10 Comments

I'm not sure I would lean so hard on Rome. I could give an example like the campaigns in Gaul and Germania, where the victor did literally write the history, because Caesar is the only primary source. Vercingetorix didn't really get to publish his memoirs, and we all just have to wince and overlook the fact that Caesar likes to constantly refer to himself in the third person, like an ancient Douglas MacArthur, and probably equally as self-obsessed.

But I think there also may be a line to draw between people like us, who like to read ancient history on a Friday night with a cold glass of bourbon and a hot cigar, as compared to what most of the electorate gets, which is whatever is force fed to them in school, and then they promptly sod off to watch low budget reality shows, not even Joe Rogan but more Seth Rogan. Not to denigrate. Do whatever lets you live your best life. But when it comes to history, I expect most people just watch the trailer and not the whole movie.

Expand full comment
author

There are certainly instances of Romans writing history as victors, but the point stands- we know loads of things about the Romans that they themselves would not be proud of.

Expand full comment

Fair, but I'm not sure the average person is super excited to get their copy of Storm Before the Storm (btw, highly recommend anything Mike Duncan has ever touched).

Expand full comment
author

I do want to read that, his series on Rome is what gave me most of the knowledge I have about it.

Expand full comment

Oh man, his book on Lafayette is pretty good too. But yeah like...literally everything I know about the Mexican Revolution is 100% Duncan.

Expand full comment
author

I particularly enjoyed his series on Russia.

Expand full comment

I assume I don't need to recommend Dan Carlin if you're familiar with Duncan.

Expand full comment