting to chase away members. You can have a critical view of Rome, though I have no Idea why you would want to be here if you dislike the HBO production. You can be critical of a book or film, but remember constant negative comments and replies become more than annoying. They are unwelcome and cause conflict.
You are doing all of this on purpose.
I wish you would just stick to the political boards and let others post here in the style and way that they are comfortable with without any further personal attacks.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,556
Registered:
10/18/05
|
|
(18 of 39)
Re: Roman Reader Revisited
Aug 16, 2009 4:23 PM
|
> Elare asked:
> >"Has anyone seen Adrian Goldsworthy's latest? (ed.
> "How Rome Fell" - 2009?) As most rave about
> his other books I'll have to get to it eventually,
> especially since I never made it through Gibbon years
> ago. ..."
>
> I started and am now continuing with it being about
> halfway through when recent tribulations put a hold
> on my reading.
>
> I'm enjoying it. I've also recently read "The
> Fall of Rome" (Bryan Ward-Perkins - 2005)
> and "The Fall of the Roman Empire" (Michael
> Grant - 1976, rev 1990).
>
> I'm fairly sure aretzios will disagree but I
> think Goldsworthy's books are at least as good as
> other contemporary authors on matters relating to
> Rome. I recommend all three although they cover
> pretty much the same ground and reach similar
> conclusions.
>
> Gibbons' book was written in the 18th century, if
> memory serves, and Grant's was originally published
> over thirty years ago. Some new insights and
> perspectives in the intervening years. I'd go with
> Goldsworthy if I had only one choice.
Well, Beagle, this is certainly your prerogative. However, I have long subscribed that neither Gibbon's views nor those of Grant, Goldsworthy and others who claimed that Rome "fell" because it was "weakened" by conflicts and social ills, were anywhere close to reality. This theory became fashionable for a variety of reasons (a subject of another discussion) despite the strong evidence against. It is a "western-centric" and "anglo-centric" notion that has lots to do with the prevailing morals of the societies in which this theory evolved. Facts were then molded to fit the theory.
In any case, let's make it clear that Rome did not fall. Certain western provinces were lost (some temporarily) to barbarians but if you were alive in 476 CE, it is unlikely that you would have thought that Rome fell. And 50 years later, the Empire reconquered Dalmatia, Italy, Africa and southern Spain. The imperial victories were so extensive that the Vandals and the Ostrogoths disappeared from southern Europe. In the 7t century, after a 30-year war, the Empire inflicted a crushing and mortal defeat on the Persian state, something that it was unable to do much earlier. At 1000 CE, the Empire was the strongest state in Europe and the Middle East with tens of thousands of heavily armed knights that could defeat (and did) all armies that could possibly arrayed against them. So, the "fall of Rome" is a wild exaggeration. Had Basil II not died in 1025 and had he been succeeded by somebody more capable than his brother, the empire would have again captured the rest of Italy (it usually ruled the south of Italy).
These were facts that were stressed by various historians (including Bury and others) that never subscribed to any "rot of the Roman Empire". Thus, many historians went back to re-examine the reasons for the loss of the western provinces and there have been some excellent works that provide really excellent insights to the Empire in the beginning, middle and end of the 5th century CE. I would strongle recommend Heather's "the Fall of the Roman Empire: a new history". In any case, one needs to really re-evaluate the huge challenges to the empire in its confrontation with the Huns in the North and the Persians in the East. Despite the empire throwing almost every army that it had against the Huns from 440 to 450 CE, it lost all the battles and virtually all fortified cities from the Danube to the gates of Constantinople. In additions, the Vandals were able to defeat the largest naval force of antiquity, a fleet of 1100 ships send against them. These devastating defeats for a period of almost 60 years had far more to do with the demise of the western emperors than any "societal rot".
In fact, in the early part of the 5th century, the Empire was much freer of "societal rot" than at any time previously. Constantine III had restored order in the west and despite the depletion of troops, the empire was slowly recovering from the long period of wars agains the Goths. Had Constantine III lived for another decade and had the Huns not appeared with devastating consequences, no "fall" would have occured.
It is a "truism" that Empires fall from "the inside". Empires throughout history have always been slow to adopt. It is difficult to shed what made a state successful. Regarding Rome, the past really was a drag. This is why I believe that Lendon's "Soldiers and Ghosts" is a great piece of work. It does not go as far as I wanted it to go, but it is an excellent piece of scholarship. So, when successful states face challenges to which they are not equipped to overcome, they fall, whatever the internal situation may be. For example, the Habsburg Empire did not fold because of any internal problems. It was as a ramshackle a state in 1918 as it was during the time of Maximilian II (1527 -1576). And if the US hegemory folds one day, it would not be because of any internal problems but because the opposition progressively adopts and the challenges become stronger.
--
Edited by aretzios at 08/16/2009 6:02 PM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
1,604
Registered:
10/30/05
|
|
(17 of 39)
Re: Roman Reader Revisited
Aug 16, 2009 3:45 PM
|
Elare asked:
>"Has anyone seen Adrian Goldsworthy's latest? (ed. "How Rome Fell" - 2009?) As most rave about his other books I'll have to get to it eventually, especially since I never made it through Gibbon years ago. ..."
I started and am now continuing with it being about halfway through when recent tribulations put a hold on my reading.
I'm enjoying it. I've also recently read "The Fall of Rome" (Bryan Ward-Perkins - 2005) and "The Fall of the Roman Empire" (Michael Grant - 1976, rev 1990).
I'm fairly sure aretzios will disagree but I think Goldsworthy's books are at least as good as other contemporary authors on matters relating to Rome. I recommend all three although they cover pretty much the same ground and reach similar conclusions.
Gibbons' book was written in the 18th century, if memory serves, and Grant's was originally published over thirty years ago. There have been some new insights and perspectives in the intervening years. Moreover, as many have noted, there was a host of reasons for the collapse of the Roman domination in the western empire. I don't think there's any right conclusion to the exclusion of others.
I'd go with Goldsworthy if I had only one choice of reading material on this subject.
--
I am, Beagle CMXIV: the author of this post; opinions expressed are always my own.
--
Edited by Beagle914 at 08/16/2009 1:01 PM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
298
Registered:
1/12/08
|
|
(16 of 39)
Re: Roman Reader Revisited
Aug 16, 2009 8:22 AM
Rate this post:
|
Since the air is so thick with testosterone I can barely breathe... I shall attempt levity. And an ACTUAL reader suggestion, just to prove I can occasionally stay on topic. Has anyone seen Adrian Goldsworthy's latest? As most rave about his other books I'll have to get to it eventually, especially since I never made it through Gibbon years ago. Here's a review:
How Rome Fell
|
|
|
Posts:
1,309
Registered:
3/8/07
|
|
(15 of 39)
Re: Roman Reader Revisited
Aug 16, 2009 1:27 AM
Rate this post:
|
Since I have no idea what aretzios just wrote, let me take a few guesses...
"Ya know, when you think about it, Mark really is spelled a lot like David."
"I'm in the wrong here."
"Rome really is good, I've just been stuck on opposite day for four years."
But then I realized what he must have been so eager to tell us:
"OMG, I can't wait for Twilight: New Moon!!"
Please, someone let me know if I got it right.
--
Edited by AlexiosTheFirst at 08/15/2009 11:01 PM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
1,556
Registered:
10/18/05
|
|
(14 of 39)
Re: Roman Reader Revisited
Aug 15, 2009 11:56 PM
|
> *High fives Mark*
Two self-satisfied immature jerks!!!
|
|
|
Posts:
1,309
Registered:
3/8/07
|
|
(13 of 39)
Re: Roman Reader Revisited
Aug 15, 2009 9:57 AM
Rate this post:
|
*High fives Mark*
Now Mark, what did you like about that Norwhich book? My favorite story concerned the saga between Emperor Nikephoros II Phokas, his wife the Empress Theophano, and her lover and Nikephoros' nephew and general, John Tzimiskes. No doubt the contemporary historian, Leo the Deacon, embellished certain things about it, but like Suetonius/Tacitus' material for 'I Claudius' it would make for great historical drama. I'd love to see a depiction with the three of them as leads.
--
www.pollywalkeronline.com
Now you are yourself, but not yourself; an ideal state for a meeting between lovers.
-Vargtimmen
|
|
|
Posts:
2,968
Registered:
12/22/06
|
|
(12 of 39)
Re: Roman Reader Revisited
Aug 15, 2009 1:49 AM
|
Screw it.
--
Edited by MarkMiller at 08/15/2009 3:16 AM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
1,556
Registered:
10/18/05
|
|
(11 of 39)
Re: Roman Reader Revisited
Aug 15, 2009 12:59 AM
|
> A recap:
>
> David (aretzios misidentifies Mark as the author of
> the post) recommended a book which aretzios insists
> is garbage but then provides no reason why. The
> interesting thing is that a cursory glance proves
> that most online reviewers liked or at least found
> some value in the book. An explanation why it is
> "punk history" would have been helpful, but not to be
> expected from someone who was always more comfortable
> lobbing stones down at the group from his crystal
> palace.
>
> I thought the amusing thing is Mark recommended
> Norwich's Short History of Byzantium (which is a fine
> introduction to one of the most overlooked areas of
> history), which is something I would have expected
> aretzios would have jumped on as garbage; perhaps he
> did in that second of the back-to-back post: I
> wouldn't know because aretzios is thankfully ignored
> by my account--and that brings me to my last point!
>
> David, I love that you created this new thread and
> offered up a recommendation, and it's great that
> LadyC and Mark have joined in, and I have some yay
> and nay recommendations of my own which I promise I
> will post in the next few days.
>
> But please, Mark, and any others, do not quote
> aretzios' posts; I have no desire to read them. In
> fact I strongly recommend none of you read his posts
> anymore either.
>
> The essential conundrum was always that if one were
> to engage Aretzios in serious discussion all the
> points that person made that he disagreed with he
> would condescendingly rebut, and any points the other
> person made which Aretzios did agree with he would
> just state as a matter-of-fact "Of course, I already
> knew that." Then these tactics would drive away
> people from engaging in him, so he would grow bored,
> or frustrated, until his next round of
> passive-aggressive attacks succeeded in provoking
> fresh meat
It is really amazing that although I did no insult anybody, both you and Mark felt justified in enganging in insulting ad hominem attacks against me that say more about your insecurities and inadequacies than anything about me.
It is true that I did not have the time to enter specifics regarding the book on the Balkans by Glenny (who is not a historian) but a cursory look actually finds a number of negative reviews. Here is one from Amazon, that I share very much (having read the book)
-------------
Quasi-rhetorical compendium with a too broad scope., April 24, 2003
By Igor Malinovski (Skoplje, FYR Macedonia) - See all my reviews
While no doubt can be cast upon the fact that Glenny collected an impressive cluster of material, the particular brand of "crystallization process" in the narrowest sense of the first expression, when juxtaposed vis-a-vis journalistic template, inherently brings lack of a goal-acomplishing purpose .While the goal is precisely outlined, subservient to it is a kind of "going nowhere", purely stylistic attempt to recollect - undoubtedly for any post-festum reader - chosen, ad hoc fragments of historic, ethnologic, journalistic bits into "Yin-Yang" harmonization of moral (!) implications of various factors examined in this publication, one that is leaning toward objective more that several, obviously agitprop books, whose appearance"incidentally" was concordant in time with major realpolitik exercises.
More of concrete nature can be written that debunks liberal-mannerism of Glenny, including a list of otherwise non-controversial mistakes within the publication's factography-and there are plenty of these-, but that would be an over-extensive itemization.Other significant dimension gone entirely wrong is the subtle, almost subliminal agitation within the more monadic units of the books, dealing with certain particularity toward which an author of his vast knowledge, one anticipates, could have had a more synergic approach, rather than alignment with conformism within foreign schools of Balkan, leading among which is Pan-Germanic.All this combined with the belletristic tone of the 19th century traveler-through-exotic-land type, in some cases going to the "Lombrosoisms" (not once in the part of Author's opus!), for example,when describing fmr.Yugoslav Minister: "round serbian peasant face"-p. 573, straightens the impression of overbearing, archaic ribaldry.
Misha Glenny has powerful hallmark imprinted on his monographic works, and in many cases something resembling ad hominem criticism is inevitable.If the book is to be scrutinized on it's own merits, the definition would be "a large reader of Balkan History's part that rendered the word 'Balkanism', crafted in a picturesque, broad-brushed manner by brush immersed in anecdotes and too attached to the subject substance, rather then one made of facts, logic and free and also holistic interpretation".
Recommendable for certain aspects, from better to ones of lesser value: wide panorama, jargon-free style, efficient transition among events.Yet it is too paternalistic, gentlemanly but paternalistic to the Balkan (yes, it is an anthropomorphic entity in the book, too).It could be used by scholars and student armed with skepticism and solid database, but not as a final statement on a matter.Also recommendable as a primer for anybody interested in the outlined themes, with the same warning regarding the imploring incredulity.
-------------------------------
In any case, if one wanted additional details from me, one just had to ask. I gave a negative review to the book, and look all the insecurities and inadequacies that surfaced. That some may have found it interesting says more about the lack of knowledge of this part of the world but most who would be tempted to read this book, than about the book itself. There are hardly any authoritative texts on the evolution of the modern Balkans and certainly very little for their evolution from the 16th century onwards. Authoritative individual histories are far more difficult to come by (on Serbia, Romania, Albania, Montenegro, Croatia etc. etc). The best text that comes somewhat close is Fine's "The Late Medieval Balkans". His book on the "Early Medieval Balkans" is an afterthought
As for Norwich's book on Byzantium, I have nothing against it because Norwisch clearly states that it is not an academic historical text. For a summary of the Eastern Roman state, I far prefer the very authoritative "History of the Byzantine Commonwealth" by Ostrogorsky (which is short enough), which remains to this very day the best summary text on Byzantium.
And gentlemen, you should be ashamed of yourselves.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,968
Registered:
12/22/06
|
|
(10 of 39)
Re: Roman Reader Revisited
Aug 15, 2009 12:47 AM
|
> > Aretzios, I don't mind that your an asshole
> > sometimes. I really don't, but it's the actual
> > stupidity that gets me.
>
> I do not know who is the real asshole here. I think
> that it is you. I found your comments amazingly
> offensive for what was a simple mistake. Yes, it was
> not you that posted the original statement but
> couldn't you just mention this? What caused all this
> amazing and offensive outburst? The book I commented
> on deals with recent affairs in the Balkans and it is
> not a history text. I objected on some of the
> political angles in this book that are very
> insidiously projected. That was all. It is you who
> have issues and it is time to really read your post
> and question as to why you reacted in this manner
> because of my take on a particular book!!!
>
> Amazing!!
You need to reassess you mouth, your attitude and why it is you came here. I am sick of your shit.
If you have nothing better to do than harass the members here, it is time you are reported for it.
You have no redeeming value as a member here. I have had a number of conversions cut of on threads because people DO NOT LIKE YOU.
You never try to be friendly, you simply disrupt.
You are absolutely in the wrong, got caught for it and still refuse to apologise?
Get a grip!.
|
|
|
|
|
