Originally Posted by
Alusair
Reading this post, two thoughts cross my mind:
1. You mention not to disregard a source merely on date it was published. I think this is a reasonable advice, yet in the same breath you collectively dismiss and discredit modern sources as being ignorant, arrogant, and biased, seemingly based only on the time of which they were published. Eh? By your own earlier argument, wouldn't the repute and credibility of the authors themselves matter more than when the books in question were written?
2. Considering the fall of Western Rome was in 476 AD, roughly 1535 years ago, and considering the book in question was published in 1734 AD, roughly 277 years ago and roughly 1258 years after the fall of Rome, wouldn't said book be comparatively more modern than ancient in the grand time line of relevant events? Where do we draw the line between what is considered "ignorant, arrogant, biased modern sources" and "reputable ancient sources"? A scant few centuries ago, still more than a millennium after the fall of Rome, wasn't "Considerations on the Causes of the Greatness of the Romans and Their Decline" itself considered a modern work?