Coast09

Ken Burns struck right tone in an interview done prior to his World War II documentary. Burns explained (to a largely anti-Bush academic audience) that it takes decades for history to properly digest the consequences of a major figure. I recall Burns mentioning thirty years as an adequate time period. It's been pointed out that Harry Truman was practically chased from office for his management of the Korean War, communism, and the ouster of Douglas MacArthur. MacArthur did not take his dismissal lightly and flaunted his past heroism to the country, further damaging Truman's standing with the American public. In hindsight, MacArthur's arrogance caused the negative turnaround to the UN forces on the peninsula. His recklessness threatened to push the United States into an even deeper confrontation with China. Truman's actions were seen as week in the 1950s; the social upheaval and the Vietnam War put him in better light in the 1970s. Truman's containment policy remained the standard for US presidencies up to George Bush the elder. I don't see George W. Bush as ever becoming a "good" president in history's eyes. I have never been hateful to the former president during his time in office. In defense of one reason why held support among a segment of rational-minded was the perception him as being decisive. This was not seen a trait of his predecessor. The invasion of Iraq could have been a geopolitical coup against the authority of an inept United Nations; instead, it turned into an expensive fiasco (initially) simply because there was an inefficient occupational policy. The ineptitude became attached the United States and empowered enemy nations in the view that the country's status was in decline. The handling of energy policy, the detention of prisoners with no plan in sight, his inability foresee the inevitable credit crisis, the defeat over social security reform, and the failure to reform the immigration system all show a presidency with policies that weren't thought-out.

Wonderful example, Neil. I appreciate the good words. As for the question, I do mean realistic sculpture. The Frederick work is extremely rare for the Late Medieval Era, however. The related fashions point is a good one because it links to the greater question of when Roman fashion itself went extinct in both the Latin and Greek worlds.

The Dark Ages is considered the length of space between 476 (Romulus's removal) and the crowning of Charlemagne in 800. Byzantium and Persia both could be argued as exempt from the travesties that befell the Western realm; nevertheless, much of Western scholarship decline and all but vanished in most parts of Southern, Central, and Western Europe, which made up the heart of the old Roman dominion. Please let there be less nitpicking about this detail or that. The fact is that the plethora of sculptures, and the practice of making them, declined even in Byzantium prior to iconoclasm. When and why did that occur? I'm focused on the matter of royal sculpture, since it is often a (sometimes idealized) clue to what an individual looked like. But I do have an interest in seeing why it fell out of favor even among Byzantine and Italian nobility. The marble and bronze sculptures of even the war-ravaged third and fourth centuries seem to have a rich collection still available.

When did marble and bronze sculpture go out of practice in Italy and Byzantium? I'm aware of the problems that came about with iconoclasm; but, to my knowledge, the latest known works of classical-style sculpture were in the seventh century--long before iconoclasm came into form. Life magazine has, in its online archive, a bronze bust labeled as Emperor Heraclius. The famed Colossus of Barletta is also widely considered to be the seventh-century ruler. When did Dark Age Europe retire this form of honorary representation?

I am new to the forum and to the site. But I'm a longtime lover of history and of its discussion. For my entry post, I will stay with an author in the (very late) Roman area of study: Steven Runciman. I believe his writings, though a bit old now, carry timeless eloquence.