Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
I think @JoshoBrouwers also really nails the difference between, say, a Peter Connolly - often badly underappreciated by scholars - and someone like Raffaele D'Amato.
Connolly made up for his lack of specialist training with an abundance of caution... 2/6
...which is why I'm still frequently recommending his Greece and Rome at War (1981) after so much time. By contrast, D'Amato's work, even on Roman armor, is sadly not to be recommended (go for Feugere or Bishop&Coulston instead)... 3/6
...D'Amato tends, even when discussing Roman equipment (where the evidence is substantially better than with the Mycenean Bronze Age) to advance...let's say 'bold'...interpretations with no hint to the reader that he is well outside the generally accepted interpretation. 4/6
The overall point @JoshoBrouwers makes on the Bronze Age in Homer is also good, I think. I tend to think there is a *bit* of the Bronze Age frozen in Homer, but - as I tell my students - the Bronze Age in Homer is like the egg in cake batter... 5/6
...you know it's there (chariots! boar's tusk helmets!), but it isn't the majority ingredient and most importantly there is no way to get it back out again. Anyway, really solid essay, give it a read! end/6
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
