Quote:
Books have been based on it, modern people model themselves on it, the modern world was shaped by it, and experts claim to know everything about it - but just how plausible is it that the things we know about ancient Rome are accurate, and sooth?
My argument here is centered around one thing: What is a factual primary source, and how many factual primary sources are there, from the time of ancient Rome?
What is a factual primary source?
A primary contains first hand testimony of an event. The defining charcteristic of a primary source is that it is un biased, un edited and directly taken from events. Now, a factual primary source is a bit different - while your normal primary source is considered to be anything taken from someone who directly saw the event, a factual primary source must be something that had no chance of becoming bias. A picture or audio file is a primary source, but it wouldn't do to consider it fact as pictures and audio files can be doctored.
Similarly, while the historical source of Tassitus is considered a leading peice of information from ancient times, it is not a primary source, and definatly not a factual primary source, as honestly Tassitus could have put whatever he had wanted to put into his histories, with relative ease.
To me, the only thing that would constitue a factual primary source from ancient Roman times would be in the form of genetic (bloody hard because if you're going to trace back in time, then you need to know where to start tracing) or forensic proof (i.e. the absence of any blunt/sharp trauma on the bones of someone genetically proven to be [by means as yet unknown] cleopatra would mean that is it feasible that she was poinsoned/poisoned herself)
Just how many Factual Primary Sources (FPSs) exist today from the time of ancient Rome?
In summing up the first section of this little talk, an FPS is something that could not, at any point, have been rendered bias. Knife wounds can be faked; but not when such things as carbon dating can narrow down the time at which said wounds were inflicted - thus forensic investigation is the ultimate source of FPSs.
After establishing what is and isn't establishable fact; it just occures to me: What in the entire lexicon of ancient Roman information is an FPS?
I can think of one: The eruption of Mt. Vesuvius. I can think of another: The existence of a city on the tiber, which is commonly accepted as having been called Rome. I can think of one more: That the Roman Empire collapsed at some point, triggering the 'dark ages' as a result of the collapse of intercontinental trade and communication.
What other direct FPSs exist? I have established that forensics is the wellspring of FPSs, and as a result of that, carbon dating might be able to - and probably already has - accuratly age 'Hadrian's Wall'; proving it's time of construction. Similarly; studies of marks in armour might suggest the nature of opposing forces during certain battles in certain locations.
By implication, to what extent is classical education - something based on the study of sources made by people like Tassituc and Cicero - a work of fact as opposed to a work of fiction? Now, I don't want to detract from Cambridge and Oxford students, and I don't want to insult my Grandmother (holder of a degree in Classics, among other degrees) - but their knowlege is like to that of a person who studies fictional, or at least biased literature than a person who studies factual 'history' (almost impossible to be factual).
There is no apparent FPS that proves the existence of Julius Caesar any more than there is an FPS that proves the existence of Hercules. It is all heresay. (I say this with tongue in cheek, as there might easily be some evidence somewhere; I haven't gone through the books before writing this article, but I will not accept any work of historian as an FPS)
That said, it does not detract from the power of these historical figures - true or false, Julius Caesar's legacy reaches across the ages and touches many people even today.
That's my peice; thanks for your time.
