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?
In all honesty, I think that Ammianus does deserve more attention than he usually gets. This is because from what I read, he is very careful to be descriptive about what was going on in certain people and kind of clearing up what was happening so the reader can clearly see what was going on. The only potential weakness I see in his style of writing is that he has a tendency to be a little too descriptive and that can get a little confusing to the reader. The history is very interesting to me, and I would really like to read more when I get a chance.
ReplyDeleteI do think that Ammenius deserves more credit, but I also believe that he’s gotten a lot of credit to begin with. I think a lot of people could classify him as one of the great Roman writers that individuals read today. He depicts a lot about Roman life from the military to social, and even economic affairs in the Roman Empire. I think he does a great job of providing the people depth, and stability and reiterating what’s important for Romans, and what’s important for people to learn about Romans. I like the point about college students not necessarily reading his material because I think one of his strengths is definitely his descriptions and his storytelling, which could be confusing for a lot of college students like myself. Even reading some of the points he had made, I had to reread time and time again to really fully grasp and understand what was being presented to me. I think that could maybe be a weakness to an extent as well, especially for individuals trying to read his work, who may be confused strictly because there’s so much information being presented to them, that it’s difficult at times to follow. It also at times seemed that he wouldn’t hold back when discussing Roman leaders, which is something that a lot of Romans would do, as they were scared of persecution or other things that could result in punishment or death. I understand a certain extent of bias being shaped, but I do belive as well, that having bias is important, if you’re able to talk about both sides to a certain extent. I think he does a great job of that, and does a great job of providing the reader with both sides of arguments or even the story that he’s saying. I think if I was able to understand Roman history just a bit more, I think I’d really want to read more of his work, but taking a good five, ten minutes already, I’ve felt that I’ve learned a lot and I’d want to continue learning more down the line, especially as I continue to grow my Roman education and learn more about Rome as a whole.
ReplyDelete- Nile Hesson