Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9190681" data-attributes="member: 18">The trouble with this theory is that we've seen it countless times before, about virtually every historical character (and many events) who there isn't hard evidence for, usually a few decades before evidence emerges and once again that &quot;this person was entirely made up&quot; is seen to b untrue or less likely and suddenly no-one ever thought that (which I don't hate at all - I'd much rather people be allowed to change their opinions than be dogmatic, it's just kind of funny). So you'll forgive me for being somewhat skeptical when I see it dragged out not for first or second time or even the tenth (I'm not attempting to suggest you dragging it out by yourself - it's a common theory).I mean, it's not necessarily wrong, but I feel like making up characters entirely is quite outside of Tacitus' apparent wheelhouse (he's certainly not writing for maximum excitement despite the odd flourish) - it's not really something people, even exaggerators and storytellers typically do much re: major events of their lifetime or very recently before. Especially as they live with fear of contradiction and mockery. Whilst Tacitus is the closest surviving account of Boudica, I very much doubt that at the time it was the only written account of the events in Britain at that period in Rome, and Romans would remember their uncle's and grandad's stories and so on. I feel like if Tacitus made her up entirely he might have been subject to a degree of ridicule.It's something you see more often from professional/focused writers of history, particularly those writing long after the fact, like our friend Cassius Dio. He doesn't have to worry about contradiction, really, he can just read the available history books, talk to people, and make stuff up.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 9190681, member: 18"] The trouble with this theory is that we've seen it countless times before, about [I]virtually every[/I] historical character (and many events) who there isn't hard evidence for, usually a few decades before evidence emerges and once again that "this person was entirely made up" is seen to b untrue or less likely and suddenly no-one ever thought that (which I don't hate at all - I'd much rather people be allowed to change their opinions than be dogmatic, it's just kind of funny). So you'll forgive me for being somewhat skeptical when I see it dragged out not for first or second time or even the tenth (I'm not attempting to suggest you dragging it out by yourself - it's a common theory). I mean, it's not necessarily wrong, but I feel like making up characters entirely is quite outside of Tacitus' apparent wheelhouse (he's certainly not writing for maximum excitement despite the odd flourish) - it's not really something people, even exaggerators and storytellers typically do much re: major events of their lifetime or very recently before. Especially as they live with fear of contradiction and mockery. Whilst Tacitus is the closest surviving account of Boudica, I very much doubt that at the time it was the only written account of the events in Britain at that period in Rome, and Romans would remember their uncle's and grandad's stories and so on. I feel like if Tacitus made her up entirely he might have been subject to a degree of ridicule. It's something you see more often from professional/focused writers of history, particularly those writing long after the fact, like our friend Cassius Dio. He doesn't have to worry about contradiction, really, he can just read the available history books, talk to people, and make stuff up. [/QUOTE]

Verification