+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Ancient Civ Talk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=12)
+--- Thread: Common errors about Antiquity (/showthread.php?tid=14976)
Re: Common errors about Antiquity - Narukami - 04-19-2009
Quote:I wonder what our inner cities would have looked like if our banks, town halls and libraries had followed the ancient example of red/blue/green- etc. coloured walls.....
That is a good question.
I wonder.
Perhaps less like Washington D.C. and more like Tokyo or even Honolulu?
There was a link here in the forum from a couple of years ago (at least) about a display at a museum in Ankara (IIRC) of statues rendered as they would have appeared in ancient times. Quite revelatory. The Blue Lion was simply marvelous.
:wink:
Narukami
Re: Common errors about Antiquity - Jona Lendering - 04-19-2009
Quote:It is clear to me at least that the more research I do the less certain I am about what I know.Yes, and I am happy with that too.
Re: Common errors about Antiquity - Epictetus - 04-20-2009
This is one of those threads that could easily give birth to half a dozen new threads on different topics. I have to restrain myself from going off-topic and asking questions about some of the things mentioned. :lol: That would be a good sign.
I think this is an excellent idea for a book. I'm just hoping it gets translated into English at some point.
Re: Common errors about Antiquity - sonic - 04-20-2009
As a further addition that I don't think has already been said:
'On the last day of December, 406, the Vandals, Sueves and Alans crossed the frozen Rhine'.
Re: Common errors about Antiquity - Jona Lendering - 04-20-2009
Quote:'On the last day of December, 406, the Vandals, Sueves and Alans crossed the frozen Rhine'.Hey, I did not know that that was a fake! Please, tell me more. This one's too good to leave out!
Re: Common errors about Antiquity - sonic - 04-20-2009
Quote:sonic:2nvi8ewz Wrote:'On the last day of December, 406, the Vandals, Sueves and Alans crossed the frozen Rhine'.Hey, I did not know that that was a fake! Please, tell me more. This one's too good to leave out!
The date may be open to dispute. Kulikowski claims that the year should be 405. The date is given in Prosper as 406, but Kulikowski claims that as Prosper is a chronicle, the date was moved to 406 as otherwise 406 would have been a 'blank' year. Instead, he thinks we should rely on the account given in Zosimus (Book 6 - I think 6.3.1) where the rebellion in Britain, securely dated to (mid) 406, is caused by the invasion. I must admit I'm not really convinced by his claims.
However, the other part is much clearer. The idea that the Rhine was frozen is not in any of the primary sources and the earliest mention of which I am aware is in Gibbon: ‘The victorious confederates pursued their march, and on the last day of the year, in a season when the waters of the Rhine were most probably frozen, they entered, without opposition, the defenceless provinces of Gaul’. (Gibbon, 1861, II, 250) Prior to this, there is no mention anywhere of the Rhine being frozen.
Re: Common errors about Antiquity - Jona Lendering - 04-20-2009
Quote:The idea that the Rhine was frozen is not in any of the primary sources and the earliest mention of which I am aware is in Gibbon: ‘The victorious confederates pursued their march, and on the last day of the year, in a season when the waters of the Rhine were most probably frozen, they entered, without opposition, the defenceless provinces of Gaul’. (Gibbon, 1861, II, 250) Prior to this, there is no mention anywhere of the Rhine being frozen.Laudes, laudes, laudes. Where is the d-mn laudes button?!
Re: Common errors about Antiquity - Epictetus - 04-20-2009
Here is a thread about the "frozen" Rhine issue and here I'm trying to defend "poor old Gibbon" for taking the blame. :wink:
Interesting subject.
Re: Common errors about Antiquity - sonic - 04-20-2009
Quote:Here is a thread about the "frozen" Rhine issue and here I'm trying to defend "poor old Gibbon" for taking the blame. :wink:
Interesting subject.
I would never blame Gibbon in any way shape or form.
After all, he only suggested it as a possibility, probably based on evidence that the Rhine does sometimes freeze. It is later writers who have accepted it as a given that are in the wrong as they should have noted that this was only a possibility.In fact, I have read recently somewhere (I can't remember where: d&%n my terrible memory! :oops: ) that Stilicho couldn't send troops over the Alps to help defend Gaul because the winter was so severe that the Rhine froze over and so resulted in the Alpine passes being blocked for longer than usual!
hock:
Re: Common errors about Antiquity - Jona Lendering - 04-20-2009
Quote:And here's the first installment.Narukami:gr2y4t9m Wrote:you will need to publish an English version as well ... Jona, your book is needed.I have something to write on my blog indeed...
Re: Common errors about Antiquity - Narukami - 04-20-2009
Excellent!
D D :wink:
Narkami
Re: Common errors about Antiquity - Robert Vermaat - 04-20-2009
Quote: The date may be open to dispute. Kulikowski claims that the year should be 405. The date is given in Prosper as 406, but Kulikowski claims that as Prosper is a chronicle, the date was moved to 406 as otherwise 406 would have been a 'blank' year. Instead, he thinks we should rely on the account given in Zosimus (Book 6 - I think 6.3.1) where the rebellion in Britain, securely dated to (mid) 406, is caused by the invasion. I must admit I'm not really convinced by his claims.Indeed, because his claims are very weak.
1) there was no reason to fill a 'blank year' for any reason other than the text of the previous year 'spilling over' into the space for the next year. But if not, there was no reason to fill it 'just because' it was a blank space. Ancient chronicles have lots of blank spaces. I have continued the practise in my timeline, the text being just 'year'.
2) even IF the text of the previous year (405) would have been spilling over into the next, it would be very strange for events of January 405 ending up in January 406. It would mean that either the whole of Prosper's chronicle for those years was wrong by a year, or the events for January 406 were indeed in the right place.
I can't see any reason to follow Kulikowski here. I assume he has this 'construction' in mind to explain events in Britain.
Quote: However, the other part is much clearer. The idea that the Rhine was frozen is not in any of the primary sources .Jona quoted Herodian in my other thread: the Rhine was mentioned as one of the nothern rivers that indeed could freeze over and allow cavalry across them.
Quote:In fact, I have read recently somewhere (I can't remember where: d&%n my terrible memory! :oops: ) that Stilicho couldn't send troops over the Alps to help defend Gaul because the winter was so severe that the Rhine froze over and so resulted in the Alpine passes being blocked for longer than usual!If they had been, it would have been possible still to send troops the usual way; through the Maritime Alps. If even this southern route was inaccessable because of the wintry conditions, it would stand to reason that the invading barbarians would also have been 'frozen on the spot'. :wink:
Re: Common errors about Antiquity - sonic - 04-20-2009
Quote:sonic:1akzgd5w Wrote:However, the other part is much clearer. The idea that the Rhine was frozen is not in any of the primary sources .Jona quoted Herodian in my other thread: the Rhine was mentioned as one of the nothern rivers that indeed could freeze over and allow cavalry across them.
I agreed with that in my post; "I would never blame Gibbon in any way shape or form. After all, he only suggested it as a possibility, probably based on evidence that the Rhine does sometimes freeze", and suggested it as a reason for Gibbon's theory. Yet although the Rhine could freeze, that does not mean that it did in the winter of 406. :wink:
Re: Common errors about Antiquity - Theodosius the Great - 04-21-2009
People tend to create composite characters by blending two people into a single man, such as :
Scipio Africanus and Scipio Aemilianus,
Julius Caesar and Augustus,
Caligula and Nero,
Constantine the Great and Theodosius the Great
All very different men whose combined deeds and misdeeds are often associated with a single man. Maybe this tendency to synthesize deserves it's own chapter in the book.
~Theo
Re: Common errors about Antiquity - Jona Lendering - 04-21-2009
Quote:People tend to create composite characters by blending two people into a single man ... Maybe this tendency to synthesize deserves it's own chapter in the book.Or attribute the acts of a lesser-known man to a better-known man, like saying that Constantine ended the persecution of Christians (it was Galerius). I think it is called "epic concentration", and I will deal with it in the Constantine chapter.
Meanwhile, an English version of error #2 is online: the Ark rests on a mountain named Ararat. That's not what the Bible says, as you can read here.