Hi,

I'd rather have a link between amateurs/hobbyists and academia than another (short) article.

Robert

Sounds like a good idea - there are a lot of 'but everyone knows that...' facts which would bear some examination or explanation. What exactly is all the evidence for Roman military tunic colours? Legionary shield designs? Are Theban Hoplites bounds by statute to paint a club on their shields... they are always depicted thus... why? I'm not saying I don't know the 'answers' to these sorts of questions... but it'd be nice to see some well informed folks discuss such matters with genuine rigour. E.g. someone with reasonable understanding of Herodian's Greek (IIRC) actually explain the textual reference to those famous Palestian auxiliaries armed with 'clubs' (yes my pet subject... apologies). Anyway - good idea - worth considering - thumbs up from me.

Another idea along the same lines - possibly the same idea - is to summarise the sources for specific military subjects - as it's really hard work trying to dig all this stuff out. For example - summarise all the sources for the life of Alexander the Great - explaining the history of the manuscripts - which are contemporary - which secondary - and so on (in fact that's a relatively easy one - as you know - though chasing the manuscript history is harder). Similarly - all the references for Hellenistic pike deployment - you'd think it'd be easy - but tracking it all down and getting a historical perspective on the credibility of the account, reliability of the manuscript, and lingusitic variable (military terms being neither constant in use or translation) is... well tough! At least for us amateurs with unsophisticated Latin and no Greek.

Hello,

what about a "Pro and Contra" column where two authors may present their views of a controversal theme?

Best regards

Andreas

I think this is an excellent idea. As an amateur scholar one of the things that I have found most fascinating is the disagreements among academics. It's especially entertaining in books where the author actually calls out his opponent by name, then knocks away at their assertions. "What Prof. X fails to account for..." I'm looking forward to this feature.

Andreas's idea is a very good one: far too much of what we read inevitably comes down on one side or other, essentially warping the evidence through necessity. Unless there is some conviction, an article is fairly pointless though. So a "pro" and "contra" would be the best of both worlds, with two informed angles letting the reader make up their own mind. The only possible drawback as I see it is the need for close cooperation between two such experts on the same subject, which could be a little challenging to work out.

I would love to see references to how the Ancients actually did manage their logistics - everything from crop yields, through foraging, transportation, supply chains, shipping, cost, and so on. This is always an area that has gone in the 'too hard basket'