Books of Note

Angela

Angela

Elite member
Messages
21,820
Reaction score
12,348
Points
113
Ethnic group
Italian
This is one that sounds very good.

"[h=1]The Fate of Rome: Climate, Disease, and the End of an Empire (The Princeton History of the Ancient World) "[/h]
"https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B071SLPWVL/geneexpressio-20#customerReviews"

My favorite on this period (and Razib Khan's) is "The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization", by Bryan Ward-Perkins. It can be bought very cheaply at this point as a paperback, and it's quite short.
 
I have read it (based on your recommendation in another thread) but was rather disappointed. The author wrote the book in reaction to some American historians' claim that Germanic migrations were mostly peaceful and that the Romans almost welcomed them. This is obviously nonsense. I don't know anyone in Europe who believes this. So why write a book to try to prove that the Germanic invasions were indeed violent? The whole book sounded like a tedious argumentation to prove something that was already obvious.

Besides, there are hardly any mentions of the Franks on a book that covers the Late Roman Empire, the Fall of Rome and two centuries thereafter. That's like writing a book on WWII and forgetting to mention the role of the British in the war! I suppose that the reason for the omission is that the Franks did not fit the pattern the author was trying to prove. The Franks were the only Germanic tribe who settled peacefully, long before the other ones arrived. As I explained in my history of the Franks, they moved into the territories of the southern Netherlands and Belgium in the 3rd century, became Foederati in 288, became a powerful ally of Rome, providing many imperial generals and even some senators and consuls. The Franks integrated remarkably well into Roman society, speaking Latin fluently, obtaining Roman citizenship. They actively tried to protect the Roman Empire from foreign invasions, defeated the Burgundians, Visigoths and Lombards, and did all they could to restore the Western Roman Empire, which they eventually did under Charlemagne. There is no mention of any of it in the book.
 
By "I don't know anyone in Europe who believes this", I'm assuming that you are talking about lay people, because this was definitely the consensus in Britain (do you consider that Europe?), Germany, Eastern Europe, and even Belgium among historians and archaeologists. It was only French and Italian scholars who disagreed.

Ward-Perkins was writing in opposition to almost an entire generation of post war historians. He is also, by the way, British, both a historian and an archaeologist, a professor at Oxford, and the editor of the Cambridge Ancient Review.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Ward-Perkins

The most important figure of note, the leader of this consensus, is another British historian who wound up teaching at Princeton: Peter Brown. I don't know if this is the scholar whom you mistook for American.

See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Brown_(historian)

"He is credited with having brought coherence to the field of Late Antiquity, and is sometimes regarded as the inventor of the field."[h=3]"The World of Late Antiquity (1971)[/h]In his second book The World of Late Antiquity (1971), Brown offered a radically new interpretation of the entire period between the second and eighth centuries AD. The traditional interpretation of this period was centred around the idea of decadence from a 'golden age', classical civilisation, after the famous work of Edward Gibbon The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1779). On the contrary, Brown proposed to look at this period in positive terms, arguing that Late Antiquity was a period of immense cultural innovation."

That was certainly the way it was taught when I was at university, almost always from books by British and German scholars. There was a reluctance to see it the way it was, and the way French and Italian scholars saw it, as a series of devastating invasions which greatly stressed an already stressed system. I thought then, and think now that these scholars didn't want to see their ancestors as despoilers and destroyers of civilization, and this colored their perspective.

Ward-Perkins, as an archaeologist working on remains from that period in Italy, knew that was blatantly absurd, and he proved it in his book.

Continuing with the British contingent, there is Guy Halsall, who went so far as to say the Germanic tribes had nothing to do with the fall of the Empire, arriving only when it had already collapsed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Halsall

I would also put Peter Heather in that camp.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Heather

It was definitely the consensus in British academia.

Turning to the continent, this was a view also held by Germanic scholars. They preferred not even talking about an "invasion", but called it the "Wandering", or "Völkerwanderung", as if it were some sort of aimless stroll in the countryside.

Walter Goffart, a Belgian, also preferred to see not invasion, with all its connotations of death and destruction, but a peaceful "melding" of groups of people.
http://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/book/14230.html

I could go on and on, but I think I've made the point.

History, and archaeology, have "swings" in interpretation. The "oh, it was a peaceful transfer of power, no death, no destruction of the cities, no collapse of trade and the economy, no end to education, transportation networks, no increase in lawlessness" pendulum had swung too far. Ward-Perkins provided the needed correction to that revisionism. That's why that book is on my list and that of many others.

 
Angela said:
By "I don't know anyone in Europe who believes this", I'm assuming that you are talking about lay people, because this was definitely the consensus in Britain (do you consider that Europe?), Germany, Eastern Europe, and even Belgium among historians and archaeologists. It was only French and Italian scholars who disagreed.
...
Turning to the continent, this was a view also held by Germanic scholars. They preferred not even talking about an "invasion", but called it the "Wandering", or "Völkerwanderung", as if it were some sort of aimless stroll in the countryside.

Walter Goffart, a Belgian, also preferred to see not invasion, with all its connotations of death and destruction, but a peaceful "melding" of groups of people.
Click to expand...

I am very surprised by what you are saying because I studied history in Belgium and visited universities in Britain and Germany, read books and watched documentaries made by British and American people (among others) and I have never once come across the point of view that Germanic people peacefully migrated into the Roman Empire and were welcomed and accommodated by the Roman population, except for the Franks. Every book I have read on the subject blames mainly the barbarian invasions for the destruction of the Western Roman Empire. Even the name Vandal has become synonymous with gratuitous destruction.

Most British people believe that the Anglo-Saxons were so brutal that they massacred or pushed away to Wales, Cornwall and Brittany the majority of the inhabitants of Roman Britain. Only DNA tests in the last decade showed that in fact historians may have exaggerated the population replacement that took place as modern English people are clearly a blend of native Britons and Anglo-Saxons (+Vikings), as attested by the east-west gradient in R1b-L21 within England.

Perhaps what Walter Goffart was referring to applied mostly to the Franks, or maybe even to the Germanic mercenaries recruited by the Romans along the border with Germania to fight other barbarians? Most Belgian, Dutch and West German historians may have this bias because they think first about how their own region fared, and in their region the Franks did settle peacefully, integrate and become true Roman citizens. Nobody can seriously think that the Anglo-Saxons settled peacefully in England when entire cities were destroyed, all signs of Roman civilisation vanished and people even forgot how to write. The very legend of King Arthur is based on the desperate resistance of the leftover of the Romano-British population against the raging Angles and Saxons. In fact, most Britons imagine the Anglo-Saxon invasions as nearly as brutal as the later Viking invasions, but on a much bigger scale. Despite all their fame for fierceness and violence, the Vikings could never seize all England. But the Angles and Saxons did and gave their name and language to it - a sure sign of discontinuity with the Roman and Celtic past. In contrast the Vikings only contributed a few hundreds words to the English language (about the same as Spanish and far less than Greek) and left a few place names in Northeast England.

I have always used the term Völkerwanderung, and heard it being used, to refer to the migrations of Germanic and Slavic tribes due to overpopulation, climate change and pressure from Steppe people (Huns, Alans). That movement of people is not synonymous with the invasion of the Roman Empire. It started with the expansion of tribes from Scandinavia to northern Germany and Poland, which brought Germanic tribes among other Germanic, Celto-Germanic or Proto-Slavic tribes. Only a few of these tribes ended up invading the Roman Empire (Goths, Vandals, Suebi, Burgundians). Later the Slavs also invaded the Byzantine Empire. Many Germanic tribes remained in Germania, while most of the Slavs also settled outside of the Roman Empire (Poland, East Germany, Czechia, Slovakia...). So the word Völkerwanderung is definitely not synonymous with invasion of the Roman Empire. It is a much wider phenomenon that stared centuries before the Fall of Rome and continued for many centuries later until Viking invasions (the last large-scale migration within Europe). Even the English page of Wikipedia on the subject says so, and it is edited by English-speaking historians too.

Perhaps a few fools thought they'd make a name for themselves by proposing the ridiculous idea that the Anglo-Saxons, Vandals, Suebi and Goths were early versions of North European tourists and expats who came to spend their money among welcoming Roman citizens, who then let them happily settle among them and marry their daughters. The world is filled with idiots and ultra-nationalists are typically among them. But I don't think it was necessary to write a book to respond to such idiocy. Just ignore idiots (if you want to keep your sanity in this world).
 
Maciamo said:
Nobody can seriously think that the Anglo-Saxons settled peacefully in England when entire cities were destroyed, all signs of Roman civilisation vanished and people even forgot how to write
Click to expand...

Isn't it the case that most Roman cities were in states of disrepair even before the Anglo-Saxons arrived though, largely abandoned by the Britons who had generally relied on the 'establishment' legionaries to maintain them? Also, the Anglo-Saxons generally favoured virgin land for their settlements, but we do know that they maintained city walls, aqueducts, etc into the 7th and 8th centuries. Even the basilica in the forum in York was in use until the Viking invasions, and the general paucity of visible Roman remains today is as much (if not more) because of the later Viking and Norman settlements/conquests and the subsequent carnage
 
Alcuin said:
Isn't it the case that most Roman cities were in states of disrepair even before the Anglo-Saxons arrived though, largely abandoned by the Britons who had generally relied on the 'establishment' legionaries to maintain them? Also, the Anglo-Saxons generally favoured virgin land for their settlements, but we do know that they maintained city walls, aqueducts, etc into the 7th and 8th centuries. Even the basilica in the forum in York was in use until the Viking invasions, and the general paucity of visible Roman remains today is as much (if not more) because of the later Viking and Norman settlements/conquests and the subsequent carnage
Click to expand...

The Roman legions left Britain to go protect other parts of the empire. That left the island undefended against the Anglo-Saxons. But the local population still lived in the cities founded by the Romans. They were not going to change their lifestyle acquired during four centuries of Romanisation all of a sudden just because some Roman troops left! In fact there is evidence that the Roman-British population kept importing olive oil after the legions left the island. They had become so Romanised that they preferred imported Mediterranean olive oil to locally available butter or animal fat for cooking.

It's not surprising that the city walls or aqueducts survived the Anglo-Saxon invasions as they were solid constructions and there was no benefit in spending a lot of time and energy in dismantling them. In fact city walls could still be used by the newcomers. The Anglo-Saxons may have massacred the locals and plundered the cities, but they then set up residence in some of these cities and renamed them. All the towns and cities with names ending in -chester (Chester, Manchester, Dorchester, Rochester, Chichester, Winchester, etc.) or -caster (Lancaster) are Anglicisations of the Roman castrum.

I disagree that the Vikings and Normans were the main cause of destruction of Roman edifices. The Viking presence was mostly confined to the North and East Midlands, which were the least Romanised regions. The Normans were not barbarians, but had acquired all the refinement, language, culture, technology and administrative practices of the French by the time they invaded England in 1066. They were the ones that created "modern England" as a country. They spoke both French and Latin and their rule was decisive in altering the English language from a 100% Germanic language to a language that is now more Romance than Germanic both in amount of vocabulary and in grammar.
 
I'm not sure I expressed myself well. I know the British population was more thoroughly Romanised than some realise, and that contact with the continent did not cease with the official departure of the Roman legionaries and governors, but my point was rather that the 'destruction of cities' you mentioned was more a product of them falling into a state of decrepitude from the mid-4th century onwards. As far as I was aware this was because of increasingly poor governance by Rome, an increase in barbarian raids from north of Hadrian's Wall, Ireland, Scandinavia and Germany, and the general lack of knowledge of masonry, architecture and engineering amongst natives, who had relied on legionaries and migrants to construct their temples and basilicas, compared to other 'citizens' in the rest of the Empire - this as opposed to Anglo-Saxon migrants laying siege to well fortified towns and then dismantling them (though I don't doubt this happened in areas).

The Vikings laid siege to the only true colonies of Roman Britain, namely London, York and Lincoln (all incorporated into the Danelaw), with most other towns either much smaller in their population or focused far more on military purposes than Romano-British civilian life and native 'Romanitas'

The Normans weren't barbarians, my point was more that the invasion ushered in yet another age of warfare and rebellion that ultimately destroyed vestiges of Roman Britain. I didn't mean to imply that they went around smashing columns and temples to pieces just for the sake.
 
Regarding the influence of the change of language,after the fall of Roman Britian.

In my opinion, after the Romans left Britian, and some Germanic peoples were already settled/retired (Roman Auxiliary troops etc )in Britian. The new Anglo-Saxon settlers arriving had, basically two major influences on the future English language/dialects, Saxon, in mostly the Southern and South East of Britian, and Anglian in the Eastern, and later North Eastern side's of Britian. The period from at least the Roman departure ( AD 410 ) up untill the Norman conquest of 1066 reflects the two separate early significant influences on the British Language. These major change's, have a long term effect, which is still apparent today, in the differing dialects of these area's.
The Viking aspect remains a lot more significant than only a few hundred words. A lot of these Vikings were in fact the same people, arriving from the same homelands to Britian (from East Anglia, to Northumbria during the early fifth to eleventh centuries), many early villages were originally settled with inga/inga's end names, (people of the named leader) then followed later by Ham endings etc described as ?ingham, such as Billingham,etc. It is also possible that some of the recognised By endings may actually be a lot earlier than believed.

These changes were as a result of the dialects of the incommers, many dialects spoken today still carry these original soundings and wordings, and the impact In my opinion was far greater than only a few Hundred words developing. The Angles of the Anglo-Saxons were more or less comming from Southern,Norway, Skane/Sweden,( Sutton Hoo/Vendel periods ) and Denmark, the very same area's the later Viking set out from. Archaeology and linquistics show similarities in culture and language from these same area,s. Early Anglican brooch's,and jewellry etc such as Gold Bractea's are identical to those from South West Norway, Sweden, and Denmark,and of the early migration period.

I have a North East accent, and was talking to a Swedish archaeologist, involved in an early Anglian grave field in my home town area, who was astounded at the similarity of my accent, and she compared its similarity to her own Swedish language, this was also pointed out to me In Arhus in Denmark,on a journey to Sweden, many years ago. I was talking among some friends when a local lad overheard us and sat with us, telling us how we are speaking is exactly how they speak, using the same identical words and vowells etc, he could clearly see a connection to our dialect and his speech.

I believe the influences of the immigrant settlement of the Anglian aspect, is a lot deeper than is believed,and has a much larger significance. It is a shame that as our children are now loosing this cultural aspect, due to modern lifestyle and TV etc, these dialects and there connections will disappear altogether soon. I honestly also believe that immigration from these countries was more continuous from the fifth century onwards, untill the Norman invasion,in the eleventh century, and its effects are much deeper than believed by some, certianlly the ties and trades were certianly continuing through out this period.

The Genetic investigations of the Anglian Germanic/Scandinavian settlers cannot as yet be separated from the later Viking periods due to the similarity of their DNA, only the Northern western Norse, Hiberno/Norse vikings are identifying a difference, but this is recognised as a Later settlement but has similar connections in the dialects etc.

Regarding the Romano/British, building's etc left after the Romans withdrew.
,
The new early invaders weather invited or invaders, avoided settling these different and strange stone towns etc, very different from their Northern homeland cultures, and buildings etc, no doubt they were unsure, and even fearfull about them. This is one of the reasons, opiniated as to why/how many Roman buildings survived or remained for longer periods. It was a cultural and pagan belief that these stone buildings were built by Giants/Gods etc, and to be avoided. ( it was after all a strange, mostly unknown, and new land they were entering).

It was many years later that christianity having been accepted, they then began again to build, in stone, using no doubt imported Italian/Roman masons who had the knowledge, in the seventh century. No doubt these began robbing the masonary from the many roman ruins, much similar to the nineteenth century victorians robbing the stones from Hadrians Wall to use as Hardcore paving and foundations along the present road following the route of the roman stanegate.
 
Last edited:
paul333 said:
The Viking aspect remains a lot more significant than only a few hundred words.
Click to expand...

Doubtful. I have read books such as The Story of English by McCrum and McNeil, The Stories of English by David Crystal, The Mother Tongue by Bill Bryson and Empires of the Word by Nicholas Ostler, and all say that the contribution of Old Norse to English was rather minor and is found in a few loan words like husband, law, same, egg, like, knife, skate, skill, skull, slaughter, club...

A lot of these Vikings were in fact the same people, arriving from the same homelands to Britian (from East Anglia, to Northumbria during the early fifth to eleventh centuries)
...
The Angles of the Anglo-Saxons were more or less comming from Southern,Norway, Skane/Sweden,( Sutton Hoo/Vendel periods ) and Denmark, the very same area's the later Viking set out from.
...
The Genetic investigations of the Anglian Germanic/Scandinavian settlers cannot as yet be separated from the later Viking periods due to the similarity of their DNA, only the Northern western Norse, Hiberno/Norse vikings are identifying a difference, but this is recognised as a Later settlement but has similar connections in the dialects etc.
Click to expand...

The Angles came from the Wadden Sea region in Frisia and coastal NW Germany. The Saxons came from Lower Saxony in Germany. Both are heavily R1b-S21 regions today and that haplogroup predominates in the Netherlands and England today too. In contrast, Scandinavians have very different lineages, with high levels of I1 (especially I1-L22) and considerably higher levels of R1a (both L664 and Z284) and I2a2a-L801 than in England today. Scandinavians have less R1b-S21, but have R1b-L238, which is virtually absent in England. Northern Scotland, Orkey and the Hebrides seem to have the most truly Viking ancestry.


many early villages were originally settled with inga/inga's end names, (people of the named leader) then followed later by Ham endings etc described as ?ingham, such as Billingham,etc. It is also possible that some of the recognised By endings may actually be a lot earlier than believed.
Click to expand...

The -ing(a)/ingen ending is broadly West Germanic and common throughout the Low Countries and West Germany. The -ingham suffix is more Saxon. It is common in coastal Flanders (including French Flanders) as -inghem or inge(m). Within England is more common in the Southeast (and parts of East Anglia) where the Saxons settled. See my analysis of Belgian toponymy.
 
Old Norse is very different, and separate from old Danish/Anglian. There are two accepted views of the Viking settlement in Britian, The Norse, Vikings mainly the Northern isles and western coasts of Britian, including Cumbria, the Wirrel, and parts of Ireland, isle of man, and small influences further East towards the North Yorkshire coast. The Danes/Swedish Vikings etcs who for the most parts were the descendants/same people as the Angle's left a larger influence of our Language etc.

It is the early movements of these people into Britian no doubt following the coastal area's down such as Frisea etc,from their Northern Homelands as the springboard to the East coasts of Britian. These connections and movements in my own opinion, must have continued through out for hundreds of years, as the coinage shows, ie ' many seventh and eight century Sceats ( Silver coins )etc found in Britian have mints in Frisea and the mouth of the Rhine river, such as Dorstad etc.

The Scandinavian element of 'Anglian settlement' is proved beyond question in East Anglia, and then further up the Northern East Coast of England. The Sutton Hoo, (Anglian) and ( Uppsala 'Vendel ), Swedish '. Beowulf itself proves this close cultural connection with the Anglian Settlements, very separate from the Saxon settlement although there is a connection with Hengest etc.

'Ham' endings arrived later with or followed on from the, ingas names, prior to ton endings, there was certianly overlap of the Saxon' in the South East of Anglia, Suffolk etc, and no doubt these namings were influenced, they are also many Ham endings in Sweden/Denmark today that no doubt have long and ancient foundations. Taken together these name endings can be traced and dated historically and culturally, and actually serve as a tool to dating settlements.

'Ham' names in Sweden for Instance - HargsHamn, Bylehamn, Grisslehamn, Bergshamra, OskarsHamn, KarlsHam, Kristinhamn, Osthamar, to name a few, although slightly differing they are the same meaning. 'Copenhagen' Denmarks capital city was earlier known as Kopmann's Hamn. there are also many 'ton' names in these countries that may also have origins much earlier than believed. Sigtuna, a famous Swedish trade centre.

Regarding the inga's naming, if for instance you follow the Anglian settlements of the early fifth and sixth centuries you will follow and clearly Identify settlement names such as 'Esa', 'inga's ton, ie Easington. The Modern named Easingtons, have evolved and developed with a later 'ton' ending, but the original name can be followed up the whole east coast of England, from the original area's of the first anglian settlements. Easington is one of many such footprints, and as it is recognised as an early inga's, name it could well be a memory reference to Esa/Eosa/Oesa, the Grandfather of Ida. ( Strangly enough, in the nearest Easington to myself, there is also a road known as Glappa Gate, this also could be a rememberence/reference to the succesor to King Ida.

You only have to look at any Swedish map today to find many 'Ing'/Ing's ending names today, and Sweden has never suffered a large scale language/cultural change such as in Britian. I only mention the Swedish/Danish connections, because of my own visits to Denmark and Sweden where I was shocked by the similarity with names in my own country, and these two countries have been tied culturally for many hundreds of years.

'Ida' the well know king of the northern kingdon of Bernicia, (died 559 ) later Northumberland, had a grandfather named Esa/Eosa/Oesa, and he may well be the, founder of the original early settlement names of Easington, from, East Anglia,Lincoln, Yorkshire, Co Durham, Northumberland, all settled on the east coast of England, this may reflect a settlement history, of Esa and his people progressing North from an original East Anglian founding.

Archaeological findings such as cruciform and square headed brooch's, are Identified as culturally Anglia/Scandinavian, confirm some of these settlements to be Anglian as early grave finds relating to the Angles have been associated with first generation incomers.late fifth and early sixth century.

There are many versions through history of the name Easington regarding the first element of this name, but its root form is from 'Esa/Oesa/Eosa and Inga's, 'the people/followers of Esa/Oesa/Eosa' which is the most likely origin.

A lot of DNA studies into Anglo-Saxon peopling of Britian, may prove this as more people test, but after the Norman conquest, many fled from the Eastern coasts, and other area's,from what was basically Brutal 'ethnic cleansing' .People moved Inland and North, many to Scotland, and some even left the country, many to Flanders, and further, this may also have an effect on the DNA findings, and may represent a back migration into these regions. People that stayed or were found or come across, were wiped out completely, these were large population deliberate destructions, especially in the North and East, records exist proving that actions such as the 'Harrying of the North' did happen, and its consequences may still be found by DNA today.

These area's were left many years desolate, and then repopulated by many different people, no doubt altering the original language dialects, and gene pool of DNA from the original settlers. It is not suprising that a lot of Anglian/Viking DNA, is missing, but the actual influence of Viking influences have to be considered along side the Anglian influence as in my opinion they cannot be separated in the way they are. The Norse settlement is a very different issue, as I believe it was influenced by dialects further up the Western and Northern islands of the coast of Norway, and although similar is clearly differing.

I believe there are far more words/language connections, and dialects from the Anglian/Viking settlements than is stated today, and soon the true impact will be lost as local dialects, words, and sounds completely dissapear in the next few generations.
 
Last edited:
Haven't yet read this, but it's getting lots of good press. " The First Farmers of Europe: An Evolutionary Perspective" by Stephan Shennan. It's published by Cambridge University Press.

See:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/ne...first-farmers-europe-evolutionary-perspective

"
Korea_poster320px.jpg
[FONT=&quot]Stephen Shennan has been invited to give two special lectures at Korean universities this week relating to his newly-published research on the first farmers of Europe.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Stephen's new volume, The First Farmers of Europe: An Evolutionary Perspective published this month by Cambridge University Press, presents the latest research on the spread of farming by archaeologists, geneticists and other archaeological scientists and shows that it resulted from a population expansion from present-day Turkey.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Using ideas from the disciplines of human behavioural ecology and cultural evolution, Stephen explains how this process took place. The expansion was not the result of 'population pressure' but of the opportunities for increased fertility by colonising new regions that farming offered. The knowledge and resources for the farming 'niche' were passed on from parents to their children. However, Stephen demonstrates that the demographic patterns associated with the spread of farming resulted in population booms and busts, not continuous expansion."

It's available on amazon. The e-book version is much more reasonably priced. I hate e-books for this kind of stuff, though. I like having and writing in the actual book, so maybe I'll wait until the paperback is more reasonable. [/FONT]
 
I have been following the Population Structure in Italy thread with much interest, and took note of Angela's mention of "Carthage Must Be Destroyed." But what are the best books in English on Italy before the rise of Rome? Ideally slim volumes that are less than 200 pages :)

And what other titles would people here recommend for European pre-history in general? Is Jean Manco's "Ancestral Journeys" still worth a read or is it already outdated?
 
dominique_nuit said:
I have been following the Population Structure in Italy thread with much interest, and took note of Angela's mention of "Carthage Must Be Destroyed." But what are the best books in English on Italy before the rise of Rome? Ideally slim volumes that are less than 200 pages :)


​
And what other titles would people here recommend for European pre-history in general? Is Jean Manco's "Ancestral Journeys" still worth a read or is it already outdated?
Click to expand...


There is:

"The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c.1000-264 BC)" and it's cheap. You can probably find it used for about 20.00, but it's 500 pages.

This one is relatively cheap and about 200 pages, but it's only on Sicily: Sicily Before History by Robert Leighton. You can get it for about 33.00 at amazon.

Both of them are pretty old.

This one I've bought but haven't yet read. It's recent, you can get a used copy on amazon for 25.00, and it's only about 250 pages, but it's only Northern Italy. It's called Northern Italy in the Roman World, but goes back to the Bronze Age.

The best is this: De Gruyter Reference-"The Peoples of Ancient Italy", a compendium of chapters by scholars, only two years old, but it's 800 pages, and costs 200 something dollars on amazon. I keep waiting for the price to go down. I also have been trying to borrow it from various libraries but you can only get it for a month.

Imo some of Jean's book is out of date, and I didn't agree with some things anyway, i.e. she was wrong about the Etruscans, even about Iberia. If you can get it cheap, though, you might start with it. It will be obvious which things are off if you've been reading a lot of threads on our site.
 
Angela, Thank you for the recommendations. It seems I already have "The Beginnings of Rome," by T.J. Cornell, on my shelves, but alas, have not read it. Clearly need to put it on the shortlist.

The De Gruyter reference book looks great, but at $200+ I think I will pass for now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top