Cassy Hernandez
HIST 111B,World History To 1500
Ancient Subtweeting
((on Twitter) a post that refers to a particular user without directly mentioning them, typically as a form of furtive mockery or criticism)
In a time period where we didn’t have countries we had empires, there was luxury, order, a personal identity for each specific location. You would imagine everyone was too busy trying to maintain the massive amount of land and population under their control. For some reason they weren’t, what was most important to these empires was their pride and size, they strive on growing. What else would explain how the Persian Empire stretched from India to Egypt but they were still in constant conflict with the Greek Empire. Or how the Roman Empire …show more content…
He emphasizes their animalistic aspects, like the fact that they aren't one unified civilization they are a bunch of small tribes doing their own thing. He also emphasizes how warlike and ready to fight they are. Although they didn’t have any real problems until about 400 C.E. and Tacitus was only alive from 56-117 C.E.(Strayer, 130 & 140)The brief encounters they had had with the Germanic peoples was enough for them to notice something about them. Tacitus describes them as pure bred, they’re distinctive.”all have fierce blue eyes, red hair, huge frames, fit only for a sudden exertion.”(Strayer, 140) The attention to their build and energy makes it seem as though they fear them, they automatically saw them as intruders and if they weren’t they had the potential to be. They weren’t very far and they had strength two things that are seen a threat always. If you see someone as the threat you don’t think highly of them, you choose to only see the “barbaric” side of a …show more content…
They were original facts, but at some points those have been tweaked into many different people's perspectives. Think about how in modern news the same thing could be covered by two different medias and be portrayed as two different things. Just look at Fox news and CNN. Herodotus and Tacitus are FOX and CNN. What they documented is what was beneficial to their views not the “opponents”. Herodotus wouldn’t make the Persians out to be drunken perverts if he didn’t want people to think poorly of them. Tacitus wouldn’t emphasize that the Germanic people were big and intimidating unless he wanted people to fear them, which would result in people revolting against them. They praised the empires that benefitted them, they provided the goods and technologies that they find beneficial to their society. That’s why Herodotus made sure he said good things about the people of Egypt and their culture. This is important to know because if we based our knowledge of a culture off of Gossip what are we really basing it
HIST 111B,World History To 1500
Ancient Subtweeting
((on Twitter) a post that refers to a particular user without directly mentioning them, typically as a form of furtive mockery or criticism)
In a time period where we didn’t have countries we had empires, there was luxury, order, a personal identity for each specific location. You would imagine everyone was too busy trying to maintain the massive amount of land and population under their control. For some reason they weren’t, what was most important to these empires was their pride and size, they strive on growing. What else would explain how the Persian Empire stretched from India to Egypt but they were still in constant conflict with the Greek Empire. Or how the Roman Empire …show more content…
He emphasizes their animalistic aspects, like the fact that they aren't one unified civilization they are a bunch of small tribes doing their own thing. He also emphasizes how warlike and ready to fight they are. Although they didn’t have any real problems until about 400 C.E. and Tacitus was only alive from 56-117 C.E.(Strayer, 130 & 140)The brief encounters they had had with the Germanic peoples was enough for them to notice something about them. Tacitus describes them as pure bred, they’re distinctive.”all have fierce blue eyes, red hair, huge frames, fit only for a sudden exertion.”(Strayer, 140) The attention to their build and energy makes it seem as though they fear them, they automatically saw them as intruders and if they weren’t they had the potential to be. They weren’t very far and they had strength two things that are seen a threat always. If you see someone as the threat you don’t think highly of them, you choose to only see the “barbaric” side of a …show more content…
They were original facts, but at some points those have been tweaked into many different people's perspectives. Think about how in modern news the same thing could be covered by two different medias and be portrayed as two different things. Just look at Fox news and CNN. Herodotus and Tacitus are FOX and CNN. What they documented is what was beneficial to their views not the “opponents”. Herodotus wouldn’t make the Persians out to be drunken perverts if he didn’t want people to think poorly of them. Tacitus wouldn’t emphasize that the Germanic people were big and intimidating unless he wanted people to fear them, which would result in people revolting against them. They praised the empires that benefitted them, they provided the goods and technologies that they find beneficial to their society. That’s why Herodotus made sure he said good things about the people of Egypt and their culture. This is important to know because if we based our knowledge of a culture off of Gossip what are we really basing it