At least Roman historians were terrible in predictable ways. Tendentious moralizing, obvious handjobs for their patron's feelings, no real knowledge of anything happening to poor people or women on either side of the frontier, embarrassingly stock battle narratives that didn't actually describe events, hilariously inflated numbers for the sizes of military units, and speeches invented out of whole cloth based on how the historian wanted the figure he was discussing to appear.
And since Velleius Paterculus and Cassius Dio were "Silver Age" historians, you can add in "godawful purple prose and ponderous rhetorical constructs" to the list as well.
I finished a paper a few days ago on the historiography of King Amalric of Jerusalem's Egyptian expeditions. Wading through Ibn al-Athir's Kamil fi'l Tarikh is just about the worst thing.
That I can all deal with, its easy to sift through through "and then we were awesome over here and so on...."
hey >.> I like their writing style, well the translated version, my Latin is far too rusty for that, Caesar was hard enough





Retour en haut





