I was wondering, when we discuss History and take our opinions for granted, how correct are we?
For example, the European tradition of Alexander is that he destroyed the Persian Empire - and thats all.
The Persian-Muslim tradition of Alexander is that he took over the known world. Scholars like Al-Tabari as well as the author of SikanderNama claim Alexander to be Dhul Qurnayn (He of the Two Horns).
Understanding how scholars discuss History with one another, and realizing th fact that what once was "written in stone" is now revised or questioned, my question is how much do we really know about what we talk about?
For example, the Indians have two epics the Ramayana and the Mahabharata that describe India in between 15,000 BC to 2,000 BC. Basically the wars between the city states and discussions of tribes in and around the Indian Peninsula.
Most scholars disregard this book, until some of them found indications in the IVC and in and around archeological sites corresponding to the Hindu Epics. Ofcourse the epics are written from a view point as religious poetry, however the basic premise may not altogether be untrue.
Indians were known for Hero worship as many other ancient societies were. For example, Rama may be an actual King of a city-state that united the Indian Peninsula. Horus, the Egyptian God was actually a leader of a group of tribes who settled in Lower Egypt.
Another example is the City of Troy. Disregarded because of human error, until this past century.
So have your say. For me, i realize that some of the knowledge we take for granted as written in stone may not be so.
Edited by Mughaal - 16-Dec-2007 at 01:42