History (truth) and Historians (perceivers of truth)

[ruthaki]

I suspect that, as in the present, there was a load of propoganda in the past as well. How many 'eye-witness' accounts are there, and how many of those are NOT slanted to the teller's advantage? Nobody can say for sure about these things unless you were actually there and participating and even then there'd be a slanted view-point according to whose side you were on. Just doing research for my novel I've read so many varying points of view about Alexander's world in the end you just have to figure out what 'logically' happened.

[Paralus]

G'day Murlidhar.Bingo! Whereas I cannot agree with the first century and Caesar's son et al GÇô the historical and archaeological evidence for accepted dates are beyond challenge GÇô the "Eastern" or Persian version of events is (On the whole) ignored.The Babylonian tablet which speaks of Gaugamela (among the formulaic astronomical and weather data among other things) states that the army deserted Darius and the Great King fled the field incontinently (love that description) when his position was again hopeless. Now, this is not to say that he waited until he was alone in his part of the field GÇô far from it. The implication is that Persian troops GÇô under fierce assault from The Companion cavalry, the "shield bearers" and the royal guard GÇô began to desert their King. And he eventually followed GÇô irrespective of the (obviously unknown to them) victory inching remorselessly closer through the bloody mud and buthchery on the Macedonian left.It's not often referred to is it? In fact, I don't think the Greek writers ever mention it.As always, a matter of perspective.Paralus.

[Paralus]

G'day Murlidhar.Bingo! Whereas I cannot agree with the first century and Caesar's son et al GÇô the historical and archaeological evidence for accepted dates are beyond challenge GÇô the "Eastern" or Persian version of events is (On the whole) ignored.The Babylonian tablet which speaks of Gaugamela (among the formulaic astronomical and weather data among other things) states that the army deserted Darius and the Great King fled the field incontinently (love that description) when his position was again hopeless. Now, this is not to say that he waited until he was alone in his part of the field GÇô far from it. The implication is that Persian troops GÇô under fierce assault from The Companion cavalry, the "shield bearers" and the royal guard GÇô began to desert their King. And he eventually followed GÇô irrespective of the (obviously unknown to them) victory inching remorselessly closer through the bloody mud and buthchery on the Macedonian left.It's not often referred to is it? In fact, I don't think the Greek writers ever mention it.As always, a matter of perspective.Paralus.

[Efstathios]

Murlidhar hail The chronology of the events is beyond disput.It is a fact.We know exactly how many years ago these events took place due to many sources.One is the various persons that lived in Alexander's time and for who we know when they lived based on the olympic games.The ancient greeks used to chronologise (is there such a verb?) events based on the olympic games.They said p.e 150 years after the 5th olympic games.We know when the first Olympic games happened,so we can calculate exactly the year. But then of course we have many other sources that can tell us the exact year of ancient events and when people lived.For example a historian of the 1st century a.d says that one event happened 355 years ago.So based on the fact that he probably tells the truth we can calculate the years,and then we compare it with other older sources if there are any (like if another writer said that this event happened the 4th year of the 12th olympiad) and if the sources agree,then we have the exact year. Generally the chronology of the events is based on solid facts. About Darius escaping during the gaugamela battle: Maybe it happened as you said,meaning that his army started to flee and then he had no other choise but to flee also.But the persian side of the story gives Alexander's army too much power.Power that even the greek writers dont mention exactly.Because we are talking about 40.000 men that were able to push back the 300.000 (and maybe even more)persians and make them to flee.Maybe it happened that way,but i consider more probable that Alexander with his horsemen went again Darius ,because he knew that this was the only way to defeat such a huge army. My oppinion of course

[Efstathios]

Murlidhar hail The chronology of the events is beyond disput.It is a fact.We know exactly how many years ago these events took place due to many sources.One is the various persons that lived in Alexander's time and for who we know when they lived based on the olympic games.The ancient greeks used to chronologise (is there such a verb?) events based on the olympic games.They said p.e 150 years after the 5th olympic games.We know when the first Olympic games happened,so we can calculate exactly the year. But then of course we have many other sources that can tell us the exact year of ancient events and when people lived.For example a historian of the 1st century a.d says that one event happened 355 years ago.So based on the fact that he probably tells the truth we can calculate the years,and then we compare it with other older sources if there are any (like if another writer said that this event happened the 4th year of the 12th olympiad) and if the sources agree,then we have the exact year. Generally the chronology of the events is based on solid facts. About Darius escaping during the gaugamela battle: Maybe it happened as you said,meaning that his army started to flee and then he had no other choise but to flee also.But the persian side of the story gives Alexander's army too much power.Power that even the greek writers dont mention exactly.Because we are talking about 40.000 men that were able to push back the 300.000 (and maybe even more)persians and make them to flee.Maybe it happened that way,but i consider more probable that Alexander with his horsemen went again Darius ,because he knew that this was the only way to defeat such a huge army. My oppinion of course

[Paralus]

G'day Efstathios.We'll never agree on the Persian numbers - and that's most likely as it should be given the topic of this thread. We should though, agree on the Macedonian side - based on the Greek writers: 47,000. Your 40,000 would remove his 7,000 odd cavalry.To parahrase Dr McCoy (from Star Trek) "For God's sake Jim! You're not planning to send him in without his cavalry?"
Bugger but it's hot here: 39 centigrade. Time for the pool and a beer!Dr McCoy again: "for God's sake Jim! I'm an Historian not a furnace operator!"Paralus

[Paralus]

G'day Efstathios.We'll never agree on the Persian numbers - and that's most likely as it should be given the topic of this thread. We should though, agree on the Macedonian side - based on the Greek writers: 47,000. Your 40,000 would remove his 7,000 odd cavalry.To parahrase Dr McCoy (from Star Trek) "For God's sake Jim! You're not planning to send him in without his cavalry?"
Bugger but it's hot here: 39 centigrade. Time for the pool and a beer!Dr McCoy again: "for God's sake Jim! I'm an Historian not a furnace operator!"Paralus

[amyntoros]

Athanasios Have added this book to my wish-list (which is getting out of hand as I add at least three or four books for every one that I buy). Interestingly, Holland's Persian Fire hasn't been published in the US yet. According to Amazon it won't be released until May 2nd.Best regards,Amyntoros

[amyntoros]

Athanasios Have added this book to my wish-list (which is getting out of hand as I add at least three or four books for every one that I buy). Interestingly, Holland's Persian Fire hasn't been published in the US yet. According to Amazon it won't be released until May 2nd.Best regards,Amyntoros

[Athanasios]

Thanks for the comments, Paralus.The cartoon, funny as though it is in its present context, makes me wonder how the Bush administration will be perceived in years, generations to come...I mean, Margaret 'Iron Lady' Thatcher is widely respected for breaking the back of trade unions and delivering us materialism and capitalism. Nobody seems to question that the privatisation of near-on everything and newly founded North Sea oil revenue allowed the government to squander with peoples' livelihoods.Sainthood by 2100?!Regards,
Atha

[Athanasios]

Thanks for the comments, Paralus.The cartoon, funny as though it is in its present context, makes me wonder how the Bush administration will be perceived in years, generations to come...I mean, Margaret 'Iron Lady' Thatcher is widely respected for breaking the back of trade unions and delivering us materialism and capitalism. Nobody seems to question that the privatisation of near-on everything and newly founded North Sea oil revenue allowed the government to squander with peoples' livelihoods.Sainthood by 2100?!Regards,
Atha

[Paralus]

G'day Atha.Been at too many threads and missed this post.That wouldn't have been the only thing you read in "Persian Fire". What a marvellous tome! The backgrounding given for the Achaemenid Empire is brilliant. Reading the traditional fare paints the traditional GÇô dare I say it GÇô (ancient, and not so) Hellen-o-centric GÇô view: effeminate, corrupt people of little cultural attainment; much given over to "disrespectful" feasting and drinking; despotic and illiterate to boot. Couldn't be further from the truth.And, yes, given the Persian tolerance of local religion and custom (going so far as to allow local rule to continue pretty much as was) GÇô as long as revenues were maintained and levies mustered as required GÇô I find it hard to see them making the error regarding the Apis Bull as charged. It is much more likely that the Priests roundly rejected the interference in their revenues and traditional power (not necessarily in that order, though the two are interdependent). It was something the Ptolemy's also juggled GÇô with a little more success (mostly).Have you read "Rubicon"? What an absolute ball tearer of a book! The portraits of such luminaries as Gaius Marius, the savage calculating bull Sulla, the preening Caesar, greedy and incompetent Crassus and the bloke with more front than Russia: Pompey the "Great" seem as real as today's Foxtel coverage of our current Crassus GÇô GW Bush - though with a much less toadying tone.The descriptions of the Mithradatic progrom and uprising at the opening of the first century BC are worth the price of the book.Paralus.

[Paralus]

G'day Atha.Been at too many threads and missed this post.That wouldn't have been the only thing you read in "Persian Fire". What a marvellous tome! The backgrounding given for the Achaemenid Empire is brilliant. Reading the traditional fare paints the traditional GÇô dare I say it GÇô (ancient, and not so) Hellen-o-centric GÇô view: effeminate, corrupt people of little cultural attainment; much given over to "disrespectful" feasting and drinking; despotic and illiterate to boot. Couldn't be further from the truth.And, yes, given the Persian tolerance of local religion and custom (going so far as to allow local rule to continue pretty much as was) GÇô as long as revenues were maintained and levies mustered as required GÇô I find it hard to see them making the error regarding the Apis Bull as charged. It is much more likely that the Priests roundly rejected the interference in their revenues and traditional power (not necessarily in that order, though the two are interdependent). It was something the Ptolemy's also juggled GÇô with a little more success (mostly).Have you read "Rubicon"? What an absolute ball tearer of a book! The portraits of such luminaries as Gaius Marius, the savage calculating bull Sulla, the preening Caesar, greedy and incompetent Crassus and the bloke with more front than Russia: Pompey the "Great" seem as real as today's Foxtel coverage of our current Crassus GÇô GW Bush - though with a much less toadying tone.The descriptions of the Mithradatic progrom and uprising at the opening of the first century BC are worth the price of the book.Paralus.