[kilon]

Personally I find that modern historians tend to be "jealous" of old historians and are quick to accuse them for misinformation, prejudice and superstition. But again and again the "myths" are proving to be the truth. Obviously not always. We live in an age that we tend to overestimate to great degree of our technology and underestimate the raw power of human mind. The ancients had both the means and the method to produce high quality work. Moreover a historian that would lie most likely he would be discredited quite easily by other historians of his time and his books would fall into disuse. We should not also forget that the world back then was way smaller than it is now , news would spread fast and vocal accounts would have been much easier to be kept in memory for centuries.

[mercurial]

You have to consider that, especially in Roman times, ancient historians tended to produce works at the behest of a sponsor. Assuming that political motivations may twist their objectivity is not a stretch.

[fsloth]

Not only that but sometimes the works that have been preserved the best are obvious political tools. E.g. Julius Cesar's "The Gallic war".

Which, since we are on the topic, I absolutely must suggest as a reading for anyone who has the slightest interest in historical fact - or fiction - for that matter. Yes, the work is political boast about the campaign - but it is filled with juicy details on roman logistics, political action in the region, and so on.

[narrator]

I think this is why I enjoyed reading Montifiorre's Stalin biographies. Stalin was so universally hated in his native Georgia that there was no taboo in or desire to withhold all the details of his life that would have been omitted in a biography of a more respected leader.