Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Gonna say, he'd have been better served by Xenophon. "Plutarch was a Roman..." - Plutarch was a Greek with Roman citizenship who wrote in Greek and not Latin and is firmly in the Greek, not Latin source tradition. Sure, he was a 'Roman' in the legal sense (important)...
...but Plutarch self-positions as a Greek. He's a 'Romanized' Greek. Calling him a Roman without qualifier is misleading and honestly wrong.
Notes that the lives were paired, doesn't give the pair for Lycurgus. It's Numa Pompilius. Also not a historical figure. Refers to Plutarch's life as "the story of Lycurgus, the true Lycurgus." ...sure, the true story, based entirely on oral tradition, 900 years later. I bet.
Plutarch even admits, at the very beginning of his Life of Lycurgus, "Concerning Lycurgus the lawgiver, in general, nothing can be said which is not disputed" But sure thing, this is the straight scoop.pic.twitter.com/uV3rEljZJM
Alright, calling it there for tonight. I see above I have been corrected on one point, that apparently Pressfield served in the Marines. So noted. The quality of his ancient history is very weak; it's all Plutarch (not the best source!), read entirely uncritically.
His grasp on the actual Sparta could be improved by reading any number of books on the topic - Cartledge, Kennell, Hodkinson, Rahe, Bayliss, ANYTHING (note, I like some of those books rather better than others, but the bar here is so low, anything will do).
I find myself suddenly deeply concerned that his writing is being used as a proxy for actual historical narratives by the general public, but especially by military readers. Anyway, I'll pick this up when I next have an excess of sanity.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
