Ammianus
Marcellinus is the kind of writer ancient history graduate students
hear about but don't actually read. I suspect that is because he writes
about that "no man's" land period that neither ancient historians nor
medieval historians are really comfortable with. Well, here's your
chance to join the elite, those who have actually read portions of
Ammianus Marcellinus'
Roman History. The
history originally covered all the emperors from Nerva through Valens.
The early sections are no longer extent, and what we have picks up
during the reign of Constantius. There's some good information here on
Constantius, a great analysis of Julian, and good information on
Julian's successors Valens and Valentinian, figures I don't talk about
in class.
Please
read just enough of the history here to get a feeling of what kind of
writer Ammianus Marcellinus was. From what you read, do you think he
deserves more attention than he usually gets? Do you see any particular
strengths/weaknesses? Is the history interesting? Would you like to
read more when you get a chance?
His writing is clear and understandable. He uses bigger words minimally, allowing those like myself who struggle to maintain our attention on a historical piece to keep a steady pace when reading through the book.
ReplyDeleteWhile his account is tinged with possible biasedness, it is not something that throws the reader off unless they were die-hard fans for a specific individual. Either way, 1) you shouldn't put someone on a pedestal, dead or alive, and 2) one should do their own research outside of one specific book.
The history is interesting, made better by the word choice. I cannot quite see any weaknesses, but a strength is no doubt his understanding that the readers don't like big, complex words when there are simpler and more understandable words available.
I'd have to think about if I would read more at a later date, but at the moment, I'm not particularly interested - more because my interest is not in Ancient Rome at the moment than any other reason.