it seems a shame that historians would inflate numbers for the sole purpose of exciting readers or glorifying Roman generals
it seems a shame that historians would inflate numbers for the sole purpose of exciting readers or glorifying Roman generals
seleucid empire, we're not talking about post-modern historians here. We're talking about historians of antiquity. These two sets of historians separated by time and space do not approach history the same way. Sorry for the sad truth, if this is indeed news for you.
EB Online Founder | Website
Former Projects:
- Vartan's EB Submod Compilation Pack
- Asia ton Barbaron (Armenian linguistics)
- EB:NOM (Armenian linguistics/history)
- Dominion of the Sword (Armenian linguistics/history, videographer)
A lot of ancient "historians" (I use that term loosely) did not even view themselves as historians though so it would be unfair to judge them as such.
From Frontline for fixing siege towers of death
x30 From mikepettytw for showing how to edit in game text.
From Brennus for wit.
Also, it's not as if the chroniclers of that period would have an easy time getting accurate records. They would have access to commentaries written by the general (Caesar was not the first to do this), but obviously these weren't impartial. Sometimes the best the historian could hope for was to find out how many slaves were sold afterwards. Of course, that number would have included stable boys, armourers, ox-cart drivers, etc. Eastern armies did tend to have a lot of those, so part of the inflation could have come from there.
Looking for a good read? Visit the Library!
Bookmarks