07-01-2009, 05:21 PM
Quote:What gets me hot under the collar is when academics bend the information in the primary sources to support their theory.I've noticed this frequent complaint in your posts, Steven, without citing any examples. I hope you'll eventually name your bugbears. (They do exist, ... don't they?)
Quote:I guess Plutarch trusts his sources. Jesus Christ lived over 2000 years ago but this hasn’t stopped people believing in him.Your casual methodology doesn't inspire confidence. But maybe this was just a flippant remark.
Quote:This was taught to me by the Napoleonic historian Howie Muir. His theory was asking the right question will get the right answer, something he believes I have done.Thank goodness a Napoleonic historian appreciates your research, when Classicists have (according to your own testimony) been less than thrilled. I'd've thought that, provided you employ a solid methodology, no-one should have any problems.
Quote:Dionysius and Livy are the main historians. Then for snippets throw in Lydus, Appian, Plutarch, Ovid, Servius and others.Ovid?! I hope you are just being flippant again. If you're planning to turn the establishment upside-down, you better be sure of your sources (and the accuracy of their sources).
Quote:Without knowing who the Equites Privato is this is conjecture. ... But what was it really? Well it was a one off event when the army suffered a defeat at Veii in 403 BC.I think you're mistaken. Livy mentions equites serving equo publico during the Hannibalic War (Livy 27.11). But maybe you have another explanation?
Quote:... The Germans in the Second World War used slaves to make weapons. ... ...Of course, as you well know, it would be foolish to use Nazi policy to support a Republican Roman theory. (Just being flippant again?)
Quote:Now if the men had to provide their own equipment, I would imagine it would have been very difficult to levy artillerymen.Thank goodness your early Roman armies didn't field catapults.
