|
Halloween Jack posted:I gotta wonder about the morale of that frontline--how are they not utterly hosed? The velites would (probably) retreat back behind the legionaries. They were out to harass with javelins, not to be a real combat force. The legionaries at the front were not any more hosed than anyone else since (some of us think) they rotated regularly to keep everyone fresh. They go away after Marius, but there are still light auxilia with slings/bows/whatnot. Again, they had their purpose but weren't front-line troops. Roman commanders weren't any more willing to throw away lives needlessly than a modern one. The guys with the heavy armor and training were expected to bear the brunt of intense combat.
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 02:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 03:44 |
|
|
Plus, I think Gladius/Shield can deal much better with getting flanked than Spear/Shield. I know the pila were also used as form impromptu phalanxes, how good at that were they?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 02:37
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:I gotta wonder about the morale of that frontline--how are they not utterly hosed? If you had to be an infantryman on a Roman battlefield it was way better to be in the group of well-armored Italians that were marching around stabbing people in the crotch, than not. Phobophilia posted:I know the pila were also used as form impromptu phalanxes, how good at that were they? physeter fucked around with this message at 02:42 on Nov 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 02:39
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:Plus, I think Gladius/Shield can deal much better with getting flanked than Spear/Shield. Definitely. Picture a force gets around you and charges from the rear. A phalanx is hosed, the best you could do is drop the pikes and get out your swords (if you have them). A Roman formation could turn around and present exactly the same front in like ten seconds. It's still bad to be surrounded but a Roman line is going to be a lot stronger. Phobophilia posted:I know the pila were also used as form impromptu phalanxes, how good at that were they? Probably not great since they weren't very long, but it'd be better than trying to go at an elephant with a gladius.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 02:41
|
|
|
physeter posted:They probably got rotated every 15 minutes or so, like GF said. You get to see an example of how this likely happened in the first ep of HBO's Rome. Then they've actually got training and good equipment, unlike most of their foes. And they actually have real life surgeons waiting in the rear, presumably unlike just about every barbarian power they ever fought. Then remember there are other maniples out there whose job it is to flank and relieve the pressure on you, which doesn't even happen in the one big shield wall deployment. On top of that, the Roman fighting style was thought to have been very defensive, with fast safe thrusts from behind a big shield. As far as I know, they did not fight in the checkerboard formation. The maniples were divided into two centuries, and the rear century would move to close the gaps before engagement. The gaps let the velites through, and then the principes could do the same to the hastati if a retreat was needed. As the velites are skirmishing the hastati looked like this XXXXX-----XXXXX-----XXXXX XXXXX-----XXXXX-----XXXXX After the velites retreat past them the rear line of X's moves to their left into the gaps. -------XXXXX------XXXXX------XXXXX XXXXX------XXXXX------XXXXX They then move up and become a solid line just before they charge. The reverse happens if they have to retreat past the principes. They reform the maniple and retreat through the principes gaps, who then form a solid line and charge. This did not always work, and is why Marius largely abandoned the triplex acies in favor the duplex acies, two lines of legionnaires with just enough room in the second lines cohorts for the first line to retreat if needed. The drama of letting the hastati always retreat past the principes was exchanged for having everyone be armored like a principes and then retreat as necessary. WoodrowSkillson fucked around with this message at 03:22 on Nov 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 03:02
|
|
|
Could someone here suggest some books so that would offer a complete and painfully detailed analysis of Roman army tactics and organization?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 03:35
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:No, it isn't. It's a statement about the differences in culture and the approach to the idea of fact. In our modern post-Enlightenment culture, we view facts as a firm piece of data... Nobody was talking about the lack of precise statistics in the ancient world; your claim was that “the very concept of an objective telling of the facts wouldn’t have occurred to anyone” in the ancient world. That’s real prejudice against the ancients; it is an insult and an attack, because it belittles people who really did have that concept, and discussed it in detail. In the modern, “post-Enlightenment” culture, we have plenty of people giving out inaccurate facts. See any article that says “Stalin killed x number of people”, “Capitalism caused y amount of death”, and “the war caused economic loss of z dollars”. We also have plenty of moralizing texts these days. But I don’t want to take us off topic; let’s actually go to the ancients directly and see what they had to say. You'll find that much like modern people, they preface and qualify what they say, and they discuss theories about how to write history, how to perform research, and the importance of truth. For Arrian, the very first thing he wrote in his Anabasis was that he faced real difficulty with the sources. They were contradictory, and he had to act as a mediator, trying to go with the plausible and reliable account. He would preface many anecdotes with “it is said”, or mention whether he believed certain accounts, and tried to correct common, factual errors (indeed, the one million man figure comes under the former). How much more did Arrian have to say about this topic? That's difficult to determine, given that much of his writings have been lost. When it comes to Plutarch, you insult and attack him when you use terms like “moralizing bullshit”. I understand that in your little circle, morality might be unwelcome; that does not mean that modern people do not appreciate morality in their texts, or that morality doesn’t belong in history. Given that you have an interest in Alexander, let’s see how Plutarch started his main text on that man: “It being my purpose to write the lives of Alexander the king, and of Caesar, by whom Pompey was destroyed, the multitude of their great actions affords so large a field that I were to blame if I should not by way of apology foreworn my reader that I have chosen rather to epitomize the most celebrated parts of their story, than to insist at large on every particular circumstance of it. It must be borne in mind that my design is not to write histories, but lives.” Plutarch knew what he was doing. He was not a man to whom “the very concept of an objective telling of the facts wouldn’t have occurred”. Polybius, whom you accuse of being a bad example of this concept, is actually clear evidence that you are mistaken. He is one of the best Roman era examples, because he literally spends a significant amount of time discussing research methods, how to write history, and what the goal is. He also shows that these are topics of debate, where he inveighs against other authors. Go read what remains of Book 12 which, besides being valuable in itself, also shows that other authors spoke on matters of theory; and what is that quote, "when he once sets himself to blame or praise anyone he forgets everything and departs very widely from his duty as a historian". I don't even like Polybius, given his Achaean League connections, but he is valuable here because he makes it very clear that he knew about the concept of an objective telling of the facts. You mention Thucydides, too. Now, I tried to stay in Roman times when I originally responded to you, but yes, Thucydides is another great example of why you're mistaken. Yet you say he is an “exception”. An exception to what? A tremendous amount of ancient literature has been lost; what is more telling is that Thucydides was read, praised, and preserved. Furthermore, that Thucydides also took up other historians and contested their account as not being accurate; again the intellectual debate of history and truth, something that is strongly present in the remains of Polybius’ writings. Herodotus, too, who you and Thucydides both criticise, frequently informs us that he simply learnt of a story, and does not necessarily believe it himself. He also questions the size of the Persian army, and recounts tales of how it was sized up. Just because you think the authors aren't true to their mission, or you want to flaw them, doesn't mean that they were unaware of simple concepts. I have cited to authors who affirmatively showed their knowledge of these concepts; unless you have some argument/citations that can explain away the very words of the ancients themselves, then I don't see where else this discussion can go. Please don't belittle the ancients from your privileged position as a living person, especially where the ancients were actually a step beyond you on the matter. Agesilaus fucked around with this message at 03:58 on Nov 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 03:37
|
|
|
Agesilaus posted:Nobody was talking about the lack of precise statistics in the ancient world; your claim was that “the very concept of an objective telling of the facts wouldn’t have occurred to anyone” in the ancient world. That’s real prejudice against the ancients; it is an insult and an attack, because it belittles people who really did have that concept, and discussed it in detail. Ugh. This thread was so nice to read. Would you please stop posting in it? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 05:28
|
|
|
Mister_Eel posted:Ugh. This thread was so nice to read. Would you please stop posting in it? I think that even if you disagree with his premise and his attitude, he clearly deserves a better response than this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 05:31
|
|
|
Mister_Eel posted:Ugh. This thread was so nice to read. Would you please stop posting in it? If I hadn't posted in this thread some pages ago, people would have the impression that Rome was the first state to have professional soldiers and military. As a result of discussing it, we reached a much clearer and detailed understanding of it; I learnt some facts, and other people said they did, too. I think the conclusion to that debate was pretty helpful for me because I gained a more nuanced understanding of the difference between the roman army and its rivals. If I didn't post on this topic, now, the incorrect idea that ancients lacked a certain concept would go unchallenged. I don't know if there's much left to say on the topic now, but it would have been wrong not to raise it. Agesilaus fucked around with this message at 05:40 on Nov 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 05:37
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I think that even if you disagree with his premise and his attitude, he clearly deserves a better response than this. Not really no.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 05:39
|
|
|
Agesilaus posted:If I hadn't posted in this thread some pages ago, people would have the impression that Rome was the first state to have professional soldiers and military. As a result of discussing it, we reached a much clearer and detailed understanding of it; I learnt some facts, and other people said they did, too. I think the conclusion to that debate was pretty helpful for me because I gained a more nuanced understanding of the difference between the roman army and its rivals. I'm not attacking your knowledge on the subject but your responses are always so hostile that it's hard to get through them. It's like you came back from a couple days probation just to restart a 5 day old argument. I know jack poo poo about Rome and I have absolutely nothing to contribute to this thread regarding this topic. However, every time your posts come up the thread turns to poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 05:48
|
|
|
Just wanted to make a note that I'm pretty sure forum posts don't count toward NaNoWriMo. One subject I've been kind of on-and-off interested in is horology. I learned a bit about Greek timekeeping when I was in Greece a few summers ago, but Wikipedia doesn't seem to have anything more than "Yeah, the Romans kept doing what the Greeks did", which seems at once typical of Imperial Romans and at odds with their engineering skill. Did the Romans really stick to water clocks and sundials, or was there more going on?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 06:15
|
|
|
Mister_Eel posted:I know jack poo poo about Rome and I have absolutely nothing to contribute to this thread regarding this topic. However, every time your posts come up the thread turns to poo poo. Seriously. I barely pay attention to who posts what and don't notice avatars but cinaedus's writing hits you in the face with the douche stick and instantly turns the thread into this seething mass of hostility. And it happens regularly every few days with the only response being more arrogance and complaints about the derailing that "other people" are causing. Thanks to Grand Fromage and the others who have contributed positively to the thread by the way, apart from the autistic guy this thread has been a delight to read through.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 08:09
|
|
|
Agesilaus posted:If I hadn't posted in this thread some pages ago, people would have the impression that Rome was the first state to have professional soldiers and military. But we still have this impression. All that's added is the impression that you're kind of a dick.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 08:27
|
|
|
What kind of knowledge did Romans have about the mind? How would someone with a mental illness have been treated? And did soldiers back then ever experience PTSD? I assume yes, given war tends to cause it. How would PTSD have been treated, if at all? I've always wondered about that, especially since in my mind at least fighting in hand to hand combat sounds even more horrifying than modern day combat. It takes quite a bit more commitment and effort to kill someone when you're using a sword than a gun, and since you're face to face I imagine it's considerably more gruesome. Not to downplay the horrors of modern warfare, but basically I imagine ancient warfare was just as bloody and traumatic if not moreso, so I'm curious how people fared with it mentally back then.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 10:03
|
|
|
Vigilance posted:I've always wondered about that, especially since in my mind at least fighting in hand to hand combat sounds even more horrifying than modern day combat. It takes quite a bit more commitment and effort to kill someone when you're using a sword than a gun, and since you're face to face I imagine it's considerably more gruesome. Not to downplay the horrors of modern warfare, but basically I imagine ancient warfare was just as bloody and traumatic if not moreso, so I'm curious how people fared with it mentally back then. I think that it's commonly considered that PTSD surfaces in the Iliad. Can't remember which character since I haven't read the Iliad myself. It's a fair guess that the Romans too were familiar with the phenomena. However, it's worth considering that before the late 19th century, wars used to be a lot different. For instance, the concept of the combat veteran only appears around the Napoleonic wars (as a common concept, the idea of someone who has seen many battles was around but these individuals were a lot rarer in earlier times). A legionnaire might see no battles over his entire career. It's likely that he'll see one or two or maybe three, but battles in general were rarer. Sure, swordfighting is traumatic, but once the battle was done, it was done and you headed back to your camp or fort and you were perfectly safe. These sort of circumstances alleviate the impact of PTSD. It's continual stress that fucks you up worse than short intense periods of stress. The legionnaire didn't for example have to worry about a bomber appear in the sky to kill him, IED's on the roadside or suicide bombers with hand grenades.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 10:35
|
|
|
Agesilaus posted:If I didn't post on this topic, now, the incorrect idea that ancients lacked a certain concept would go unchallenged.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 14:23
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:I think that it's commonly considered that PTSD surfaces in the Iliad. Can't remember which character since I haven't read the Iliad myself. It's a fair guess that the Romans too were familiar with the phenomena. In Sophocles' Ajax, the title character (a hero of the Trojan War) is suffering from something that resembles PTSD, but in the context of the play, it's described as his senses being deceived by the gods. I suspect that's mainly how mental illnesses were conceived of - some kind of supernatural affliction. I don't think the ancients had the theoretical understanding of the mind to conceive of mental illnesses in the same way we do. Essentially the only ancient theory of the mind that's survived is Aristotle's, and he thought that perception and intellect (among other things) were faculties of the soul (psuche), but he wasn't concerned about describing derangement or how it happens. If you're interested in his account of psychology, you can read or look up his 'On the Soul', sometimes still titled as 'de Anima', but it's a hard book to approach even as someone with a background in ancient philosophy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 15:54
|
|
|
THe Romans imported Greek medicine so I would assume that depression and axiety would be analyzed in the four humors system.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 16:08
|
|
|
this is not a real professional thing, obviously not historically accurate and incredibly nerdy but if you want to try legion vs phalanx, get a copy of Rome Total War and setup a custom battle using the correct troop composition and number for each side. Its much easier to win as the Romans becauses you have smaller groups to move and holding back a reserve works much better and those fresh troops applied to the right spot generally win the battle. If you throw in the auxiliary to harass and annoy it makes a big difference too because sometimes the hoplites get out of formation chasing them. It does get much more difficult if you change the phalanx to the Macedonian version and include some of their heavy cavalry since they tend to slam into your rear while you're stuck ineffectually fighting the spearmen. However, if you set a cost limit to the battle, the Romans generally have a larger number of troops.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 16:16
|
|
|
Agesilaus posted:Take it to PM, I'm very willing to discuss your complaints about me privately. The personal attacks just distract from a good thread. I see. Your attacks on the thread at large are acceptable, as your points have more merit, but responses to you are complaints which should be addressed privately. I've decided to work out a solution that will most likely be more agreeable to the thread at large: you're not going to post in the thread anymore, or you'll be banned, and you're also not going to PM me to whine about it and ask for clemency because I'm going to delete your PMs without having read them. Your probation was a warning and you chose to ignore it. Toodles!
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 17:43
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:A legionnaire might see no battles over his entire career. It's likely that he'll see one or two or maybe three, but battles in general were rarer. Sure, swordfighting is traumatic, but once the battle was done, it was done and you headed back to your camp or fort and you were perfectly safe. These sort of circumstances alleviate the impact of PTSD. It's continual stress that fucks you up worse than short intense periods of stress. The legionnaire didn't for example have to worry about a bomber appear in the sky to kill him, IED's on the roadside or suicide bombers with hand grenades. Totally. We still don't understand PTSD as much as we'd like to, but we know that some things are more prone to causing it. Indeed our modern habit of deploying troops and then recalling them to civilian life after only a few months may be a significant contributing factor. It creates a sense of displacement, and removes soldiers from an understanding community and thrusts them into new responsibilities without letting them fully decompress. Similarly, Roman legionaries didn't Skype their wives every week and try to explain their actions, or engage with the minutia of life back home. Fundamentally, I think that some of our modern-day problem is that we reject the idea of a warrior caste - leaving our citizen-soldiers conceptually isolated. If they talk about the glories of war, or rejoice in victory over their enemies, or describe their scenes of battle, then they're rejected as being too violent for a peaceful society. If you talk to an American soldier, they'll usually tell you that they don't often talk about their deployments because civilians simply don't understand; they'll judge their actions by the metric of suburban life, or (worse) ask questions that are sickly voyeuristic. At the end of the day, only 10% of our population ever serves with the military; which makes the experience quite alien. We've stripped soldiers of their traditional coping mechanism (celebrating the role of the warrior and the martial experience), and so now we're struggling to come up with an adequate replacement. Roman legionaries didn't have that problem: You'd never see them saying stuff like "I'm a lover not a fighter", or protesting that they hate killing and love peace, but are simply doing what must be done. And so they didn't have to deal with all that internal conflict. Kaal fucked around with this message at 18:31 on Nov 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 18:21
|
|
|
What sort of law enforcement did ancient Rome have? I wouldn't expect there to be anything like "CSI: Rome", but there must've been some sort of professional, non-military force to pursue criminals and deter crime.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 19:33
|
|
|
They had magistrates and other lawyers to prosecute crimes. There was no, as far as I know, police departments or detectives or anything like that. The prosecutors though could do investigations and call witnesses and present evidence though. Order, such as it was, was also kept through the patronage system.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 19:52
|
|
|
I actually asked about law enforcement way the gently caress back in the thread. Here was Grand Fromage's quote on that:Vigilance posted:How did Romans enforce their laws? Was there a specific division of soldiers kept around in cities/towns for this purpose? Did they just use the Legions? Or was there a separate entity that served as a police force? Grand Fromage posted:Both, kind of. They had a group called the vigiles, who served as police and firemen. They weren't technically soldiers though they were organized that way. There were also urban cohorts, which were kind of like an ancient SWAT. Those only existed in a few major cities. The vigiles we know of are in Rome, I don't know if we have any information on law enforcement in other cities. Also both of these are Augustan inventions. Also I don't know about the rest of you but I'd definitely watch CSI:Rome.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 21:40
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Fundamentally, I think that some of our modern-day problem is that we reject the idea of a warrior caste - leaving our citizen-soldiers conceptually isolated. If they talk about the glories of war, or rejoice in victory over their enemies, or describe their scenes of battle, then they're rejected as being too violent for a peaceful society. If you talk to an American soldier, they'll usually tell you that they don't often talk about their deployments because civilians simply don't understand; they'll judge their actions by the metric of suburban life, or (worse) ask questions that are sickly voyeuristic. At the end of the day, only 10% of our population ever serves with the military; which makes the experience quite alien. While I'm all for better understanding and treatment and destigamatisation of mental illness, there is absolutely no way that I would support the creation of a new warrior caste. If what you're saying is correct, that warrior castes can deal better with PTSD within its ranks, then I'd happily trade away that benefit in favour of societies that don't merrily engage in aggressive wars for plunder, subjugation, and social status. I prefer a society that makes it extremely difficult and requiring a huge amount of effort to muster a casus belli for war.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 22:03
|
|
|
Vigilance posted:Also I don't know about the rest of you but I'd definitely watch CSI:Rome. If rumors are to be believed this was David Milch's original pitch to HBO years ago. Since Rome was already in the works, Milch had to go back to the drawing board and came up with Deadwood. But originally his pitch was apparently about two Praetorian guardsmen working the Roma beat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 22:18
|
|
|
Were Roman soldiers given lands after they retired? How much did they receive? Did they get the right to use slaves? Did they get leaves or vacations?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 23:33
|
|
|
I am actually interested in that too, but not just the army. I know they had business and no-business days that ran on some kind of yearly(?) schedule but no weekend concept. Obviously someone in office or on campaign is putting in different hours and not working a schedule entirely of their choosing but does anyone have any good details on Roman working life?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 23:54
|
|
|
Xguard86 posted:I am actually interested in that too, but not just the army. Apart from what others might add, I found this interesting. http://thehistoryofrome.typepad.com/the_history_of_rome/2010/03/88-a-day-in-the-life.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 01:06
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:What sort of law enforcement did ancient Rome have? I wouldn't expect there to be anything like "CSI: Rome", but there must've been some sort of professional, non-military force to pursue criminals and deter crime. I think the closest thing to 'law enforcement' were the Vigiles, but I'm not sure the extent to which they were used to actually pursue criminals. EDIT - Woops, didn't see the quote by Fromage above.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 02:18
|
|
|
I should clarify that it isn't that I think Cincinnatus didn't exist, it's that over the centuries the story of him grew into a legend and tall tale akin to a moral parable of proper behavior for a Roman citizen, so in that respect, Cincinnatus, as we know him, is a fiction.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 03:15
|
|
|
If it's ok, I actually have a question about Roman historians (and... Ancient historians? Or is that just what we call people now who study ancient history?) If it's best we just bury the topic I'm okay with that, but I'm wondering if they weren't going for accuracy what exactly were historians goals? What were they trying to accomplish if not accuracy? Do we even know? Were they just concerned with the general truth, preserving what people talked about for its own sake, just telling a good story or what? I just dont see much of the value to recording a history and filling it with bullshit, and what you guys have said has led me to believe that they knew a lot of it wasnt exactly true when they wrote it. Again I really dont want to push any buttons but I'm really curious. If GF or someone could weigh in on this and we could end the topic here and now I would appreciate it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 15:16
|
|
|
BrainDance posted:If it's ok, I actually have a question about Roman historians (and... Ancient historians? Or is that just what we call people now who study ancient history?) Does the media in your country always agree 100% on the interpretation of events and whether they are good or bad?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 16:13
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Does the media in your country always agree 100% on the interpretation of events and whether they are good or bad?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 16:37
|
|
|
BrainDance posted:If it's ok, I actually have a question about Roman historians (and... Ancient historians? Or is that just what we call people now who study ancient history?) To expand on what Alchenar said, the purpose of many Greek and Roman historians was not to tell an objective history but to promote a viewpoint or to tell a story. Many of the Romans writing the histories were clients of wealthier patrons, and it behooved them to write in a way that put their patron - or Rome, or the Emperor, or whomever they wanted to impress - in a good light. Others did write in order to communicate the events as they happened, but in order to get the widest audience to understand the events, they framed them as a story, with a beginning and an end, a hero and a villain, and so on. To clarify, too: saying "it wouldn't have occurred to them" isn't, I think, intended to say "them thar Romans they was dumb", but that laudatory history or storytelling history was part of their culture, and it was just the way things were done. Polybius isn't notable because he's the only one in all of Roman history who ever even thought of being objective; he's notable because he generally stepped away from tradition and cultural pressure in order to be objective (and, as mentioned, even then he wasn't as good at it as he wanted to be). In other words: imagine a world based on Fox News.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 16:46
|
|
|
Alternatively; Shakespeare's 'historical' plays. People are biased for the same reasons that they've always been biased.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 16:49
|
|
|
I'm not well read on this but are you guys saying that the historians were trying less to write history, but to write news instead? I guess that makes sense, never really thought of it but their news is our history. So a Roman history book would be less about history to them and more like, say, a book on contemporary US politics written for a contemporary audience that included some laymen background history about the US with popular half truths and stories?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 17:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 03:44 |
|
|
BrainDance posted:If it's ok, I actually have a question about Roman historians (and... Ancient historians? Or is that just what we call people now who study ancient history?) It depends on the historian, really. Herodotus and Thucydides both have brief introductions where they talk about their purposes; Herodotus wants to ensure that the great deeds of the Greeks and the barbarians don't go unsung and to determine the causes of war between them, while Thucydides presents himself as having had a notion at the outbreak of the Pelopponesian War that some real important poo poo was about to go down and he wanted to record the events. Titus Livy has a longer introduction to his history of Rome, where he talks at some length about these kinds of questions about the purpose of history writing. This isn't to say that every Roman historian shared this point of view - Livy's just one dude writing with a definite set of concerns given the situation during his lifetime. Titus Livy posted:... I am aware, too, that most readers will take less pleasure in my account of how Rome began and in her early history; they will wish to hurry on to more modern times and read of the period, already a long one, in which the might of an imperial people is already beginning to work its own ruin. My own feeling is different; I shall find antiquity a rewarding study, if only because, while I am absorbed in it, I shall be able to turn my eyes away from the troubles which for so long have tormented the modern world, and to write without any of that over-anxious consideration which may well plague a writer on contemporary life, even if it does not lead him to conceal the truth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 17:04
|
|