Thread replies: 7
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
Anonymous
The credibility of ancient Greek historians 2017-05-08 06:40:53 Post No.
[Report] Image search: [Google]
The credibility of ancient Greek historians 2017-05-08 06:40:53 Post No.
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: Pezhetairos.jpg (47KB, 600x410px) Image search:
[Google]
47KB, 600x410px
We all know and are certain that most ancient Greek historians were more often dubious and exaggerative than not, however, did it reach points where they almost entirely didn't record/mention great events where the Greeks were defeated (or something along the lines of such)? For example, in known history the war between the Macedonians and the Achaemenids, the Macedonian record is clean (zero defeats), however it appears there are anecdotes that the Macedonians were decisively defeated in Anatolia during Phillip's reign by the Persians (led by the infamous Memnon of Rhodes) Near Magnesia (this army was led by Parmenion).
There also comes the potential exaggerations of actual battles where Alexander was in; for example, some modern historians question the fact that Alexander was in the fore-front of the fighting in the Granicus and that the Hellennic mercenaries were defeated by a frontal Macedonian assault and that Alexander narrowly avoided death from the hands of a Persian general, and killed another with a spear, instead stating that he most likely crossed a ford downriver with his companions and flanked the Persians/Greeks, and there might be also historians questioning if Alexander actually came close to Darius III during Gaugamela.
Discuss this
>>
>>2778248
We have barely any of the Greek historians available to us, it's impossible to know how accurate they were. That said, Based Thucydides is the only one (afaik) to openly and clearly state that many of the things he was recording were mere hearsay. Ancient historians in general don't seem to have cared too much about being absolutely truthful, but more about pushing their agenda (much like modern historians, really).
>>
>>2778248
to add to my previous points;
Greek historian credibility was almost certainly shaky (Herodotus claiming there was millions of Persians at Thermopylae, other historians had similar consensuses, etc) Some Roman historians were also known to exaggerate and so on, however it's known that Roman historians, even the most biased of them, still recorded everything, included the great defeats (sometimes more than the victories), the question here is; did Greek historians almost entirely ignore/leave out their defeats?
>>
>>2778257
Yes, it's obvious that alot of historians were working on Hearsay (alot of historians lived atleast a decade after the events they were recording, some others lived centuries)
>>
>>2778248
Thucydides was legit.
>>
>>2778248
The problem is mostly due to the lack of historians on the other side. If there had been been prominent Persian historians who's books survived long enough to be remembered, we might have had a better perspective on the reasonings and strategies of various persian monarchs during the persian wars and conquests of alexander. It's same as how reading a book on the crusades from the latin point of view and then reading it from the arab point of view provides a more nuanced and rational understanding of the crusades. I would love to have seen a persian historian describe battle of marathon or salamis. It could have been that the greeks were speaking truthfully or lying immensely. Who knows.
>>
>>2778266
Greeks are slimy and you can't trust them
"timeo Danaos et dona ferentis"
Thread posts: 7
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1