Lindsay Powell

So he was getting his, if you like, anecdotal information from second or third sources. The written sources that he was relying on were going to be things like official documents, Acta Diorna, this type of thing, the Proceedings of the Senate, or other chronicles that were available. And so we have some of those in the case, as I say, that's Tacitus.

So there'd be Cassius Dyer writing another 100 years after him. So he's writing about his world, trying to understand it by looking backwards. So you have to be careful when you look at these things. Is he interpreting what he knows now and explaining the time before him in now terms? So what that means is you've got to be careful.

So there'd be Cassius Dyer writing another 100 years after him. So he's writing about his world, trying to understand it by looking backwards. So you have to be careful when you look at these things. Is he interpreting what he knows now and explaining the time before him in now terms? So what that means is you've got to be careful.

So there'd be Cassius Dyer writing another 100 years after him. So he's writing about his world, trying to understand it by looking backwards. So you have to be careful when you look at these things. Is he interpreting what he knows now and explaining the time before him in now terms? So what that means is you've got to be careful.

And there's a good example of this is that Cassius Dio writes about how the Roman army was in 5 AD. And his account is different than Tacitus writing in 23 AD in terms of numbers and deployments and these types of things. And people agonize over, you know, how could they reconcile some of these things? And that's part of the joy of being a historian. You should delve into these things.

And there's a good example of this is that Cassius Dio writes about how the Roman army was in 5 AD. And his account is different than Tacitus writing in 23 AD in terms of numbers and deployments and these types of things. And people agonize over, you know, how could they reconcile some of these things? And that's part of the joy of being a historian. You should delve into these things.

And there's a good example of this is that Cassius Dio writes about how the Roman army was in 5 AD. And his account is different than Tacitus writing in 23 AD in terms of numbers and deployments and these types of things. And people agonize over, you know, how could they reconcile some of these things? And that's part of the joy of being a historian. You should delve into these things.

And then there's another level where you've got things like inscriptions and there are inscriptions and some very remarkable depictions of Praetorians in different parts of Europe. And what you try to do is take all these piece parts and, like a detective, make sense of them. And like a detective, there are different ways you can look at things.

And then there's another level where you've got things like inscriptions and there are inscriptions and some very remarkable depictions of Praetorians in different parts of Europe. And what you try to do is take all these piece parts and, like a detective, make sense of them. And like a detective, there are different ways you can look at things.

And then there's another level where you've got things like inscriptions and there are inscriptions and some very remarkable depictions of Praetorians in different parts of Europe. And what you try to do is take all these piece parts and, like a detective, make sense of them. And like a detective, there are different ways you can look at things.

And you'll read in some books that they're very definitive and emphatic. Say, based on Cassius Dio, there were 10,000. And some of us will say, well, there were 10 cohorts. Somebody else will say nine. And it's because one is taking Cassius Dio and the other is taking Tacitus. And they may not actually be in conflict. Because we don't know what necessarily the period they're talking about.

And you'll read in some books that they're very definitive and emphatic. Say, based on Cassius Dio, there were 10,000. And some of us will say, well, there were 10 cohorts. Somebody else will say nine. And it's because one is taking Cassius Dio and the other is taking Tacitus. And they may not actually be in conflict. Because we don't know what necessarily the period they're talking about.

And you'll read in some books that they're very definitive and emphatic. Say, based on Cassius Dio, there were 10,000. And some of us will say, well, there were 10 cohorts. Somebody else will say nine. And it's because one is taking Cassius Dio and the other is taking Tacitus. And they may not actually be in conflict. Because we don't know what necessarily the period they're talking about.

So, as I say, you have to read ancient history, all ancient history, with an open mindset to this extent that you have to be willing to say that it's not the absolute truth. The truth in the sense that it can be absolute. It's more a case of that person writing in his time, making sense of what an earlier age was. And maybe he's relying on documents which themselves are flawed and so forth.

So, as I say, you have to read ancient history, all ancient history, with an open mindset to this extent that you have to be willing to say that it's not the absolute truth. The truth in the sense that it can be absolute. It's more a case of that person writing in his time, making sense of what an earlier age was. And maybe he's relying on documents which themselves are flawed and so forth.

So, as I say, you have to read ancient history, all ancient history, with an open mindset to this extent that you have to be willing to say that it's not the absolute truth. The truth in the sense that it can be absolute. It's more a case of that person writing in his time, making sense of what an earlier age was. And maybe he's relying on documents which themselves are flawed and so forth.

But to the listeners, I'm just saying that very often it's a surprise when you read one historian's interpretation and find another interpretation based on the same evidence. And the question is, how on earth can that be? And I think it's just, well, that is the state of knowledge that we have.

But to the listeners, I'm just saying that very often it's a surprise when you read one historian's interpretation and find another interpretation based on the same evidence. And the question is, how on earth can that be? And I think it's just, well, that is the state of knowledge that we have.

But to the listeners, I'm just saying that very often it's a surprise when you read one historian's interpretation and find another interpretation based on the same evidence. And the question is, how on earth can that be? And I think it's just, well, that is the state of knowledge that we have.

And it's quite possible, as we've seen at Fishbourne, that something else can come out of the ground that can completely change history. Knowledge as it stands and knowing full well that what you're writing about today will in due course be changed. And I think that's part of the fun of studying history of all periods, not just the ancient world. It's a living, changing subject.