 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / Ancient History / October 2003Ancient authors: manifest naivete about details ?
I was listening to an audiotaped "Hannibal" by Ernle Bradford, mainly a retelling from Polybius and Livius. And there was one thing that I found hard to ignore: while the ancient authors are telling a credible story in general, they become manifestly naive when it comes to details. Eg episode of betrayal of Tarentum by Hannibal's supporters, or Hannibal's escape from the Casinum valley, sound like good pieces of the primitive folklore (or mythology), rather than something the educated people of the time could view as historically plausible. So I am wondering: 1. Does it mean that ancient historians freely intervened folklore / mythology with historical facts ? 2. If 1 is true, why modern historical books just repeat all the details, instead of admitting that most of the details have, unfortunately, been lost for good ? -Misha Certainly some historical record is subject to embellishment. After all, History is, by and large, whatever the historians of the day say it is. Plus, it has to be evident that every account of Hannibal's exploits all say roughly the same thing in order for the historical account to be counted as reliable information. Case in point. The life of Jesus is well documented by several of his Apostles in the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. All four wrote their respective books individually without consultation to one another and at differing times. Yet, not one of them conflicts another. They may fill in gaps the others did not take a note of, but there isn't any embellishment going on there. There were too many eyewitnesses to his deeds for that to occur. I mention this because Hannibal also had far too many eyewitnesses to his deeds, and therefore his historical records, while subject to some artistic license, are still historically accurate and the rest of the non-factual information is presented merely for our enjoyment. (Which some people construe as being entirely factual....much to my dismay) I hope this clears up that question a little bit. > I was listening to an audiotaped "Hannibal" by Ernle Bradford, mainly > a retelling from Polybius and Livius. And there was one thing that I [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > -Misha [SNIP] >Case in point. The life of Jesus is well documented by several of his >Apostles in the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. All four wrote their [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >going on there. There were too many eyewitnesses to his deeds for that to >occur. I believe you (well, maybe not you) will find that they do conflict, that they were not written or at least all written by Apostles, and that interestingly enough, the further away from his death the more details they have. [SNIP] Doug  SignatureDoug Weller -- exorcise the demon to reply Doug & Helen's Dogs http://www.dougandhelen.com Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk Show me where. (I don't really want to get into a whole new discussion, I'm just interested in knowing where those 4 books conflict) I mean, does one apostle write that Jesus did something, and then another say he didn't? I think what you might construe as "conflicts" may just be omissions. One book may describe an event in detail, while another may skip right over it entirely. That's not conflicting information. > [SNIP] > >Case in point. The life of Jesus is well documented by several of his [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Doug & Helen's Dogs http://www.dougandhelen.com > Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk > Certainly some historical record is subject to embellishment. After all, > History is, by and large, whatever the historians of the day say it is. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Case in point. The life of Jesus is well documented by several of his > Apostles in the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. How do you know? > All four wrote their > respective books individually without consultation to one another and at > differing times. How do you know? > Yet, not one of them conflicts another. They may fill in > gaps the others did not take a note of, but there isn't any embellishment > going on there. There were too many eyewitnesses to his deeds for that to > occur. How do you know? > I mention this because Hannibal also had far too many eyewitnesses to his > deeds, and therefore his historical records, while subject to some artistic [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >> >>-Misha SignatureA single exception proves the rule is false. There are no exceptions to this rule. -- The Iron Webmaster, 2858 > I was listening to an audiotaped "Hannibal" by Ernle Bradford, mainly > a retelling from Polybius and Livius. And there was one thing that I [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 1. Does it mean that ancient historians freely intervened folklore / > mythology with historical facts ? I for one wouldn't be so certain that they had access to "historical facts" in the sense that even the originators of such facts - participants, eywitnesses - did have a) the sufficient overview to be accurate, b) the sufficient understanding (...theory.....language...) to be accurate or c) sufficient "self-detachment" to be accurate, instead of e.g. attributing defeat to superior numbers, to gods, to treason, to a fiendishly good yarn .... and so on. I think this goes not only for the ancients, but all the way up to time periods where the means to record stories become so readily available that one can record a multitude of details and version which one can collate. T > sufficient "self-detachment" to be accurate, instead of e.g. attributing > defeat to superior numbers, to gods, to treason, to a fiendishly good yarn I think it is natural that they could not offer explanation of events that would satisfy a modern reader. After all, social sciences (together with all other kind of scientific thought) were still in their infancy. But I meant something else - specifically, this funny discrepance between a serious, earnest effort to describe the big picture, and completely childish, inscrupulous approach to small things. May be it was just a matter of style, and contemorary readers actually expected that the lost details would be replaced by entertaining stories ? -Misha > I was listening to an audiotaped "Hannibal" by Ernle Bradford, mainly > a retelling from Polybius and Livius. And there was one thing that I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > of the primitive folklore (or mythology), rather than something the > educated people of the time could view as historically plausible. > So I am wondering: > 1. Does it mean that ancient historians freely intervened folklore / > mythology with historical facts ? > 2. If 1 is true, why modern historical books just repeat all the > details, instead of admitting that most of the details have, > unfortunately, been lost for good ? It's not limited to history. You can read the most ridiculous things pronounced about designated bad guys today such as Hitler or Hussien and if you point out what is ridiculous you will likely be told they are insane or stupid or evil. When a designated good guy does something not very nice his supporters make up all kinds of excuses. I insist upon hearing the "good guy's" reason and don't take made up excuses. SignatureMemory Hole: A research paper showing Middle Eastern Jews and Palestinians were nearly identical genetically was withdrawn from Nature after Jews complained about it. -- The Iron Webmaster, 2860 > I was listening to an audiotaped "Hannibal" by Ernle Bradford, mainly > a retelling from Polybius and Livius. And there was one thing that I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > of the primitive folklore (or mythology), rather than something the > educated people of the time could view as historically plausible. I'm not sure what you are questioning? Could you be more specific. > So I am wondering: > 1. Does it mean that ancient historians freely intervened folklore / [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > -Misha |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.