Analyzing Ancient Historians

[Primus Pilus]

Whether he needed them or not, I think he would have wanted to prevent Agricola from shining too brightly. Tacitus maintains that he wanted Agricola back in Rome, and that Domitian then poisoned him.

 

Of course, as I'm sure most of us are already aware, Agricola was Tacitus' father-in-law and the account is, at the very least, tainted by the motivation for Tacitus to honor Agricola's achievements. Unfortunately because of this relationship we have to assess Tacitus' account of Domitian with just a bit of reservation. I would never suggest to dismiss his account entirely, just to look at with a bit more scrutiny.

[Germanicus]

I would never suggest to dismiss his account entirely, just to look at with a bit more scrutiny.

 

Certainly, but it is a constant dissappointment to me that all we have to scrutinize it with is our own suspicion of Tacitus motives, which may or may not be correct......oh well, I guess that's the thing with the faded past.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I would never suggest to dismiss his account entirely, just to look at with a bit more scrutiny.

Certainly, but it is a constant dissappointment to me that all we have to scrutinize it with is our own suspicion of Tacitus motives, which may or may not be correct......oh well, I guess that's the thing with the faded past.

I agree with your disappointment but not your defeatism.

 

Motives--by themselves--should NOT cast suspicion on every historical fact. The reasons for this are three.

 

First, this line of reasoning leads us nowhere--it casts no new light; it casts only the shadow of doubt. Are we really bothering with all this history to end up saying nothing at all???

 

Second, it can lead us anywhere--once we dispense with all our historical sources as inveterate liars, we might as well place them on the same level as mythographers and fabulists. In which case, there is no reason to prefer one set of lies to another. Following this reasoning, we might as well set about reading the Nazi reconstructions of ancient history as those of Tacitus. Personally, I don't have any desire to read the Aryan love-stories, not because I'm not German, but because I think the ancient sources really were very often reliable--not perfect, but quite reliable under certain circumstances. The same is not true of the fabulists, who are unreliable under nearly all circumstances.

 

Third, and most importantly, motives are not sufficient to distort historical records. Even the most biased ancient sources were writing for an audience that was probably even more skeptical than we are--each potential reader (or listener) of Tacitus was also motivated to believe that HIS ancestors were great and would be thus motivated to ridicule any whopper that Tacitus offered. Moreover, Tacitus' praise for Agricola not only had to overcome the envy of his audience, but more importantly, the envy of the emperor himself. When the republic was destroyed, historians simply did not have a free hand to write what pleased them. Many historians were EXECUTED for what they wrote.

 

Personally, I think there is a true modern bias in what we believe from the ancients. Simply put, we are hostile and skeptical when it comes to eulogy, but we are credulous fools when it comes to invective. All I can guess is that people are unwilling to believe any heroism that they think they are themselves incapable of achieving: the conformist doubts independence; the lazy doubt productive achievement; the cheat doubts honesty; the irrationalist doubts reason. Consequently, much of the doubting that exists about ancient sources pretends objectivity but is in fact a MASK FOR MODERN MEDIOCRITY.

 

That's my two cents on the matter. Perhaps a tad strongly stated, but approximately correct I think.

[Primus Pilus]

First, this line of reasoning leads us nowhere--it casts no new light; it casts only the shadow of doubt. Are we really bothering with all this history to end up saying nothing at all???

 

So we just accept everything simply because it was written? Why fear the alternatives?

 

Second, it can lead us anywhere--once we dispense with all our historical sources as inveterate liars, we might as well place them on the same level as mythographers and fabulists. In which case, there is no reason to prefer one set of lies to another. Following this reasoning, we might as well set about reading the Nazi reconstructions of ancient history as those of Tacitus. Personally, I don't have any desire to read the Aryan love-stories, not because I'm not German, but because I think the ancient sources really were very often reliable--not perfect, but quite reliable under certain circumstances. The same is not true of the fabulists, who are unreliable under nearly all circumstances.

 

This is quite the stretch from suggesting that we view the ancient sources with some scrutiny. You assume that those of us who do think this way, think that the ancients are all liars? Quite the jump to conclusions that I am certainly not taking. I prefer the ancients over every modern source but can still leave my mind open to the political situations of the time and various logical ideas.

 

Third, and most importantly, motives are not sufficient to distort historical records. Even the most biased ancient sources were writing for an audience that was probably even more skeptical than we are--each potential reader (or listener) of Tacitus was also motivated to believe that HIS ancestors were great and would be thus motivated to ridicule any whopper that Tacitus offered. Moreover, Tacitus' praise for Agricola not only had to overcome the envy of his audience, but more importantly, the envy of the emperor himself.

 

So if Tacitus hates Domitian and embellishes a few things, this does not distort the historical record? We simply should take it all as the exact truth because other contemporary people might have scrutinized it as well? Domitian was also the target of Christian era writers who attacked him as a great persecutor. The evidence is lacking, but since everyone hated Domitian anyway after years of slander, who would complain? An excellent review as an aside http://www.bibleworld.com/domper.pdf.

 

When the republic was destroyed, historians simply did not have a free hand to write what pleased them. Many historians were EXECUTED for what they wrote.

 

I can't think of one prominent name nor can I think of any records of irrelevant historians who were executed simply for what they wrote. Artists and poets yes as they were generally far more open and scathing in their literature, but historians seemed to be a little more fortuitous. Suetonius was executed by Hadrian, but it was long after his work was published and appears to have been a personal issue involving the empress rather than any slanted historical accounts. (his writing stopped with Domitian anyway)

 

Livy who wrote his works during the reign of Augustus, was noted by Tacitus as being a sympathizer with Republican values. Not only did Augustus allow wide circulation of Livy's works, but Livy was also close enough to the imperial family to be names a tutor to Claudius (hmm, perhaps that was a punishment considering the imperial family's view of Claudius )

 

Tacitus rose to govern the most prized Senatorial province of Asia minor despite his anti-tyranny writings. (in the ancient context essentially meaning anti-monarchy). Dio Cassius was prominent as a Senator under Commodus, served as governor of such provinces as Africa and Pannonia under Septimius Severus and was even protected from the Praetorians by Alexander Severus. Plutarch died an old man, Polybius too, though obviously long before the imperial era. Pliny the Younger (though not quite considered a historian as much as simply a primary first hand source) died an old man assumedly while serving in an administrative capacity abroad. Sallust retired from public life and presumably died of natural causes.

 

Others who were not mentioned as having been killed:

Frontinus, Aurelius Victor, Ammianus Marcellinus, Columella, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Galen, Herodian, Josephus (a great client to the Vespasian Dynasty), Quintilian (a tutor to Domitian's nephews who later 'disappeared' yet Quintilian survived), Pliny the Elder (a horrific death as Vesuvius but still not murder ), Strabo the geographer, Vegetius and Vitruvius.

 

Notables who were killed..

Seneca was forced to suicide but was completely political in nature and would seemingly be completely unrelated to his writings (he enjoyed great power as Neronian adviser until Agrippina's death and the rise of Poppeia)

 

Varro... proscribed Antonius but his works on language and agriculture hardly classifies as political in nature.

 

Velleius Paterculus... his death is only speculative but his work on colonies and provinces can hardly be to blame if he was assassinated for his involvement in removing Sejanus.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Brief reply for now is that I am very definitely NOT arguing for uncritical acceptance of source materials NOR am I arguing against a healthy skepticism about our sources. I was responding to the "consisent disappointment" that Germanicus mentioned more than to PP's entirely reasonable suggestion that we be aware that Agricola was the father of Tacitus.

[M. Porcius Cato]

In the first place, this post concerns how to evaluate our sources, and I'll have nothing to say here on the topic of Scotland as an "unconquered frontier" so it might be a good idea to move it and the related posts (posts #10, #12, #13, and #14). The chief question is whether an author's agenda alone is justification for doubting the author's narrative.

 

At one hypothetical extreme, one might choose to believe everything written by our source materials. This purely hypothetical position is clearly wrong-headed, as it places us in the position of believing even contradictory claims about historical events.

 

At another hypothetical extreme, one might disregard everything written by a source who has some interest in his audience believing his account. This purely hypothetical position is also arguably wrong-headed, as it places us in the position of evaluating virtually all our sources as fabulists, and it thereby provides us with no way to provide a plausibe reconstruction of historical events. I don't think anyone is actually endorsing this position. For example, no one is arguing that Tacitus' love for his father-in-law casts everything Tacitus wrote about Agricola in doubt.

 

The problem is how to adopt a healthy skepticism as opposed to pure crudulity or pure cynicism.

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that there is a tendency on our parts to err on the side of cynicism, which I think has a number of costs that are just as great as the costs of erring on the side of credulity. As one example of this, I'd point to the habit of raising doubts about the veracity of an account based on an author's motives while ignoring (1) the author's audience, and (2) whether the author had freedom of speech.

 

Obviously, an author's agenda can color his account. I'm not disputing this at all; it's a valid concern. But when the author's agenda is not shared by his audience and when the author hasn't full freedom of speech, I think these latter two facts should be considered as well. I think these latter two facts are especially important when evaluating the Imperial writers.

 

First, consider the author's audience. It's almost certainly the case that Julius Caesar wished to cast his exploits in Gaul in a good light to increase his political support in Rome. But even I, as the forum's number-one "Caesar-basher", wouldn't claim that we should doubt all, most, or even that much of Caesar's account of what happened in Gaul. Why? Because I also know that Caesar travelled with thousands of other people, very many of whom could ultimately read Caesar's account for themselves. Because these participants in Caesar's actions could share their accounts with other writers, Caesar had to restrain himself from telling easily-detected lies. In contrast, when Livy was writing about the early republic, he could make up nearly any damned thing he wanted to when writing about the early history of Rome because no one in his audience could call him on it. So, I'd argue that when calling attention to an author's agenda (e.g., Tacitus' desire to praise his father-in-law), it's also important to point out that Agricola was a contemporary of many of those who could read Tacitus, and thus Tacitus' concern for his reputation would have acted as a check on his telling whoppers about Agricola.

 

Needless to say, I don't mean that ancient authors are to be trusted entirely just because they had a fact-checking audience. The fact-checkers themselves hadn't enough information to check everything (e.g., private conversations, the exact number of enemies enslaved, etc). But, more importantly, the audience itself may be subject to the same constraint as the author himself, which brings me to my second major point.

 

Second, consider the freedom of the author. Most of us take our freedom of speech for granted. However, for expressing views that were unpopular with those in power, there was a real threat of persecution facing some of our sources. The most dramatic example of an ancient facing persecution was Socrates, which is why historically-minded philosophers must continually remind us to read between the lines when approaching authors such as Plato or Aristotle (who at one time was brought up on charges of 'impiety' and had to flee town "lest Athens sin twice against philosophy").

 

Among ancient Roman writers who were persecuted, we can list:

Cicero (who was killed for writing the Phillipics more than anything else)

Ovid (who--for an unknown crime--was exiled by Augustus),

Cremutius Cordus (who--for calling Cassius the 'last of the Romans'--was forced to starve himself to death and had his writings burned by order of Tiberius' Senate),

Antistius (who was condemned but saved by

Cato's panegyrist Thrasea Paetus, who was in turn executed by Nero's men),

Helvidius Priscus (who--for having declared sympathy for Brutus and Cassius--was banished by Vespasian and later killed by him),

Arulenus Rusticus (who--for eulogizing Thrasea Paetus--had his writings burned and was executed by Domitian),

Herenius Senecio (who--for eulogizing Hevlidius Priscus--had his writings burned and was also executed by Domitian),

and on

and on.

 

Quite obviously, you can't read many of these author's works--no Loeb editions for most of these heroes!--because they were MURDERED by tyrants and their works were BURNED by the tyrants' slaves and lackeys. Others, like Tacitus, managed to survive until a seemingly good emperor came along, but they too were writing under constraints--even the 'good emperor' Nerva (under whom Tacitus finally wrote his works) still had the power to crack down on anyone who opposed him, which may be why we read so little criticism of Nerva and so much pent-up rage against Nerva's predecessors.

 

So, while I agree that we should have some skepticism about our sources, I think we should also consider how much is NOT being said that could be said. To me, Tacitus is a kind of ancient Solzhenitsyn or Anne Frank, and I honestly think it would be cynical to the point of immoral to doubt the veracity of their work because--surprise!--they didn't like being oppressed.

[Primus Pilus]

Strangely enough we seem to be arguing the same point, simply from different angles. Interesting nonetheless.

 

As an example of my point, the concerns I personally have regarding Tacitus' account of his father-in-law is not the deeds performed by Agricola, (as you correctly point out that contemporaries were aware of the deeds and could challenge blatant falsehoods written by Tacitus) but the circumstances surrounding Agricola's withdrawal from Britain and retirement. (Essentially 'The Life of Agricola' chapters 39 - 46) Was it because Domitian was jealous or fearful as Tacitus suggests, or was it because Domitian truly needed reinforcements on the Danube which Tacitus does not even bother to mention?

 

I believe that Domitian was concerned about Agricola's popularity and couple that with his length of service in overall command of Britain, there is a legitimate reason that he began to become fearful. However, I also believe that Domitian did need men on the Danube against the Quadi, Decebalus, etc. and Tacitus' failure to even suggest the possibilty causes perhaps the slightest alteration to the events. While in effect it does little to change the what happened (Agricola conquered the remaining free territories of southern Britain and was recalled in his prime), it certainly has an effect on our perception of the players. (I am not suggesting that Domitian was not a brutal tyrant, simply pointing out that there is potentially more than what we are told on the surface.)

 

Now, as for that tryanny aspect... I agree wholeheartedly that the conditions of politics in the imperial era had an effect on the writers. I've already agreed that poets and satirists and such had far less 'luck' than most historians, but I did forget Cremutius Cordus (who was quite possibly killed for slandering Sejanus rather than the subject of his writings, they simply provided a convenient excuse under the law of the time). Regardless, I concede that he was killed. Otherwise the samples provided are eulogies and panegyrics rather than pure histories. As its largely semantics I will concede because it actually lends credence to the idea that we should view the record with a bit of additional scrutiny.

 

Considering that the writers in this era were so in such a position as to be concerned over what they put to paper, would this not also possibly taint the historical record? If we know that a historian may have sugar-coated an event in order to preserve his own hide (just as an idea, we truly can't know this), when we suspect that events may have played out differently than what is written, would this also not be a distortion? Again lets assume there were contemporaries who could analyze the works as they were published. If a prominent individual who knows things to have played out just a bit differently than described, but is also aware that challenging the published record could endanger both the author and himself, isn't it quite possible that he would never say anything at all, and simply nod his head in understanding while he read it. I am talking about subtleties here, the minutia so to speak, not necessarily the direct challenge of large and well recorded historical events. And admittedly we don't know that this happened. We don't know if Hadrian read Suetonius' work prior to publishing and told him to change anything, but the possibility may be there. I would never suggest to discount the entire affair, simply to try to understand that there may be additional underlying motives.

 

I will always challenge Suetonius on the grounds of his motivation, the fact that he does not mention sources, and that he willingly reports as historical fact things that 'he heard from someone'. I will not challenge his description of major events such as Gaius marching to the north sea and failing to make a crossing into Britain. The part to be questioned might be whether or not his soldiers were ordered to collect sea shells as suggested. This was written about a century after the events in question, so there was likely nobody left who could challenge the description from a basis of first hand knowledge. From a secondary stand point, someone certainly could have, but who would be believed? Suetonius the secretary of the emperor Hadrian with access to the imperial archives (whether he used them diligently or only those articles that supported his agenda), or the grandson of some legionary who had heard events described much differently.

 

Its the same reasoning I use to challenge Tiberius' supposed murder of Germanicus. There is no evidence to support it other than the historians claiming that 'this or that person suggested he may have been poisoned.' Its simply impossible to know, but many regard it as historical fact simply because it was written by the ancients.

 

(I will try to split this shortly, but I absolutely need to get some work done at the office. lol)

[M. Porcius Cato]

Before proceeding directly to PP's post (which I agree with entirely), I'd simply like to observe that this kind of thread is why I love UNRV! OK--enough kissing up to the moderators!

 

Considering that the writers in this era were so in such a position as to be concerned over what they put to paper, would this not also possibly taint the historical record?

 

Definitely.

 

If we know that a historian may have sugar-coated an event in order to preserve his own hide (just as an idea, we truly can't know this), when we suspect that events may have played out differently than what is written, would this also not be a distortion?

 

Certainly.

 

Again lets assume there were contemporaries who could analyze the works as they were published. If a prominent individual who knows things to have played out just a bit differently than described, but is also aware that challenging the published record could endanger both the author and himself, isn't it quite possible that he would never say anything at all, and simply nod his head in understanding while he read it.

 

Absolutely! This is exactly how people learn to read the newspapers under totalitarian regimes--dissident journalists write between the lines for those who understand how the system works, but by stiffly reciting the Party-line they retain plausible deniability should their opinions attract the attention of the authorities.

 

Tacitus was a master of the samizdat arts. Look carefully at his advice to his fellow dissidents: "Let it be clear to those who insist on admiring disobedience that even under bad emperors men can be great, and that a decent respect for authority, if backed by industry and energy, can reach that peak of distinction which most men attain only by following a perilous course, winning fame, without benefiting their country, by an ostentatious self-martyrdom."

 

Seems like straightforward advice that even a bad emperor would be unlikely to punish, no? But is it? What does Tacitus discuss in the very next section? The likelihood that the very exemplar of his advice--Agricola--was nevertheless poisoned! That is, the proceeding section completely undercuts the advice he's given, saying--in effect--"Even if you ARE a model citizen, under one of these bad emperors, you'll STILLl get nailed!"

 

Of course, he then hedges like mad about whether Domitian really did have Agricola poisoned. He says it was a rumor and that he "would not venture to assert that there was any positive evidence" for it. But it doesn't take too much imagination to realize what he suspected, which is why this whole thread got started on the notion that Tacitus accused Domitian of poisoning Agricola, which was--of course--not what he said but only to be read between the lines.

[Virgil61]

Strangely enough we seem to be arguing the same point, simply from different angles. Interesting nonetheless.

'''

 

I think everyone seems to be in agreement that sources should be scrutinzed and not accepted at face value. Historians like Polybius, Thucydides and Tacitus earn our respect every generation by thier attempts at sourcing thier materials correctly and attempts at analysis. While I wouldn't go as far as Cato to put Tacitus in the same boat as Solzehnitsyn's history of political persecution, I can still appreciate the pressures and constaints he worked under.

 

This subject of analyzing ancient historians is the concern of historiography; the methodologies, biases, principles and intent that historians use to write history. Someday, among the other requests for new forums, one on the historiography of the Roman Era might be a good idea.

 

Whether it would sustain much traiffic I don't know, but approaches to history (Classical, Marixist, Annales, Revisionism, Modernist, scrutinization of sources, etc) might attract some historians or talented amateurs (aren't we all?) to the forum. I've only got a BA in History but I know that historiography is probably the single most revelatory history class I've ever taken. It's a bit more sophisticated analysis than how many nails were in a typical Roman army caligae but I think we've got the necessary talent on this forum.

 

I know, you're getting a dozen requests for new forums, just a thought.

[phil25]

I must be brief - but just a thought.

 

It has been suggested that under "totaliatarian" regimes - where attacking the ruler is (shall we say) unwise - history provides a way of making points which cannot be made directly. So we have to read the past as the present.

 

An example from outside the period would be Thomas More's "Richard III", which it has been suggested is actually about Henry VII. I don't agree with the hypothesis in this case, but the idea is not impossible. How would we know if (say) Suetonius had used this "trick"?

 

The question then arises, particularly with regard to Suetonius, as to whether some of his comments about earlier emperors ,ight have been read by his contemporary readers, as applying to Hadrian not (say) Tiberius.

 

Tacitus, I need hardly say, writes from the Senatorial viewpoint, and that needs to be taken into account. He was also clearly in a position where bias, family or personal agendas may have crept in over Agricola. That has to be taken into account in assessing what he says about Domitian - but I agree that no writer can stray too far from the broad presentation of facts simply because others will recall them.

 

On the other hand, we know that today writers can take a position in the face of conventional wisdom, or on the edge of credibility and still be successful - David Irving on Hitler and "Holocaust denial" would be an example of the former; Erik von Daniken ("Chariots of the Gods") of the latter. How would an historian 2,000 years in our future regard these woorks if they had by chance survives where those of others more in the mainstream had been lost?

 

Finally, because I must go to work, I always have to remind myself when reading ancient historians, we must make many assumptions and speculate about what happened, simply because we do not have the sort of detail of daily events we have for more modern periods. Our knowledge and understanding of an event such as the assassination of Caesar may actually be deeply flawed.

 

We also lack a great deal of knowledge about the minutiae and background that might have informed the writing to someone of its own time - humour, allusions, irony, literary taste - all of these can transform the meaning of a text in both subtle and dramatic ways. Editors often do a great job in hunting these out and throwing light into dim recesses of works, but i doubt we can say 9or ever will) that we read them as did their first readers.

 

Broadly though I agree with the points made in this excellent discussion.

 

Phil

[Andrew Dalby]

I must be brief - but just a thought.

 

We also lack a great deal of knowledge about the minutiae and background that might have informed the writing to someone of its own time - humour, allusions, irony, literary taste - all of these can transform the meaning of a text in both subtle and dramatic ways. Editors often do a great job in hunting these out and throwing light into dim recesses of works, but i doubt we can say 9or ever will) that we read them as did their first readers.

 

Broadly though I agree with the points made in this excellent discussion.

 

Phil

 

I agree with all you say, Phil, and not just the bit I quote here! I want to add that when we read an ancient historian who is really writing on something like 'current affairs' or 'recent history', we may forget that they are writing for people who would remember some of it themselves and would have read a great deal more about it. The fact that these surviving authors are partial, opinionated, leave things out that bore them or that don't help to make their points ... etc. etc. would have been acceptable to a contemporary who knew other sources and opinions and, what's more, could join in the argument and write a response.

 

I think I'm coming round to the fact that we should read Suetonius and Tacitus as blogs, not as texts engraved in stone.

 

And if I found a blog to which Tacitus was contributing, I'd keep on coming back to it ...

 

Andrew

[M. Porcius Cato]

On the other hand, we know that today writers can take a position in the face of conventional wisdom, or on the edge of credibility and still be successful - David Irving on Hitler and "Holocaust denial" would be an example of the former; Erik von Daniken ("Chariots of the Gods") of the latter.

 

David Irving is a PERFECT example for my argument. The guy is currently sitting in jail for his historical writing. If even today we jail historians when their views fall "too far" outside the mainstream, I don't think it's much of a stretch to imagine what it's like during an era of one-man rule.

 

(Obviously, holocaust denial is wrong and evil.)

 

I think I'm coming round to the fact that we should read Suetonius and Tacitus as blogs, not as texts engraved in stone.

 

I assume you don't mean to imply that Tacitus and Suetonius were equally unreliable do you? That seems fantastically unjust.

[Andrew Dalby]

I think I'm coming round to the fact that we should read Suetonius and Tacitus as blogs, not as texts engraved in stone.

 

I assume you don't mean to imply that Tacitus and Suetonius were equally unreliable do you? That seems fantastically unjust.

 

Well, hmm ... If you compare them as great historians, Tacitus is one of the 10 greatest in the world (at a quick guess) and Suetonius is nowhere. But if you compare them for reliability, as you say, then it all depends! Tacitus as author on Germany is unreliable; on what Agricola's opponent said at the battle of Mons Graupius he is utterly lacking in reliability. Suetonius on what Augustus wrote to Livia about Claudius, or on what the troops sang on Caesar's triumphs, is near 100% reliable.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Tacitus as author on Germany is unreliable; on what Agricola's opponent said at the battle of Mons Graupius he is utterly lacking in reliability. Suetonius on what Augustus wrote to Livia about Claudius, or on what the troops sang on Caesar's triumphs, is near 100% reliable.

 

Fair enough--but I'm assuming you place Tacitus in the top ten list of all historians *in spite* of his occasional unreliability whereas you place Suetonius nowhere near the top 10 *because* of his fairly consistent unreliability, no?

[tflex]

Historians who live and write about their own time are somewhat bias but more accurate. As already mentioned they can't make things up or twist facts simply because their audience will read their work and judge it for it's accuracy. But historians who write about the past cannot be trusted, there is no audience to keep them in check or judge their work, so I think their writing is filled with bias and wildly inaccurate. If a historian is writing about the fall of the republic 100 years later, we can accurately rely that the fall of the republic indeed did occur and group A supported it yet group B opposed it. These facts are harder to alter because it is the larger picture that people are usually more familiar with, but when the historian writes about individuals, inside politics or conflicts, I think it's easier for the historian to invent and twist facts depending on his bias. In that case you can't prove or disprove what they are writing because of lack of evidence.

 

A good example would be, if forum member Porcius Cato was a historian writing about the fall of the republic and it's relation with Julius Caesar, we can be sure that Caesar will be portrayed as a worthless degenerate who did more harm than good to Rome. Keeping in mind that Cato is a fierce defender of the republic and Caesar basher of the month, the only thing I would consider accurate in his writing is that the republic did fall but everything else would be mere speculation.

 

Note: Sorry Cato, but I could not resist using you as an example.

Edited January 20, 2006 by tflex