|
Post by mythosequidae on Nov 2, 2008 1:12:06 GMT
I've often wondered how accurately history has been recorded. If you were the court journalist for Alexander the great, would you be likely to record that the men would pay no attention to a 23 yr. old general who was set up by his daddy? Perhaps such a recount would lead to your death. Considering how modern man embellishes and sensationalizes, why should I believe any recount from 2000 yrs. ago?
|
|
Marc Ridgeway
Member
Retired Global Moderator
"The best cost less when you buy it the first time." - Papabear
Posts: 3,122
|
Post by Marc Ridgeway on Nov 2, 2008 2:13:13 GMT
I've often wondered how accurately history has been recorded. If you were the court journalist for Alexander the great, would you be likely to record that the men would pay no attention to a 23 yr. old general who was set up by his daddy? Perhaps such a recount would lead to your death. Considering how modern man embellishes and sensationalizes, why should I believe any recount from 2000 yrs. ago? To expand upon the example you offer, no "general who was set up by his daddy" that wasn't an incredible leader of men would go on to conquer most of the known world... There is a bit of "history written by the victor" I suppose... but one must remember, history is rarely written as it happens, but later by historians, who need not fear a long dead king...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2008 2:14:47 GMT
I've often wondered how accurately history has been recorded. If you were the court journalist for Alexander the great, would you be likely to record that the men would pay no attention to a 23 yr. old general who was set up by his daddy? Perhaps such a recount would lead to your death. Considering how modern man embellishes and sensationalizes, why should I believe any recount from 2000 yrs. ago? You probably shouldn't believe any single account - unless it is backed up by other forms of evidence.
|
|
|
Post by mythosequidae on Nov 2, 2008 2:33:18 GMT
Great answer Marc. I exalt your wisdom. History does indeed record that Alexander did conquer much of the known World. Were there shadow generals?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2008 4:33:23 GMT
He had a lot of good generals. No one man, no matter how great a leader, can lead every army in every battle in a campaign of that magnitude. There's a lot of reading between the lines required in any delving into historical recordings of any kind. That's why there are so many different interpretations of exactly what Did happen How and Where and Why...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2008 12:25:28 GMT
History is just a pile of dead bodies and the victors are the guys who cause the piles.
|
|
|
Post by Brendan Olszowy on Nov 2, 2008 13:44:06 GMT
Historians from England will say I am a liar, but history is written by those who have hanged heroes.
That pretty much sums it up hey? They winners write the story.
|
|
Marc Ridgeway
Member
Retired Global Moderator
"The best cost less when you buy it the first time." - Papabear
Posts: 3,122
|
Post by Marc Ridgeway on Nov 2, 2008 14:18:01 GMT
Great answer Marc. I exalt your wisdom. History does indeed record that Alexander did conquer much of the known World. Were there shadow generals? Thanks , but I am mostly full of BS... yes of course all leaders must depend on a great command force under them... without great assistance great leadership is often lost...
|
|
|
Post by YlliwCir on Nov 2, 2008 15:17:26 GMT
Of course history is open to interpretation, we can't even agree on whats going on right now.
|
|
|
Post by alvin on Nov 2, 2008 18:06:12 GMT
Of course history is open to interpretation, we can't even agree on whats going on right now. I admire a person who can cut right through the BS. Con su permiso Rick - I'm going to use that! Thanks and Karma 2 U.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2008 6:27:00 GMT
Herodotus is called by most the "father of history". There are some who have called him "the father of lies".
I do believe that Herodotus was very straight forward in explaining that he was writing many years after the fact and had collected his information from multiple sources which did not always agree. In one case he outright says that he will tell us "the most believable story". I think it is clear that with any historian we have to allow for some margin of error. This stems from lack of information at the time of writing and the writers bias.
As Rickwilly wisely pointed out, even with modern recording devices current events are debatable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2008 9:04:54 GMT
Herodotus is called by most the "father of history". There are some who have called him "the father of lies". I do believe that Herodotus was very straight forward in explaining that he was writing many years after the fact and had collected his information from multiple sources which did not always agree. In one case he outright says that he will tell us "the most believable story". I think it is clear that with any historian we have to allow for some margin of error. This stems from lack of information at the time of writing and the writers bias. As Rickwilly wisely pointed out, even with modern recording devices current events are debatable. Think of the rosetta stone. I wonder if rather than stone, it was written on a CD, or DVD, or even a memory stick. Unless you have a laptop, a means to power the laptop, windows XP, and a mouse ( even then it would probably be scratched) in 4000 AD, is another thing ? Would the message be lost due to a highly sensitive medium which is needed to unravel its message, when just etching things into stone seems to be the only way so far we know that lasts. Will our peoples just leave burning paper, scratched CD's, and smashed up computer boards ?? All that would probably see through would be granite, marble, e.t.c tombstones and war memorial monoliths. You can also see a geologist in 4238 AD, digging up a plot but still mildly unaware he was going to make the 'discovery of the decade', yes that is correct, he would find the holiest of holy items. Probably the best examples of the past civilisations religious icons unearthed as of yet: An empty can of Coke, an empty disposable cigarette lighter, a piece of lego, and a plastic Ronald McDonald happy meal toy. ALL HAIL THE BIG RED HAIR GOD ! ;D
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Nov 4, 2008 17:36:39 GMT
I've often wondered how accurately history has been recorded. If you were the court journalist for Alexander the great, would you be likely to record that the men would pay no attention to a 23 yr. old general who was set up by his daddy? Perhaps such a recount would lead to your death. Considering how modern man embellishes and sensationalizes, why should I believe any recount from 2000 yrs. ago? You probably shouldn't believe any single account - unless it is backed up by other forms of evidence. Or backed up by other sources. I'm actually writing a paper for my Early Crusades class about the biases of primary sources and what we can do to tell if something is likely accurate or not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2008 23:51:17 GMT
what we can do to tell if something is likely accurate or not. Have you come up with a list of guidelines for that yet? Always interested in a new approach! Personally, I value myth and legend more for substance; and archaeological finds (particularly artwork and weaponry) for details.
|
|
Marc Ridgeway
Member
Retired Global Moderator
"The best cost less when you buy it the first time." - Papabear
Posts: 3,122
|
Post by Marc Ridgeway on Nov 7, 2008 0:01:23 GMT
Historical accuracy is something people like to be skeptical about... and the politics(or Religion) of it , perhaps rightly so ... but so many historical facts have been found that were once considered historical fiction, that we owe history an open minded approach. Two that spring to mind are Troy, and the tomb of Emperor Chin... both of which were considered legends before their " discovery"...
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Nov 8, 2008 1:19:29 GMT
what we can do to tell if something is likely accurate or not. Have you come up with a list of guidelines for that yet? Always interested in a new approach! Personally, I value myth and legend more for substance; and archaeological finds (particularly artwork and weaponry) for details. Haha, it's not really guidelines, more of a critique with examples of some historical documents we have from the era. I can send you a copy if you'd like.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2008 1:37:51 GMT
^Sure! I'd be interested. You got a PDF, text file or something?
|
|