Ancient History
Akenson, D.H. (1998). Surpassing wonder: the invention of the Bible and the Talmuds. McGill-Queen’s University Press.
The latest book from the master of the Irish diaspora. Akenson wrote an earlier book that I liked very much about the Irish Protestants, Israelis, and Afrikaners (all people who have a convenant with God). This book is about the parallel development of Christianity and Judaism from the Yahwehist beliefs of the late second Temple times (pre-CE 70).
Akenson writes with grace and authority. He loves these texts. However, he is very critical of the majority of biblical scholars (basically he believes that they do not rigorously and objectively enough apply historical methodology). Although much of what Akenson says is sound, my sense is that he is a bit too critical of biblical scholars, such as those represented in the Jesus Seminar. For example, he severely criticizes the Jesus Seminar’s measurement and use of inter-scholar agreement. Akenson’s basic point that agreement cannot establish historical accuracy is well taken, if elementary, but misses the value of this sort of exercise. By establishing what scholars agree not to be veridical and, more importantly, by presenting the evidence that supports this consensus, a great deal of progress can be made.
Akenson describes the method of religious textual invention that characterizes Christianity and Judaism (never say it’s new, always say it’s an old part of the original Yahwehist tradition; attribute it to an authoritative source, and so forth). Both religions are convincingly interpreted as essentially being responses to the final destruction of the temple.
A good book, although a bit repetitious. Lots about the Talmuds that are unfamiliar to most people raised as Christians. Ultimately, I didn’t like this book as much as some others on similar topics, such as the shorter but riveting Who Wrote the Bible?
The latest book from the master of the Irish diaspora. Akenson wrote an earlier book that I liked very much about the Irish Protestants, Israelis, and Afrikaners (all people who have a convenant with God). This book is about the parallel development of Christianity and Judaism from the Yahwehist beliefs of the late second Temple times (pre-CE 70).
Akenson writes with grace and authority. He loves these texts. However, he is very critical of the majority of biblical scholars (basically he believes that they do not rigorously and objectively enough apply historical methodology). Although much of what Akenson says is sound, my sense is that he is a bit too critical of biblical scholars, such as those represented in the Jesus Seminar. For example, he severely criticizes the Jesus Seminar’s measurement and use of inter-scholar agreement. Akenson’s basic point that agreement cannot establish historical accuracy is well taken, if elementary, but misses the value of this sort of exercise. By establishing what scholars agree not to be veridical and, more importantly, by presenting the evidence that supports this consensus, a great deal of progress can be made.
Akenson describes the method of religious textual invention that characterizes Christianity and Judaism (never say it’s new, always say it’s an old part of the original Yahwehist tradition; attribute it to an authoritative source, and so forth). Both religions are convincingly interpreted as essentially being responses to the final destruction of the temple.
A good book, although a bit repetitious. Lots about the Talmuds that are unfamiliar to most people raised as Christians. Ultimately, I didn’t like this book as much as some others on similar topics, such as the shorter but riveting Who Wrote the Bible?
Alexander, C. (2009). The war that killed Achilles: The true story of Homer’s Iliad. Toronto: Penquin.
Alexander presents a readable but extensive review of the Iliad, adding her own retranslations where appropriate. One would think that everything that could be said has been said about one of the most famous books in the world but, it turns out, not so. In the not so distant past, the Iliad was used to glorify the heroic martial tradition in support of imperialist wars. The author shows, however, that this glorification was achieved by very selective quotation. Homer’s epic, she argues, subverted traditional martial epics.
Homer was in fact anti-war. For example, Achilles complains in his quarrel with Agamemnon—“What am I doing here--the Trojans never did anything to me.” A sentiment echoed centuries later by Muhammad Ali in his refusal to fight in the Vietnam War. As for eternal glory and renown achieved by dying bravely in battle, Homer implies that most warriors are in fact not remembered forever. After his death, Achilles concludes the epic by remarking to Odysseus in his visit to Hades that he would rather be a live landless ploughman than a dead king of the dead. Ultimately, Homer depicts both Greeks and Trojans as big losers in the big war.
I fundamentally do not understand the minds of bronze and iron age Greeks. As depicted by Homer, the gods are quarrelsome, duplicitous, amoral, and above all, capricious beings who control human events on earth despite people’s best efforts, usually in a sneaky manner. Human commanders are generally vain and incompetent. Military leaders constantly argue bitterly over trivial slights and the division of spoils. Human life is portrayed as essentially tragic. So, why didn’t the Greeks commit mass suicide in a fit of existential depression? Perhaps, because after death, they can only look forward to perpetual sorrow and darkness.
Alexander presents a readable but extensive review of the Iliad, adding her own retranslations where appropriate. One would think that everything that could be said has been said about one of the most famous books in the world but, it turns out, not so. In the not so distant past, the Iliad was used to glorify the heroic martial tradition in support of imperialist wars. The author shows, however, that this glorification was achieved by very selective quotation. Homer’s epic, she argues, subverted traditional martial epics.
Homer was in fact anti-war. For example, Achilles complains in his quarrel with Agamemnon—“What am I doing here--the Trojans never did anything to me.” A sentiment echoed centuries later by Muhammad Ali in his refusal to fight in the Vietnam War. As for eternal glory and renown achieved by dying bravely in battle, Homer implies that most warriors are in fact not remembered forever. After his death, Achilles concludes the epic by remarking to Odysseus in his visit to Hades that he would rather be a live landless ploughman than a dead king of the dead. Ultimately, Homer depicts both Greeks and Trojans as big losers in the big war.
I fundamentally do not understand the minds of bronze and iron age Greeks. As depicted by Homer, the gods are quarrelsome, duplicitous, amoral, and above all, capricious beings who control human events on earth despite people’s best efforts, usually in a sneaky manner. Human commanders are generally vain and incompetent. Military leaders constantly argue bitterly over trivial slights and the division of spoils. Human life is portrayed as essentially tragic. So, why didn’t the Greeks commit mass suicide in a fit of existential depression? Perhaps, because after death, they can only look forward to perpetual sorrow and darkness.
Barbero, A. (2007). The day of the barbarians: The battle that led to the fall of the Roman Empire. (trans. J. Cullen). NY: Walker.
The beginning of the end for the Western Roman Empire happened in the East, at Adrianople in Thrace (now Western Turkey), where an eastern German tribe, the Goths, defeated the Romans. The year was 378 and it would take another hundred years for the Empire to unravel.
It didn’t happen quite the way one might expect. The Goths, particularly their leaders, were partly Romanized and they had supplied troops for the Roman army for generations. The Goths had suffered a series of defeats by the Huns and wished to emigrate. They, like all barbarians, were poor, and wanted to settle within the empire. Now, because of the encroaching Huns, they were starving and panic stricken. The Romans had a policy of admitting barbarians and resettling them in under-populated areas—they needed farmers, cheap labour, and soldiers.
The admission of the Goths across the Danube was badly bungled. Delays were deliberately created by government and army contractors who stood to profit by selling the Goths provisions that had been provided by the government as free relief. The sheer numbers of the Goths combined with lack of preparation for their resettlement led to further debacles and Goth rebellion. The rest, as they say, was history.
One interesting aspect of the post-Adrianople treatment of the Goths is that the Eastern (Greek) part of the Empire encouraged the Goths with each new treaty or agreement to travel further west. This turned out to be a winning strategy for the East.
Barbero (wonder who he descended from?) has written a very fine little book.
The beginning of the end for the Western Roman Empire happened in the East, at Adrianople in Thrace (now Western Turkey), where an eastern German tribe, the Goths, defeated the Romans. The year was 378 and it would take another hundred years for the Empire to unravel.
It didn’t happen quite the way one might expect. The Goths, particularly their leaders, were partly Romanized and they had supplied troops for the Roman army for generations. The Goths had suffered a series of defeats by the Huns and wished to emigrate. They, like all barbarians, were poor, and wanted to settle within the empire. Now, because of the encroaching Huns, they were starving and panic stricken. The Romans had a policy of admitting barbarians and resettling them in under-populated areas—they needed farmers, cheap labour, and soldiers.
The admission of the Goths across the Danube was badly bungled. Delays were deliberately created by government and army contractors who stood to profit by selling the Goths provisions that had been provided by the government as free relief. The sheer numbers of the Goths combined with lack of preparation for their resettlement led to further debacles and Goth rebellion. The rest, as they say, was history.
One interesting aspect of the post-Adrianople treatment of the Goths is that the Eastern (Greek) part of the Empire encouraged the Goths with each new treaty or agreement to travel further west. This turned out to be a winning strategy for the East.
Barbero (wonder who he descended from?) has written a very fine little book.
Brittlestone, R. (2005). Odysseus unbound: The search for Homer’s Ithaca. Cambridge University Press.
A coffee table sized book with many illustrations. Brittlestone is an amateur in the best British tradition who has a theory that the home of Odysseus is located in the islands off the West of Greece and is not the island presently named Ithaca. Brittlestone relies on a close reading of the Odyssey in the original Greek and geological data (much of it gathered from the internet) to identify an island that meets all of the criteria specified in the Odyssey story line.
There turns out to be a surprising amount of relevant data and these are used to support the tentatively identified candidate island in a closely reasoned argument. It all sounds convincing to me but, as with many such books, most readers will, like me, be unable to evaluate the argument independently of the author making it.
The geology of the Western Greek islands is quite interesting as well is what we can learn from a careful reading of the Odyssey. The book becomes a bit tedious and repetitious toward the end—it is after all one big argument.
A coffee table sized book with many illustrations. Brittlestone is an amateur in the best British tradition who has a theory that the home of Odysseus is located in the islands off the West of Greece and is not the island presently named Ithaca. Brittlestone relies on a close reading of the Odyssey in the original Greek and geological data (much of it gathered from the internet) to identify an island that meets all of the criteria specified in the Odyssey story line.
There turns out to be a surprising amount of relevant data and these are used to support the tentatively identified candidate island in a closely reasoned argument. It all sounds convincing to me but, as with many such books, most readers will, like me, be unable to evaluate the argument independently of the author making it.
The geology of the Western Greek islands is quite interesting as well is what we can learn from a careful reading of the Odyssey. The book becomes a bit tedious and repetitious toward the end—it is after all one big argument.
Butterworth, A. & Laurence, R. (2005). Pompeii: The living city. London: Phoenix.
This is a fine book. It is the best at describing what the lives of the ancient Romans must have been like that I have read. Lots of information on the economy of Pompeii from the abundance of information gleaned from successive excavations. Freed slaves became entrepreneurs and craftsmen, struggling to scale the social ladder. Couples with property had few children in order that their estate not be partitioned among their offspring (as legally required). Because infant and child mortality was very high, many couples were forced to adopt heirs, who were sometimes not their kin and even sometimes former slaves.
The urban Romans had bad teeth and used a lot of an awful sounding fish paste (garum or rotted fish intestines) in their recipes—their breath was probably lethal at close range. Because they didn’t have access to the internet, they put their pornography up on walls--there was a lot of it that would offend today’s family values big time.
Here’s a quote describing a fancy dinner to give a flavor of the work:
“Next, to stimulate conversation once the salty morsels had been gulped down whole, the paraphernalia for the first entertainment of the evening may have appeared: a sloshing vessel of water from which a flapping surmullet was lifted, placed on a polished surface, and then covered by a glass dome, which rapidly starved it of air while ensuring that its death-throes remained visible to all. For it is the curse and wonder of the surmullet that, as it asphyxiates, its scales pass through a whole spectrum of subtle colours to signal its passage from life. And for what nobler purpose could a fish die than to elicit the hollering, mocking delight of a Neronian dinner.”
“Although most of the slave household were busily employed behind the scenes, the sedate start to the night’s drinking gave the wine waiters an opportunity to reflect upon the spectacle they had witnessed and the cruel and capricious appetites of their masters. Standing slightly apart from the diners, watching anxiously for the moment when the cup of their master or assigned guest might need refilling, the fate of the surmullet was a warning to these pretty young men—and the occasional older one who was forced to maintain a semblance of youth—to steel themselves for what lay ahead. Smooth-skinned and long haired, some only recently acquired at market to add erotic luster to this special evening, wine-waiters were often viewed as little more than sexual playthings. Long before they were required to drape the slack arm of an inebriated guest over their shoulder and drag him to his bed—a squalid scene that is depicted in one Pompeian painting—they would have had to submit to endless verbal abuse, humiliation, and drunken violence along with all manner of lascivious petting and predation. Seneca remarked of these beautiful unfortunates that,’their slightest murmur is repressed by the rod; they pay a huge penalty for the smallest breach of silence; all night long they have to stand around, hungry and dumb’”.
All was not fun, however. Pompeii suffered a serious earthquake some years before the final catastrophe. It is a bit sad to read of the people’s strenuous efforts to repair the damage and get life back to normal when you know how futile it would turn out to be.
This is a fine book. It is the best at describing what the lives of the ancient Romans must have been like that I have read. Lots of information on the economy of Pompeii from the abundance of information gleaned from successive excavations. Freed slaves became entrepreneurs and craftsmen, struggling to scale the social ladder. Couples with property had few children in order that their estate not be partitioned among their offspring (as legally required). Because infant and child mortality was very high, many couples were forced to adopt heirs, who were sometimes not their kin and even sometimes former slaves.
The urban Romans had bad teeth and used a lot of an awful sounding fish paste (garum or rotted fish intestines) in their recipes—their breath was probably lethal at close range. Because they didn’t have access to the internet, they put their pornography up on walls--there was a lot of it that would offend today’s family values big time.
Here’s a quote describing a fancy dinner to give a flavor of the work:
“Next, to stimulate conversation once the salty morsels had been gulped down whole, the paraphernalia for the first entertainment of the evening may have appeared: a sloshing vessel of water from which a flapping surmullet was lifted, placed on a polished surface, and then covered by a glass dome, which rapidly starved it of air while ensuring that its death-throes remained visible to all. For it is the curse and wonder of the surmullet that, as it asphyxiates, its scales pass through a whole spectrum of subtle colours to signal its passage from life. And for what nobler purpose could a fish die than to elicit the hollering, mocking delight of a Neronian dinner.”
“Although most of the slave household were busily employed behind the scenes, the sedate start to the night’s drinking gave the wine waiters an opportunity to reflect upon the spectacle they had witnessed and the cruel and capricious appetites of their masters. Standing slightly apart from the diners, watching anxiously for the moment when the cup of their master or assigned guest might need refilling, the fate of the surmullet was a warning to these pretty young men—and the occasional older one who was forced to maintain a semblance of youth—to steel themselves for what lay ahead. Smooth-skinned and long haired, some only recently acquired at market to add erotic luster to this special evening, wine-waiters were often viewed as little more than sexual playthings. Long before they were required to drape the slack arm of an inebriated guest over their shoulder and drag him to his bed—a squalid scene that is depicted in one Pompeian painting—they would have had to submit to endless verbal abuse, humiliation, and drunken violence along with all manner of lascivious petting and predation. Seneca remarked of these beautiful unfortunates that,’their slightest murmur is repressed by the rod; they pay a huge penalty for the smallest breach of silence; all night long they have to stand around, hungry and dumb’”.
All was not fun, however. Pompeii suffered a serious earthquake some years before the final catastrophe. It is a bit sad to read of the people’s strenuous efforts to repair the damage and get life back to normal when you know how futile it would turn out to be.
Caesar, J. (trans. 1982). The conquest of Gaul. Penguin.
It appears that those darn Gauls were just asking to be conquered. Although this book was apparently written by Caesar in an attempt to justify his conquest of Gaul to a Roman audience, by the time one gets to the end, the motive for conquest of the Gauls appears to be simply because they were there.
I was unaware that the practice of taking large numbers of hostages to guarantee good behavior of potential enemies that was common in medieval times was often practised by the Romans as well.
This book consists primarily of a laconic description of many battles. What a modern reader would like is more of an ethnography. We do find out that Gauls are fickle and inconstant but brave (for savages) and can learn military technology by imitation.
It appears that those darn Gauls were just asking to be conquered. Although this book was apparently written by Caesar in an attempt to justify his conquest of Gaul to a Roman audience, by the time one gets to the end, the motive for conquest of the Gauls appears to be simply because they were there.
I was unaware that the practice of taking large numbers of hostages to guarantee good behavior of potential enemies that was common in medieval times was often practised by the Romans as well.
This book consists primarily of a laconic description of many battles. What a modern reader would like is more of an ethnography. We do find out that Gauls are fickle and inconstant but brave (for savages) and can learn military technology by imitation.
Cahill, T. (1995). How the Irish saved civilization. Toronto: Doubleday.
A charming little book. This guy knows how to make history come alive. Almost all the information here has been well known to scholars for a long time but it is very artfully presented. The title is only a bit of an exaggeration.
Sometimes, the obvious has to be spoken as it occasionally is in this book. Ever wonder why there were hordes of German barbarians trying desperately to get into the Empire? Why didn't they just stay at home? It turns out they were starving. They were starving because they had switched from hunting and gathering to farming and suffered the attendant population explosion. With the new large population and inevitable crop failures, they were willing to take their chances with the Roman army.
A charming little book. This guy knows how to make history come alive. Almost all the information here has been well known to scholars for a long time but it is very artfully presented. The title is only a bit of an exaggeration.
Sometimes, the obvious has to be spoken as it occasionally is in this book. Ever wonder why there were hordes of German barbarians trying desperately to get into the Empire? Why didn't they just stay at home? It turns out they were starving. They were starving because they had switched from hunting and gathering to farming and suffered the attendant population explosion. With the new large population and inevitable crop failures, they were willing to take their chances with the Roman army.
Carman, J. & Harking, A. (Eds.). (1999/2004). Ancient warfare: Archeological perspectives. Phoenix Mill, UK: Sutton.
There are methodological problems in studying ancient warfare—in particular, the absence of obvious battle sites is difficult to interpret (no warfare or just none discovered?). Similarly, certain building structures may or may not be fortifications.
The beginning section has some amateurish theoretical chapters dealing with aggression but most of the chapters interpret archeological sites. The extensive work in the American Southwest is alluded to but not dealt with in any detail. This is a pity because the evidence of warfare and its variation through time seems better documented there than in Europe, which is the focus of this book. Nevertheless, it does appear that the prevalence of warfare did vary over time.
The history of ancient warfare is very difficult to figure out from archeology alone. If there is some written history to go with the archeology, a rich picture emerges. Consider this quote from Victor Hanson’s chapter concerning sixth and seventh century BC Greece entitled Hoplite obliteration: The case of the town of Thespiai.
"The history of the Greek city-state cannot be understood without considering the histories of hoplite battles. It is no exaggeration that the fate of entire communities literally depended on where, how and against whom their landowning hoplite soldiers were deployed in particular engagements… because of the decisive and horrific nature of the conflict, and the uneasy nature of coalition armies, [an] entire generation of farmers could be lost and their homes and families left vulnerable for decades—the experience of Classical Thespiai is an especially good example. In some sense, that city-state’s entire history is the story of little more than three tragic hours of fighting at Thermopylai, Delion and Nemea. Hoplite obliteration on those days led directly to the demolition of the city itself.”
There are methodological problems in studying ancient warfare—in particular, the absence of obvious battle sites is difficult to interpret (no warfare or just none discovered?). Similarly, certain building structures may or may not be fortifications.
The beginning section has some amateurish theoretical chapters dealing with aggression but most of the chapters interpret archeological sites. The extensive work in the American Southwest is alluded to but not dealt with in any detail. This is a pity because the evidence of warfare and its variation through time seems better documented there than in Europe, which is the focus of this book. Nevertheless, it does appear that the prevalence of warfare did vary over time.
The history of ancient warfare is very difficult to figure out from archeology alone. If there is some written history to go with the archeology, a rich picture emerges. Consider this quote from Victor Hanson’s chapter concerning sixth and seventh century BC Greece entitled Hoplite obliteration: The case of the town of Thespiai.
"The history of the Greek city-state cannot be understood without considering the histories of hoplite battles. It is no exaggeration that the fate of entire communities literally depended on where, how and against whom their landowning hoplite soldiers were deployed in particular engagements… because of the decisive and horrific nature of the conflict, and the uneasy nature of coalition armies, [an] entire generation of farmers could be lost and their homes and families left vulnerable for decades—the experience of Classical Thespiai is an especially good example. In some sense, that city-state’s entire history is the story of little more than three tragic hours of fighting at Thermopylai, Delion and Nemea. Hoplite obliteration on those days led directly to the demolition of the city itself.”
Champlin, E. (2003). Nero. Harvard University Press.
A nice political counterpoint to Butterworth and Laurence’s book on the economic and social life of Pompeii. Nero’s reign was contemporaneous with Pompeii’s last days. Nero was quite as wacky as portrayed in the movies but his life on the stage was somewhat more politically calculated than it at first might appear. As well, Nero only murdered individuals, such as his mother, because they were a political threat to him. Amazingly, the author concludes from contemporary sources that Nero probably did have Rome burned. I had always thought it was just a silly story. Nero’s life was melodrama all the way to his pathetic end.
A nice political counterpoint to Butterworth and Laurence’s book on the economic and social life of Pompeii. Nero’s reign was contemporaneous with Pompeii’s last days. Nero was quite as wacky as portrayed in the movies but his life on the stage was somewhat more politically calculated than it at first might appear. As well, Nero only murdered individuals, such as his mother, because they were a political threat to him. Amazingly, the author concludes from contemporary sources that Nero probably did have Rome burned. I had always thought it was just a silly story. Nero’s life was melodrama all the way to his pathetic end.
Cicero, M.T. (44BC/1972) The nature of the Gods. Translated by H.C.P. McGregor and introduction and commentary by J.M. Ross. Baltimore, Md: Penguin.
By turns irritating and fascinating. Cicero wrote this book with incredible speed very late in life as part of his project to present Greek philosophy to the Romans. It takes the form of a dialogue between representatives of the various ancient schools of philosophy. The most interesting parts describe how much we now know to be true was known by the ancients--quite a lot. All of the familiar mediaeval Christian arguments for the existence of God are here as well as some very sharp refutations (mixed with some amazing credulity).
This book illustrates (if any illustration were necessary) how utterly dependent mediaeval Europe was on the legacy of the much more advanced Roman civilization.
By turns irritating and fascinating. Cicero wrote this book with incredible speed very late in life as part of his project to present Greek philosophy to the Romans. It takes the form of a dialogue between representatives of the various ancient schools of philosophy. The most interesting parts describe how much we now know to be true was known by the ancients--quite a lot. All of the familiar mediaeval Christian arguments for the existence of God are here as well as some very sharp refutations (mixed with some amazing credulity).
This book illustrates (if any illustration were necessary) how utterly dependent mediaeval Europe was on the legacy of the much more advanced Roman civilization.
Duncan, M. (2017). The storm before the storm: The beginning of the end of the Roman republic. NY: Public/Affairs.
There are enough contemporary accounts of Roman politics to allow Duncan to portray the events that led to the death of the republic in some detail. Although the author does not belabor the similarities between ancient Roman and contemporary American politics, one can’t help but see them. Ancient Roman politics seem disturbingly familiar.
Sleep walking toward civil war, the senate, composed of hereditary oligarchs, increasingly dismantled the customary/constitutional protectors of the less wealthy. Murdering political opponents, often through riots, became commonplace. Everyone—the demagogues on the left and the reactionaries on the right—strived to promote their short-term self-interest. The level of corruption, even by modern standards, was staggering. For example, tax collection throughout the empire was outsourced to the publicani (drawn from a class of wealthy but non-patrician individuals, the equestrians) who collected taxes for the state and, of course, themselves. It was like turning the tax department over to private collection agencies—explaining why “sinners” is usually written as “publicans and sinners” in the New Testament.
Meanwhile, giant slave-run farms, the latifundia, arose in Italy and drove out the small independent farmers. Many attempts at land reform were tried and failed, mainly due to the opposition of wealthy landowners and their senatorial supporters. Impoverished farmers and their families ended up in Rome itself where there was endless conflict regarding free grain subsidies to them (welfare).
Increasing polarization led to the erosion of traditional restraints and checks and balances in the political process. It culminated in the “social war” fought largely over the failure to extend the vote to Italians living outside Rome. The civil war finally ended with the usurpation of power by Sulla, a general who made himself dictator. He murdered his political opponents and many others, then tried to restore the republican form of government. However, upon his retirement, the toothpaste could not be put back in the tube. Caesar Augustus, styling himself “the first citizen” of Rome, shortly thereafter killed the Republic while scrupulously maintaining its outward form.
A good, if somewhat depressing, read!
There are enough contemporary accounts of Roman politics to allow Duncan to portray the events that led to the death of the republic in some detail. Although the author does not belabor the similarities between ancient Roman and contemporary American politics, one can’t help but see them. Ancient Roman politics seem disturbingly familiar.
Sleep walking toward civil war, the senate, composed of hereditary oligarchs, increasingly dismantled the customary/constitutional protectors of the less wealthy. Murdering political opponents, often through riots, became commonplace. Everyone—the demagogues on the left and the reactionaries on the right—strived to promote their short-term self-interest. The level of corruption, even by modern standards, was staggering. For example, tax collection throughout the empire was outsourced to the publicani (drawn from a class of wealthy but non-patrician individuals, the equestrians) who collected taxes for the state and, of course, themselves. It was like turning the tax department over to private collection agencies—explaining why “sinners” is usually written as “publicans and sinners” in the New Testament.
Meanwhile, giant slave-run farms, the latifundia, arose in Italy and drove out the small independent farmers. Many attempts at land reform were tried and failed, mainly due to the opposition of wealthy landowners and their senatorial supporters. Impoverished farmers and their families ended up in Rome itself where there was endless conflict regarding free grain subsidies to them (welfare).
Increasing polarization led to the erosion of traditional restraints and checks and balances in the political process. It culminated in the “social war” fought largely over the failure to extend the vote to Italians living outside Rome. The civil war finally ended with the usurpation of power by Sulla, a general who made himself dictator. He murdered his political opponents and many others, then tried to restore the republican form of government. However, upon his retirement, the toothpaste could not be put back in the tube. Caesar Augustus, styling himself “the first citizen” of Rome, shortly thereafter killed the Republic while scrupulously maintaining its outward form.
A good, if somewhat depressing, read!
Funk, R.W. & the Jesus Seminar. (1998). The acts of Jesus. N.Y.: Harper Collins
This volume reports on the efforts of a large group of New Testament scholars to discover what Jesus actually said and did. They take each phrase in the New Testament and assign it a numerical rating according to whether it is definitely false, possible, probable, or almost certain. The averaged ratings are given corresponding colours: Black, grey, pink, and red.
Very little of the New Testament gets coloured red, a little more gets pink, mostly it's black
There is a lot here to interest nonspecialists. First, the sheer amount of knowledge gleaned from decades of biblical study and detailed translations of the New Testament texts, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and other fragments found about the Mideast, historical studies of Hellenistic society during the period, and collateral sources, most notably Josephus's The Jewish Wars.
It was news to me just how Greek the New Testament is. It's not only that all of the New Testament gospels were originally written in Greek (as opposed to Hebrew or Aramaic) but also that the type of stories told about Jesus (e.g., the miraculous birth stories) were commonly written about other Greek heroes.
The most interesting parts of the book are the explanations of how the scholars know a particular passage is false. These reasons include the many contradictions among the different gospels (the temporal order of their composition is known, as well as who copied from whom), anachronisms, the impossibility of certain sorts of information being preserved in oral tradition (the gospels were written long after Jesus's death), evidence that the political motivations of the later gospel writers were imposed upon narratives from an earlier time, simple historical mistakes, the modelling of stories of Jesus's life on the stories about earlier biblical figures, and so forth.
It was highly likely that Jesus was a follower of John the Baptist and that Jesus left John's movement, taking some of John's disciples with him. The John the Baptist sect was an important competitor of the Jesus movement after Jesus's crucifixion.
Although Jesus' brother later become prominent in the Jesus movement, there is pretty good evidence that his family (a mother, four brothers and some sisters) thought Jesus was on the nutty side, at least early in his career.
The translations presented in the book are written in the style of the original Greek. If an author used a high-falutin' style of Greek, the English is lofty; if a street style of Greek, the English is written accordingly, with amusing results. So, the "verily, verily I say unto you" of the lovely King James Version becomes "If you got two ears, you'd better listen."
There's a lot more of interest in this very big book. For many readers who were raised as Christians, it will come as a bit of a shock to realize how much of the Bible they actually know, even though it is unlikely that many of them have ever studied it in a critical manner.
So what do we know? Jesus spoke in parables, was not a biblical scholar (he might not have been able to read but probably spoke Greek as a second language), was a charismatic healer, exorcist, and itinerant sage who preached the good news about God's or Heaven's Imperial Rule, and consorted with people from all classes (including the lowest of the low, the hereditary tax collectors). He was crucified by the Romans for some offense against the temple in Jerusalem but stayed dead.
This volume reports on the efforts of a large group of New Testament scholars to discover what Jesus actually said and did. They take each phrase in the New Testament and assign it a numerical rating according to whether it is definitely false, possible, probable, or almost certain. The averaged ratings are given corresponding colours: Black, grey, pink, and red.
Very little of the New Testament gets coloured red, a little more gets pink, mostly it's black
There is a lot here to interest nonspecialists. First, the sheer amount of knowledge gleaned from decades of biblical study and detailed translations of the New Testament texts, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and other fragments found about the Mideast, historical studies of Hellenistic society during the period, and collateral sources, most notably Josephus's The Jewish Wars.
It was news to me just how Greek the New Testament is. It's not only that all of the New Testament gospels were originally written in Greek (as opposed to Hebrew or Aramaic) but also that the type of stories told about Jesus (e.g., the miraculous birth stories) were commonly written about other Greek heroes.
The most interesting parts of the book are the explanations of how the scholars know a particular passage is false. These reasons include the many contradictions among the different gospels (the temporal order of their composition is known, as well as who copied from whom), anachronisms, the impossibility of certain sorts of information being preserved in oral tradition (the gospels were written long after Jesus's death), evidence that the political motivations of the later gospel writers were imposed upon narratives from an earlier time, simple historical mistakes, the modelling of stories of Jesus's life on the stories about earlier biblical figures, and so forth.
It was highly likely that Jesus was a follower of John the Baptist and that Jesus left John's movement, taking some of John's disciples with him. The John the Baptist sect was an important competitor of the Jesus movement after Jesus's crucifixion.
Although Jesus' brother later become prominent in the Jesus movement, there is pretty good evidence that his family (a mother, four brothers and some sisters) thought Jesus was on the nutty side, at least early in his career.
The translations presented in the book are written in the style of the original Greek. If an author used a high-falutin' style of Greek, the English is lofty; if a street style of Greek, the English is written accordingly, with amusing results. So, the "verily, verily I say unto you" of the lovely King James Version becomes "If you got two ears, you'd better listen."
There's a lot more of interest in this very big book. For many readers who were raised as Christians, it will come as a bit of a shock to realize how much of the Bible they actually know, even though it is unlikely that many of them have ever studied it in a critical manner.
So what do we know? Jesus spoke in parables, was not a biblical scholar (he might not have been able to read but probably spoke Greek as a second language), was a charismatic healer, exorcist, and itinerant sage who preached the good news about God's or Heaven's Imperial Rule, and consorted with people from all classes (including the lowest of the low, the hereditary tax collectors). He was crucified by the Romans for some offense against the temple in Jerusalem but stayed dead.
Fowler, R. (Ed.). The Cambridge companion to Homer. Cambridge University Press.
The Odyssey and the Iliad were likely created in the form we know them around 700 BCE. Many of the practices referred to in these epic poems were, however, much older. Osborne points out in his chapter on Homer’s society that…”much in the world of epic would have brought an eighth-century audience up short. The palaces, the silver bath tubs, the chariots of war, the exotic armour, the treatment of iron as a precious metal, the existence of bride-price as well as dowry, the domination of the labour force by slaves: all of these will have served to distance the world described in the poems from that experienced by an eighth- or early seventh-century audience. And almost all of these find close correlates in the late Bronze Age archaeological record.” Nevertheless, Homer’s world was far closer to an eighth-century audience than it is to us. Although human motivations appear to be unchanging, how difficult it is for us to appreciate such a remote period. This edited book therefore attempts to describe what Homer’s world was really like, how he constructed his poems, and how later generations interpreted them. There is a Homer for every generation.
The Odyssey and the Iliad were likely created in the form we know them around 700 BCE. Many of the practices referred to in these epic poems were, however, much older. Osborne points out in his chapter on Homer’s society that…”much in the world of epic would have brought an eighth-century audience up short. The palaces, the silver bath tubs, the chariots of war, the exotic armour, the treatment of iron as a precious metal, the existence of bride-price as well as dowry, the domination of the labour force by slaves: all of these will have served to distance the world described in the poems from that experienced by an eighth- or early seventh-century audience. And almost all of these find close correlates in the late Bronze Age archaeological record.” Nevertheless, Homer’s world was far closer to an eighth-century audience than it is to us. Although human motivations appear to be unchanging, how difficult it is for us to appreciate such a remote period. This edited book therefore attempts to describe what Homer’s world was really like, how he constructed his poems, and how later generations interpreted them. There is a Homer for every generation.
Goldsworthy, A. (2003). In the name of Rome: The men who won the Roman Empire. London: Phoenix.
This book describes the lives of Roman generals selected from various periods of Rome’s long history. Then, as now, war was as much about internal politics as foreign affairs. Often, it was unwise to be too successful a general (you could end up being killed by nervous politicians in the capitol). As well, even generals who literally saved the empire, like Scipio Africanus, did not receive the gratitude they deserved because military success had domestic political implications. In all, an interesting description of the strengths and weaknesses of Roman military tactics and technology.
This book describes the lives of Roman generals selected from various periods of Rome’s long history. Then, as now, war was as much about internal politics as foreign affairs. Often, it was unwise to be too successful a general (you could end up being killed by nervous politicians in the capitol). As well, even generals who literally saved the empire, like Scipio Africanus, did not receive the gratitude they deserved because military success had domestic political implications. In all, an interesting description of the strengths and weaknesses of Roman military tactics and technology.
Gregory, A. (1911/2001). Cuchulain of Muirthemne: The story of the men of the Red Branch of Ulster. Toronto: Dover.
Lady Gregory translated and patched ancient Irish fragmentary stories together as a labour of love. What emerges is a fantastical, dream-like world of warring heroes. Everything is larger than life. The warrior ethos is pervasive—as a child Cuchulain tells Cathbad the Druid “It is little I would care if my life would last one day and one night only, so long as my name and the story of what I had done would live after me.”
What was all the fighting about? As apparently everywhere among preliterate people, large mammals. For example, Sualtim’s head (Sualtim, Cuchulain’s father, had accidentally cut off his own head with his shield—go figure) tells King Conchubar of an invasion in which “Men are being killed, women brought away, cattle brought away in Ulster”. The king replies “…unless the sky with all its shower of stars comes down on earth…. I swear that I will bring back every cow to its own shed, and every woman to her own dwelling-house.” An Irish Helen of Troy sort of story that the Yanomamo would understand.
Lady Gregory translated and patched ancient Irish fragmentary stories together as a labour of love. What emerges is a fantastical, dream-like world of warring heroes. Everything is larger than life. The warrior ethos is pervasive—as a child Cuchulain tells Cathbad the Druid “It is little I would care if my life would last one day and one night only, so long as my name and the story of what I had done would live after me.”
What was all the fighting about? As apparently everywhere among preliterate people, large mammals. For example, Sualtim’s head (Sualtim, Cuchulain’s father, had accidentally cut off his own head with his shield—go figure) tells King Conchubar of an invasion in which “Men are being killed, women brought away, cattle brought away in Ulster”. The king replies “…unless the sky with all its shower of stars comes down on earth…. I swear that I will bring back every cow to its own shed, and every woman to her own dwelling-house.” An Irish Helen of Troy sort of story that the Yanomamo would understand.
Harpur, T. (2004). The pagan Christ: Recovering the lost light. Toronto: Allen.
This is an earnest plea for a kindly theology liberated from any dependence on the traditional Christian interpretation of the life of Christ. Harpur argues from academic comparative religion studies that early Christianity appropriated pre-Christian myths and beliefs, used them to fashion the account of Christ’s life presented in the Bible, and then lied about their origins. These notions are, of course, anathema to Christian fundamentalists but, for those who have abandoned a religious world view altogether, they appear somewhat quaint. I think one has to have some sort of religious faith (or perhaps very recently lost one’s faith) to have much interest in these kinds of arguments.
This is an earnest plea for a kindly theology liberated from any dependence on the traditional Christian interpretation of the life of Christ. Harpur argues from academic comparative religion studies that early Christianity appropriated pre-Christian myths and beliefs, used them to fashion the account of Christ’s life presented in the Bible, and then lied about their origins. These notions are, of course, anathema to Christian fundamentalists but, for those who have abandoned a religious world view altogether, they appear somewhat quaint. I think one has to have some sort of religious faith (or perhaps very recently lost one’s faith) to have much interest in these kinds of arguments.
Hingley, R. & Unwin, C. (2005). Boudica: Iron age warrior queen. London: Hambledon Continuum.
The authors review what frustratingly little we know about Boudica. All of what we knew until very recently came from a couple of Roman sources and the sources disagree about some of the scanty details. It appears that Boudica was the wife of the leader of the Iceni, a tribe of partly Romanized Celts. In response to the Roman abuse of Boudica and her daughters, the Iceni led a rebellion, burning several towns and gruesomely slaughtering the inhabitants. A Roman army returned to the area and defeated the much more numerous Celts in a large battle. The site of the battle has not yet been identified but burned ruins of towns dating from the right time have been found.
Regrettably, the interpretation of the Roman written sources is far from clear. In addition to the discrepancies in the accounts, it isn’t known whether the tales were meant to be historically accurate or were more of a morality tale written to edify the Roman elite—viz., if you are nasty to native women, even they will rise up and bite you. The lack of historical knowledge has allowed lots of more or less fanciful modern accounts to be written in aid of supporting various ideological causes.
The authors review what frustratingly little we know about Boudica. All of what we knew until very recently came from a couple of Roman sources and the sources disagree about some of the scanty details. It appears that Boudica was the wife of the leader of the Iceni, a tribe of partly Romanized Celts. In response to the Roman abuse of Boudica and her daughters, the Iceni led a rebellion, burning several towns and gruesomely slaughtering the inhabitants. A Roman army returned to the area and defeated the much more numerous Celts in a large battle. The site of the battle has not yet been identified but burned ruins of towns dating from the right time have been found.
Regrettably, the interpretation of the Roman written sources is far from clear. In addition to the discrepancies in the accounts, it isn’t known whether the tales were meant to be historically accurate or were more of a morality tale written to edify the Roman elite—viz., if you are nasty to native women, even they will rise up and bite you. The lack of historical knowledge has allowed lots of more or less fanciful modern accounts to be written in aid of supporting various ideological causes.
Homer (Translated by S. Mitchell). (2011). The Iliad. Toronto: Free Press.
This is a very readable translation. The detailed gory death scenes, the sense of terror and fate, the pathos, and the archaic obsession with genealogy, are presented without distraction. The Iliad can be read as an elaborate anti-war tract: For example, the absurdity of the belief that a warrior can achieve immortal fame through feats of arms is belied by the deaths of legions of nameless warriors.
This is a very readable translation. The detailed gory death scenes, the sense of terror and fate, the pathos, and the archaic obsession with genealogy, are presented without distraction. The Iliad can be read as an elaborate anti-war tract: For example, the absurdity of the belief that a warrior can achieve immortal fame through feats of arms is belied by the deaths of legions of nameless warriors.
Kagan, D. (2003). The Peloponnesian War. Toronto: Penquin.
A very fine account of the most analyzed war in history. The enormous tragedy that befell the Greeks in this completely futile war is brilliantly portrayed. The war was “a great turning point in history, the end of an era of progress, prosperity, confidence, and hope, and the beginning of a darker time.” This was the conflict that “inspired Thudydides’ mordant observations on the character of war as ‘a savage schoolmaster that brings the characters of most people down to the level of their current circumstances.”
All this is the more disturbing because it all sounds so modern to a contemporary ear. Democracy and tyranny were both hard to export. The practice of realpolitik and its seemingly inevitable inadvertent consequences seem to mock human agency.
A very fine account of the most analyzed war in history. The enormous tragedy that befell the Greeks in this completely futile war is brilliantly portrayed. The war was “a great turning point in history, the end of an era of progress, prosperity, confidence, and hope, and the beginning of a darker time.” This was the conflict that “inspired Thudydides’ mordant observations on the character of war as ‘a savage schoolmaster that brings the characters of most people down to the level of their current circumstances.”
All this is the more disturbing because it all sounds so modern to a contemporary ear. Democracy and tyranny were both hard to export. The practice of realpolitik and its seemingly inevitable inadvertent consequences seem to mock human agency.
Kelly, C. (2008). Attila the Hun: Barbarian terror and the fall of the Roman Empire. Toronto: McArthur.
Attila was quoted extensively by the Roman diplomats who negotiated with him in the fifth century. Some of these narratives are preserved in fragments of now mostly lost texts. Attila comes across as a parasitic Mafioso, employing the classic bullying verbal style of intimidation in which he justifies extortion on ludicrous trumped up “wrongs” that his victims have done him. Such people have apparently tried to occupy the moral high ground for millennia. The Huns eventually learned that it was better to leave some people alive and some farms intact so that they could be used as a source of continued income.
Attila died of a nose bleed while in bed with a new bride. His minions decided his (very frightened) bride wasn’t responsible—lucky for her! The empire then fractured among dissident factions and disappeared quickly.
An interesting read, although we still don’t know a lot about the origins of the Huns (they didn’t write and only their word for funeral, strava, survives). While the Huns were around, they made a great but terrible impression in Europe—they conquered from the Black Sea in Romania to Champagne in France. Attila is even referred to in the Icelandic poems of the Elder Edda (which I just re-read after many years).
Attila was quoted extensively by the Roman diplomats who negotiated with him in the fifth century. Some of these narratives are preserved in fragments of now mostly lost texts. Attila comes across as a parasitic Mafioso, employing the classic bullying verbal style of intimidation in which he justifies extortion on ludicrous trumped up “wrongs” that his victims have done him. Such people have apparently tried to occupy the moral high ground for millennia. The Huns eventually learned that it was better to leave some people alive and some farms intact so that they could be used as a source of continued income.
Attila died of a nose bleed while in bed with a new bride. His minions decided his (very frightened) bride wasn’t responsible—lucky for her! The empire then fractured among dissident factions and disappeared quickly.
An interesting read, although we still don’t know a lot about the origins of the Huns (they didn’t write and only their word for funeral, strava, survives). While the Huns were around, they made a great but terrible impression in Europe—they conquered from the Black Sea in Romania to Champagne in France. Attila is even referred to in the Icelandic poems of the Elder Edda (which I just re-read after many years).
Krentz, P. (2010). The Battle of Marathon. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Athens defeated the mighty Persians at the Battle of Marathon in 490 BC. Herodotus claimed that the Athenian hoplites engaged the Persians after a mile-long run. Many have been skeptical that the soldiers could have run that far in their armour and still have the wind to fight. Krentz argues that their armour was much lighter than has been believed. Furthermore, he maintains that the Athenians seized a fleeting opportunity by reaching the Persian infantry before the Persian cavalry could be brought out of the boats that carried them.
Always amazing how much is known about the ancient world. A nice little book.
Athens defeated the mighty Persians at the Battle of Marathon in 490 BC. Herodotus claimed that the Athenian hoplites engaged the Persians after a mile-long run. Many have been skeptical that the soldiers could have run that far in their armour and still have the wind to fight. Krentz argues that their armour was much lighter than has been believed. Furthermore, he maintains that the Athenians seized a fleeting opportunity by reaching the Persian infantry before the Persian cavalry could be brought out of the boats that carried them.
Always amazing how much is known about the ancient world. A nice little book.
Krosney, H. (2006). The lost gospel: The quest for the Gospel of Judas Iscariot. Washington, DC: National Geographic.
‘Jesus said to Judas: “You will exceed all of them, for you will sacrifice the man that clothes me.”’ (from the Gospel of Judas)—holy shades of Jesus Christ Superstar!!
This is the story of how the Gospel of Judas codex was damaged and almost lost while its various owners shopped around for 25 years seeking the best price. It’s not surprising but still amazing how greatly the high prices paid for Bible-related antiquities distort the process of their acquisition.
An interesting cloak and dagger sort of story but I would have liked a lot more explication of the content of the gospel itself.
‘Jesus said to Judas: “You will exceed all of them, for you will sacrifice the man that clothes me.”’ (from the Gospel of Judas)—holy shades of Jesus Christ Superstar!!
This is the story of how the Gospel of Judas codex was damaged and almost lost while its various owners shopped around for 25 years seeking the best price. It’s not surprising but still amazing how greatly the high prices paid for Bible-related antiquities distort the process of their acquisition.
An interesting cloak and dagger sort of story but I would have liked a lot more explication of the content of the gospel itself.
Leroi, A.M. (2014). The lagoon: How Aristotle invented science. NY: Penguin.
Leroi (a biologist who works with nematodes) spent time researching for this book at the lagoon on the island of Lesbos where Aristotle (384-322 BCE) did his biology. It is interesting to get a biologist’s take on him—books on Aristotle are usually written by classicists or philosophers and his biology is usually ignored in favour of his work on logic, ethics, and politics. Aristotle’ many books did not survive; we only have what appear to be his lecture notes.
Plato is said to have thought that Aristotle was the intellectual star of the Academy but It is truly remarkable how Aristotle rose so far above the mystical cogitations of his teacher. Aristotle’s tone is relentlessly professorial and he usually sounds like a modern academic—starting with a critique of the literature before developing his own views.
Aristotle’s biology was empirical: he observed nature carefully, dissected specimens, interviewed fishermen, and reviewed travellers’ accounts. It’s mind boggling to see what he achieved without travelling much, having a microscope, or an internet to consult. Through his influence on later biologists such as Linnaeus, he provided the foundation of modern biology.
Leroi (a biologist who works with nematodes) spent time researching for this book at the lagoon on the island of Lesbos where Aristotle (384-322 BCE) did his biology. It is interesting to get a biologist’s take on him—books on Aristotle are usually written by classicists or philosophers and his biology is usually ignored in favour of his work on logic, ethics, and politics. Aristotle’ many books did not survive; we only have what appear to be his lecture notes.
Plato is said to have thought that Aristotle was the intellectual star of the Academy but It is truly remarkable how Aristotle rose so far above the mystical cogitations of his teacher. Aristotle’s tone is relentlessly professorial and he usually sounds like a modern academic—starting with a critique of the literature before developing his own views.
Aristotle’s biology was empirical: he observed nature carefully, dissected specimens, interviewed fishermen, and reviewed travellers’ accounts. It’s mind boggling to see what he achieved without travelling much, having a microscope, or an internet to consult. Through his influence on later biologists such as Linnaeus, he provided the foundation of modern biology.
Man, J. (2007). The terracotta army: China’s first emperor and the birth of a nation. Toronto: Bantam.
The book moves back and forth from a history of China’s first emperor, the discovery of the terracotta army in Mao’s era, and the author’s experiences in gathering information for his book. This expository scheme works very well.
Man finds resonances between the ancient conflict between the Confucian scholars and the Legalists in the political machinations in Maoist China. The former believed in tradition and honour, whereas the latter believed that might was right—because power came from the barrel of a gun (or, rather, from the business end of a cross bow), the emperor was justified in doing whatever it took to seize and maintain power. Kind of an extreme form of Machiavellianism—Mao, of course, was a Legalist.
I think the tension between these approaches lies deep in everybody’s mind. Not only among the ancient Chinese and the mediaeval Italians, but also delinquents in Thunder Bay fifty or so years ago. I remember when a friend asked me for advice about a conflict he was having with an acquaintance who was attempting to take away his girlfriend. I gave him legalistic advice (if you’re going to fight, make sure you arrange it so you win). This was, I concluded shortly thereafter, bad advice that came close to causing wider conflict. Although this story had a happy outcome (the guy got the girl and they’re still together), I still think that a more formal, even ritualistic, approach would have been better.
The book moves back and forth from a history of China’s first emperor, the discovery of the terracotta army in Mao’s era, and the author’s experiences in gathering information for his book. This expository scheme works very well.
Man finds resonances between the ancient conflict between the Confucian scholars and the Legalists in the political machinations in Maoist China. The former believed in tradition and honour, whereas the latter believed that might was right—because power came from the barrel of a gun (or, rather, from the business end of a cross bow), the emperor was justified in doing whatever it took to seize and maintain power. Kind of an extreme form of Machiavellianism—Mao, of course, was a Legalist.
I think the tension between these approaches lies deep in everybody’s mind. Not only among the ancient Chinese and the mediaeval Italians, but also delinquents in Thunder Bay fifty or so years ago. I remember when a friend asked me for advice about a conflict he was having with an acquaintance who was attempting to take away his girlfriend. I gave him legalistic advice (if you’re going to fight, make sure you arrange it so you win). This was, I concluded shortly thereafter, bad advice that came close to causing wider conflict. Although this story had a happy outcome (the guy got the girl and they’re still together), I still think that a more formal, even ritualistic, approach would have been better.
Man, J. (2008). The Great Wall: The extraordinary history of China’s wonder of the world. London: Transworld.
No, you can’t see the wall from outer space—that was a hoax perpetrated in Ripley’s Believe it or not. And no, there isn’t really a Great Wall, there are a bunch of walls built at different times and some of them, especially in the West, aren’t great, being sort of low dirt mounds. Nevertheless, these were gargantuan and often magnificent efforts. The author presents a mixture of travelogue, history, and myth. It sometimes is a bit confusing—it’s particularly hard to keep the history straight. Anyway, a worthwhile read.
No, you can’t see the wall from outer space—that was a hoax perpetrated in Ripley’s Believe it or not. And no, there isn’t really a Great Wall, there are a bunch of walls built at different times and some of them, especially in the West, aren’t great, being sort of low dirt mounds. Nevertheless, these were gargantuan and often magnificent efforts. The author presents a mixture of travelogue, history, and myth. It sometimes is a bit confusing—it’s particularly hard to keep the history straight. Anyway, a worthwhile read.
McLynn, A. (2009). Marcus Aurelius: Warrior, philosopher, emperor. London: Vintage.
The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius (121-180 CE) has fascinated philosophers and moralists to the present. This work has over time become the foremost exemplar of the stoic school of philosophy. McLynn nevertheless argues persuasively that stoicism is basically a logically incoherent and problematic philosophical system that deals unsuccessfully with issues such as free will and determinism. Notwithstanding the failures of stoicism as a philosophic doctrine, Aurelius remains a remarkable and, in many respects, admirable character. He succeeded as a general in his huge wars against the encroaching German tribes and many historians rate him as among the best of the Roman emperors. Unfortunately, his efforts ultimately failed--his abominable son, Commodus, succeeded him and caused the empire irreversible harm. Another philosophy might have allowed Aurelius to have his son dispatched before he had a chance to become emperor!
Although this big book is a bit repetitious and heavy-handed, its portrayal of the problems of the Roman Empire at the beginning of its long period of decline is thought provoking. Rome was beset with serious problems—some natural and others self-inflicted. First, horrific mortality caused by plague led to social disruption and labour shortages. Mortality was particularly heavy in the army and among the legions of slaves. The Romans didn’t help the situation by working slaves to death and disrupting slave families so they couldn’t reproduce themselves.
The Roman economy was unsustainable without the slaves and booty provided by the continuous military conquest of developed countries. War with barbarians, such as the Germans, provided only slaves. The problem was that the barbarians, even though partially Romanized through trade, service as mercenaries, and geographical propinquity, were poor. In fact, poverty caused the wars in the first place. Barbarians sought admittance to the empire in order to improve their economic status.
The Romans granted gifts and subsidies to the barbarian elite to keep the peace with Rome or to encourage the tribes to fight each other. This largesse in turn increased barbarian social and economic stratification; in effect, the Romans colluded with the barbarian elites to suppress the elites’ own people.
Throughout the empire, slaves working on enormous estates produced food more cheaply than small-time farmers working their own land. Because farmland was such a great investment, the price of land rose steeply, forcing farmers out. The farmers fled to the city, where their bread was subsidized and they were amused by chariot races and enormously expensive gladiatorial shows.
Rome had a humungous balance of trade deficit. The plutocracy loved to display silk, gems, and gold. Silk had to be imported from China but China would only accept gold in payment. Similarly, India would only accept gold for its spices and gems. Rome had no functioning gold mines.
All of these issues led back to the army. The army was increasingly made up of barbarian mercenaries loyal to their generals rather than Rome. Because of the economic problems, the army was increasingly difficult to fund and, because the army could and did depose emperors in order to promote their generals to the purple, there was increasing political instability.
The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius (121-180 CE) has fascinated philosophers and moralists to the present. This work has over time become the foremost exemplar of the stoic school of philosophy. McLynn nevertheless argues persuasively that stoicism is basically a logically incoherent and problematic philosophical system that deals unsuccessfully with issues such as free will and determinism. Notwithstanding the failures of stoicism as a philosophic doctrine, Aurelius remains a remarkable and, in many respects, admirable character. He succeeded as a general in his huge wars against the encroaching German tribes and many historians rate him as among the best of the Roman emperors. Unfortunately, his efforts ultimately failed--his abominable son, Commodus, succeeded him and caused the empire irreversible harm. Another philosophy might have allowed Aurelius to have his son dispatched before he had a chance to become emperor!
Although this big book is a bit repetitious and heavy-handed, its portrayal of the problems of the Roman Empire at the beginning of its long period of decline is thought provoking. Rome was beset with serious problems—some natural and others self-inflicted. First, horrific mortality caused by plague led to social disruption and labour shortages. Mortality was particularly heavy in the army and among the legions of slaves. The Romans didn’t help the situation by working slaves to death and disrupting slave families so they couldn’t reproduce themselves.
The Roman economy was unsustainable without the slaves and booty provided by the continuous military conquest of developed countries. War with barbarians, such as the Germans, provided only slaves. The problem was that the barbarians, even though partially Romanized through trade, service as mercenaries, and geographical propinquity, were poor. In fact, poverty caused the wars in the first place. Barbarians sought admittance to the empire in order to improve their economic status.
The Romans granted gifts and subsidies to the barbarian elite to keep the peace with Rome or to encourage the tribes to fight each other. This largesse in turn increased barbarian social and economic stratification; in effect, the Romans colluded with the barbarian elites to suppress the elites’ own people.
Throughout the empire, slaves working on enormous estates produced food more cheaply than small-time farmers working their own land. Because farmland was such a great investment, the price of land rose steeply, forcing farmers out. The farmers fled to the city, where their bread was subsidized and they were amused by chariot races and enormously expensive gladiatorial shows.
Rome had a humungous balance of trade deficit. The plutocracy loved to display silk, gems, and gold. Silk had to be imported from China but China would only accept gold in payment. Similarly, India would only accept gold for its spices and gems. Rome had no functioning gold mines.
All of these issues led back to the army. The army was increasingly made up of barbarian mercenaries loyal to their generals rather than Rome. Because of the economic problems, the army was increasingly difficult to fund and, because the army could and did depose emperors in order to promote their generals to the purple, there was increasing political instability.
Mclynn, F. (2015). Genghis Khan: The man who conquered the world. London: Bodley Head.
There has been one hell of a lot of scholarship since the last time I read about Genghis (1162-1227). Although the historical record has many little gaps, much is known about the personalities and intrigues among the Mongol elite and there are now details of the many battles fought (in fact, too many such details are presented in this book).
It is, therefore, now possible to attempt an explanation of how Genghis and his son Ogodei (1186-1241) conquered an empire of twelve million square miles, bounded by what is now West Germany, West Hungary, West Turkey, the frozen Taiga, India, Vietnam, and Japan. The conquerors were outnumbered by the conquered by at least 10 to one and the distances involved were phenomenal. Perhaps the most important factor contributing to the Mongol success was the factional strife among the sedentary agriculturists. The Mongols had a sophisticated intelligence system, often involving Islamic traders, that they used to divide and conquer their opponents (disinformation was a favourite tactic). Genghis spent a great deal of time planning his campaigns.
Militarily, the Mongols had superior mobility which they used to great effect, warriors trained as cavalry from birth, a unified command under excellent generals (chosen for the most part by merit), and superior military technology. The Mongols learned siege craft from the Chinese and employed craftsmen from conquered territories to make their weapons. They were totally ruthless and routinely used terror (for example, making damn sure that the inhabitants of resisting cities were ALL killed). Mass rape, systematic looting, and total destruction constituted their modus operandi. We are talking a huge number of deaths during the period of their expansion—a good estimate would be 37 million.
The Mongols were very conscious of their small numbers (the population of pastoralists is strictly limited by the number of animals the land can support—unlike that of agriculturists) and worked to minimize their casualties. A favourite technique was to use captives in the front lines as arrow fodder in an attack.
Although Genghis managed to create an empire that lasted from 1206 to 1368, it was not sustainable, for the Mongols neither produced nor traded, they depended entirely on plunder, slavery, and tribute. Their alternatives were continual expansion, collapse, or assimilation by their subjects.
There has been one hell of a lot of scholarship since the last time I read about Genghis (1162-1227). Although the historical record has many little gaps, much is known about the personalities and intrigues among the Mongol elite and there are now details of the many battles fought (in fact, too many such details are presented in this book).
It is, therefore, now possible to attempt an explanation of how Genghis and his son Ogodei (1186-1241) conquered an empire of twelve million square miles, bounded by what is now West Germany, West Hungary, West Turkey, the frozen Taiga, India, Vietnam, and Japan. The conquerors were outnumbered by the conquered by at least 10 to one and the distances involved were phenomenal. Perhaps the most important factor contributing to the Mongol success was the factional strife among the sedentary agriculturists. The Mongols had a sophisticated intelligence system, often involving Islamic traders, that they used to divide and conquer their opponents (disinformation was a favourite tactic). Genghis spent a great deal of time planning his campaigns.
Militarily, the Mongols had superior mobility which they used to great effect, warriors trained as cavalry from birth, a unified command under excellent generals (chosen for the most part by merit), and superior military technology. The Mongols learned siege craft from the Chinese and employed craftsmen from conquered territories to make their weapons. They were totally ruthless and routinely used terror (for example, making damn sure that the inhabitants of resisting cities were ALL killed). Mass rape, systematic looting, and total destruction constituted their modus operandi. We are talking a huge number of deaths during the period of their expansion—a good estimate would be 37 million.
The Mongols were very conscious of their small numbers (the population of pastoralists is strictly limited by the number of animals the land can support—unlike that of agriculturists) and worked to minimize their casualties. A favourite technique was to use captives in the front lines as arrow fodder in an attack.
Although Genghis managed to create an empire that lasted from 1206 to 1368, it was not sustainable, for the Mongols neither produced nor traded, they depended entirely on plunder, slavery, and tribute. Their alternatives were continual expansion, collapse, or assimilation by their subjects.
Meier, C. (1982). Caesar. New York: Basic.
A nice treatment of the end of the republic and the motivations of the principal political antagonists at the time of Caesar. Meier illustrates how the senate had become incapable of administering the Roman empire and how this led to their ambivalent treatment of their great generals. Not as fast paced reading as Michael Grant's many books about the same period but worthwhile in any event. Caesar reminds one of a cross between Pierre Trudeau and General Patton.
A nice treatment of the end of the republic and the motivations of the principal political antagonists at the time of Caesar. Meier illustrates how the senate had become incapable of administering the Roman empire and how this led to their ambivalent treatment of their great generals. Not as fast paced reading as Michael Grant's many books about the same period but worthwhile in any event. Caesar reminds one of a cross between Pierre Trudeau and General Patton.
Nixey, C. (2017). The darkening age: The Christian destruction of the classical world. London: MacMillan.
Historical irony is sometimes so thick you can spread it with a knife. In 2016, the world mourned as the ancient temples and monuments of Palmyra were destroyed by Isis, including a giant statue of the goddess Athena. Unnoted, however, was the fact that the statue had been recently restored because of the mutilation it had suffered at the hands of jeering Christian monks in 385 CE. Christian monks throughout the empire had a mind-set like that of contemporary Islamic jihadists. Ever wonder why so many Roman and Greek statues lack their noses and limbs? Now you know. As St. Shenoute remarked “There is no crime for those who have Christ.”
The crimes went far beyond the destruction of temples and statues, prominent scholars and priests (most famously, the mathematician and astronomer, Hypatia of Alexandria) were literally torn apart by dirty and ignorant organized mobs of monks. Those who lived through the attacks were sometimes blinded with acid or had their eyes gouged out--the zealots thought that they couldn’t see the truth anyway.
A decree by Justinian in 429 CE completed the destruction of the classical world begun under Constantine by forbidding the teaching of philosophy or sacrificing to non-Christian gods. The last philosopher, Damascius, was forced to close the Academy that Plato had started in Athens almost a thousand years earlier. One couldn’t get around the law because spies were everywhere. All of this is reminiscent of the much later inquisition.
These sad events are described in some detail in Nixey’s book “The darkening age”. None of it would have come as a surprise to Gibbon who had also concluded that it was Christianity that killed classical learning in his multi-volume “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” (late 1700’s). This is far from the view promulgated by generations of Christian apologists who assert that the dark ages were caused by barbarian destruction and that classical learning was preserved only in monasteries. This argument does not pass muster—the eastern, more populous, Greek-speaking half of the empire survived until 1453.
Moreover, books had to be copied and taken care of to survive. Monks didn’t copy much of the classical literature and overwrote many classical works with childish hagiographies. Contemporary scholars devote considerable effort attempting to recover the underlying texts (palimpsests). In a further irony, classical philosophy was re-introduced into Europe from Islamic Spain, triggering the 14th century renaissance. The beginning of the end of a very long night.
Historical irony is sometimes so thick you can spread it with a knife. In 2016, the world mourned as the ancient temples and monuments of Palmyra were destroyed by Isis, including a giant statue of the goddess Athena. Unnoted, however, was the fact that the statue had been recently restored because of the mutilation it had suffered at the hands of jeering Christian monks in 385 CE. Christian monks throughout the empire had a mind-set like that of contemporary Islamic jihadists. Ever wonder why so many Roman and Greek statues lack their noses and limbs? Now you know. As St. Shenoute remarked “There is no crime for those who have Christ.”
The crimes went far beyond the destruction of temples and statues, prominent scholars and priests (most famously, the mathematician and astronomer, Hypatia of Alexandria) were literally torn apart by dirty and ignorant organized mobs of monks. Those who lived through the attacks were sometimes blinded with acid or had their eyes gouged out--the zealots thought that they couldn’t see the truth anyway.
A decree by Justinian in 429 CE completed the destruction of the classical world begun under Constantine by forbidding the teaching of philosophy or sacrificing to non-Christian gods. The last philosopher, Damascius, was forced to close the Academy that Plato had started in Athens almost a thousand years earlier. One couldn’t get around the law because spies were everywhere. All of this is reminiscent of the much later inquisition.
These sad events are described in some detail in Nixey’s book “The darkening age”. None of it would have come as a surprise to Gibbon who had also concluded that it was Christianity that killed classical learning in his multi-volume “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” (late 1700’s). This is far from the view promulgated by generations of Christian apologists who assert that the dark ages were caused by barbarian destruction and that classical learning was preserved only in monasteries. This argument does not pass muster—the eastern, more populous, Greek-speaking half of the empire survived until 1453.
Moreover, books had to be copied and taken care of to survive. Monks didn’t copy much of the classical literature and overwrote many classical works with childish hagiographies. Contemporary scholars devote considerable effort attempting to recover the underlying texts (palimpsests). In a further irony, classical philosophy was re-introduced into Europe from Islamic Spain, triggering the 14th century renaissance. The beginning of the end of a very long night.
Roller, D.W. (2010). Cleopatra: A biography. NY: Oxford University Press.
This is a very good book. Roller distinguishes between modern popular ideas about Cleopatra (69-30 BCE) and what the historical record shows. The book is very good at placing Cleopatra in her historical context. She was Queen of a country that had to come to terms with the expanding Roman Empire. To do so, She practiced what would now be recognized at Realpolitik in an attempt to get the best deal for Egypt that she could while advancing her Ptolemaic dynasty. What an eventful and dramatic life she had!
There is a wonderful (if fanciful) painting on the front cover of Cleopatra watching poisons being tested on her slaves.
This is a very good book. Roller distinguishes between modern popular ideas about Cleopatra (69-30 BCE) and what the historical record shows. The book is very good at placing Cleopatra in her historical context. She was Queen of a country that had to come to terms with the expanding Roman Empire. To do so, She practiced what would now be recognized at Realpolitik in an attempt to get the best deal for Egypt that she could while advancing her Ptolemaic dynasty. What an eventful and dramatic life she had!
There is a wonderful (if fanciful) painting on the front cover of Cleopatra watching poisons being tested on her slaves.
Rosen, W. (2007). Justinian’s flea: The first great plague and the end of the Roman Empire. Toronto: Penguin.
Very nicely written history and the clearest description of the biology of the plague I’ve read. The author attributes the fall of the Roman empire and the rise of the Islamic states to the arrival of the bubonic plague from Egypt in AD 542. Although the author can only provide plausible interpretation of correlational historical data, the sudden demise of about 25 million people is unlikely to be without historical effect.
Very nicely written history and the clearest description of the biology of the plague I’ve read. The author attributes the fall of the Roman empire and the rise of the Islamic states to the arrival of the bubonic plague from Egypt in AD 542. Although the author can only provide plausible interpretation of correlational historical data, the sudden demise of about 25 million people is unlikely to be without historical effect.
Shanks, H. (1998). The mystery and meaning of the Dead Sea scrolls. N.Y.: Random House.
An easy read. Two aspects of this book are of interest. The first is the documentation of religious preoccupation and schisms up to the time of Christ. The various sects, such as the Essenes, were fundamentally divided over purification rites so arcane as to boggle the mind. One keeps wondering: Why didn't they have a life?
The second aspect of interest is the description of how the Scrolls were acquired (cloak and dagger derring-do sorts of stuff) and published. The publication (or lack thereof) is billed as the scientific scandal of the century and it seems that this is no exaggeration. I won't give this part of the book away but if you ever wondered why deadlines were necessary, this is a book you should read.
An easy read. Two aspects of this book are of interest. The first is the documentation of religious preoccupation and schisms up to the time of Christ. The various sects, such as the Essenes, were fundamentally divided over purification rites so arcane as to boggle the mind. One keeps wondering: Why didn't they have a life?
The second aspect of interest is the description of how the Scrolls were acquired (cloak and dagger derring-do sorts of stuff) and published. The publication (or lack thereof) is billed as the scientific scandal of the century and it seems that this is no exaggeration. I won't give this part of the book away but if you ever wondered why deadlines were necessary, this is a book you should read.
Strauss, B. (2009). The Spartacus War. Toronto: Simon and Schuster.
Spartacus was a Thracian with military experience who was enslaved by the Romans and made a gladiator. In 71 BC, some 60-odd gladiators escaped and took to the hills near Vesuvius. The gladiators had early success against their pursuers and their group swelled to 60,000. To the poor and slaves, the rebels appeared to be heroes but to the more affluent, they were murderous locusts. Spartacus defeated nine Roman armies and almost made it to safety—once over the Alps and once across the Strait of Messina. Spartacus was eventually defeated and killed in battle; 6,000 of the surviving rebels were crucified along the road to Rome.
This is a very readable and well-organized little book. The historical record is very detailed but unfortunately spotty.
Spartacus was a Thracian with military experience who was enslaved by the Romans and made a gladiator. In 71 BC, some 60-odd gladiators escaped and took to the hills near Vesuvius. The gladiators had early success against their pursuers and their group swelled to 60,000. To the poor and slaves, the rebels appeared to be heroes but to the more affluent, they were murderous locusts. Spartacus defeated nine Roman armies and almost made it to safety—once over the Alps and once across the Strait of Messina. Spartacus was eventually defeated and killed in battle; 6,000 of the surviving rebels were crucified along the road to Rome.
This is a very readable and well-organized little book. The historical record is very detailed but unfortunately spotty.