Why does it seem like acknowledging bias in historical sources is so over-emphasized now compared to even 5 years ago? Of course sources have bias!

This is a random and minor thing, not a huge deal at all, but it has me curious how even on Wikipedia now most pages reiterate many times how sources A, B, and C are biased and may not be entirely accurate. Like...no shit? We've always known sources have biases to various degrees, human nature and all of that. Of course there are going to be biases we have to control for, be it Caesar's Gallic writings or Tacitus or whoever. It seems now it's a requirement to state this as part of any post. I bet not a single person on this sub was unaware of bias being a thing yet it bears repeating to infinity and beyond.

It has become so over-emphasized to the point that many people simply spin their wheels about how nothing in the sources can be trusted and everything can be questioned to such a degree that they end up saying nothing at all. This doesn't make you sound enlightened. It makes you a milksop. The most important part of historiography is acknowledging biases exist but still being able to wade through said bias and form a rational opinion about the truth of what happened.

This post was inspired by a pro-Caligula post that argued he was actually a decent guy all his life and was just the victim of a PR-smear campaign by writers with evil, unforgivable bias. The horror!

in ancientromeby xen_levels_were_fine

83%

GreatCaesarGhost

I actually don't think that people "obviously know" these things, especially since we live in a culture in which people pass around fake videos, pictures, etc. via social media and assume them to be true. There are a lot of people in this world that lack common sense.

More than that, people uncritically passed along stories about Rome for thousands of years (think of works like Shakespeare's), or took as true the unfounded opinions of historians who got way out ahead of their skis (Gibbon), or assume that things depicted in movies or TV shows are true "just because." There are a lot of popular perceptions about Caesar, Cleopatra, etc. that are based on received mythology and folklore over millennia.

mrrooftops

The irony is, highlighting one bias with, say, a disclaimer, is ALSO a bias. So someone needs to acknowledge the bias of the bias acknowledgment.

CodexRegius

There has been a good deal of revisionist history lately trying to rehabilitate first Nero, then Domitian and lately even Caligula. Of course, everyone is aware that all Roman historiographers belonged to the senatorial class and had their own axes to grind; and some will take this as a reason to question everything the old authors ever wrote (particularly the slander!).

Trajan_pt

Consul

You would be surprised at the number of people who have absolutely no idea about biased writing.

Superman246o1

Agreed! I suspect OP is, ironically, exhibiting the unconscious bias of intelligent people who may subconsciously anticipate that what is obvious to them should be obvious to anyone. If only that were the case.

I have gotten into literal arguments with people who insisted that the film 300 accurately portrayed the attire of Spartan hoplites. When I tried to explain that Spartans wore anything from a leather cuirass to a bronze breastplate into battle, I was told that I was wrong, and that while Athenian warriors might have done that, Spartans fought all their battles nearly naked to prove their bravery, just like in 300.

If these people would treat Frank Miller's artistic preference as a historic fact, they're not inclined to appreciate the biases that shaped the accounts of Suetonius and Cassius Dio.

KenScaletta

Rationalis

It was emphasized when I was in college thirty years ago. It's always been emphasized in academic writing because it has to be. One source by itself is never reliable, that's why the goal is to find multiple independent attestation. More than one source who don't know each other saying the same thing has more weight than any single source by itself.

Staying cognizant of bias can even help. If an author claims something that goes against his own bias It's more likely to be true.

Sthrax

Legate

Anyone reasonable will acknowledge the sources have biases, but that doesn't mean the information they present is wrong. The Senatorial class can have an ax to grind with Caligula and Caligula can also be a horrible emperor and human being.

I find it quite ironic that some of the people that shout the loudest about bias in the ancient writers often fail to realize how horribly biased many modern historians are. Mary Beard is an excellent classicist in many ways and her work putting a light on areas that aren't examined enough is admirable, but unbiased she is not.

catwithcookiesandtea

Bless your heart for your confidence in the intelligence of the average human being.

InternationalBand494

That’s exactly what I was thinking

II_Sulla_IV

Tribune

A disclaimer:

This post is biased against the acknowledgment of bias. Please interpret accordingly

OverHonked

I don’t think emphasising bias is a bad thing at all, even if it’s annoying to some. People ignoring the fact there is bias will always be a bigger problem. Especially in this day and age where pop-history basically lays siege to actual historical analysis through books, television, social media and YouTube.

Discounting a source out of hand over its biases or coming to absurd conclusions is a different matter.

I would always choose for someone to fall closer to questioning everything rather than just accepting everything.

jbkymz

Asiaticus

There is very little room to manoeuvre in Roman history, in political history most of all. Almost every topic is covered. So there is two easy way to come up with resounding thesis: create a problem that not exist and solve it or challenge the most basic established facts by ancient writers. If you take the latter route, refuting ancient authors in every step is absolutely necessary. Generally easiest way is saying that he is biased, unreliable etc.

YoohooCthulhu

*you * may know sources are biased. Most people who read a history book or account just assume it’s the truth (e.g. they’re not appreciating that history is written by people who have flaws and agendas and isn’t just some voice from nowhere).

I remember when I had a historiography class in college and an we were asked to criticize the potential veracity of an account…a lot of questions in the discussion section were “it’s in the book, how do we criticize it?”

The internet has raised literacy of agendas in text somewhat, but the baby boom generation remains very susceptible to it

HaggisAreReal

Some people has recorded entire podcasts series based in a couple of ancient sources and taking them at their word, specially for periods such as the founding of Rome, and they are the main reference for a wider audience.

There is people in this same subrredit that consider that reading Livy or Casio Dio is the best approach to learn about theperiod they cover and that modern historians are the ones that are biased and making shit up.

So yeah, the disclaimer never is out of place. You quoted Wikipedia which is one of the first point of contact with any topic. Naturally, it needs to be there. Perhaps not in your PHD dissertation forwewod.

On the other hand, about the Caligul thing, yeah, there is a tendency among scholar lately to reconsider his legacy, same with Nero, and acknowledge that our image is basically ill-represented by VERY biased and inaccurate sources. Not the subconscious kind.

GenXSeeker

The people that over-emphasize it believe they, themselves, do not have bias. There is also a flat out malicious element that seeks to demean all of western history and accomplishment.

m1sch13v0us

I would add to this, many of the people making these statements are also the types that want to “cancel Aristotle” because he owned slaves. They are interpreting the past and making judgments on a very different society.

I do think it’s important to understand bias when it skews our understanding of the truth. And it’s important to separate that from a past where people had very different value systems.

There were many advancements in human society that came from that era. But the modern human would not recognize much of Roman culture today. Both can be true.

praemialaudi

Desperate efforts to do something (publish) with that Classics doctorate degree. Plus in the west right now our academics are deeply, deeply focused on uncovering all the various biases blindspots and injustices in conventional telling of our own history. Classicists doing it as well in their area of expertise is to be expected.

PublicFurryAccount

It’s entirely this.

MonsterRider80

Because we forget. We all forget. It’s so easy to pick up a history book and start reading a narrative as if everything happened exactly as described in the narrative.

Where does this narrative come from? When you really think about it, we’re reconstructing millennia of history based on a couple of texts, supplemented with some archaeology.

So much of what we “know” comes from so few sources, and the people who wrote these sources were themselves so similar, all senators, or otherwise close to the centre of power.

I’m a history graduate, I live for this kind of stuff. But even I realize sometimes that our entire past narrative could very well be completely wrong. Just read any article about a current event and then see the myriad interpretations, arguments about what really happened, who saw what, who was there, etc etc etc. It’s all up in the air and this is stuff that happened last week. We don’t even know what an ancient battle really looked like.

Was Caligula as insane as Suetonius says? Is it even possible? The Roman republic would chew up and spit out anyone who was in the least way weak or lacked capability. Caligula ruled for 4 years, and the system established just 50 years prior just kept chugging along as if nothing happened. Was he really as bad? Who the hell knows! Maybe he was! But I say all this because in the end, it’s important to acknowledge the biases of sources. It’s important to know that Suetonius himself was writing decades later, around Hadrian’s time, and he reveled in the more sensational side of things. It’s important to know why and for whom he was writing, because it affects the interpretation of his text.

kaz1030

I don't read about the political culture of Rome, nor do I put much faith in a Wiki post, but as to the renowned history of Roman military exploits, I welcome revisions because it is needed. For example, take the rebellion of Boudica CE 60, with her Iceni and Trinovantes allies. Cassius Dio wrote that Boudica had a force of 230k tribesmen. Tacitus tells us that Suetonius Paulinus had about 10k legionaries and auxiliary troops. Tacitus writes that 80k tribesmen were slain for the loss of only 400 Romans and a few wounded. No one doubts that the professional legionaries were the exemplars of their time, but these battle stats to most modern scholars are unrealistic exaggerations.

According to Dr. Graham Webster, in Boudica, the British Revolt Against Rome AD 60, in the aftermath of the Roman campaign reinforcements were sent from Germany to make up the losses. This force included: 2k legionaries, eight cohorts of auxiliary infantry, and 1k calvary, about 7k men.

Webster generally praises the historical accounts of Tacitus, but understands that he wrote to promote the glory of Rome, to pay homage to friends/allies, to slander enemies, and perhaps most important of all, to entertain the Romans of his class.

Great_Abroad6410

I think people are very afraid of new thoughts and ideas in Academia and use this to cover their ass in case someone questions them. Grow a pairs historians.

_Batteries_

Remember. New people are born every day. And a public encyclopedia like wiki needs to cater to the least informed person.

When you make assumptions like yours, you are losing the new people, or, the less informed people. Or, even the stupid people who meed to be reminded every 5 seconds.

Atarru_

I would rather people be skeptical than gullible and trusting every source. I’d also rather have websites repeatedly tell the viewer that a source is potentially bias than just once.