(i) An event occurred.
It was recorded.
The records affected subsequent events.
(ii) It was mistakenly recorded that an event occurred.
The records affected subsequent events.
A Time Patrol Specialist, expecting to confirm scenario (i), is surprised to discover (ii).
The Patrol now knows that it guards not (i) but (ii).
Reading about events that we experienced, we know how much is left out. Everything cannot be included. Factors like diplomacy determine what is included. For a contentious event, contradictory accounts can be written. Patrol Specialists deploy long range, full sensory recording devices. We would be surprised if they told us what they had learned about our period.
7 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
And there is a third alternative: (i) an event occurred. It was recorded. The records affected subsequent events. OR (iii) it was deliberately recorded that an event did NOT occurred as previously stated. The records were changed and that too affected subsequent events. That sort of tampering with history was common enough during Stalin's rule of Russia, after all. And I think in Mao's China as well.
Ad astra! Sean
This is why the Patrol has to have a huge research branch investigating history.
Note for example that our knowledge of the early Roman Empire is essentially based on the equivalent of scandal-mongering gossip sheets, intended for an audience (much of the Roman aristocracy in the Julio-Claudian period) that was at least mildly hostile to the Imperial system.
It's equivalent to a history of the Labor Party written by the Daily Express.
A History of the Labour Party by the Daily Express! (Right.) (British blog readers know exactly what you mean.)
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree, some of the historians of the early Roman Empire were so hostile to the Emperors that wary readers had to remain alert to the risk of reading malicious gossip or spiteful slanders. And Poul Anderson mentioned that in STAR OF THE SEA, where mention was made of Patrol researchers wishing to find out if Domitian really was such a hound from Hell or did some good things. Which is why Tacitus and Suetonius have to be used with caution.
Ad astra! Sean
It was perfectly possible to be a good Emperor as far as most people were concerned, but to be detested by Senatorial circles in Rome, or even by the fickle (and highly privileged and pampered) urban plebs. Both groups were convinced to their bones that they were the only people who mattered or whose interests should be considered.
Our ancestors.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
It was a delicate balancing act the Emperors had to play: trying to please the Senatorial aristocracy/plebs one the hand, and striving to do right to the rest of the Empire. No surprise Emperors failed and came to violent ends.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment