Let's make fun of archaic historians.

LightSpectra

me autem minui
Joined
Mar 31, 2007
Messages
5,518
Location
Vendée
From Edward Shepherd Creasy's The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World, on the Battle of Blenheim:

Still, Louis XIV had forty years of success; and from the
permanence of their fruits we may judge what the results would
have been if the last fifteen years of his reign had been equally
fortunate. Had it not been for Blenheim, all Europe might at
this day suffer under the effect of French conquests resembling
those of Alexander in extent, and those of the Romans in
durability.


Source

... yeah. Would that be before or after Zheng He conquers Europe, Sir Creasy?
 
mission_accomplished.jpg
 
Dunno if I'd call 2003 "archaic," or the incumbent head of government referring to a contemporary conflict a historian.
 
Fair enough. It was funny though ;)
 
Always enjoyed that Plutarch fell for the Lycurgus trick. Also, how many Hellenistic Era historians who get duped even today by Alexander's propaganda machine.

I'm not familiar with either. Can you expand?

I suppose the most obvious ancient historian with a quaintly naive notion was Polybius, who wrote a lengthy book extolling the virtues of the Roman Constitution, for being a perfect example of a mixed state as had been espoused by Aristotle; only to suffer an epic failure in 100 years as Augustus converted it to a full-on monarchy.
 
Well, imagine Herodotus' chagrin, believing himself descended a few generations from the gods, and then being shown the Egyptian high-priests statues going back a thousand years.
 
I would make fun of Thukydides for his elision over some of the events at Amphipolis (why the hell was he on Thasos anyway) to make himself not look as bad but tons of people do that

hell Churchill did that
 
I would make fun of Thukydides for his elision over some of the events at Amphipolis (why the hell was he on Thasos anyway) to make himself not look as bad but tons of people do that

hell Churchill did that
Churchill was the best at that I've ever seen. He could be caught on camera setting a dog on fire, yet still write about it so convincingly you'd be convinced that the dog set himself on fire in protest over Churchill's demotion from the front ranks of parliament.
 
Polybius (on the Perseus project website) said:
I say then the Pontus has long been in process of being filled up with mud, and that this process is actually going on now: and further, that in process of time both it and the Propontis, assuming the same local conditions to be maintained, and the causes of the alluvial deposit to continue active, will be entirely filled up. For time being infinite, and the depressions most undoubtedly finite, it is plain that, even though the amount of deposit be small, they must in course of time be filled. For a finite process, whether of accretion or decrease, must, if we presuppose infinite time, be eventually completed, however infinitesimal its progressive stages may be. In the present instance the amount of soil deposited being not small, but exceedingly large, it is plain that the result I mentioned will not be remote but rapid. And, in fact, it is evident that it is already taking place. The Maeotic lake is already so much choked up, that the greater part of it is only from seven to five fathoms deep, and accordingly cannot any longer be passed by large ships without a pilot. And having moreover been originally a sea precisely on a level with the Pontus, it is now a freshwater lake: the sea-water has been expelled by the silting up of the bottom, and the discharge of the rivers has entirely overpowered it. The same will happen to the Pontus, and indeed is taking place at this moment; and though it is not evident to ordinary observers, owing to the vastness of its basin, yet a moderately attentive study will discover even now what is going on.

For the Danube discharging itself into the Pontus by several mouths, we find opposite it a bank formed by the mud discharged from these mouths extending for nearly a thousand stades, at a distance of a day's sail from the shore as it now exists; upon which ships sailing to the Pontus run, while apparently still in deep water, and find themselves unexpectedly stranded on the sandbanks which the sailors call the Breasts. That this deposit is not close to the shore, but projected to some distance, must be accounted for thus: exactly as far as the currents of the rivers retain their force from the strength of the descending stream, and overpower that of the sea, it must of course follow that to that distance the earth, and whatever else is carried down by the rivers, would be projected, and neither settle nor become fixed until it is reached. But when the force of the currents has become quite spent by the depth and bulk of the sea, it is but natural that the soil held in solution should settle down and assume a fixed position. This is the explanation of the fact, that, in the case of large and rapid rivers, such embankments are at considerable distances, and the sea close in shore deep; while in the case of smaller and more sluggish streams, these sandbanks are at their mouths. The strongest proof of this is furnished by the case of heavy rains; for when they occur, rivers of inferior size, overpowering the waves at their mouths, project the alluvial deposit out to sea, to a distance exactly in proportion to the force of the streams thus discharging themselves. It would be mere foolish scepticism to disbelieve in the enormous size of this sandbank, and in the mass of stones, timber, and earth carried down by the rivers; when we often see with our own eyes an insignificant stream suddenly swell into a torrent, and force its way over lofty rocks, sweeping along with it every kind of timber, soil, and stones, and making such huge moraines, that at times the appearance of a locality becomes in a brief period difficult to recognise.

This should prevent any surprise that rivers of such magnitude and rapidity, flowing perpetually instead of intermittently, should produce these effects and end by filling up the Pontus. For it is not a mere probability, but a logical certainty, that this must happen. And a proof of what is going to take place is this, that in the same proportion as the Maeotic lake is less salt than the Pontus, the Pontus is less so than the Mediterranean. From which it is manifest that, when the time which it has taken for the Maeotic lake to fill up shall have been extended in proportion to the excess of the Pontic over the Maeotic basin, then the Pontus will also become like a marsh and lake, and filled with fresh water like the Maeotic lake: nay, we must suppose that the process will be somewhat more rapid, insomuch as the rivers falling into it are more numerous and more rapid. I have said thus much in answer to the incredulity of those who cannot believe that the Pontus is actually being silted up, and will some day be filled; and that so vast a sea will ever become a lake or marsh. But I have another and higher object also in thus speaking: which is to prevent our ignorance from forcing us to give a childish credence to every traveller's tale and marvel related by voyagers; and that, by possessing certain indications of the truth, we may be enabled by them to test the truth or falsehood of anything alleged by this or that person.

I think this is one of the funniest bits of Polybius's history.
 
All I know is that Herodotus had some daft notions about what goes on in the world.
 
I'm not familiar with either. Can you expand?

Lycurgus, king of Sparta most likely did not exist. Yet he has a lengthy and detailed biography in Plutarch's Lives.

Alexander had many historians with him during his campaigns, who essentially wrote about his exploits and sent the news back to Greece et al. They write about huge armies and acts of God and such. Historians obviously see through the latter, but are strangely tricked by the former. Two of Alexander's greatest battles, known in the popular mind for being greatly skewed in numbers (Issos and Gaugamela), were, in reality, much much closer number-wise. Look, for example, at the ridiculous numbers that Wikipedia cites. And those come from real historians!
 
The problem with ancient historians is, quite often, they have little else to go by. They can either quote the ancient numbers or make it up themselves.

BTW, I'm tempted to make fun of Edward Gibbon for The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, but I don't really have the time to go into enough detail. He was clearly important, I just don't think many people think he was completely right anymore.
 
Lycurgus, king of Sparta most likely did not exist. Yet he has a lengthy and detailed biography in Plutarch's Lives.

That kind of founder mythology is widespread in ancient historians. It more reflects their lack of information than their bias with the information they had.

Alexander had many historians with him during his campaigns, who essentially wrote about his exploits and sent the news back to Greece et al. They write about huge armies and acts of God and such. Historians obviously see through the latter, but are strangely tricked by the former. Two of Alexander's greatest battles, known in the popular mind for being greatly skewed in numbers (Issos and Gaugamela), were, in reality, much much closer number-wise. Look, for example, at the ridiculous numbers that Wikipedia cites. And those come from real historians!

Oh, right, the old exaggerated numbers routine... Same thing went for Xerxes' campaign against the Greeks, where he supposedly had an army of a million men. I only view that also as simply lack of reliable information.

All I know is that Herodotus had some daft notions about what goes on in the world.

Like the belief that the camel penis points backwards?

At least Herodotus had the courage to admit that he did not necessarily stand by his statements, and only that he was writing what he had heard.

BTW, I'm tempted to make fun of Edward Gibbon for The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, but I don't really have the time to go into enough detail. He was clearly important, I just don't think many people think he was completely right anymore.

Yes, that is a surprisingly widespread daft notion -- the idea that a whole civilization chooses to become completely inept due to "moral decadence", as if it had once been the pillar of morality, despite being in a desperate struggle for survival. You'll still run into people who believe such nonsense today, maybe even some historians.
 
BTW, I'm tempted to make fun of Edward Gibbon for The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, but I don't really have the time to go into enough detail. He was clearly important, I just don't think many people think he was completely right anymore.
You just inspired me to write a history article :D
 
That kind of founder mythology is widespread in ancient historians. It more reflects their lack of information than their bias with the information they had.

Yes I can cut Plutarch some slack for that.

Oh, right, the old exaggerated numbers routine... Same thing went for Xerxes' campaign against the Greeks, where he supposedly had an army of a million men. I only view that also as simply lack of reliable information.

The difference in this case being that we know Alexander had a propaganda machine that spat out these distorted numbers to enhance his prestige. As if the actual victories at Issos and Gaugamela weren't amazing enough without embellishment.
 
Flavius Josephus - for brown-nosing Vespasian, trying to pass as Roman, and insincerity.
 
I think my favorite Herodotus story is his explanation of how India got so wealthy. Apparently there are deserts with large gold deposits underground in which huge ants tunnel around; all their tunneling disturbs the sand and brings gold out from the depths. The Indians wait until the hottest part of the day--when the ants go underground to avoid the heat--then rush in to gather all the gold that the ants have stirred up. They they book it as fast as they can, hoping to avoid the wrath of the giant insects. Sounds like fun!
 
I think Tarn tried to explain that away as Siberian gold-panners trying to keep their trade secrets, telling lies to the Baktrians about their sources. Still pretty funny though
 
Back
Top Bottom