Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Fenris" data-source="post: 185521" data-attributes="member: 2820"><p>Shark, What Oracular Vision is saying is that the very foundation of the historical scholarship is what is in error. The historians of today have to rely upon historical records from the period. It is well know that those numbers were well off from what was actually fielded. Estimations of populations and armies was always exaggerated for propaganda purposes. And remember the victor writes history. The "fact" that 80,000 men died is not a "fact". It is a statement and an estimate by the military commanders on the battle field. What would impress the senate more a death toll of 20,000 or 80,000? You should realize from your background what a mammoth job the logistics of supplying an army of this size would be. Transporting the food for this army would require several thousand carts as well as thousands of cooks, servants, and slaves. Look at the battlefield sites how large an area would have had to be found over to have had 80,000 men die in combat? I am not saying the Romans did not achieve great armies or impressive military victories, I am just saying that history relys upon "facts" that must be verified by other means. Not all facts in history stand the test of time. Nor are agreed upon by all historians.</p></blockquote><p></p>