07-10-2014, 07:34 AM
Mark
Perhaps you have got the response you were looking for in your last post but to me it just about sums up every undergraduate debate ever held between ancient military historians and archaeologists (and I am assuming from your post you would sit on the historian side). Ah, the halcyon days...
It is frustrating that sometimes the evidence can blind the application of common sense, but without the archaeology many wild suppositions would stray into "scholarly" research; there are quite enough as it is, in my opinion. There is also a dangerous lack of study of the primary sources displayed too; many regurgitate a held scholarly view without interrogating (and translating) the sources themselves. Questioning some of the great names certainly takes a lot of nerve and you have to be very sure of your ground to be taken seriously, but it does happen if you use the balanced evidence of history and historical context, and by that I mean the archaeology (and experimental archaeology).
Bearing in mind the many, many threads on this forum caused by questions and debate about what the ancient sources say about events, and what they left unsaid and how many wild and wondrous suppositions are made (some totally unfounded) sometimes it is only the archaeology we have to fall back on.
Perhaps you have got the response you were looking for in your last post but to me it just about sums up every undergraduate debate ever held between ancient military historians and archaeologists (and I am assuming from your post you would sit on the historian side). Ah, the halcyon days...
It is frustrating that sometimes the evidence can blind the application of common sense, but without the archaeology many wild suppositions would stray into "scholarly" research; there are quite enough as it is, in my opinion. There is also a dangerous lack of study of the primary sources displayed too; many regurgitate a held scholarly view without interrogating (and translating) the sources themselves. Questioning some of the great names certainly takes a lot of nerve and you have to be very sure of your ground to be taken seriously, but it does happen if you use the balanced evidence of history and historical context, and by that I mean the archaeology (and experimental archaeology).
Bearing in mind the many, many threads on this forum caused by questions and debate about what the ancient sources say about events, and what they left unsaid and how many wild and wondrous suppositions are made (some totally unfounded) sometimes it is only the archaeology we have to fall back on.
Moi Watson
Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, Merlot in one hand, Cigar in the other; body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, what a ride!
Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, Merlot in one hand, Cigar in the other; body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, what a ride!
