- This topic has 3 voices and 16 replies.
-
Posts
-
Yes, they did and still do. But they were wrong. This is how I'm checking the validity of some of my lesser known sources. If there's mention of a run from Marathon to Athens, and if it's regarded as an actual historical fact, I discard the source.
I would question why you would discard such sources. There may be stronger evidence, based on certain analyzes, that one account is more likely than another, but I would hesitate to call one account an indisputable "fact" and another a "non-fact". Also, in regard to approaches to studying history, a hermeneutical approach could very easily find certain non-factual accounts to be more useful than factual accounts. Therefore, throwing them out could prove problematic.
Yes, they did and still do. But they were wrong. This is how I'm checking the validity of some of my lesser known sources. If there's mention of a run from Marathon to Athens, and if it's regarded as an actual historical fact, I discard the source.
the funerary mound on the battlefield
Surprised they would even mention that. Did they mention both of them?
I cant remember, I think they just mentioned the Greek mound and showed pictures of it. I think that is where the starting line was at. This was five years ago and I was in Iraq.
Phid, my professor said the same thing when I asked about a source for another topic. I'm only discarding these because I don't consider them academic.. They are mostly amateur electronic sources, so they are probably not a good choice to use in the first place. I've yet to come across a good Greek history book that doesn't make mention of this and explains were this tale came from.Even though I'm reading H. for the purpose of finding his inaccuracies or biases (good thing there are footnotes pointing them out), I haven't discarded him yet. 😀 By the way, what's the deal between H. and Plutarch? Plutarch seems very critical (overly critical?) of H.
