Before reading this article, please click "Follow", which is not only convenient for you to discuss and share, but also can bring you a different sense of participation, thank you for your support!
Text | Historic Exploration
Edit | Historic Exploration
Historian Qian Daxin once said: "It is easy to read history and talk about praise, and it is difficult to prove the same and different differences by reading history."
It is inevitable that ancient writers, for various reasons and limitations, made all kinds of mistakes in the process of writing, either intentionally or unintentionally.
If it is said that the discrepancies caused by the erroneous record of historical facts due to ignorance of what happened at that time can be concluded by means of research or comparison, then it is even more difficult to identify the historical facts that historians deliberately cover up or even falsify.
Historical records are inconsistent
Most commonly, historians have inconsistencies in their accounts about the time, place, and names of the people who took place.
For example, Malalas's "Chronicle" records that when Persia went to war with the Lazicans, three of the generals sent by Justinian to support them were named:
Justinian sent three generals—Kidric Crecus, and Irenius—as well as a large Roman army. Belisarius' name is not found in it.
However, in the Easter Chronicle, the author records that the names of the generals sent by Justinian to support Lazika are different. What cannot be ignored is that the names of the three generals are also clearly recorded in this historical document.
"They were Belisarius, Kricus, and Irenius, the son of Pantadia. ”
In Procobius's History of War, there is only one person, the Emperor who sent Arenius to support, and Belisarius who was sent to conquer Pesamenia, and won a great victory.
Two of these three, Irenius, the son of Selicus and Pantadia, are clearly recorded in both sources, but it is difficult to know whether one of the remaining generals was Kidric or Belisarius.
A closer look at the historical sources reveals that Malalas's reference to Kidric in his Chronicle was at the beginning of the war.
Procobi's History of War and Theophanes' Chronicle mention Belisarius' name only after the battle began, and there are records of the end of the battle in Theophanes' writings.
Does this also mean the possibility that Justinian sent Kidric as a commander at the beginning of the war, but later Belisarius joined the battle.
For example, when it comes to the number of civilians who died in the Nika uprising, historians have different accounts.
Many scholars have analyzed the actual number of deaths. It is an indisputable fact that due to the contradictions in the records of historians, it is still difficult to achieve unity in the grasp of many specific data.
In addition, there are also cases in which historians form isolated evidence due to different concerns in the record of events. For example, in the accounts of the Nika rebellion, the Byzantine historians showed their strengths.
Procobi focuses on the general trend of the revolt and the details of the emperor's suppression of the revolt, and he chronicles the process of the Nika revolt, interspersed with the evaluation of events and the analysis of their causes, especially his detailed account of the performance of Justinian and Theodora when the throne was in danger.
The author of the Easter Chronicle focuses more on the detailed account of the political events that led to the Nika rebellion in favor of the new emperor.
The author's account of Ipatius's fate is much more detailed than other historians, and mentions Ipatius's attempt to betray his supporters and how he was killed in the church.
In his Chronicle, Theophanes records something that no other historian has written: Justinian and Theodora did not stay in the capital, but fled to Thrace.
The discrepancies in the records of the same event by historians present different angles of the development of events for later generations, and although there is no evidence in a single account, its importance is still relatively prominent for the Byzantine historical materials, which are seriously lacking.
The question of the authenticity of the historian's writing
1. About "History of War"
The more praises are given to Belisarius, the more perfect his image is portrayed, and the greater the doubts that follow.
Although the authenticity of most of the contents of the "History of War" is affirmed, it does not hide the suspicion that Procobi occasionally exaggerates the facts.
Procobi is at odds and ends throughout the text, sometimes even mentioning important information. For example, in the ups and downs of Belisarius's career, Procobi obviously covered up part of the disgraceful history of defeat for him;
There are inconsistencies as to the specific reasons for Belisarius' dismissal from the Persian battlefield to his leadership of the Vandals, and the real reason for Belisarius' rapid fall from grace after the end of the first phase of the Gothic War, Procobi says nothing.
It is this imperfection that makes Procobie's magnum opus dusty.
In addition, Procopius published this article while Justinian, the supreme ruler of the empire, was still alive, and the publication of this work was public, and it was mainly a record of the rulers of the empire and members of the supreme ruling group.
It was therefore destined to be dominated by praise and praise, and it was impossible to produce any criticism of the Justinians and their imperial policies.
More importantly, the full-text account of the relationship between Belisarius and Justinian goes to great lengths to avoid the feud between the two, which has a lot to do with the sensitive issues of imperial politics that his writings were considered to be at the time.
On the other hand, this shows that the information provided by the "War History" is not completely true and credible.
Not only that, Procobie's background also doomed him to ambiguity in his position on certain political events, as well as the change in his attitude towards war in the later period.
According to Procobie's account, he was born around the end of the fifth century and the beginning of the sixth century, had a good education, and was a lawyer.
The elegant style of writing, influenced by good origins and professional Xi, has given the book a high reputation, but it has also highlighted problems.
This is also often reflected in the writings of ancient historians, who regard history as the work of heroes. This view of heroic history embodies the mainstream attitude of Greco-Roman historians in historical creation.
The descriptions of such historical books are often wonderful, but historians have always been unable to avoid the drawbacks of deliberately exaggerating the talents and merits of the subjects they describe.
2. About The Secret History
Historians have long doubted the authenticity of The Secret History. Because the wording in the text is too strong, vicious abuse can be seen everywhere, so that it has been disdained and criticized by later historians for a long time.
Thompson, commenting on the work in The History of Historical Writings, unceremoniously stated: "His book is a strong indictment of the government of Justinian, and there must be many claims and bad things that cannot be proved by strong evidence." ”
Gibbon also commented on The Secret History in The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, arguing that Procobie's "capricious approach called into question his reputation and undermined his personal credibility." ”
Bury had long denied that Procobi had written The Secret History, and even after his attitude changed, he still insisted that Procobi had written the book because of mental illness and psychological trauma.
In recent years, with the in-depth study of the "Secret History" by scholars, the historical value of this book has gradually emerged.
First of all, "The Secret History" is clearly organized and has a clear direction. Judging from the long preface, the content of the work is clarified, and the writing position and purpose of the work are expressed.
The author claims that this article was written to reveal the facts of the events that took place throughout the Roman Empire, as a supplement to the previously completed history book (the History of the Wars).
He also pointed out that when some people (referring to Justinian) were alive, it was impossible to record the true words and deeds of people according to the wishes of historians.
And this is the real reason why he was forced to distort the facts and hide his opinions in his previous writings.
He was well aware that the facts he had recorded could not be justified in the eyes of posterity, but he declared that those who knew the truth would affirm his account.
The reason why he wrote this book in such a situation is because he believes that exposing these acts will serve as a warning to future generations to make fewer mistakes.
Perhaps Procobi uses more bitter language to express strong dissatisfaction because of mental repression, but a person in a state of madness, or suffering from mental illness, should not be so calm and organized.
A careful analysis of the "Secret History" shows that, apart from the fierce rhetoric, most of the content recorded in it is consistent with the "History of War", and it does a good job of supplementing the incomplete parts of the "History of War".
The Secret History was never published during Procobie's lifetime, so it is understandable that it was more mixed with personal emotions than in previous works, and it is not convincing to deny the authenticity of the work because of the insults in the text.
Second, the Secret History reveals the reasons behind many of the events that are not well documented in the History of War, especially Belissa's performance on the battlefields of the East and the intricate relationship between him and his wife and the emperor and empress.
As recorded in the "History of War", in the first year of the Common Era, Belisarius was sent by the emperor to fight against the Persian army, but the emperor did not give him a single soldier.
In the retreat, Procobi attributed the defeat to a lack of manpower and supplies, and Belliliu's retreat was understandable.
In the "Secret History", he scolded Belisarius for his desire for Antonina to make such a decision regardless of military conditions.
He also revealed that the real reason why the emperor no longer supplied Belisarius was because of an agreement between Belisarius and Justinian that the emperor would no longer recover the spoils he had captured in battle, but would no longer supply him for battle, but would let him use his own money to equip the army.
This explains why Belisarius ordered his troops to sack villages and cities across Italy on several occasions thereafter, which had been largely absent in previous campaigns.
3. About other historical sources
Although historians claim the authenticity of the works, their time and status doomed not all historical sources to reliable sources.
The value of the historical material has declined because the author lived too long from the time of Justinian, and most of the content of the Chronicle can only refer to Procobi's works.
Another example is "The Easter Chronicle", "Malalas" "Chronicle", Marselinus "Chronicle", etc., although the author lived in a relatively recent era, but due to its own limitations and shortcomings.
For example, due to geographical limitations, it can often only be recorded in detail in a certain area. Malaras was most likely an upper-middle-class government employee of Antioch, so the account of Belissa's activities in the eastern part of the empire is significantly more detailed.
From the unemotional but concise and accurate record of Marcelinus's "Chronicle", it can be seen that the author basically wrote according to government documents and war reports.
Moreover, little is known about the lives and specific information of these historians, and many accounts are not only lacking in detail, but also impossible to determine whether they are true or false, except for judging their basic tendencies from the historical sources.
Lack of evaluation and psychological description
The biggest problem with the historical record, and the most unavoidable, is the depiction of Belisarius' state of mind and the lack of evaluation of him.
Procobie's two books are the most detailed historical sources to date, but even so, his focus is limited to Belisarius's military campaigns rather than his personal analysis of the motives for those actions.
This leaves posterity with only hypotheses and speculations based on his account. Although Procobi also has a small description of Belisarius's character and character, there are few records of his mentality and thoughts.
Most of the commentary on him in The Secret History remains a dissatisfaction with his private life. At the same time, Procobius did not comment enough on Belissa's military and political achievements and losses, which was a major shortcoming.
summary
If it is said that the discrepancies caused by the misrecording of historical facts due to ignorance of what happened at that time can be concluded by means of research or comparison, then it is even more difficult to identify the historical facts that historians deliberately cover up or even falsify.
bibliography
[1] Cui Yanhong, "Ancient Wars: A Study of the Byzantine Historian Prokoby's Wars", Shishi Publishing House, 2006.
[2] 顾颉刚: "Contemporary Chinese History", Shanghai Antique Publishing House, 2002 edition.
[3] Guo Xiaoling, "History of Western History", Beijing Xiao Mo University Press, 1995 edition.
[4] Lei Haizong, Chinese Culture and China's Soldiers, The Commercial Press, 2001.
[5] Li Jianming, "The Cultivation and Skills of Historians", Shanghai Joint Publishing House, 2007.
Disclaimer:
The process and pictures described in the article are all from the Internet, and this article aims to advocate positive social energy and no vulgar and other bad guidance. If it involves copyright or character infringement issues, please contact us in time, and we will delete the content as soon as possible!