philipjd

Just been reading the 'schoolboy fantasies' part of the could germany win WW2 thread. Thought I'd open up this debate.

Churchill and memoirs - whilst his history of WW2 is a good source of most data, Churchill was a superb writer (his use of language can be almost poetic) but his interpretations and 'inclusivity' should be taken with a touch of salt. Whilst WW2 is much more accurate than his WW1 books (where he was kicked out of office thus a bit more self-justification needed), it should not be used as a source for the entire picture.

Caesar - his books are also most informative, but again he was a serious politician, so how much can be taken as 'straight' fact?

Both the above authors are much more accurate than say, Homer, and who can argue against Caesers books (as a contemporary)?

cheers
Phil

sparten

Reviving a very old thread.

Churchill once said that History would be kind to him, since he would write it.

__________________
"Any relations in a social order will endure if there is infused into them some of that spirit of human sympathy, which qualifies life for immortality." ~ George William Russell

Praxus

Homer was a poet, not a historian. That isn't a valid comparison.