From: george knysh
Message: 60541
Date: 2008-09-30
--- On Tue, 9/30/08, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
Here is the major difference between our interpretations. You assume
that since A. is bad person he will always do bad things, because that
is what bad people do. I don't have that Manichaean outlook.
****GK: I didn't realize you claimed to read minds.(:=))) In this instance, however, you've not succeeded. As I see it, Ariovistus was no better and no worse than Caesar. People who struggle for power "do what's necessary" (cf. "Body Heat"(:=))) Caesar was more successful. Vae victis. Period.****
Whatever
one might think of the character of A. he, like any other person,
would not tell a lie he knew the other person knew was a lie. A stunt
like that would make you look stupid and you would lose respect among
all those who were present and were better informed. Therefore, when
he claims has has been attacked by "omnes Galliae civitates", then
that is from his point of view what had happened.
****GK: We don't know what Ariovistus said. Caesar wrote DBG. And we know his loose use of "Galli" and "Gallia". Give it up, Torsten.You can't win this one.****
(Torsten)In general, people get a lot of enjoyment out of kicking the loser.
Historians are definitely no exception. That standard version is at
odds with elementary psychology.
****GK: Torsten psychology is not elementary psychology. (:=)))****