Leaderboard

I just did a Google search, it's really hard to die of an eye disease. The eye is largely isolated from the rest of the body, and can easily be removed. You can have eye herpes, but I see this in cats (Humans have it too, different variety).... blindness might kill a cat out of starvation, but not the herpes itself. It just makes them red eyed, leaky, and helps develop cataracts. You can also get dirt in the eye, but again, really hard to die from it. People do often lose their eyesight. It's by the US military mandates clear ballistic goggles, to keep the dirt out. This isn't making sense to me. I won't say no one ever died from a eye disease, but we're talking about a well nourished individual, in an era that well understood worst comes to worst, you can just pop an eye out. Secondly, the litter he is being carried in, be it by hand or in wagon, makes little sense that no one would notice for days, even if absolute privacy was demanded. Water, food, and bowel movements. You can go a day at most before someone notices you haven't demanded water, or requested your chamber pot to be changed out. Secondly, it's a hot climate, the rate of decomposition would be faster. And the flies would very quickly tip it off before the small ever reached anyone's nose. Have you noticed roadkill gets maggots in it rather fast? I'm tired of coming across people claiming historians are unreliable due to academic laziness. He wrote a massive work, I was just reading his Egyptian history earlier. The greatest shame and burden historians of the 21st carry is the legacy of the historians of the 20th century. They were lazy and demented, and never read beyond their small area of expertise, inevitably wounding themselves. We need to learn, or at least relearn the approach to reading between the lines of texts by historians from different eras. His history in general looks very similar in structure and method to other later histories. It's disturbing to cut him off as reliable just because some historian sucked and/or was ideologically biased.