5 ms·

It's always amusing to know what's going on with "the latest" in classics, however, modern classicists are, to put it kindly, almost all completely full of shit

It's always amusing to know what's going on with "the latest" in classics, however, modern classicists are, to put it kindly, almost all completely full of shit, preferring to publish contrarian, obvious bullshit to the difficult task of examining the evidence and drawing new and interesting conclusions (I dunno; someone like Gregario Maranon's examination of the character of Tiberius seemed to add to the conversation). For example; it's presently wildly popular to believe that the Germanic invasions were peaceful multiculturalism, rather than, you know, a civilization ending event. I assume because the twee nincompoops who populate modern Classics departments are made uncomfortable by the parallels with present day barbarian invasions of Europe. There is zero actual evidence for this; in fact, looking at the archaeological, numismatic and philological evidence; it's abundantly obvious [0] that Rome wasn't peacefully transformed by Teutonic multiculturalism, but was in fact, sacked by barbarians and ruined forever. Similarly, while I'm no Nero expert, and I think it would be interesting if Nero was a misunderstood bunny rabbit and his witch of a mother a "hidden figure" who would have made a great Elizabeth, I strongly suspect the ancient and later writers and views on Nero and Aggripina will turn out to be more accurate than something out of modern nincompoop Classics departments, populated with the likes of Zuck's dumb younger sister[1]. I could be wrong! And Smithsonian could also be misrepresenting the thesis of the book, but Nero being a jerk seems more likely than not. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Ward-Perkins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Ward-Perkins [1] https://eidolon.pub/@donnazuckerberg https://eidolon.pub/@donnazuckerberg -hilarious trash writer, taken seriously because there are less disapproving tweedy types around, and because her brother is a billionaire

paulryanrogers 6y ago
> ...modern Classics departments are made uncomfortable by the parallels with present day barbarian invasions of Europe. Present day invasions?
edmundsauto 6y ago
Well, here's the thing - so much previously accepted history was a complete crock. The (extreme) contrarian reports are what stand out, but even if they are only correct a small % of the time, they provide an impetus for history to become more accurate. In your rant about Nero, you hint at this: even if the more ancient writers are more correct, there is great value in the recent re-telling. Otherwise, the incorrectness in the Nero story would never be less wrong. Also, I strongly disagree with your assessment of the overall situation - I think modern scholars are much more likely to be rigorous. Have you ever read 1491? In the "Numbers from Nowhere" section, it details how bad the methodology was in early indigenous population estimates... That kind of lazy/biased/incompetent historical research appears all too common, when evaluating older historians' methodologies.
- scottlocklin 6y ago
  > I think modern scholars are much more likely to be rigorous Modern scholars who literally think the Germans didn't sack Rome? I'm pretty sure the contemporary accounts of the Romans who were sacked had a more accurate view of what was going on than some simpering dipshit at Harvard trying to make a name for himself by saying the sky is actually Paisley and the Germans peacefully assimilated. There's a place for historical revisionism; Nero being a misunderstood bunny rabbit isn't a good place for it any more than "Germans didn't sack Rome." Nice try though.
  - edmundsauto 6y ago
    Which modern scholars think the Germans didn't sack Rome? Are you actually suggesting this is a mainstream consensus? I am pretty sure that a citizen historian who was brutalized by the invading tribes* has a much stronger incentive to exaggerate and lie than a modern scholar. Not to mention, modern scholars have their work reviewed by peers, and are able to sample multiple sources much more easily because of things like the development of field-of-study rigor and other things like the printing press. Look at how news stories develop. The first stories are generally not correct. It takes time, perspective, and lots of hard work to piece together enough of the puzzle to try and provide an accurate story. * German is a bit of a misnomer, given the time period we are discussing.
    - scottlocklin 6y ago
      It was enough of a mainstream consensus an archaeologist had to write a bloody book refuting it. >modern scholars have their work reviewed by peers The idea that a bunch of weebs 2000 years later are more authoritative than someone who was there at the time because "peer review" is is laughably insane. Peer review doesn't even work in physics. In other fields it seems to be a route for spreading mass hysterias and collective insanity. Please name one actual fact about the Roman empire surfaced by modern historians contradicting contemporary historians and abetted by Peer Review. "Nero as misunderstood bunny rabbit" doesn't count, unless you can account for his, say, murder of his bloody mom.

paulryanrogers 6y ago

> ...modern Classics departments are made uncomfortable by the parallels with present day barbarian invasions of Europe. Present day invasions?

edmundsauto 6y ago

Well, here's the thing - so much previously accepted history was a complete crock. The (extreme) contrarian reports are what stand out, but even if they are only correct a small % of the time, they provide an impetus for history to become more accurate. In your rant about Nero, you hint at this: even if the more ancient writers are more correct, there is great value in the recent re-telling. Otherwise, the incorrectness in the Nero story would never be less wrong. Also, I strongly disagree with your assessment of the overall situation - I think modern scholars are much more likely to be rigorous. Have you ever read 1491? In the "Numbers from Nowhere" section, it details how bad the methodology was in early indigenous population estimates... That kind of lazy/biased/incompetent historical research appears all too common, when evaluating older historians' methodologies.

scottlocklin 6y ago
> I think modern scholars are much more likely to be rigorous Modern scholars who literally think the Germans didn't sack Rome? I'm pretty sure the contemporary accounts of the Romans who were sacked had a more accurate view of what was going on than some simpering dipshit at Harvard trying to make a name for himself by saying the sky is actually Paisley and the Germans peacefully assimilated. There's a place for historical revisionism; Nero being a misunderstood bunny rabbit isn't a good place for it any more than "Germans didn't sack Rome." Nice try though.
- edmundsauto 6y ago
  Which modern scholars think the Germans didn't sack Rome? Are you actually suggesting this is a mainstream consensus? I am pretty sure that a citizen historian who was brutalized by the invading tribes* has a much stronger incentive to exaggerate and lie than a modern scholar. Not to mention, modern scholars have their work reviewed by peers, and are able to sample multiple sources much more easily because of things like the development of field-of-study rigor and other things like the printing press. Look at how news stories develop. The first stories are generally not correct. It takes time, perspective, and lots of hard work to piece together enough of the puzzle to try and provide an accurate story. * German is a bit of a misnomer, given the time period we are discussing.
  - scottlocklin 6y ago
    It was enough of a mainstream consensus an archaeologist had to write a bloody book refuting it. >modern scholars have their work reviewed by peers The idea that a bunch of weebs 2000 years later are more authoritative than someone who was there at the time because "peer review" is is laughably insane. Peer review doesn't even work in physics. In other fields it seems to be a route for spreading mass hysterias and collective insanity. Please name one actual fact about the Roman empire surfaced by modern historians contradicting contemporary historians and abetted by Peer Review. "Nero as misunderstood bunny rabbit" doesn't count, unless you can account for his, say, murder of his bloody mom.