Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
This problem more generally is a trap in many long debates in history that is easy for the newcomer to fall into without knowing - read one recent volume arguing very strongly (because it fits w/in a larger debate) but not knowing, accept it wrongly as the opinion of the field.https://twitter.com/MilHist_Lee/status/1302246975220350981 …
The hoplite debates have this problem, for sure. But also the 'how democratic' debates on the Roman Republic; the 'Romanization' and the ancient economy (primitivism/modernism) debates, though less so in those last 2 cases in that the communis opinio really has shifted.
For the newcomer, the key is often separating out what is *known* from what is theorized - part of what all of these debates have in common is (very)educated guesswork in the 'blanks' of the source material.
Failing that (esp. in cases where assessing the blanks requires language skills), the best recourse is to ask a subject matter expert not 'what is true' (they'll make a case for their side), but 'what is the state of the debate' or 'what is the communis opinio?'
I wish more generalists did more of this (summarizing/referencing these debates instead of just one angle). As a high school teacher, it’s often tough just to read one book on a topic, let alone multiple. Do you have any other tips on surveying the state of debate on a topic?
Some fields produce 'companion' volumes which - at least in theory - should be 'state of the debate' ('status quaestionis') treatments. These are common in classics but rarer elsewhere. Some fields also produce 'questions in...' readers/volumes which are much the same...
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
