Damon said: > Those are all great points, and illustrates that history is an > interpretive and analytical art. While I certainly hve no > objections to your agruments, regardless I still see the final > Byzantine emperors as inheritors of old Roman authority, and > besides which, having commonly accepted dates are very useful for a > frame of reference.
That's fair enough too. By the way, which date or period would you consider as marking the beginning of the Byzantine empire? Thank you for your recommendations. I've added all of the ones that are in print in the UK to my Amazon History wish-list, except for the Bloch which was on it anyway. I'm definitely going to have to get to some of these quite soon, as the only book I've read on the Middle Ages is Keen's _History of Medieval Europe_, which I review at http://www.theculture.org/rich/sharpblue/archives/000084.html > (Bloch is a big name in the field, and is very influential along with > his colleagues in the _Annales_ school of historical methodology) Speaking of Annales, I recently read Braudel's _The Mediterranean in the Ancient World_, which I thought was quite brilliant (especially those parts on the most ancient civilisations of the Mediterranean). It's pleasantly concise too (it is only its length that has so far discouraged me from reading his _Civilization and Capitalism_, which was recommended by Brad amongst others). Rich
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
