Roman History

Question 1

Cons of Roman History

Answer 1

Too diagnostic - medical metaphors etc,
too therapeutic - talks of 'good' days,
self protective eg livy avoided talking about the troubles of his time,
Historians glorified family if paid off,
past is always blamed, 
is a literary art,

Question 2

Tacitus cons

Answer 2

He abbreviates, he is selective with facts, invents speeches

Question 3

Tacitus’s style

Answer 3

Not interested in supernatural, preached imperialism, used memoirs, judgements empathic, talks about difference of public profession and private motives, his works used to teach Latin in 19th/20th c

Question 4

Cicero de Oratore’s style

Answer 4

Noticed fundamental history rules:
-Reliability
-Honesty
-Style
-Composition
Believed events must be interpreted and judged, not just recorded.

Question 5

Cripus’s style

Answer 5

used dates and questioned in his writing, aimed to reveal motivation of states/men - the hidden spring.

Question 6

Livy’s style

Answer 6

only 35 books survived, covered 365 years in 5 books but then decreased that so more detailed, writings are instructive (moral based??)

Question 7

Livy’s cons

Answer 7

he invented speeches, sources are detailed, is emotive, rarely explores contradictory events, little reliability for military/political affairs, more a narrator than a research historian