Let's make fun of archaic historians.

You just inspired me to write a history article :D

I'd look forward to reading it. :)

At some point, I'll probably read The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (I have it at home) in its entirety, because it was undeniably important.
 
Aw, Dachs. I was looking forward to you finishing your article on Gustavus Adolphus, or another one on Victorian Britain.

I guess now I'll have to whip up something to feed my own craving.
 
Firts this:
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.
Then this:
At some point, I'll probably read The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

Shameless.
 
Herodotus.png
 
Firts this:

Then this:


Shameless.

Which, the fact that I haven't read it in it's entirety or the fact that I plan to read it in it's entirety? If it's the former, I'm well aware of his arguments even if I haven't gone from cover to cover. If it's the latter, I could say it's a "know your enemy" type situation, but it has more to do with the fact that his style is considered to be an inspiration for most modern historians. If I am ever to write a serious history paper after graduation, I should probably be familiar with his style and tone.
 
Oh, Geoffrey. I think the most comprehensive put-down comes from the 14th century!

Ralph Higden said:
...Many men wonder about this Arthur, whom Geoffrey extols so much singly, how the things that are said of him could be true, for, as Geoffrey repeats, he conquered thirty realms. If he subdued the king of France to him, and did slay Lucius the Procurator of Rome, Italy, then it is astonishing that the chronicles of Rome, of France, and of the Saxons should not have spoken of so noble a prince in their stories, which mentioned little things about men of low degree. Geoffrey says that Arthur overcame Frollo, King of France, but there is no record of such a name among men of France. Also, he says that Arthur slew Lucius Hiberius, Procurator of the city of Rome in the time of Leo the Emperor, yet according to all the stories of the Romans Lucius did not govern in that time - nor was Arthur born, nor did he live then, but in the time of Justinian, who was the fifth emperor after Leo. Geoffrey says that he has marveled that Gildas and Bede make no mention of Arthur in their writings; however, I suppose it is rather to be marveled why Geoffrey praises him so much, whom old authors, true and famous writers of stories, leave untouched.

...But perhaps it is the custom of every nation to extol some of their blood-relations excessively, as the Greeks great Alexander, the Romans Octavian, Englishmen King Richard, Frenchmen Charles [Charlemagne]; and so the Britons extolled Arthur. Which thing happens, as Josephus says, either for fairness of the story, or for the delectation of the readers, or for exaltation of their own blood.
 
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!

These people http://www.marmotburrow.ucla.edu/goldants.html came up with a theory that the actual diggers were marmots, and that the Persian word for "marmot" was mistranslated as "mountain ants." Herodotus's version is much more entertaining. My favorite Herodotus story is how Gyges got to be king of Lydia.
 
Flavius Josephus - for brown-nosing Vespasian, trying to pass as Roman, and insincerity.
To be fair, when you're one of the leaders in a revolt against a future Roman Emperor, it's probably in your best interests to kiss his arse as much as possible. It's also smart to pretend to be Roman rather than Jewish when the Jews are being persecuted. Josephus was also a pretty decent historian by the standards of the time, especially when he wrote bout Judaism in general, rather than specific incidents.
 
Sorry, I thought we were supposed to be making fun of them...
 
Sorry, I thought we were supposed to be making fun of them...
Yeah, but you can't really mock someone for things that weren't their fault. Herodotus, on the other hand, said some pretty goddamn stupid things which were verifiably false. Josephus was just trying to survive, and wasn't a bad historian.
 
Back
Top Bottom