This touches on something I‘ve long wondered: how does credence estimation in history work? Like is there a database somewhere where I can say "ok, give me all the pieces of info from X that we think are reliable and why"? Or is there a "sense" you develop after years of reading?https://twitter.com/BretDevereaux/status/1349222878487728129 …
-
In this case, the key difference is chronology. Herodotus is writing within living memory of the events in question and he's in a position to go and check the facts. On the other hand, he has one clear omission here and Herodotus' overall reliability is mixed.
Diodorus is writing much later (first century - 400 years later) and so reliant on intermediate sources (like Herodotus). He's also writing a 'universal' history down to his present, so he's hardly likely to have gone and checked every detail.
-
-
Consequently, Diodorus is really valuable, but other sources closer to the events described are generally a bit more reliable than he is, because he writes at such distance and using intermediate sources.
-
Diodorus is also not quite as critical in his approach to those sources - he often doesn't note what they are. By contrast, Polybius and Livy both try to make judgements about the reliability of their (now lost) sources.
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.