03-24-2013, 01:17 AM
Quote:In the instances where the strength reports do represent troop strength (and not tribal numbers), the figures given are logistically reliable. You and me did a thread on that a while ago and we came to the conclusion that, although the numbers handed down by Herodotus are unreliable, they are not as unreliable as most historians would think.
Reliability is something subjective. Sources can and should be criticized and sometimes even dismissed, it is the method that is mostly debatable. That mistakes were made is certain. The proof for that lies in the discrepancies among the different sources themselves, which can be so great that you literally wonder if they are not actually describing the same thing. So, when source A says 20,000 and source B says 50,000, it is certain that at least one of them is dead wrong. It is up to the researcher then to try and conclude which one is more reliable and thus more probable to be true or nearer to the truth. Not all sources are equally reliable and of course nothing is ever certain. My objection to the methods usually applied nowadays is that they tend to completely ignore sources and tend to downgrade the capabilities of the ancient world. In no way do I support that criticism and (to me more importantly) comparative study of sources are not necessary to form the most probable picture.
