Did plutarch just not try hard enough?

Thread replies: 9
Thread images: 1

Anonymous
2016-01-16 20:49:33Post No. 565132
[Report] Image search: [Google] [Yandex] [Bing]

File: Plutarch_head_only.jpg (13KB, 220x283px) Image search: [Google] [Yandex] [Bing]

13KB, 220x283px

Anonymous 2016-01-16 20:49:33 Post No. 565132 [Report]

Did plutarch just not try hard enough?

>>

Anonymous 2016-01-17 06:05:50 Post No.567135
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-01-17 06:05:50 Post No.567135 [Report]

Wot??

>>

Anonymous 2016-01-17 06:06:53 Post No.567139
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-01-17 06:06:53 Post No.567139 [Report]

we wuz feelosopherz n shyt

>>

Anonymous 2016-01-17 06:10:53 Post No.567154
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-01-17 06:10:53 Post No.567154 [Report]

>>567139
Plutarch was a historian nshit

>>

Anonymous 2016-01-17 06:24:13 Post No.567202
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-01-17 06:24:13 Post No.567202 [Report]

His Life of Alexander is uninteresting

>>

Anonymous 2016-01-17 07:05:27 Post No.567341
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-01-17 07:05:27 Post No.567341 [Report]

>>567154
I'd sooner call him a novelist than an historian.

>>

Anonymous 2016-01-17 07:54:51 Post No.567446
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-01-17 07:54:51 Post No.567446 [Report]

>>567154
>>567139
He was a philosopher, moralist, and biographer.

>>567341
He had very very good sources compared to what we have nowadays.

>>

Anonymous 2016-01-17 08:07:16 Post No.567478
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-01-17 08:07:16 Post No.567478 [Report]

>>567446
>He had very very good sources compared to what we have nowadays.
And yet he was so inaccurate, hence the OP

>>

Anonymous 2016-01-17 08:31:33 Post No.567533
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-01-17 08:31:33 Post No.567533 [Report]

>>567478
He wasn't extremely inaccurate. Of course most of the anecdotes wouldn't be true (he was a virtueist first, not a historian) and of course the battle numbers weren't true (everyone made the numbers bigger back in those days)