08-06-2004, 08:17 PM
This new thread was inspired by discussions in other threads and I wanted to begin a new discussion.<br>
<br>
<br>
I have questioned the reliability of some of the most commonly used ancient sources because I have little confidence in the information as presented. This is based to a certain extent on modern academic methods that have been criticised and yet continue to be used in many publications. I think that there needs to be a more cautious approach much like caveat emptor. To assume any writer has a better understanding is dangerous, particularly if the ancient sources were not among the best and brightest by modern standards.<br>
<br>
One example of this presentation is taken from “The fall of the Roman Empire: A Reappraisalâ€ÂÂ
<br>
<br>
I have questioned the reliability of some of the most commonly used ancient sources because I have little confidence in the information as presented. This is based to a certain extent on modern academic methods that have been criticised and yet continue to be used in many publications. I think that there needs to be a more cautious approach much like caveat emptor. To assume any writer has a better understanding is dangerous, particularly if the ancient sources were not among the best and brightest by modern standards.<br>
<br>
One example of this presentation is taken from “The fall of the Roman Empire: A Reappraisalâ€ÂÂ
