Murray answers this question set in by Tim.
'I'm wondering why historians generally accept that Mons Graupius was indeed a great victory for Agricola. My understanding is that Tacitus' account is the only written evidence we have, and archaeology has turned up little physical evidence of the battle.
Is part of the reason that a great victory would have been too big a lie to pass off, so there must be some truth to the story? Or was it generally accepted for generals to make their victories more impressive so no one in Rome batted an eye at Tacitus' account?'
Join us on Patron
patreon.com/ancientwarfarepodcast
AWA303 - Who were the Thureophoroi?
AWA302 - Why are there less writings on Roman imperial wars?
AW301 - Rams
AWA300 - What really happened at the battle of Marathon?
AWA299 - Who or what made the decisions about where Roman army units were based or moved around the Empire?
AWA298 - How were ancient negotiations organised?
AWA296 - The Praetorian Guard
AW295 - The Challenges of Campaigning
AWA294 - What really happened at the battle of Pydna?
AWA293 - Who were Rome's most remembered enemies?
AWA292 - Who were the Hypaspists?
AWA291 - Who is Muray’s favourite general?
AW290 - A Biography of Thermopylae
AWA289 - Losing well
AWA288 - Taking Position on the Right
AW287 - The Marcomannic Wars
AWA286 - Low Casualty figures
AWA285 - Where are the Light Armed Troops?
AWA284 - Comparing the Byzantine conquest of Vandal North Africa with the Punic Wars
Create your
podcast in
minutes
It is Free
Irish Songs with Ken Murray
History Obscura
Historycal: Words that Shaped the World
The Rest Is History
Lore