joanna bujes <joanna.bujes at sun.com> wrote:
> A friend commented that Cesar's "Gallic Wars" were more self-promotion than
history.
This is literally true. Caesar's books are political campaign documents deliberately designed to promote his political ambitions. It's not that they're bad history or strategy, but these are not his first concern,
> Thucydides was a little more straight dealing.
Well, he was defeated and exiled, and had no political ambitions. He was also a genius of the first order; one can name him beside Plato or Sophocles without any hesitation. (Caesar, though a fine prose stylist and brilliant politician, was not that sort of thinker. Of the ancient leaders, only Marcus Aurelius can claim to be a thinker at all.)
> I read his book a
couple of years ago and was really impressed. It seemed like he described
every war that has ever been fought or will ever be fought.
That's what he said was his aim, quite expressly.
___________________________________
> . Perhaps there
is something about war that is NOT historical but mythic/psychological
...something that is separate from evil intent, but kicks in when people
are put in a schizophrenic position.
Now now, you are not allowed to use psychological factors in historical explanation. That is not materialist. Just ask Yoshie.
jks Joanna
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20030404/7a9eaacd/attachment.htm>