The Bay Center, Victoria BC, December 2025. The building is misnamed because the Hudson’s Bay Company is bankrupt and seems unlikely to return.
While the cares of the world drew me away from my books, I had some time to read whole books in 2025.
Books vary widely in density and word count (and readers vary in how much attention they pay). I suspect that some people who claim to read very large numbers of books mostly skim them, and some definitely read novels and airport books which are designed for easy reading. Someone who reads a few things intensely is not necessarily reading less than someone with a novel-a-day habit. So I will not make a total, just a subtotal of each category. These posts are to help me remember the books of all sorts which I read in 2025, like Zotero helps me remember the academic articles I found.
I have noticed that in ancient world studies or arms and armour I read more chapters and articles, whereas I am more likely to read a whole book in something further from my areas of expertise.
A relief of captured arms and armour from the early Roman empire. Metropolitan Museum of Art, object number 2021.264.1
Over on his blog Bret Devereaux has followed up a chat in the comments with a post on the mechanics of Roman and Iberian combat. About ten years after historians of ancient Greece started to challenge the “rugby scrum” model, Roman Army Scholars started to think hard about what ancient writers said the Roman army and its Iberian opponents did in combat. These descriptions have significant differences from descriptions in earlier Greek writers like Tyrtaeus, Thucydides, and Xenophon (for example, Roman armies can be driven back hundreds of metres before turning the tide, whereas the first time Thucydides’ hoplites turn their backs (tropein) is so important that the other side erects a monument (trope) to it). The blog post is well worth reading. In lieu of a full response I have some comments below.
While I am limiting myself to one blog post per month, over on Bret Devereaux’ blog his fourth essay on the hoplite debates has comments by me and friends-of-the-blog like Richard Taylor, Paul Bardunias, and Heregrim. If you are jonesing for a bookandsword fix, check it out!
Bret Devereaux has published his second essay about the debate about early Greek warfare with some back and forth from Richard Taylor and Hergrim. This week I will follow up on one of the questions which newcomers to the debate often have, namely why until around 2015 researchers rarely obtained replica kit and tried it out. There are many reasons, but the biggest reason is that ancient kit is hard to make.
Fragment of an Attic Black Figure pot with a duel, painted around 550-545 BCE. Getty Museum, Malibu, object
86.AE.112 under a Creative Commons license.
Over on his website historian Bret Devereaux has started a series on debates about early Greek warfare. The first post in that series is well worth reading. It puts me in a dilemma because I see some things differently than he does, but I can’t spare the time for such a lengthy and carefully footnoted essay. So I will respond with four theses about those academic controversies, using vivid bloggy writing and linking to my earlier posts and academic publications. I will follow his lead by avoiding discussion of Victor Davis Hanson’s political project although I had to address it in my review of The Other Greeks. Hanson’s ideas about early Greek warfare were not original in 1989. His great achievement was expressing them in clear and contemporary language which spread outside the lecture hall and the seminar room.
The tomb of Theodoric, King of the Ostrogoths in Italy (died 526 CE). That roof is a single piece of stone, and he seems to have been buried in a porphyry bathtub. I once visited Ravenna for a few hours. Source: Wikimedia Commons
If you can bear not just Romans but Christian Romans, late antiquity is a fascinating time. The period from when the Roman empire fell into civil wars in the third century CE, and the remainder of the empire drew inwards under pressure from Arabs and Slavs and angry theologians was a time of rapid changes that we know just enough about to argue about. Some of the biggest questions are about how to think about interactions between Romans and barbarians. This has been discussed so intensively by very clever people with very similar backgrounds that debates sometimes get dogmatic and people have a hard time listening to new perspectives.
In his brief period of experimenting on posting on other people’s sites, Canadian historian and essayist Phil Paine had a discussion with medievalist Jonathan Jarett. For my post in October I would like to share his words, and the comparative evidence that he uses.
In summer 2025 I finished revising the manuscript and bibliography of my second book and started to sort out the image rights and commission artwork. I will have more to say about that project in 2026. In the meantime, I want to talk about some of the troubles which come up when trying to clearly indicate where your information comes from or where readers can learn more.
After an email exchange, I have learned that some prominent people want to believe that the population of the Americas in 1492 is known closely. Here is why I say it is debated within a factor of 20.
Colin McEvedy and Richard Jones have the following to say in their 1978 Atlas of World Population History:1
The estimate of 1m Amerindians north of the Rio Grande- which breaks down into 0.2m in Canada, 0.05m in Alaska, and 0.75m in the rest of the Continental USA- goes back at least as far as J. Mooney (Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 80.7 (1928)); it seems to be generally accepted, though the California school of revisionists has issued a trial balloon in favour of 20m (sic). The present population of 0.6m represents a recovery from the all-time low of 0.5m reached in 1925. … The size of the population of Mexico in 1492 has lately become the subject of much academic argument. … The point at issue is this: was the population of Mexico in 1492 no more than 5m (Rosenblat) or was it more than 30m (Cook and Borah)? Comparisons with other parts of the world at comparable levels of culture leads us to throw in our lot with Rosenblat.
So McEvedy and Jones acknowledge disputes about the pre-Columbian population of the USA and Canada within a factor of 20, and disputes about the population of Mexico within a factor of 6. Their arguments for one end of the range are no more sophisticated than “it seems to be generally accepted” and that if the population of Mexico had been as high as 30 million, then the rate of decline which this implies would be an “improbability.” Most of their numbers for the period 1 to 1500 CE were copied by Angus Maddison whose numbers are very widely used today. But 1978 is a long time ago, so if you prefer you can check a more recent survey.
From Graham Wrightson: Call for Papers – The Many Faces of War XI, The Consequences of Conquest – March 4-6, 2026Downtown Library, Sioux Falls, South Dakota In honor of the 250th anniversary of American Independence we will examine the origins of war, conflict, or battle and if there is a difference between rebellion or revolution. The... Continue reading: Cross-Post: CFP Many Faces of War XI – March 4-6, 2026
_-_Exterior.jpg){kind=link}
