I have always been an avid reader of History. Not so much Who did what but WHY that happened. I like Political History for people are political animals and it is politics that we show how we think.
I did this in Grade school (I hated the Books I had to read for School, I once failed a class for not reading the books the teacher wanted her class to read. She liked Fiction and I preferred non-fiction and I never did read the books she wanted me to read). I did this in High School and College (where I did NOT major in History, preferring to take a business major instead to better understand how our society runs.)
I have NEVER quit reading. Even in law School I read more books than the law books I was suppose to read. I enjoin reading and reading different views of historical incidents.
This has slowly changed me over the years, in Grade School I tended to take the books on face value, after I graduated and read more I began to see that most of the conflicts in the books were NOT conflicts at all but different ways to view the facts. I also began to see that the historical sources of a lot of our history is not only bias but may be wrong.
One of my favorite examples of this was a booklet I read about Hannibal written by a English War Gamer who use to work in British Intelligence. It was Hannibal's victory at Cannae. In the history that has come down to us, the Roman commanders are split, L.Aemilius Paullus OPPOSE Fighting Hannibal at Cannae while his co-commander C.Terrentius Varro wanted to fight. This split in Command lead to the Roman disaster as Cannae. Under Roman rules the Co-commanders of the army switched command each day. Thus Paullus had been in Command the previous day and refused to fight, but when Varro took over Varro sent the army to its defeat.
Now the ex-intelligence officers and war gaming was setting up his war game of the battle of Cannae and than he started to think. Something is wrong here. He than decided to examine this battle and the reports we have about it as if it was a report of a military operation of the old Soviet Union. First he looked at the positions of the two Commanders compared to where such commanders were suppose to be. He finds Varro in the rear (Where the SECOND IN COMMAND IS SUPPOSE TO BE) and Paullus among the Light Calvary (Where the Commander was suppose to be). He counted the days from the Army marched from Rome and the day of the attack was PAULUS day to be in command. He than checked out the position of the camp (we know where it was do the archaeological research) and it does NOT block any of the passes from the valley Hannibal's army was in. The sole reason to have a camp at that point was to LAUNCH AN ATTACK THE NEXT DAY.
Thus if we had to go by these records (not the official histories that have come down to us) it would appear there was NO CONFLICT IN COMMAND, BOTH COMMANDERS WERE COMMITTED TO THE ATTACK ON HANNIBAL'S Army.
As to the split in Command, these same two Commanders Had worked together in previous Campaigns. Furthermore Varro was sent on Military missions for 20 years AFTER this defeat (which would NOT have been the case if he had been in command on that day).
Thus the non-history record indicate one thing PAULUS was in Command and he lost the Battle. The Books are wrong but that leads us to why?
The Why was quick to find out. While Varro survived the Battle, his family line died out within 100 years of the battle. On the other hand Paullus's family was still an important name in Roman Politics 100 years later when the histories were written, paid for by Paullus's family.
Now you may asked why people did not write alternative history, and the answer is who was going to pay to write that history? The state of Rome did not care. Varro losing the battle did not affect the average Roman. Furthermore this is all pre-printing press so the purpose of a book was NOT for the book to be read but for the book to be heard. What I mean by this is books were written and than HAND COPIED. Than these books were taken by professional Speakers AND READ TO LARGE CROWDS OF PEOPLE as entertainment. These works were to be HEARD NOT READ. The people who read these books were people paid to do so by local Politicians trying to show the people WHY they should vote for him i.e. MY FATHER, IF HE HAD BEEN IN COMMAND, WOULD HAVE DEFEATED HANNIBAL SO VOTE FOR ME.
This is an inherent prejudice of the Historical record. One as I read ancient history I have become more and more award of. People write histories for many purposes but until the 1800s rarely was that reason for anything other than propaganda. These books would be kept as a historical record and used as such, but WHY they were written in the first place should not be forgotten.
Also do not read to much into "changes" in versions of books. I read an English translation of the existing Greek version of Josephus's "The Jewish War". In a footnote the translator mentioned the "Slovak" version of the same book. He mention that the Slavonic Version contained several minor changes, including a description of early Christians. The big change in the Book was when the Writer (who had participated in the Revolt and than Switched to the Romans) talked about how he survived a suicide pact much like the one in Masada. In Masada and when Josephus was surrounded by the Romans, the Jews decided to kill themselves before they were taken by the Romans. In both cases the Men killed the woman and children and than took lots with 1/2 would kill the other half. Than lots again as to who would kill the other half and so forth until only one person would be left and was to kill himself. In the Greek Version Josephus says by the Grace of God he was the last one standing and thus gave himself up to the Romans. In the Slovak version, he counts the numbers and makes sure he is the last one alive.
One historian dismissed the Slavonic version as a Medieval Christian addition to the Greek Version (and not a good addition). Another historian looks at the same and ask why would a medieval Monk want to change a story of how Josephus survived? I tend to the later Historian who believes what happen is that in the 9th Century AD Two Greek Versions of Josephus's book Survived. Sometime after finishing the book Josephus realized that it would not be good for him to be viewed as a conniving Jew so he changed How he survived.
Remember that Josephus wrote the Book in an attempt to increase the pension he received from the Flavian Dynasty of Rome, the founder of that Dynasty, Vespasian had been the Roman Commander that defeated the Jewish revolt and had used Josephus as part of that effort. Josephus was trying to show how valuable he had been to the Dynasty and that they should increase his pension. This is why the Book was written NOT to inform us of what really happened.
Thus while Josephus had good reason to change how he was spared, why did he remove the reference to the Christian. Furthermore the doctrine set forth in the "Jewish War" is NOT medieval Christian dogma (which would have been while known to a Christian Monk). Thus it is unlikely to be such an medieval forgery. The better explanation is that Christians were already in high enough number to have been exposed to the book and had told him of his error. Rather than correct the error he just deleted the reference to the Christians.
Now you may ask why would Josephus's book be in Slovak? While in the 9th Century AD Both the Pope in Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople agreed that the best why to spread the Gospel to the Slavs was to translate the Gospel to Slovak (Called Church Slovak). In addition other books were translated from Latin and Greek to Slovak. Somehow Josephus first version of the "Jewish War" was translated to Slovak (Probably at the request of some pagan Slav who wanted to read any other ancient reports on the early Christians). Thus the First Version was translated and survives in its Slovak translation.
Now you may ask why did it not survive in its Greek original? The answer to that is Linen based paper only last about 1000 years thus unless a book was re-copied by some medieval monk it was generally lost. Thus we have the complete versions of Homer's two epics, Iliad and the Odysseys. but only parts of his third, "The Returns" (Which is how the rest of the Greek return from Troy). The monks did copy Josephus's existing Greek Version of his "Jewish war" but apparently did not get around to coping what I will call his "First Version".
Remember the monks had to have a reason to copy these books. Often the reason was to make a copy for another religious order or someone who could read Latin or Greek. Thus unless someone made a request for a copy none were made (and given the limitation of the time period the people making the request may not even had known of the "First Version").
Now someone had it translated to Slovak. That is a much more interesting question. Why and for whom? Within 200 years Church Slovak had been abolished replaced by Latin among the Western Slavs and Greek among the Southern and Eastern Slavs. This book was thus forgotten, but the difference between it and the Existing Greek Versions shows that even in ancient times people would spin history either by re-writing the facts (i.e. I survived by the Grace of God instead of Counting the straws) or dropping errors (As Josephus apparently did with regards to the Early Christians).
When you read history remember this, the facts may be true but people have been spinning facts ever since the first historical record was made (which was an ancient battle in Syria between the Egyptian and Hittes of right is now Turkey. From translations of Egyptians hieroglyphics in the early 1800s till the discovery of the Hitte Records in the late 1900s, it was believe that the battle was won by the Egyptians. After the Hitte records were discovered (As a big block of stones in a field that no one had any use for until someone saw they had writing on them) it was found out that the Generous Peace the Pharaoh had "given" to the Hittes had been the product of an Hitte Victory. The Pharaoh controlled the news media of his day and spinned his defeat into a Victory where he was generous to the vanquished.
Watch for spin and agenda. For example the above comments on monk's doing a bad addition to Josephus was in my opinion a product of someone looking for a reason to attack the Slovak Version of Josephus's "The Jewish War". The Writer's agenda was to show how "bad" such monks were. In the historical records the Monks were NOT that bad. The monks tried to make accurate copies (many of them knew how to copy the letters but could not read so some errors did creep in) but as a whole very few "additions". Furthermore when such additions were made it was better done than in this case.
Some advice, when you read accept the facts that are being present to you but keep an open mind that if the facts have very limited source they may be in error (But do NOT jump to the conclusions that since a source is limited it is in error). Read more than one version of the topic (if possible) and read related items.
One person told me to question everything, and that is wrong how can you question if you do not know the subject? Read read and think and discuss ideas with people these threads are excellent for such thinking. Do not be afraid to say something wrong, it is probably not wrong just a novel way to view something.
Also as you age you get more and more experience. I remember listening to my father tell stories of his life and I could not tell as good as stories. Now that I am approaching his age when I was born I can do almost as good. Not because I am a better story teller, but I have the experience to have a good story to tell. Listen to your "elders" they may not be as smart as you are, but they have a lot of experience to share (and some of that experience is from their "elders"). Listen, Think, read, listen and make some comments. The comments may be wrong, but it shows that you are thinking.
I am going to end this here, I can not come to a good ending but I am babbling on. When I review this is a few months I will probably come up with a good ending but I can not right now and this has to end (Another thing that is a product of Experience knowing it is time to quit).
For more on Hannibal: (No this is NOT a cite where the above is discussed, this cite accepts the traditional version of Cannae):
http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
