From: george knysh
Message: 60545
Date: 2008-10-01
--- On Tue, 9/30/08, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
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.
What C. wrote A. said was damning to Caesar, so much that Dio Cassius
could use it against him.
****GK: Cassius Dio does not confirm your fantasy of a common assault of Aedui and Sequani against Ariovistus before Caesar's involvement. And DBG 6:12 confirms the traditional account.****
The account of what A. said is so full of
internally consistent details that it must come from secretarial
notes, C. would have seen to were taken in such an important negotiation.
> And we know his loose use of "Galli" and "Gallia".
We know your loose use of it to make your story stick.
****GK:I prefer Caesar's story (along with established historiography) to yours. If you can't understand (or won't understand) what you read,that's your problem.****
> Give it up, Torsten.You can't win this one.
Yes, that is now your last hope.
****GK: Frankly my dear Torsten, I don't give a damn (:=)) You're welcome to your fantasies if they make you happy. They won't play in the league of serious historians.****
> (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. (:=)))
Whatever. Anything concrete?
****GK: That very question.****