You know, I have never understood why "historians" are so often inclined to dismiss ancient history! Granted, the part about being suckled by a wolf is a little out there, but why didn't they believe that there were actual brothers named Romulus and Remus, one became king and one got axed? There are so many instances of ancient history being "disproved" by historians and then being proved true after all -- the discovery of Troy being a rather spectacular instance of that. This snobbish and elitist idea that historians of the ancient world couldn't be trusted on anything at all presupposes that people of the ancient world were stupid. Well, they weren't stupid. Often ignorant, yes, but their brains were as good as ours, and oral traditions are often quite accurate. After all, think about how the ancients transmitted information. Until writing became common, they just plain memorized things and gave them back verbally. Apprenticed storytellers were required to memorize Homer -- all of it! -- and be able to spout it back accurately before they became masters. So I don't at all see why modern historians are so quick to dismiss ancient stories as being rubbish.
Getting off my soapbox now ....
You have said it for me as well. The "scholars" seem especially keen to disprove the Bible. They don't have a good track record however. In what I have read, it seems more often than not that the old tales are based on fact.
Good use of "quotes" - many "historians" enjoy adding their own twist/slant/bent to what they see as the salient facts. Why should they listen to others' versions when it's so much more fun to make up their own?
You have made a lucid, perfect point. Thank you.
In all fairness they have been burned a time or two. The Egyptian Kings list springs to mind. There were at least three Pharaohs that we know were removed from the list.
But usually the stories prove to be more accurate then not. They may leave out a bit, as the Kings List did, but what is there is generally more or less accurate.
Actually the answer is quite simple; publish or perish.
And no one ever got noticed for observing that the sky is blue. Ergo, challenge accepted truths and get your face on TV. have idiot reporters fawn over you, get quoted in the nyslimes, etc. You don't even need definitive substantiation for your point if it challenges a widely held belief. Afterall, who in their right mind thinks that Abe Lincoln was gay?
This unfortunate malady extends throughout academe and includes not only the "soft" social sciences but the "hard" sciences as well.
The elite of academe are are quickly becoming a self-parody whether they realize it or not. They are marginalizing themselves to the point of irrelevance. I can see the time, as described by H. Hesse in "The Glassbead Game", when scholars have become an esoteric society little attended to by the culture at large.
Such is the price they pay for self-indulgent gamesmanship that ignores the wisdom of the "common" man.
You know, I have never understood why "historians" are so often inclined to dismiss ancient history! Granted, the part about being suckled by a wolf is a little out there, but why didn't they believe that there were actual brothers named Romulus and Remus, one became king and one got axed? There are so many instances of ancient history being "disproved" by historians and then being proved true after all -- the discovery of Troy being a rather spectacular instance of that...
all you need to do to answer your question is to look at the history of the Communist states and what historians said about them. You can barely find the history of the Stalin gulag - in American history books - so finding the background of the founding of Rome would seem no more surprising. Your point, however you make take my comment, is well made AND I agree with your assesment.