but looking past the specifics (i worded it really badly); i think there's no proactive reason that these sources are false, just that they COULD be false;
undeadcow: but looking past the specifics (i worded it really badly); i think there's no proactive reason that these sources are false, just that they COULD be false;
I think that the amount of evidence for Rome is huge. There's archaeological evidence, coinage, accounts from other people than the Romans themselves, linguistic evidence and some laws were used later that originated in Rome. Can't recall the details atm. I can look it up tomorrow and pop in an edit here or a new post if it feels right.
Rome really did do itself a favour (wtf, i set my mac to english (australia) and spellcheck still thinks 'favor' is correct) for the ages with it's extensive coinage system. The coins of ancient Rome would defiantly be quite good proof of the existence of these beliefs at the time of each coin's being made; but remember again that this is a different world we're talking about - take away the film of the renaissance and it doesn't seem so implausible that a culture that said it spawned from two lupophile babies might also say it's leaders were titans; and commemorate minor skirmishes as great victories (i can imagine Rome as being a hotbed of propaganda - though they would have just thought about it as 'useful lies' i think) <- long sentence
Well I think my point has been well made that in the end we can't really trust any man-made evidence (except for man-made wounds, excrement, etc), though it's still useful to a point and undeniably interesting.
Rome was of course filled to a certain extent with propaganda, as are all societies. The trick is to know what is propaganda and take the appropriate measures to discount that. Of course this applies mostly to writing about what happened, battles and what not. Propaganda and ideology can however be a great way to learn how the Romans thought. By identifying the discourse of a text you get the possibility to see what people cared about, what their values were and how they saw themselves. (This of course goes for most texts ever written)
I think I will dare to draw a little conclusion on my part. I actually agree with a lot on what you say, even if it took a little discussion to get there. The small things I don't quite agree with are nitpicks and questions of nuance and temper. So that's as it should be. It sounds as if you agree with me to some extent as well. I'm not even sure we ever really disagreed as much as we talked about it in different ways. But feel free to correct me if I imply to much on your part.
Either way, this was a blast. Thanks. Unless something elses crops up I'll take to just being an onlooker from here.
Edit: I think the point I disagree with is your claim that no written accounts can be used as a basis for truth (I'm putting a bit on a point here). While I technically agree I still disagree as we can verify many of the claims in the texts. I think the whole point we differ on is, what makes a fact. You seem to say that nothing short of being there or doing it yourself is a fact. I find that a less rigid definition of facts is more useful, at least when it comes to history. I honestly think that an approximation of the "truth" is the best we'll get. But any historian worth his salt will tell you that the conclusions drawn are very thought through. And at a later point they may well be changed. The past, as the future, is not set in stone.
I don't think I can really give you a satisfying answer.
You've pretty much shown that u know what my point is; though you're not fully appreciating the power of it.
The point is, truthfully, that, as you said, no written sources can be held as fact. You don't need to get more specific. I'm not being black and white here - I'm not saying I don't want Rome to have existed, I'm not saying that overwhelming opinion doesn't describe a vague truth (as mentioned in a previous reply to something said by teh_gunslinger) what I'm saying is, if one were looking for facts (like me), then one could not trust written sources. The nature of my argument is vague because the nature of history is vague - especially about the non-events of ancient Rome. It doesn't matter how wrote them, how many people wrote them, etc, the ironic fact is that they are not factual.
There is no certainty that yours is false, but I think my logic is undeniable (not being pompous about it, for how can someone be pompous for pointing out obvious truths?)
I did not say there's a possibility that rome didn't exist - i know it did. Again, i refer you to the OP.
One cannot back oneself up other than by appealing to your logic, and imploring you to think laterally.
I don't consider Ancient Rome to be a pure truth (obviously) and i consider it to be a study in myth as much as a study of events, but I still recognize it as a great area of study, that can give us alot of insight into how humans work, I don't take it as truth because there is no real truth, i just take it as something that pretty much happened - it doesn't matter if it really happened or not; it affects us, and everything is relative.
If you're looking for concrete, undeniable facts with a 0% margin of error, then you're looking at the wrong profession. You cannot insist that something didn't happen because the only evidence is written documents. If there are ten different documents, all from different individuals, of different ages, locations, professions and social groups, all indicating that the same event occurred, then most reasonable historians would agree that the event occurred. The one out of ten historians who disagrees would have to find a reason those documents exist in the first place. If they were planted by some organisation to tell posterity that X happened, a motive is required, as is further evidence of this organisation's existance. Even then, this conspiracy theory (for lack of a better word) would still be no more plausible than the first theory, which is that X happened. And really, which is more plausible? X happened? Or Organisation Y wants us to think X happened?
Let's assume that all written testimony is not to be trusted. In fact, let's assume right off the bat that it is all false. So, Cicero's speeches decrying Caesar are false. At the same time, all the documents pertaining to Cicero are false. And all the documents pertaining to the authors of those documents pertaining to Cicero are false. And so on and so on. So every piece of written evidence in Rome is false. So why are they there in the first place? Who wrote them? When and where were they really written? Why where they written? If you dismiss a piece of evidence, you need to plausibly account for the presence of that piece of evidence in the first place. You can't just ignore it and pretend the document never existed, or handwave it away with "some dude in the renaissence made it up".
If you refuse to accept anything without a 100% chance of certainty, then I think you're just going to end up sorely dissapointed when you try to find some answers. If you're looking for THE truth, you'll never find it. All history has ever been able to give, and all it promises, is a truth. If you're not willing to accept that something happened based on overwhelming documented evidence then you'd better be willing to dismiss pretty much anything that happened more than 50 years ago. I don't think I could live that pessimistically.
And that's all I have to say on the subject. /involvement in this thread.
Homer, of course wins the epic contest hands down with The Iliad. But Vergils epic is also very very good, as you seem to agree on. And the latin makes for some wonderfull language, if that's what interests you. The part about Venus being Aeneas mother also serves the purpose of making her her an ancestor of both Caesar and Augustus. Aeneas son Iulus is the first of the gens Iulius (I think he is the son at least. Lemme look that up). Anyway, it's a nive piece of propaganda serving to justify the hegemony of Augustus.
And that, boys and girls, is how you win historian of the week. Good work gunslinger.
urprobablyright: primary, at the very least, means that it is the 'first' in a line of sources, taken, if you'll pardon the confusing word choice, from the source of the information.
No, that's not what people mean when they say 'primary source'. An ancient work of history based on first hand accounts is still considered a primary source, even though at the time it was a secondary source.
I don't think anything in the world of literature or here-say is more pure than evidence used in forensics
What you mean hearsay? Hearsay is when a second person relates to you something the first person saw. If you're reading Caesar say "I came; I saw, I conquered" that's not hearsay--that's Caesar giving you testimony about what he actually saw, literally: "veni VIDI vici". If you accept that the record of his testimony from him to you is authentic, then it's not hearsay.
therein lies the rub; there is no evidence that proves the existence of julius caesar anymore then there is evidence of the existence of quetzalcoatli - I do not accept written testimony, and even corroborating physical evidence as fact - physical evidence is what defines truth, not written statement.
And what reason do you have for such a high standard of proof?
Homer, of course wins the epic contest hands down with The IliadThe Iliad . But Vergils epic is also very very good, as you seem to agree on. And the latin makes for some wonderfull wonderful language, if that's what interests you. The part about Venus being Aeneas mother also serves the purpose of making her her an ancestor of both Caesar and Augustus. Aeneas' son Iulus is the first of the gensIulius Iulia (I think he is the son at least. Lemme look that up). Anyway, it's a nive nice piece of propaganda serving to justify the hegemony of Augustus.
And that, boys and girls, is how you win historian of the week. Good work gunslinger.
Thanks. I think. Unless you are being sarcastic?
Either way I can see a lot of typos in my post. Sloppy work on my part. Only excuse is that I'm tired.
Anyway, I did look it up, and Iulus, who is also called Ascanius is the son of Aeneas and so the grand son of Venus. The line goes on to Caesar who dedicated a temple to Venus in her aspect of Genetrix (mother) in Rome and Augustus who was the adopted son of Caesar (also his nephew). One might add that the title of the epic, The Aeneid refers to Augustus, him being of Aeneas. What it all boils down to is that the epic, apart from being a sweet piece of litterature, connects the ruling dynast of Rome to both the gods (Venus, Mars and Jupiter) and the heros of Troy and in that way also to The Iliad. It should be noted that while the Romans were fonder of the Hellenistic culture than classical hellenic, Homers epics were classics even then. In one poem Vergil manages to tie to Rome all this. Quite a feat really.
urprobablyright: primary, at the very least, means that it is the 'first' in a line of sources, taken, if you'll pardon the confusing word choice, from the source of the information.
No, that's not what people mean when they say 'primary source'. An ancient work of history based on first hand accounts is still considered a primary source, even though at the time it was a secondary source. I said 'primary' on it's own at least means 'first' - nothing about 'primary sources' - it's applicable to my term 'FPS' as the stuff of FPSs comes directly from the beginning of said evidence trail - literally primary.
I don't think anything in the world of literature or here-say is more pure than evidence used in forensics
What you mean hearsay? Hearsay is when a second person relates to you something the first person saw. If you're reading Caesar say "I came; I saw, I conquered" that's not hearsay--that's Caesar giving you testimony about what he actually saw, literally: "veni VIDI vici". If you accept that the record of his testimony from him to you is authentic, then it's not hearsay. But when you look at all the other sources of the time, written by people who were not there, then that's here-say. By the sheer nature of human existence, here-say is more common than first hand descriptions; and i stick by my position of incredulity when it comes to what caesar supposedly wrote about himself (it's also not 100% likely that Caesar wrote those things; could have been a work of imagination on some other person's part - and if you try to say "no, it was Caesar, trust me." then i'll lol@you
therein lies the rub; there is no evidence that proves the existence of julius caesar anymore then there is evidence of the existence of quetzalcoatli - I do not accept written testimony, and even corroborating physical evidence as fact - physical evidence is what defines truth, not written statement.
And what reason do you have for such a high standard of proof? well I'm the greatest thing - i trump sliced bread - and because of that my standards are the highest of all time (as far as forensics can tell)
If you're looking for concrete, undeniable facts with a 0% margin of error, then you're looking at the wrong profession. You cannot insist that something didn't happen because the only evidence is written documents. I didn't do that. Are you going to start reading what is written at some point? I'm not insisting on 100% proof; i'm just pointing out the absence of it. If there are ten different documents, all from different individuals, of different ages, locations, professions and social groups, all indicating that the same event occurred, then most reasonable historians would agree that the event occurred. In my self-confessed dissatisfying answer, I said that I agree with that The one out of ten historians who disagrees would have to find a reason those documents exist in the first place. If they were planted by some organisation to tell posterity that X happened, a motive is required, as is further evidence of this organisation's existance. Even then, this conspiracy theory (for lack of a better word) would still be no more plausible than the first theory, which is that X happened. And really, which is more plausible? X happened? Or Organisation Y wants us to think X happened? I think you're arguing over the subject of a different thread, 'cause I don't even consider what we're talking about to be 'history' - history is everything you think it is, i'm not arguing
Let's assume that all written testimony is not to be trusted. In fact, let's assume right off the bat that it is all false. well you can do that, but i'm not doing that, so i'll cut out the rest of your quote where u covered this.
...
You can't just ignore it and pretend the document never existed, or handwave it away with "some dude in the renaissence made it up". No but you must not take that document as fact. If you don't understand what i'm going on about by now then I think you should stop 'cause we won't be able to have the same conversation.
If you refuse to accept anything without a 100% chance of certainty, then I think you're just going to end up sorely dissapointed when you try to find some answers. If you're looking for THE truth, you'll never find it. I'm not - again covered in previous posts All history has ever been able to give, and all it promises, is a [vague version of the] truth. If you're not willing to accept that something happened based on overwhelming documented evidence then you'd better be willing to dismiss pretty much anything that happened more than 50 years ago. I don't think I could live that pessimistically. i think after reading everything else i've written in this post up till now you wil have given up on your points; but in case that's not the case: a) It's bloody obvious that things happened, it's pretty obvious that they happened more or less as they are recorded - i enjoy history even if it's not entirely accurate - that's why it's one of my favorite subjects. b) I'm not a pessimist; I don't care what really happened 5 seconds ago so long as i've learnt from it; if it's not something i can learn from then i forget it (but i rarely find things i can't learn from)
And that's all I have to say on the subject. /involvement in this thread.ah, right, didn't see this last bit. thanks for your input; too bad you never really hit the bullseye, eh :S
Hey guys; Thanks to all of you for your input - I wrote this post for some debate and some stimulation and got more than I hoped to get. Thank you all very much, I don't think there's much more I need to say on my beliefs on this subject - thanks again.
The simplest answer to your argument is there exist very few factual primary sources for most of history, due to the frequent lack of clear forensic evidence. By your definition of factual primary sources, there exists between few and none for ancient Rome.
urprobablyright: I wrote this post for some debate and some stimulation and got more than I hoped to get
I think you may have struck a nerve... some people are very fond of Roman history, myself included. To have it questioned and suggested to be on par with mythological figures may come as something of an insult, akin to insisting that the world is flat! The natural flinch to that is 'don't be stupid' and people do can get mad when people continue being so.
Those a bit broad-minded may try to lead you to the fact that having such high standards is the biggest flaw in the question and try to show by example how high standards in other fields lead to ridiculous situations, such as the idea that nothing can be proved or ever considered true. While such arguments may be ultimately true (although that is a paradox we won't get into), they are also impractical.
Equally so, arguing that only certain types of evidence can be considered factually sound and are admissible is impractical. By extension, shouldn't we only accept our own personal experience of said evidence, in which case, surely there is no point in debate- we must each experience the evidence individually? Perhaps that is reductio ad absurdum, perhaps not.
You quoted CSI at some point, suggesting that all history should be based on forensic evidence built up in a similar manner. Ignoring that their depiction of forensics is somewhat dramatic, unrealistically accurate and purely to drive the plot forward, they still depict the human element. Forensics can, at best, describe which certain individuals of a unique genetic make-up committed which acts in which order. Forensics can never cover the human angle- who did it, why they did it, how they felt about it. Such things are as much open to inner interpretation as to others and will always result in uncertainty and varying viewpoints.
There is no questioning your beliefs, just your adherence to them. You haven't said anything wrong in itself, just derived the wrong conclusions from them. Even if you were to produce perfect forensics and a perfect picture of history, the results of your work- any published paper, book or reporting of it- ironically would be equally unreliable as the unreliable form of history you were trying to avoid. Strictly speaking, there was nothing wrong with your question, but practically nobody is going to take it seriously.
DanDanikov: The simplest answer to your argument is there exist very few factual primary sources for most of history, due to the frequent lack of clear forensic evidence. By your definition of factual primary sources, there exists between few and none for ancient Rome. Exactly.
urprobablyright: I wrote this post for some debate and some stimulation and got more than I hoped to get
I think you may have struck a nerve... I didn't mean that negtively, btw, I meant it as in "I was delighted by the turn out" but whatever some people are very fond of Roman history, myself included. i love it! To have it questioned and suggested to be on par with mythological figures may come as something of an insult, akin to insisting that the world is flat! Honestly it seems to me that people who stick to age old traditions then react bad to new ways of looking at them/new truths are the ones who thought the world was flat - if you use the similie correctly The natural flinch to that is 'don't be stupid' and people do can get mad when people continue being so. human nature~
Those a bit broad-minded may try to lead you to the fact that having such high standards is the biggest flaw in the question This has nothing to do with standards, really. There are no standards in logic. Just because the logic is ruthless and unpaletable, doesn't mean it's 'bad logic' and try to show by example how high standards in other fields lead to ridiculous situations, such as the idea that nothing can be proved or ever considered true. Yes well that again is not 'high standards' - it's the realm of logic. I just brand people who say that 'killjoys' While such arguments may be ultimately true (although that is a paradox we won't get into), they are also impractical.
Equally so, arguing that only certain types of evidence can be considered factually sound and are admissible is impractical. It's a fact, though; and knowing that isn't anything bad - just because I prove our beleifs on ancient Rome to be inaccurate doesn't mean we should stop studying what we've studied for ages - people seem to think I am saying we're all wrong and that rome didn't exist - all i'm saying is that we don't know many factual things, with no negative connotations By extension, shouldn't we only accept our own personal experience of said evidence, in which case, surely there is no point in debate- we must each experience the evidence individually? Perhaps that is reductio ad absurdum, perhaps not. Well brains create memory artifacts :P
You quoted CSI at some point, suggesting that all history should be based on forensic evidence built up in a similar manner. Ignoring that their depiction of forensics is somewhat dramatic, unrealistically accurate and purely to drive the plot forward, they still depict the human element. Forensics can, at best, describe which certain individuals of a unique genetic make-up committed which acts in which order. Forensics can never cover the human angle- who did it, why they did it, how they felt about it. Unless we perfect mind reading, we won't be able to tell that even in present day with contemporaries Such things are as much open to inner interpretation as to others and will always result in uncertainty and varying viewpoints. when talking about facts - which have about nothing to do with
There is no questioning your beliefs, just your adherence to them. You haven't said anything wrong in itself, just derived the wrong conclusions from them. that's a pretty bold statement - so far it seems you haven't fully grasped what conclusions I've drawn Even if you were to produce perfect forensics and a perfect picture of history, at no point have i ever said i wanted to do that~ the results of your work- any published paper, book or reporting of it- ironically would be equally unreliable as the unreliable form of history you were trying to avoid. Good point, that said though I don't really classify this is 'history' so much as 'fact' (see previous posts) Strictly speaking, there was nothing wrong with your question, but practically nobody is going to take it seriously. While I never actually wanted it to be taken seriously; you did point out an interesting bit of human nature in mentioning that people won't take it seriously because it is out of their comfort zone. I feel comfortable being the guy who brought brave adventure to the way we look at ancient rome on the escapist
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.
History usually has some kind of bias, however small. Doesn't mean the facts aren't true.
The problem with this line of thought is that if it came down to primary sources to your described standards then neither Pharaohs of Egypt nor Plato nor George Washington would exist.
As for Julius Caesar, it is a simple cross sectioning not only of his ruins and his records but the records and stories taken from other sources.
Your logic is also counter intuitive. Implying that sources other than factual primary sources (and ruins may in fact be classified as such a source by the by) cannot in fact reveal any certain truth then we cannot intrinsically trust primary factual sources as they are just as capable of being fabrications or fictions (George Washington was just a figurehead cartoon mascot for colonists of the time with really nifty stories made up about him to inspire a nation, how can we prove otherwise, we only have a bunch of drawings of him and stories about cherry trees and democracy)
Frankly it is difficult to argue any of these points without being experts in anthropological and archeological studies however. I sincerely doubt any of us knows enough about the fields to determine how experts arrive at conclusions concerning the world of thousands of years ago.
On an additional note I noticed urprob wrote how his feelings were hurt in response to an "Um -- No". To this I would have to say: Don't be an idiot, if you're feelings are gonna get hurt by that, it's time to get off the internet.
urprobablyright: This has nothing to do with standards, really. There are no standards in logic. Just because the logic is ruthless and unpalatable, doesn't mean it's 'bad logic'
I wasn't trying to suggest it was bad logic, just that it is overly strict. You can still apply logic to an imperfect system and come up with answers. What it feels like you're saying is that all but primary factual sources are potentially biased and thus should be disregarded as they're not 100% factual, in the face of having no primary factual sources.
With enough inaccurate evidence to suggest something, and a lack of reasonable doubt due to other evidence, you can infer that that something is probable enough to be considered as good as factual. Often the inference will be more vague, but no less true because of it. This is the basis of empirical scientific evidence- even using poorly calibrated, inaccurate equipment, scientific principles with a linear or quadratic relationship, for example, will still reveal such a relationship under sufficiently extensive testing. A scientist does not throw away his results because they do not form a perfect line, as there is still a discernible pattern despite the inaccuracies.
One of these facts might be the existence of Julius Caesar- while all our sources are indirect, such as writings or depictions of his image on coin and statues/busts, the sheer quantity of sources infer being based on an actual individual. Applying this to the counter-point of Hercules, his stories have more variations to them, indicating embellishment. Even his name changed when the Romans adopted the myth. While there is the potential that the myth originated from an actual individual (as many myths may have done), there is a that progression of embellishment and evolution to his stories that accounts of Julius Caesar do not have.
With nothing to provide reasonable doubt beyond the lack of primary factual sources, which is to be expected given the length of time, there is no reason to doubt his existence. While it is more appropriate to be sceptical of the accuracy of the details, that is why there is more argument, debate and interpretation of them.
These kinds of questions pop up a lot in classical history. My favourite is "Was Troy real?" The answer, when you pin the historians down to it, is "There was a town that was destroyed, rebuilt, destroyed, rebuilt, destroyed and rebuilt up to a dozen times, and from one of those destructions - or maybe several - a story emerged which was modified successively by generations of oral poets until it was written down in a new version by Homer...but it wasn't called Troy...and we aren't even sure if there was a 'Homer' anyway; he might have been several writers/editors." Now that's uncertainty. But if you really want to talk about disparity between secondary and primary sources look at Chinese history. Those guys got historiography and an Orwellian style of history revision down to an art before Orwell's great-great-great-great grandfather had a twinkle in his eye. Besides the clearly mythical early dynasties who, at best, might have existed, and the next few dynasties whose importance might have been overstated by those seeking to define an 'in-group' of 'real' Chinese (Xia, for instance) there are increasing signs from archeological finds that the literary sources of Chinese history (the most extensive in the world) have often overstated the importance of the so-called 'cradle' and 'core' regions of China, which were held to be the centre of power and culture throughout Chinese history.
lol