[gothic-l] Recommendation

[Oskar Andersson]

Hi Bertil,

thanks for your reply.

Well, I can see some errors in the text provided.
Goths attacked Histria in 238 [modern port Constanta] 
and that was the first encounter, I think, if none is recorded 
earlier (not to my knowledge). If Hermodsson does not know of the battle 
outside Abrittus in June, 251 [On the outskirts of the modren Bulgarian 
town Razgrad] he should not have started to write a book 
on Goths at all! To use the term "Västgoter" this early in history 
is anachronistic, as debated on this list previously.

Trajan's Dacia was "established" after the 2econd war in 
105-106. They withdrew in 271 ["Aurelian Withdrawal"]. 
This gives us 165 years of Roman domination of Dacia, and 
saying "close to 200 hundred years" is a stupid and erroneous 
generalisation when we are dealing with such numbers!

These things make me feel I need not read Hermodsson's book 
because I won't gain anything from it but correcting stupid errors 
like these.

Best,
Oskar



> Oskar,
> 
> It is noted that you have concerns about the 
> quality of Professor Hermodsson's book
> _Goterna_ (1993). I take it that you have
> read the book and please post your comments
> on the book so that we can start putting your
> concerns to rest. The book received on publication
> a number of positive reviews.
> 
> As I pointed out earlier there is a full bibliography
> on p. 113.
> 
> Yes, indeed, on the Visigoths and Ostrogoths:
> 
> "Utan stoerre avbraeck genom de blodiga nederlagen
> fortsatte baada [folkgrupperna] att utveckla en oerhoerd
> krigisk kraft. Vaestgoterna traengde omkring aar 275 in
> i södra delarna av provinsen Dakien - ungefaer det 
> nuvarande Rumaenien -som under naermare tvaahundra
> aar hade tillhoert romarriket som en oestlig utpost, men som
> romarna sedan hade utrymt och laemnat aat sitt oede."
> (p.29)
> 
> Well, I can conclude that you don't appreciate Professor
> Hermodsson book, but I don't think you view is based
> on a close study of the same.
> 
> On Wolfram I yesterday presented an opinion of Wolfram
> concerning the formation of the Goths that illuminates his
> position.
> 
> Gothically
> 
> Bertil
> 
> 
> It is SUFFICIENT to note from Tore's "views" that Hermodsson 
> does not state any references, talks about Västgoter and Östgoter 
> from about 275 and that it is a popular account for those who 
> never heard about Goths (although it should be rejected as such since 
> it is incorrect - even a popular account for people unfamiliar with the 
> history of Goths should be correct in its sources and a serious study).
> This view invalidates any serious approach to Hermodsson since 
> I do not appreciate him as an authority on the matter with serious research 
> backing up his "popular account;" hence my animosity.
> 
> 
> They provide critical illumination of the history of the Goths, 
> with sources stated, etc. something that Hermodsson hasn't 
> provided as Tore CLEARLY stated. Everyone without source 
> references should be critically examined, to say the least.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a member of the Gothic-L list.  To unsubscribe, send a blank email to <gothic-l-unsubscribe at egroups.com>. 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 


You are a member of the Gothic-L list.  To unsubscribe, send a blank email to <gothic-l-unsubscribe at egroups.com>. 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/