Re: PwarYuex
I didn't intend to put any of this into an essay. This is a discussion, and anyone who knows anything about ancient history beyond a junior level knows you don't get resources straight from the web (unless they're links to scholarly articles, which this clearly is not)! I don't claim to be qualified, just interested. But if you're going to attack what I say, or my spelling, make sure you've got it right first. I don't mind people correcting me, but I do mind it when they're wrong.
Using the terminology "primary source" and "secondary source" is appropriate for high-school level (take note, HSCers, you're in the clear), but for someone who claims to be studying ancient history at a tertiary level as you are, you should know better. As you indicate, you finished your HSC in 2004, making you a university student (also indicated by your display of degree down the bottom).
Historians compile evidence, and simplify where appropriate. But that does not take it to inaccuracy, which I found in Bradley's book on Greece when I was in years 11-12. I argue that historians bring life to their work, while compilers do not. It's like comparing Polybius to an annalist. They don't compare. The same with Herodotos and Pamela Bradley. To be a historian, to undertake the intellectual field derived from Herodotos' historia , curiosity is a key, and interest is vital. History is based upon narrative: that is barely maintained in Bradley, and the only curiosity it ever aroused in me, or many of the people I've spoken to, is why it was set as a textbook.
Just because you don't understand the different genres at work within Herodotos, the vestiges of the different intellectual pushes during his time, and the unique (as far as we have left) way in which he combined the creativity of the Muse with the growing intellectual and philosophical movement in Greece, does not mean that he is incoherent. To judge Herodotos by modern standards does no justice to him, even though we use him in a modern context. History isn't all about dead white men fighting wars, you know. Herodotos' fascination with the other shows the political and ethnic circles in which he was moving and being moved, the problems he faced as a Carian (that's right, folks, he wasn't 'pure' Greek, let alone Athenian)
I also find your comments about my feminimity insulting. My lack of Y chromosome has nothing to do with my love for the classics, and to bring this into the debate is childish and normative: going back to a time where women were assumed not to be intelligent enough to study the classics. And, of course, you're automatically putting me into the category of 'bad' woman because I may have read more than you. I'm female, I enjoy ancient history. That is what my name means. To try and put me into some stereotype based upon... well, I don't know what (I have experience in ancient history, but not sexism) just shows that you're afraid of something. What, little old me? To call me sexist names just because I bring up elements of the history you may not have heard of is completely inappropriate.
And to insinuate that I haven't learnt ancient languages! Well, I never! Why do you think I spell Greek names in such a funny way? Because that's how they spell them in the Greek!
Note to angelduck: persist with the Iliad, it's great. And also, just because a book is recommended by people doesn't mean it's wonderful. Pamela Bradley has her purposes- a bibliography (see her notes for the real sources/ commentaries- Bury is far better for Greece) and a paperweight. Her information has left many people stranded in their HSC because there's not enough of it, or it contradicts other sources. What are they going to do then? They don't have time to read Herodotos or Bury, so they just improvise... and it gets them into trouble.
