History questions not worth their own thread V

[Louis XXIV]

^ Good shopping mall

Most of these questions are worth their own thread.

I would like to ask Plotinus or any other WH expert which book or books would you say are the most accurate about Carthage/ Hamilcar/ Hannibal.

I've heard some complain about his knowledge of Greek, but I found Richard Miles's "Carthage Must Be Destroyed" to be a wonderful book that actually focused on Carthage, covered their whole history, addressed the sources and archaeology, and managed to have a readable theme/narrative related to the Greco-Punic fusion that was Heracles-Melqart.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Thank you, Louis XXIV. I will check it out.

I think the Concourse in Phila is much better mall, btw.

 

[Arakhor]

Richard Miles recently produced an entertaining series for the BBC on historical archaeology. Previous to that, he presented a series about Greek history and culture.

 

[SamSniped]

Most of these questions are worth their own thread.

I would like to ask Plotinus or any other WH expert which book or books would you say are the most accurate about Carthage/ Hamilcar/ Hannibal.

I forget which chapter it was, but the ancient historian Livy speaks of Hannibal in his work, Ab Urbe Condita. His work should be relatively accurate, and there are plenty of translations out there. Or I could translate it. I know enough Latin to do so

 

[Dachs]

I forget which chapter it was, but the ancient historian Livy speaks of Hannibal in his work, Ab Urbe Condita. His work should be relatively accurate, and there are plenty of translations out there. Or I could translate it. I know enough Latin to do so

Titus Livius wrote one of the most notoriously sanitized and edited works of classical history. It is very widely available, yes, but it should not be taken as Gospel - or even particularly accurate - on Hannibal by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Phrossack]

This is really a long shot, but is there any good source of information on the Emishi tribes of Japan? From what little I've found, seems they were related to the Ainu and were good horsemen who held off the Japanese for a while and wiped out a few armies before going down.

 

[Lord Baal]

Titus Livius wrote one of the most notoriously sanitized and edited works of classical history. It is very widely available, yes, but it should not be taken as Gospel - or even particularly accurate - on Hannibal by any stretch of the imagination.

It's not even the most accurate contemporary history. Polybius is widely regarded as being a far less biased source than Livy.

 

[Flying Pig]

To be honest, I would advise that history books as works of history have a definite expiration date. Anything written when the events that it describes still had political significance is extremely unlikely to be at all neutral or unbiased; any Roman history of the Punic Wars would have to be viewed in the same way as a Russian history of the Second World War, for example. If you're using a book older than a century as your primary means of finding out about a historical period, you ought to be thinking carefully. Scholarship evolves, meaning that very few books written before 1945 still represent the academic consensus. Furthermore, as the study of history has broadened, historians have become interested in and written about aspects of history which were simply ignored only decades ago.

Do bear in mind, of course, that Livy's history is better read as a work of national mythology, which was true even in his day. Any work purporting to cover such a vast expanse of history - Rome was traditionally founded in 753 BC, and Livy wrote around the turn of the Christian era - at such a microscopic scale should be taken with great caution. He did consult historical sources, but he only used the most easily available and was hardly assiduous about his research. The first six books or so, dealing with the early history of Rome, are certainly far more mythology than history, and the rest ought to be viewed in the same way. It's patriotic, often Boy's-Own history, valuable for understanding how the Romans saw themselves but pretty useless as a detached perspective.

 

[Louis XXIV]

While your first point is true to a degree (there are some older works that have held up well, though), I just want to make it clear that you're talking about secondary sources written much later. While Polybius might have biases, later works aren't better than those sources because there simply aren't other sources (I'd like to call them primary sources, although they're technically not).

 

[Azurian]

Is the Disney movie Mulan based on an actual historical event? Was Mulan real historical figure ?

 

[Azurian]

Whoops, wrong thread.

 

[Dachs]

Is the Disney movie Mulan based on an actual historical event? Was Mulan real historical figure ?

Hua Mulan is as historical a figure as Herakles or Sigurd. The Disney movie was based on an early medieval Chinese poem that ascended to the status of national myth over the course of centuries.

 

[Azurian]

Hua Mulan is as historical a figure as Herakles or Sigurd. The Disney movie was based on an early medieval Chinese poem that ascended to the status of national myth over the course of centuries.

Thanks you

 

[Flying Pig]

While your first point is true to a degree (there are some older works that have held up well, though), I just want to make it clear that you're talking about secondary sources written much later. While Polybius might have biases, later works aren't better than those sources because there simply aren't other sources (I'd like to call them primary sources, although they're technically not).

There are other sources for very modern works, though. Of course, ancient writers had access to a much greater range of literary sources, since so many are lost to us now, but we have archaeological and scientific discoveries which can help to confirm or refute potentially unreliable accounts, or shed new light on what happened. I'm thinking especially of the work done with archaeology in Greece, which allows people to plot the growth, spread and decline of early cultures with far more accuracy than a mostly oral historical tradition. There are also new techniques of analysis: Ronald Syme memorably constructed a portrait of Augustan society by combining the fragmentary biographies of minor figures, which he then uses to evaluate some of the extremely biased Roman accounts of the period.

You are right, however, in that there's probably not all that much to differentiate a book written in 1800 from a book written in 100. Decline and Fall, in particular, is best avoided.

 

[Plotinus]

There are other sources for very modern works, though. Of course, ancient writers had access to a much greater range of literary sources, since so many are lost to us now, but we have archaeological and scientific discoveries which can help to confirm or refute potentially unreliable accounts, or shed new light on what happened. I'm thinking especially of the work done with archaeology in Greece, which allows people to plot the growth, spread and decline of early cultures with far more accuracy than a mostly oral historical tradition. There are also new techniques of analysis: Ronald Syme memorably constructed a portrait of Augustan society by combining the fragmentary biographies of minor figures, which he then uses to evaluate some of the extremely biased Roman accounts of the period.

Even when you're talking about ancient works, earlier doesn't necessarily mean better, because you can never know what other sources (including oral) a later author might have had access to. An example from the New Testament: people often assume that if it's true, as it probably is, that Mark was the first Gospel to be written and Matthew was written using Mark, then Mark is a better source for the historical Jesus. But it doesn't follow. Perhaps Matthew had access to material that Mark didn't, and which was more authentic. Or perhaps Matthew had information that we don't have about Mark itself, such as which bits were made up.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I think decline and fall should be read for Historiography purposes, but certainly not to learn about the period.

 

[Antilogic]

I think decline and fall should be read for Historiography purposes, but certainly not to learn about the period.

I've read that and Guns of August for my little home-school lesson in historiography.

 

[Traitorfish]

I think decline and fall should be read for Historiography purposes, but certainly not to learn about the period.

Read about, sure, but the book itself is about six trillion pages to thick to actual both handling for yourself.

 

[Antilogic]

Read about, sure, but the book itself is about six trillion pages to thick to actual both handling for yourself.

The abridged version from Modern Library Classics does a pretty good job editing it down to a single volume, and it has summary paragraphs of what they have abridged inserted in the text. It's the only text I've seen that does this, not sure if it's unusual or a standard I've somehow missed.

 

[H4run]

I had a debate with my professor which he admit himself he had a lack knowledge regarding chinese history. He claim Confucius is much older than Toaism, I read a lots of Chinese literature even in Highschool I consider myself as their fan. From what I read I remember Lao Tze appearance as before or after Confucius is still in debate, but most probably he appear before Confucius, later on Tao most probably not a religion that been made by Lao Tze its probably appear way before Lao Tze.

But my teacher still insisting on the subject putting Tao after Confucianism.

My question is :

1. Is Taoism appear before Lao Tze?
2. Do Lao Tze is in the same time of Confucius, or appear later on, or appear before Confucius?

Thanks for reading my comment.