Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 3.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Nameless city in Africa taken by Scipio
#24
Michael wrote:

I`ve seen some of the online debates that you`ve mentioned. It is rather sad that you`ve been treated in this highly personalised manner.
 
Many of those people are friends of some well known published historian or academic specialising in the Roman army. They have an agenda. Out of blind loyalty, they believe they have to protect their friends. It is important that I cannot be seen to be right. That would be catastrophic, because it means their friend could be wrong, and that cannot happen.
 
Michael wrote:
And I think I know where you`re coming from, when you say that people will hate you for knowing more than they think you do and if they have no answer they just ignore you, or claim not to be interested anymore! (we should have t-shirts printed!).
 
It’s the times we live in. If you do not conform to the traditional view you are either ostracised or ridiculed. You are perceived as a threat. The worst ones are those that call you a crack pot but have never studied your research. Those are the most ignorant of all. We are now living in a time when hate movements are on the rise, all in the name of making it a better world.
 
No academic Michael is going to shake your hand and thank you for proving them to be wrong while advancing our understanding of the Roman army. It will never happen, the egos are too great, and their reputations must be protected. If you study the historiography of academia in relation to the study of the Roman legion, you will be left in disbelief that nothing really has changed since Lipsius’ first book on the Roman army released around 1596. I do not include the study or Roman arms and armour here. You will find hundreds of years of conforming from one generation to the next. Universities should be places that teach people HOW to think, instead of teaching them WHAT to think. As one retired academic told me, if I had gone through the university system and presented my work, I would have been given such a hard time designed to make me leave. In the words of Keith Woodford:
 
“Given that reviewers are often the people with established reputations in the field, they can hold powerful positions that prevent new and competing ideas seeing the light of day. Indeed, many scientists find that they have considerable difficulty getting work published that questions established thinking.”
 
If many people tell you that Goldsworthy is brilliant, then as most people run with the crowd, then Goldsworthy must be brilliant, and it’s time to jump on the bandwagon. Such is humanity. You run with the crowd, you end up where the crowd goes.
 
Michael wrote
Keep going - great work!
 
Many thanks for that Michael, it is uplifting. The more one studies Polybius’ version of events, the more one sees the corruption and fabrication. For example, compare Appian’s account of the battle of Utica with that of Polybius. Appian has the Romans on learning that the Carthaginians planned to attack the Romans the next day, decided to attack the Carthaginians that night. But only to attack Hasdrubal’s camp. While attacking Hasdrubal’s camp, some Romans managed to set some huts on fire. The aim of the attack was not to fire the camp, it happened in some places. Polybius decides to turn this into Scipio’s actual plan, and to attack both camps and set them on fire. At times, Polybius only mentions an attack to be made on one camp, which shows he is using the historical account. Polybius has the entrances and exits of the camps, blocked with mules, horses and half dead men, trapping the men inside the camp, but somehow Hasdrubal with some cavalry miraculously manage to escape. Polybius claims that envoys and spies went into the camps for intelligence, but Polybius only mentions peace negotiations with Syphax, and that Syphax had to relay the information onto Hasdrubal. So why does Syphax have to inform Hasdrubal if Roman envoys are discussing peace terms with Hasdrubal and surveying his camp?
 
Now if Polybius is the culprit for all this false events occurring during the Second Punic War? I am requestioning his role and my methodology as well. Polybius writes about Gnaeus Scipio defeating a Carthaginian fleet with 35 ships. Livy has the same event. However, as Livy and Polybius give different ship sizes for the reinforcements, this lead me to believe that Polybius could not be the fabricator of the naval battle with the Carthaginian fleet. But if I drew a line between the events, the naval battle and the arrival of the reinforcements are two different events. This leaves the possibility Polybius could be the fabricator. Why? Because every event involving a Scipio has contradicition. However, if Alimentus was one of those Romans freed by Scipio while in Africa, then Alimentus could have wanted to sing the praises of Scipio from the rooftop. It’s like a pendulum, back and forth between Polybius and Alimentus, with more of a leaning to Polybius. I need a time machine.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Nameless city in Africa taken by Scipio - by Steven James - 04-07-2019, 05:22 AM

Forum Jump: