Books have been based on it, modern people model themselves on it, the modern world was shaped by it, and experts claim to know everything about it - but just how plausible is it that the things we know about ancient Rome are accurate, and sooth?

My argument here is centered around one thing: What is a factual primary source, and how many factual primary sources are there, from the time of ancient Rome?

What is a factual primary source?
A primary contains first hand testimony of an event. The defining charcteristic of a primary source is that it is un biased, un edited and directly taken from events. Now, a factual primary source is a bit different - while your normal primary source is considered to be anything taken from someone who directly saw the event, a factual primary source must be something that had no chance of becoming bias. A picture or audio file is a primary source, but it wouldn't do to consider it fact as pictures and audio files can be doctored.

Similarly, while the historical source of Tassitus is considered a leading peice of information from ancient times, it is not a primary source, and definatly not a factual primary source, as honestly Tassitus could have put whatever he had wanted to put into his histories, with relative ease.

To me, the only thing that would constitue a factual primary source from ancient Roman times would be in the form of genetic (bloody hard because if you're going to trace back in time, then you need to know where to start tracing) or forensic proof (i.e. the absence of any blunt/sharp trauma on the bones of someone genetically proven to be [by means as yet unknown] cleopatra would mean that is it feasible that she was poinsoned/poisoned herself)

Just how many Factual Primary Sources (FPSs) exist today from the time of ancient Rome?

In summing up the first section of this little talk, an FPS is something that could not, at any point, have been rendered bias. Knife wounds can be faked; but not when such things as carbon dating can narrow down the time at which said wounds were inflicted - thus forensic investigation is the ultimate source of FPSs.

After establishing what is and isn't establishable fact; it just occures to me: What in the entire lexicon of ancient Roman information is an FPS?

I can think of one: The eruption of Mt. Vesuvius. I can think of another: The existence of a city on the tiber, which is commonly accepted as having been called Rome. I can think of one more: That the Roman Empire collapsed at some point, triggering the 'dark ages' as a result of the collapse of intercontinental trade and communication.

What other direct FPSs exist? I have established that forensics is the wellspring of FPSs, and as a result of that, carbon dating might be able to - and probably already has - accuratly age 'Hadrian's Wall'; proving it's time of construction. Similarly; studies of marks in armour might suggest the nature of opposing forces during certain battles in certain locations.

By implication, to what extent is classical education - something based on the study of sources made by people like Tassituc and Cicero - a work of fact as opposed to a work of fiction? Now, I don't want to detract from Cambridge and Oxford students, and I don't want to insult my Grandmother (holder of a degree in Classics, among other degrees) - but their knowlege is like to that of a person who studies fictional, or at least biased literature than a person who studies factual 'history' (almost impossible to be factual).

There is no apparent FPS that proves the existence of Julius Caesar any more than there is an FPS that proves the existence of Hercules. It is all heresay. (I say this with tongue in cheek, as there might easily be some evidence somewhere; I haven't gone through the books before writing this article, but I will not accept any work of historian as an FPS)

That said, it does not detract from the power of these historical figures - true or false, Julius Caesar's legacy reaches across the ages and touches many people even today.

That's my peice; thanks for your time.

They do have records like Caesar's own Commentarii - his records on military campaigns - which gives about 80% of what we know about Caesar, as well as speeches from his politcal rival Cicero.

They have recordings of Pliny the younger's account of the erruption of Mt. Vesuvius which details the erruption in a minute by minute recollection.

Don't ask me how these documents survived but my guess is that they were continuously copied as the years went by.

Elexia:
They do have records like Caesar's own Commentarii - his records on military campaigns - which gives about 80% of what we know about Caesar, as well as speeches from his politcal rival Cicero.

They have recordings of Pliny the younger's account of the erruption of Mt. Vesuvius which details the erruption in a minute by minute recollection.

Don't ask me how these documents survived but my guess is that they were continuously copied as the years went by.

The Eruption of Mt Vesuvius is not something I debate - but records written by Caesar about himself could not be un biased; and they could easily have not been written by him in the first place; similarly people think The Art of War was not written by one man - there's no real way of knowing.

That's the point - nothing written is an FPS as it has no way of being proven un biased. I'm not saying it's a lie or wrong, I'm saying that it isn't fact.

Its hard to find unbiased evidence today, let alone from 2000 years ago.

Man has only existed for about a hundred and fifty years. Our history, everything we know today, is a complete fabrication by forces unknown to us.

scumofsociety:
Its hard to find unbiased evidence today, let alone from 2000 years ago.

Exactly.

Aardvark:
Man has only existed for about a hundred and fifty years. Our history, everything we know today, is a complete fabrication by forces unknown to us.

lol@conspiracy theory

So all the cave paintings and carvings in stone and all the statues that stand today are all set up by some top-secret agency with awesome ability to fabricate carbon dating? Awesome!!

Aardvark:
Man has only existed for about a hundred and fifty years. Our history, everything we know today, is a complete fabrication by forces unknown to us.

Lies. God really just created us all Last Thursday. All our memories and ruins and records were created to throw us off, and test our faith.

Elexia:
So all the cave paintings and carvings in stone and all the statues that stand today are all set up by some top-secret agency with awesome ability to fabricate carbon dating? Awesome!!

Carbon dating is only valid up to about 3000 years if I recall, so anything before 1000 B.C. is guess work based on what we believe to have been going on at the time (And records of Dynasties/Royal Family Trees, etc)

Elexia:
They do have records like Caesar's own Commentarii - his records on military campaigns - which gives about 80% of what we know about Caesar, as well as speeches from his politcal rival Cicero.

They have recordings of Pliny the younger's account of the erruption of Mt. Vesuvius which details the erruption in a minute by minute recollection.

Don't ask me how these documents survived but my guess is that they were continuously copied as the years went by.

Some of the documents were copied, a lot were stored in libaries and universities over the thousands of years, and lasted a long long time. Its unfortunate that we lost a lot of information in catastrophic events, like the great fires of Rome (supposedly started by Nero) and the destruction of the libary in Alexandria in Egypt that stored most of the Macedonian Empire's written word, along with other bits and pieces.

Some of the information we have today is from stone carvings on temples/forums, that kind of thing. The only way we can truely say something is relatively certain is when we have independent historical sources citing the same events in a similar manner. Then we can see whats difference and exclude them as "maybes". Also, a good primary source for general living of the Roman Empire can be found in Pompeii and Herculanium, that describes the basic parts of Roman life. Things like Military journals, well, we have to take their word on them I guess, that they are reports. They may be a bit biased, to impress his superiors, but some of it is factual, for instance tactics, how to use siege weaponry, etc.

Oh, and another good source is the enemies that recorded things about the Romans, though these tend to be later, after the division, as before that, the Romans just conquored everything!

My room mate is a Honors Classics (Greek, Roman and Egyptian studies) Major at U of C, she could give you a lot of lectures on this. Not my specialty though, I did all my University work in Reformation Era Europe.

Look OP, I think you have a bit of a wrong idea as to what constitutes a primary source (or source in general for that matter). A piece of text written by a guy who saw an event is not automatically a better source as people still can lie all they want.
The trick as a historian is to interpret the sources and consider who wrote them.
You mention Tacitus who wrote amongst other things Annales. That is indeed an important historical document, but you gotta consider when he wrote it, why he wrote it and who he wrote it for. For instance, all the parts about Nero should be treated carefully. Tacitus wrote after the death of Nero and the rise of the next ruling house. As such you might wonder if he has smeared Nero more that was needed in an attempt to please the new dynasty and make them look better.

We might consider Herodotus as well. He starts out his Histories by stating his methods and way of questioning. The reason Herodotus is called the father of history is the fact that he tries to get as many versions of a given story as possible and tells the reader when stories conflict and often gives his own interpretation of events. He doesn't take anything for granted, you might say. (This goes for Thucydices as well.) The questions you ask were already asked in antiquity.

The same with Caesars De bello gallico as with Tacitus. When reading it you need to consider what goals Caesar could hope to achieve and how much the work was a propaganda piece. You can't read anything and take it for granted. But the same goes for the news paper and every time a politician opens his mouth. But if you take what you read and treat it critically and correlate it with other informations (don't forget archaeology) and don't draw too hard conclusions you might end with something approximating "the truth".

These questions are not new. Any historian who is worth anything has to ask them to himself and others. There is much more the answer than I wanna go into here, but there are books and books on interpretation on sources and how to write history.

Edit: And as for proving the existence of Caesar I suggest you look at Res gestae divi Augusti where he mentions the killing of his father (Caesar). That should, correlated with Caesars own writings, Sallust, Cicero, archaeological evidence and a lot of other stuff "prove" the existence of Caius Julius Caesar.

I believe that it is a mix of both, just like the bible, you can't take everything literally

mattttherman3:
I believe that it is a mix of both, just like the bible, you can't take everything literally

You can't take anything literally, ever.
But there is more evidence for Rome (or any of the Caesars) than Jesus (for which there only is a passing mention in Annales, that is rather ambiguous) so much is certain.

I think you'd have to be pretty dense not to accept the fact that there was a civilisation of some type based around rome some 2000 years ago because although like you say its possible that written accounts were biased or made up the problem occurs when you have multiple sources all independant that talk about the roman empire. The bible and tassitus would've been written from 2 completely different prespectives and by different authors and they still talk about a similar roman empire. Then if you add up all the archeoligical evidence and other writtings from the time i think we can be pretty certain that some guys didnt get together and say 'you know what would be funny, if we make a load of evidence to trick people 2000 years in the future, that'd show those over educated cretins'

I remember my old history prof getting pissed off because i kept asking him how he knows that a primary source is true since everything is biased. Initially he argued that primary sources are reliable because it's up to us to interpret the information, but that was a load of bull. I knew it and he knew it so when i pressed him, his eventual response was that you have to start somewhere or it's all nothing and you can't believe anything. Which is what i did my thesis on, that old bastard.

"In summing up the first section of this little talk, an FPS is something that could not, at any point, have been rendered bias."

Based off that standard, the U.S. isn't real?

I went to Rome. I saw all that the Romans built in that great city. It is all very impressive. I don't know about what some people wrote some 2000 years ago, that is all up for debate, as is everything written down less then ten minutes ago(ever play the game "Telephone" in school?). But I know this, I saw many wonderful buildings and pieces of art work that prove that the Romans were a great people, who ripped off the Greeks whole sale. The Colosseum is a sight to behold. Rome was an awesome city and I wish I could have seen it 2000 years ago when it was in it's prime back then.

I also weep for the loss of the great library of Alexandria. What a massive store house of ancient knowledge was lost by fire. Damned war and shit. Always burning the good stuff like books, art, and libraries. :(

People can't agree on what they saw happen 15 minutes ago much less 2000 years ago, Only belive half of what you hear and none of what you read.

It's all about relative importance.

If you have tons of sources, you can pick the more reliable. If you have only a few though you're stuck with Tacitus', Caesar's, Suetonius' and Plutarch's cartoon depictions.

You've got to remember too how many writers dabbled in philosophy and ended up moralising history and that these never set out to write a history in its true sense, instead they often wrote biographies.

Archaeology is more reliable for this period.

EDIT: Also Cicero comes across as an arrogant bastard at times, so Tacitus isn't insanely biased at least.

Its not the history that matters but rather popular perception.

As they say the victor writes history, such is the case.

So hang on. You, an anonymous person posting on a little thread in the vast depths of the interwebz, think that 2000 years of history and legacy, as well as the results of around 200 years of modern archaeological research and discovery, and the professional opinions of every professional historian in the world today, are nothing more than mixed up incoherent facts with little basis in historical actuality? Well fuck me, and here I was really enjoying The Anaeid...

Who cares?
I mean, we can use some of what they have left behind, but why do we need to know their everyday life?
Anyway, history is a crock. Its mostly based on some big name historian who made some infrence a few decades before some other historian.

countrysteaksauce:
As they say the victor writes history, such is the case.

I hate that saying. I
It's a general rule that is a gross simplification. It's basically a mix of chance and circumstance that give us the sources we have today.

I mean the battle of Kadesh between the ancient Egyptians and Hittites was depicted by the Egyptians to be a great victory...and it was...for the Hittites. >_>

Take one written source. Compare its content to archaeological & anthropological findings. Extrapolate for "truth."

All facts are biased, since all facts are deductions based on subjective human understanding of their environment. Don't think too hard about it, otherwise your logic will lead you to argue Apollo 11 never landed on the moon; 9/11 was an inside job; & there was no holocaust.

To be honest... youd be better off having made the question "History! Fact or fiction!"

carnkhan4:

countrysteaksauce:
As they say the victor writes history, such is the case.

I hate that saying. I
It's a general rule that is a gross simplification. It's basically a mix of chance and circumstance that give us the sources we have today.

I mean the battle of Kadesh between the ancient Egyptians and Hittites was depicted by the Egyptians to be a great victory...and it was...for the Hittites. >_>

It may be a simplification, but that doesn't make it any less true. In the case you mentioned the simplification is more blatant than in other cases, but although the phrase implies that battle reports etc are written by the people who won them, that's not always the case. What the phrase really means, as far as I can see it, is that although both sides will have their own verisons of the events as they took place (unless one group is wiped out of course), the version taken as the starting point by a third party is the version given by the most successful group overall. In this case, I would assume it to be the Egyptians, since their civilisation is the one most people are aware of from a younger age.

Cousin_IT:
Take one written source. Compare its content to archaeological & anthropological findings. Extrapolate for "truth."

All facts are biased, since all facts are deductions based on subjective human understanding of their environment. Don't think too hard about it, otherwise your logic will lead you to argue Apollo 11 never landed on the moon; 9/11 was an inside job; & there was no holocaust.

Mostly I agree with you, but I couldn't help saying something about your choice of conspiracies. Apollo 11 is probably one of the biggest conspiracy focuses of the past hundred odd years as there's no way to prove either way whether the footage is genuine, and will continue to be so until travel to the moon becomes feasable. Though even that probably won't help much.
The Twin Towers is another big conspiracy, but this one I have to admit I believe. I'm not normally one to believe in conspiracies, but if you watch the film 'Zeitgeist' You'll get why I think it's probable.
The Holocaust was the main bad choice though. You said that logic would cause people to argue that it never happened. I just felt I should say that there is no logic reason on Earth why anyone should think that it never took place. in terms of the FPS idea, even accounting for Bias, surely the testimonies of literally thousands of people, on both sides, should be enough proof to convince all but the most thick headed morons.

Theres a crap load of corroborating primary sources for ancient Rome and its empire, quite alot of it in my book shelf. Ive never been to Germany either but im fairly sure that exists too

I don't think I've ever read a proper history book that made out it that their interpretation of historical events was absolutely factual.

Its as gunslinger said as long as you understand the motivations and purpose of the writer and add in archaeological evidence, you can make intelligent conclusions.

Roman history isn't based completely off the text of a few quasi-historians either, Trajans Column depicts the Dacian war. Obviously its biased but we can safely say that they very likely had a war.

I also live near a place called St Albans, which was the site of the Roman city Verulamium. Quite siginifcant pieces of the cities walls still exist there as well as the remains of a forum which features an inscription which mentions the Emperor Titus and his late father Vespasian. Also they have a well preserved hypocaust under a mosaic floor.

Just from this we can safely say that Romans settled in Britain so a Roman empire had to of existed, that there was an emperor named Titus and that Romans new how to have under floor heating.

So while you can't believe everything about ancient Rome there is a lot of it you can.

urprobablyright:

There is no apparent FPS that proves the existence of Julius Caesar any more than there is an FPS that proves the existence of Hercules. It is all heresay.

Um, no--Caesar says he besieged Alesia, we can excavate the area and find evidence of the fortifications he says he built. The myths of Hercules say he obtained Hippolyta's girdle, yet we haven't found any girdle or artifacts consistent with the Labors of Hercules now, have we?

A primary contains first hand testimony of an event. The defining charcteristic of a primary source is that it is un biased, un edited and directly taken from events.

Um, again--no: that's not the definition historians use for what a primary source it. That's a primary source that would be considered unbiased, unedited testimonial evidence.

What you're talking about is using primary sources as evidence of the events in them occurring as they are described.

I think you're confused as to the difference between there being direct, physical proof of an event, and there being testimonial proof buttressed by circumstantial physical evidence.

Zac_Dai:
I don't think I've ever read a proper history book that made out it that their interpretation of historical events was absolutely factual.

Its as gunslinger said as long as you understand the motivations and purpose of the writer and add in archaeological evidence, you can make intelligent conclusions.

Roman history isn't based completely off the text of a few quasi-historians either, Trajans Column depicts the Dacian war. Obviously its biased but we can safely say that they very likely had a war.

I also live near a place called St Albans, which was the site of the Roman city Verulamium. Quite siginifcant pieces of the cities walls still exist there as well as the remains of a forum which features an inscription which mentions the Emperor Titus and his late father Vespasian. Also they have a well preserved hypocaust under a mosaic floor.

Just from this we can safely say that Romans settled in Britain so a Roman empire had to of existed, that there was an emperor named Titus and that Romans new how to have under floor heating.

So while you can't believe everything about ancient Rome there is a lot of it you can.

Good argument you bring to the table. The whole Britain deal and Trajans Column - I should have remembered that. But I did remember something else: coins. Pictures on coins. Very important actually.

I'm really happy that so many people realise that history isn't set in stone truth. The interpretation of history changes all the time. Gibbons saw the Roman empire in a different way than we do now.

I really think the OP is unclear on what history is, how it's written and how we (I'll soon have my masters degree so I count myself, arrogant as I am) treat sources. His definition of sources makes no sense to me as first hand accounts are as likely to be messed up as later texts.

History, if written by a decent honest historian, is the closest approximation he or she is able to make given the available evidence, be it literary, archaeological, numismatic or artistic. The amount of evidence really is a lot larger than most people realise.

To be perfectly honest, the same arguments pop up in science and philosophy. As far as science goes, all theories are only proven so far by repeated experimentation. There is always the possibility that an experiment may come along and disprove many of the theories held true today, paving the way for a new theory.

Philosophy goes even further, examining the ways to reason and the problem that there is no universal truth to base reasoning on. The simplest argument of 'If A Then B' relies on A being true; going on to prove A either proves circular or continues on ad infinitum. The only way to 'prove' A is to either assume or infer it through empirical evidence.

So sure, you can doubt everything, because everything has the potential for being untrue. However, to be practical, assumptions and inferences make life a whole lot easier, giving us working truths, things that aren't 100% true, but as close to as true as we can expect. In order for something to be as close to true as possible, there must both be reasons to expect it to be true as well as a lack of reasonable doubt.

With regards to history, yes, your primary port of call is forensics and archaeology, however even the interpretation of the evidence presented leaves room for error. Even modern forensics is no magic bullet to explaining exactly what happened. While human reporting of events is inherently subject to error and bias, these are less common unless there is motive to purposely report things incorrectly. Census data is not infallible, but on the whole trustworthy as there is little reason to expect general deception and good reason to expect accuracy. There is also good cause to accept things that are common to multiple non-primary sources, especially ones that would otherwise contradict each other as collaboration is unlikely in such a case. Spin/bias is likely to distort facts, but not totally fabricate them. Factual primary sources are not the only sources, just the most likely to be the most reliable and accurate.

Slaashyish:

Cousin_IT:
Take one written source. Compare its content to archaeological & anthropological findings. Extrapolate for "truth."

All facts are biased, since all facts are deductions based on subjective human understanding of their environment. Don't think too hard about it, otherwise your logic will lead you to argue Apollo 11 never landed on the moon; 9/11 was an inside job; & there was no holocaust.

Mostly I agree with you, but I couldn't help saying something about your choice of conspiracies. Apollo 11 is probably one of the biggest conspiracy focuses of the past hundred odd years as there's no way to prove either way whether the footage is genuine, and will continue to be so until travel to the moon becomes feasable. Though even that probably won't help much.
The Twin Towers is another big conspiracy, but this one I have to admit I believe. I'm not normally one to believe in conspiracies, but if you watch the film 'Zeitgeist' You'll get why I think it's probable.
The Holocaust was the main bad choice though. You said that logic would cause people to argue that it never happened. I just felt I should say that there is no logic reason on Earth why anyone should think that it never took place. in terms of the FPS idea, even accounting for Bias, surely the testimonies of literally thousands of people, on both sides, should be enough proof to convince all but the most thick headed morons.

The OP's approach to ancient Rome implies dismissing all "evidence" on the basis that it comes from human sources & therefore is unreliable. Perhaps my examples were poor choices, but by the OP's logic you cannot use human sources as evidence for something, or to give a "true FPS" context because again its bais' would distort the fact. In all three examples the only side that can claim "the facts" would be the one that can, without relying on human inference or contextualizing, prove their sides case. In all three cases thats impossible (as it is with everything), so thats how you could deny the holocaust etc.

I experienced gay problems with my quotations here - forgive how i dealt with it

This is from teh_gunslinger:

His definition of sources makes no sense to me as first hand accounts are as likely to be messed up as later texts.

This is from Cheeze_pavillion

Um, again--no: that's not the definition historians use for what a primary source it. That's a primary source that would be considered unbiased, unedited testimonial evidence.

In singular response to your jaw-wagging about my not knowing what sources are, i'll ask you to please look again at what I wrote; I defined (however incorrectly) what a primary source is, then said that I was actually looking for what I termed 'FPSs' - Factual Primary Sources, which is a term I made up and I gave a definition for. With that in mind I think all your nitpicking about how what I say doesn't fit in to the definition of a 'primary source' should find itself irrelevant, as I was not in the first place trying to find 'primary sources.'

From dan_danikov:

To be perfectly honest, the same arguments pop up in science and philosophy.

Let's not descend into the anarchy of repeating to each other that "nothing's really provable!" - even if that is technically correct I prefer to have a convorsation without finishing it with "whatever; in the end we don't really know anything." Everything is relative, and if we think it happened to us, with an effect on us, then it as good as happened to us. Dig it?

This quote is from Cheeze_Pavillion:

Um, no--Caesar says he besieged Alesia, we can excavate the area and find evidence of the fortifications he says he built. The myths of Hercules say he obtained Hippolyta's girdle, yet we haven't found any girdle or artifacts consistent with the Labors of Hercules now, have we?

I don't think "Um, no" is required, do you? That's a bit nasty. Hurt my feelings...

You, same as everyone else, are missing the point. Sure we have real life evidence of Caesar's seiges etc, that confirm his writings, but when it boils down to it, how much can we tell from ruins and debris what really happened?

Now, I can picture you typing something like "We can actually find out everything about what happened on the field, and ever what the general's moods were, through studying remains" and you'd be right, to an extent, but you would still not be getting the whole picture, and the fact remains that Caesar would hold a certain power of suggestion over any expert studying remains - being one of a handfull of sources from the time.

Now, the point of my little topic is that there is little factual evidence (according to my definition, which was deliberatly broad because i like being manipulative) from the times of ancient Rome, and as a consequence of that, there is little in the study of people's decisions and demeanours that doesn't come down to heresay.

Yes, you can apply this to all other time periods (as Aardvark did so well earlier), but I am looking at ancient Rome here. Yes, what I'm on about here is the very nature of history, as has been pointed out by numerous people here, but I'm not talking about that, am i? Since when was history factual? I'm talking about facts, I am perfectly aware of what history is about.

People draw a long bow when they say that Caesar mixed with rubble that seems to agree with Caesar is proof of fact.

Things I discourage future posters from saying:
-"You don't know what primary sources are" I've covered that here.
-"You don't understand what 'history' is" I've covered that here.
-"Caesar was telling the truth - rubble confirms him" I've covered that here.
-"Your definitions are freakin broad" I've covered that here.
-"There is no fact, we can never be sure!!!" I've covered that here"

Cousin_IT:
All facts are biased, since all facts are deductions based on subjective human understanding of their environment.

...

The OP's approach to ancient Rome implies dismissing all "evidence" on the basis that it comes from human sources & therefore is unreliable. Perhaps my examples were choices, but by the OP's logic you cannot use human sources as evidence for something, or to give a "true FPS" context because again its bais' would distort the fact. In all three examples the only side that can claim "the facts" would be the one that can, without relying on human inference or contextualizing, prove their sides case. In all three cases thats impossible (as it is with everything), so thats how you could deny the holocaust etc.

For the first part of the quote: A fact cannot be biased - it would not be a fact if it were bias. If we go into the depths of human perception then this argument becomes boring - let's just say that in a world relative unto man, facts cannot be biased.

For the second part: You got the idea right :D That's a first. You got the Holocaust part wrong though; carbon dated skeletons and tissues with traces of the gases used in the gas chambers would be proof.

urprobablyright:
I experienced gay problems with my quotations here - forgive how i dealt with it

This is from teh_gunslinger:

His definition of sources makes no sense to me as first hand accounts are as likely to be messed up as later texts.

This is from Cheeze_pavillion

Um, again--no: that's not the definition historians use for what a primary source it. That's a primary source that would be considered unbiased, unedited testimonial evidence.

In singular response to your jaw-wagging about my not knowing what sources are, i'll ask you to please look again at what I wrote; I defined (however incorrectly) what a primary source is, then said that I was actually looking for what I termed 'FPSs' - Factual Primary Sources, which is a term I made up and I gave a definition for. With that in mind I think all your nitpicking about how what I say doesn't fit in to the definition of a 'primary source' should find itself irrelevant, as I was not in the first place trying to find 'primary sources.'

From dan_danikov:

To be perfectly honest, the same arguments pop up in science and philosophy.

Let's not descend into the anarchy of repeating to each other that "nothing's really provable!" - even if that is technically correct I prefer to have a convorsation without finishing it with "whatever; in the end we don't really know anything." Everything is relative, and if we think it happened to us, with an effect on us, then it as good as happened to us. Dig it?

This quote is from Cheeze_Pavillion:

Um, no--Caesar says he besieged Alesia, we can excavate the area and find evidence of the fortifications he says he built. The myths of Hercules say he obtained Hippolyta's girdle, yet we haven't found any girdle or artifacts consistent with the Labors of Hercules now, have we?

I don't think "Um, no" is required, do you? That's a bit nasty. Hurt my feelings...

You, same as everyone else, are missing the point. Sure we have real life evidence of Caesar's seiges etc, that confirm his writings, but when it boils down to it, how much can we tell from ruins and debris what really happened?

Now, I can picture you typing something like "We can actually find out everything about what happened on the field, and ever what the general's moods were, through studying remains" and you'd be right, to an extent, but you would still not be getting the whole picture, and the fact remains that Caesar would hold a certain power of suggestion over any expert studying remains - being one of a handfull of sources from the time.

Now, the point of my little topic is that there is little factual evidence (according to my definition, which was deliberatly broad because i like being manipulative) from the times of ancient Rome, and as a consequence of that, there is little in the study of people's decisions and demeanours that doesn't come down to heresay.

Yes, you can apply this to all other time periods (as Aardvark did so well earlier), but I am looking at ancient Rome here. Yes, what I'm on about here is the very nature of history, as has been pointed out by numerous people here, but I'm not talking about that, am i? Since when was history factual? I'm talking about facts, I am perfectly aware of what history is about.

People draw a long bow when they say that Caesar mixed with rubble that seems to agree with Caesar is proof of fact.

Things I discourage future posters from saying:
-"You don't know what primary sources are" I've covered that here.
-"You don't understand what 'history' is" I've covered that here.
-"Caesar was telling the truth - rubble confirms him" I've covered that here.
-"Your definitions are freakin broad" I've covered that here.
-"There is no fact, we can never be sure!!!" I've covered that here"

Well, on my part I didn't mean any offence or something like that.

However I do think that your definitions of sources and ideed your whole argument about heresay and such is rather... I don't know... contrary.
I'm left to ponder what you want out of history. We can never be sure what actually went on unless we invent a time machine and go back there and tape it in your view. Historians do the best they can with what remains of evidence. No one ever claimed that history = truth. Or rather only fools and people with an agenda. I honestly think that your definitions of evidence and what constitutes factual evidence falls flat when it comes to actual inquiry into the past. They are imply not workable.
As I pointed out in an earlier post, the question you ask is not new or original. As long as we have been writing stuff down we have been asking if it represents the actual happenings. That's not going to change.

Edit: Post number 200. Yay. And on history and Rome no less. My favourite kind of history.