I’m an othismos literalist (this is an unpopular view). I base this on a lot of factors, including my own internality/experience in close-combat, but also on Tyrtaeus’ poetry and several battle narratives. I wrote a thread on it on here a while back, lemme see if I can find it.https://twitter.com/justsaylos/status/1225186625149448192 …
-
It’s hard for me to be neutral about WWoW. I know there’s scholarship there, but it’s so tangled in racism and chickenhawk chest pounding that my eye twitches whenever I consider it. Hanson is a bad dude. I can’t consider his work in a detached manner.
Would that only good people produced high quality scholarship, and that bad people produced only low quality scholarship. Alas, it is not so. I respect your stance, but don't feel, as an academic, that I can adopt it - I have to note when even the bad people have a good idea.
-
-
He has *shreds* of good ideas, scotch taped onto really really really bad ones. His work, in the aggregate, isn’t to be taken seriously, IMO. His overall impact on military intellectuals who don’t have the benefit of a real background in history is immeasurably harmful.
-
But the shreds are concentrated. I'd say his works can be divided into two categories. On one side is Warfare and Agriculture, WWoW and The Other Greeks; they're valuable to scholars, occasionally dangerous to non-specialists. Everything else is dangerous nonsense.
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.