@MilHist_Lee There's a great rundown of the strategy debate to 2002 or so by Lendon in CJ that might be worth listing (J.E. Lendon, "Primitivism and Ancient Foreign Relations" CJ 97.4 (2002): 375-384).
It places the arguments and interlocutors well for someone new to the debate.
It places the arguments and interlocutors well for someone new to the debate.
@MilHist_Lee I'm also wondering if you need to counterweight the Fall of Rome discourse; you have Ferrill, Heather and Ward-Perkins, which is a pretty stacked deck - understandable given the focus but perhaps misleading to a non-ancient historian who doesn't know these are 'heterodox' voices?
@MilHist_Lee Perhaps just to give a sense of that, J. O'Donnell's BMCR review of Heather and Ward-Perkins (bmcr.brynmawr.edu); it gives the sense that this is contested but doesn't quite situate them in a dialogue. Alternately, O'Donnell's Ruin of the Roman Empire (2009)...
@MilHist_Lee or Mathisen's Roman Aristocrats in Barbarian Gaul (1993) or functionally anything by Peter Brown.
Of course the tricky thing is, the view they're going to give is decisively non-military because that's their argument, so they may seem extraneous.
Of course the tricky thing is, the view they're going to give is decisively non-military because that's their argument, so they may seem extraneous.
Loading suggestions...