Going against my History Professor

[anubis88]

Hi... I've just bought a new book published by my Greek History teacher about the Roman Republic. Since I'm much in to hellenistic kingdoms myself i found some of his statements wrong.

The one that bugs me the most is the way he describes the battle of Magnesia. He's book (which is considered practically to be law in my country ) states that the battle was between 30.000 Roman troops + a few allies against an at least 70.000 man strong seleucid force. He also mentions that the seleucids outnumbered the romans at least 2:1, and that the Seleucids lost at least 50.000 men, a disaster which he compares to the Roman defeat a Cannae.

I know much(relatively speeking) about the Seleucid, and from what i've read, the Romans fielded around 50.000 men (if one counts the pergamese and other allies).

So my plan is to confront my professor with this facts. What i need is a few historyans, which would give me something to back my claims up, so that I may confront my professor without any fears of failing at my study( sometimes they fail you just out of spite )

I've already read the accounts of Appian, and the WIKI

So any help would be apreciated.

And also correct me if I'm wrong

THANKS!!!!

[cmacq]

Please, don't bother. This is very common, most are LIFERs at best. Lazy Inconsiderate Fu**ers Expecting Retirement. They can't really help you, just hurt you.

But, simply the Roman defeat a Cannae was not a mortal wound, yet the Seleucid loss at Magnesia was indeed over time very fatal. I can't actually see how one could compare Cannae with Magnesia? Other than the fact Hannibal was close at hand? Maybe he just needed a few more words to finish the book? Its also very possible his comments about Magnesia were ripped off of a former student paper?

[Kham]

I wouldn't do it.

Being a history professor who has written a book about the stuff, he is aware of differing theories about army strengths and casulty numbers in such a battle. And has given some thoughts about which ones to take. There also might be different "schools of thought" about how to make proper estimates, which kind of sources to trust (more) and so on. These choices determine the estimates.

Being renowned in your country he must have been around for some time. This also means that he has chosen a side in these debates. And has had quite a lot discussions about it. Probably enough to be annoyed by them now.

A student who challenges him should be aware about why he has choosen these estimates and why he thinks he can proof them (and the underlying "school" choices) wrong. If you are very well prepared and he is in a good mood, you might earn some reputation with him.

But the danger of appearing as an insolent sod who is daring to bother him AGAIN with this age-old question, without even knowing what he is talking about ,is quite high.

It might even be worse if he is not that renowned. From my experience (though from a differnt discipline), the mediocre to bad profs are VERY easily offended if they are criticized. Especially from a student.

[Danest]

I think you need to know why he believes in these particular troop number estimates, and, why the other side (you) believes in their estimates. It's probably better to confront premises and evidence, than to just confront a conclusion (not saying this is what you're doing, just rambling). But it won't matter if he's not interested in having his work contested by a student anyway (it's why I love philosophy... my professors _required_ that you try to put down their work, and loved it if you did a good job of it). And yeah, this professor is probably well aware of the argument and estimates you're bringing to him, and the evidence supporting them... so you probably won't be saying anything he hasn't already considered and disregarded, for whatever reason.

[anubis88]

Yeah i know... I can't just play a smartass... It wouldn't be good. But perhaps an interesting conversation might emerge from this. He may even have some resources who he would willing to share... We could become friends

On the other hand he may just dismiss me as a nuisance

God how I hate myself... Why do i always find something to challange my history teachers?

Any ideas how to talk about this in the most polite and secure manner?

[bovi]

"I noticed you mentioned a force of only 30000 Romans plus allies in the battle of Magnesia. I've heard greater numbers elsewhere and understand there naturally is some uncertainty about them. Could you point me to the sources that you used, and why you have trusted these before others?"

That's more or less the way I would go about starting a discussion without making him feel attacked. You might get a "I don't have time for this", and then you should probably drop the issue for your own sake. If he chooses to respond with information, let him present his views and show interest. He'll probably be more inclined to have a constructive discussion when you mention the other sources then, rather than if you come up with an equivalent to "Hey I saw some other research saying you're wrong", which your post here basically says.

You should be particularly careful about labeling your own numbers as facts. The soldiers didn't line up to be counted by the historian before the battle, and the historian would also likely pad the numbers. Be prepared to defend why you think these other numbers are more precise, again something you don't do here except by saying you know it, another inflammable word.

[delablake]

It might even be worse if he is not that renowned. From my experience (though from a different discipline), the mediocre to bad profs are VERY easily offended if they are criticized. Especially from a student.[/QUOTE]


I can subscribe to that...there's nothing worse than a vain yet bad scientist who gets confronted with his blundering idiocy or anyone's different opinion...in my case, that $%/&( - hole cost me a year at university: He kept finding new "errors" in my term paper, and refused to accept it, but he gave top grades to a female colleague (whose paper I had written) because he liked her knockers
After the 5th rejection I told his secretary I'd go to the Dean, and magically the same old paper was OK...he didn't ever bother to examine it a last time, instead returned it to me totally crumpled with this note attached to it: Have you ever read a book?
Should I meet him again, say in a dark and lonely alley, I'd really kick his teeth in....

[Sakkura]

I can't actually see how one could compare Cannae with Magnesia?

Maybe not compare, but you certainly can contrast them.

Cannae was a far greater tactical achievement, yet strategically, it achieved nothing. Magnesia was, on the other hand, perhaps not such a huge tactical achievement, but it broke the back of an otherwise revitalized empire.

[lobf]

Maybe not compare, but you certainly can contrast them.

Cannae was a far greater tactical achievement, yet strategically, it achieved nothing. Magnesia was, on the other hand, perhaps not such a huge tactical achievement, but it broke the back of an otherwise revitalized empire.

Cannae could have meant something, though, right? Had Hannibal followed through and moved on Rome then Cannae would be looked at as an important historical battle, am I wrong?

[Sarkiss]

Cannae could have meant something, though, right? Had Hannibal followed through and moved on Rome then Cannae would be looked at as an important historical battle, am I wrong?

it is an important historical battle. it is so important it is still studied in military academies. the most brilliant example of encirclement ever.
and everyone seem to forget that it is Cannae (one of the reasons) that allowed Hannibal to ravage Italy for 17 years and let to defection of entire Southern Italy (except citadel of Tarentum, iirc, that is).
marching straight for Rome? five days of non stop riding from Cannae? thats what Maharbal suggested. but there is a good example of doing just that with insufficient forces and failing: Phyrrus.
it could all be very different if not for Hanno and his peace party who would send reinforcements and aid anywhere but to Hannibal

[Watchman]

Eh, Hannibal was hardly someone to sit on his butt letting opportunities sail by. The fact is, as brilliant a victory as Cannae was it wasn't total - a decent chunk of the Roman army including most of the cavalry got away, and had started reorganising in a matter of days - and it had put a severe dent in Big H's manpower pool, chiefly in the infantry arm; the Iberians and Gauls who'd had the somewhat questionable honour of holding up the massive Roman column in the center had suffered their share of casualties. Neither had the destruction of the trapped Roman foot been exactly a cakewalk.

Quite simply, Hannibal's army was in no condition to do much anything impressive before some R&R, nevermind now with a mobile Roman force at loose in the vicinity. The latter may not have been even remotely strong enough to be any threat to Hannibal's force in a straight fight, but it takes a lot less to be a major problem and limiter in strategic terms.

Didn't the medieval Europeans believe that taking bathes would wash away your soul - so they would never take baths? :/ ??

Not really. I don't quite recall the exact reasoning involved, but it was more that bathing simply wasn't considered important; most people did it in some form at least every now and then, just very rarely. Only some reigious ascetics, such as some monestic sects, actually wholly declined to bathe - resulting in a strong whiff of what was termed odour sancte...

That sounds somewhat like you're mixing the matter with early superstitions about photography you know...

[CirdanDharix]

and everyone seem to forget that it is Cannae (one of the reasons) that allowed Hannibal to ravage Italy for 17 years and let to defection of entire Southern Italy (except citadel of Tarentum, iirc, that is).
marching straight for Rome? five days of non stop riding from Cannae? thats what Maharbal suggested. but there is a good example of doing just that with insufficient forces and failing: Phyrrus.
it could all be very different if not for Hanno and his peace party who would send reinforcements and aid anywhere but to Hannibal

Actually, much of Southern Italy remained loyal to Rome, or else in the expectative. It took Hannibal a year or two to get the Lucanians to switch sides after Cannae, and even longer until he got a foothold in Taras for completely unrelated reasons (Romans execute hostages for trying to run away; out of spite, hostages' families contrive a cunning plan to let Hannibal in). This was due to Roman garrisons, hostages, and simple inertia. Hannibal had kicked some Roman arse but he hadn't threatened the Urbs itself yet, and everyone in Italy knew how much manpower was available just in the Latium. Taking Rome by storm would have possible, but success in such an operation was by no means a foregone conclusion.

As to Hannibal lacking reinforcements, it can't really be blamed on Hanno. It appears that when Mago Barca came back with a bag full of Roman gold rings, Hanno was left completely isolated in the senate. That Mago and his army, originally intended to reifnorce Hannibal, ended up in Spain is the fault of their brother Hasdrubal (or of the elder Publius Cornelius Scipio and his brother Cnaeus, depending on how you look at things). The other two fronts that were opened in 215--Sicily and Sardinia--where logical, since recapturing the lost islands was one of Carthage's major war aims (although dispersing her forces was probably a strategical mistake). Hannibal was also, to some extent, a victim of his own success--since he was doing fine in Italy, why send him troops that were very much needed elsewhere?

[cmacq]

Maybe not compare, but you certainly can contrast them.

Cannae was a far greater tactical achievement, yet strategically, it achieved nothing. Magnesia was, on the other hand, perhaps not such a huge tactical achievement, but it broke the back of an otherwise revitalized empire.

Right, that was the point of my post above; ‘But, simply the Roman defeat at Cannae was not a mortal wound, yet the Seleucid loss at Magnesia was indeed, over time, very fatal.’