Historical myths and legends. Any truth in them?

In the first place, what you have provided does not constitute evidence of "victors" writing history, to the exclusion of any other version of the truth.

In the second place, you have completely avoided dealing with the conundrum that if only "victors" wrote history, why would we have any evidence that any attempt were ever made to expunge records which conflict with the version of history peddled by the victors.

Give me an plausible answer to that one, and i might think you are worth taking seriously.

As it stands right now, i've already pointed out that the information you linked does not prove your case, and pointed out why it does not prove your case.

Your only response is an idiotic and lame attempt at sarcasm with your ice cube reference.

If and when you provide solid evidence of what you claim, and answer the conundrum, you'll have presented something worthy of discussion.

Until that time, all you provide is so much chin music.

Setanta wrote:

In the first place, what you have provided does not constitute evidence of "victors" writing history, to the exclusion of any other version of the truth.

You haven't provided any reference to decry my link. Nor have you proposed an alernate "truth".

Setanta wrote:

In the second place, you have completely avoided dealing with the conundrum that if only "victors" wrote history, why would we have any evidence that any attempt were ever made to expunge records which conflict with the version of history peddled by the victors.

Read that back to yourself. You got on a ramble, and hit "enter" before proofreading it, didn't you? 'Care to rephrase that query?

Setanta wrote:

Give me an plausible answer to that one, and i might think you are worth taking seriously.

Give me a plausible query, and I'll take it from there. So far, all I'm getting from you is ring-roads and circular arguments.

Setanta wrote:

As it stands right now, i've already pointed out that the information you linked does not prove your case, and pointed out why it does not prove your case.

Show us where you did this. All you achieved is demonstrating your ignorance of publicly held facts.

The library at Alexandria was not destroyed because a conqueror had overcome a defender, and then burned the library in an act of spite.

Your anecdote about library at Gnidus is just that, an anecdote. But, the point is, it was not burned because a conqueror had defeated a defender, and burned the library as an act of spite.

You second quoted piece then makes an unsupported statement from authority about the Romans burning Jewish and christian texts, and works of an unspecified someone called "the philosophers," and then goes on to once again retail the story of the library at Alexandria.

The "ravages" of christians in Constantinople in the 13th century is very disingenuous. Crusaders and what were basically holy con-men lead people to the "Holy Land," and passed through Constantinople. On more than one occasion, these "crusaders" got out of hand and pillaged and burned. But that is not an example of conquerors overcoming a defender and destroying a library as an act of spite.

In fact, neither of your two posts acts to support a claim that "victors" wrote the history, with the implication that "victors" willfully destroyed any records which would have offered an alternative account of history. You have utterly failed to make your case.

Setanta wrote:

Your only response is an idiotic and lame attempt at sarcasm with your ice cube reference.

You've backed my claim with this post of yours. Hot air and denial.

Is that all you've got?

Setanta wrote:

If and when you provide solid evidence of what you claim, and answer the conundrum, you'll have presented something worthy of discussion.

Listen in, you pompous dufous. You are under no obligation to reply to this post, and you are also under no obligation to present meaningful reality-based responses. Continue on your current course to obliviation.

The Burning of the Library of Alexandria
by Preston Chesser

The loss of the ancient world's single greatest archive of knowledge, the Library of Alexandria, has been lamented for ages. But how and why it was lost is still a mystery. The mystery exists not for lack of suspects but from an excess of them.

Alexandria was founded in Egypt by Alexandria the Great. His successor as Pharaoh, Ptolomy II Soter, founded the Museum or Royal Library of Alexandria in 283 BC. The Museum was a shrine of the Muses modeled after the Lyceum of Aristotle in Athens. The Museum was a place of study which included lecture areas, gardens, a zoo, and shrines for each of the nine muses as well as the Library itself. It has been estimated that at one time the Library of Alexandria held over half a million documents from Assyria, Greece, Persia, Egypt, India and many other nations. Over 100 scholars lived at the Museum full time to perform research, write, lecture or translate and copy documents. The library was so large it actually had another branch or "daughter" library at the Temple of Serapis.

The first person blamed for the destruction of the Library is none other than Julius Caesar himself. In 48 BC, Caesar was pursuing Pompey into Egypt when he was suddenly cut off by an Egyptian fleet at Alexandria. Greatly outnumbered and in enemy territory, Caesar ordered the ships in the harbor to be set on fire. The fire spread and destroyed the Egyptian fleet. Unfortunately, it also burned down part of the city - the area where the great Library stood. Caesar wrote of starting the fire in the harbor but neglected to mention the burning of the Library. Such an omission proves little since he was not in the habit of including unflattering facts while writing his own history. But Caesar was not without public detractors. If he was solely to blame for the disappearance of the Library it is very likely significant documentation on the affair would exist today.

The second story of the Library's destruction is more popular, thanks primarily to Edward Gibbon's "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire". But the story is also a tad more complex. Theophilus was Patriarch of Alexandria from 385 to 412 AD. During his reign the Temple of Serapis was converted into a Christian Church (probably around 391 AD) and it is likely that many documents were destroyed then. The Temple of Serapis was estimated to hold about ten percent of the overall Library of Alexandria's holdings. After his death, his nephew Cyril became Patriarch. Shortly after that, riots broke out when Hierax, a Christian monk, was publicly killed by order of Orestes the city Prefect. Orestes was said to be under the influence of Hypatia, a female philosopher and daughter of the "last member of the Library of Alexandria". Although it should be noted that some count Hypatia herself as the last Head Librarian.

Alexandria had long been known for it's violent and volatile politics. Christians, Jews and Pagans all lived together in the city. One ancient writer claimed that there was no people who loved a fight more than those of Alexandria. Immediately after the death of Hierax a group of Jews who had helped instigate his killing lured more Christians into the street at night by proclaiming that the Church was on fire. When the Christians rushed out the largely Jewish mob slew many of them. After this there was mass havoc as Christians retaliated against both the Jews and the Pagans - one of which was Hypatia. The story varies slightly depending upon who tells it but she was taken by the Christians, dragged through the streets and murdered.

Some regard the death of Hypatia as the final destruction of the Library. Others blame Theophilus for destroying the last of the scrolls when he razed the Temple of Serapis prior to making it a Christian church. Still others have confused both incidents and blamed Theophilus for simultaneously murdering Hypatia and destroying the Library though it is obvious Theophilus died sometime prior to Hypatia.

The final individual to get blamed for the destruction is the Moslem Caliph Omar. In 640 AD the Moslems took the city of Alexandria. Upon learning of "a great library containing all the knowledge of the world" the conquering general supposedly asked Caliph Omar for instructions. The Caliph has been quoted as saying of the Library's holdings, "they will either contradict the Koran, in which case they are heresy, or they will agree with it, so they are superfluous." So, allegedly, all the texts were destroyed by using them as tinder for the bathhouses of the city. Even then it was said to have taken six months to burn all the documents. But these details, from the Caliph's quote to the incredulous six months it supposedly took to burn all the books, weren't written down until 300 years after the fact. These facts condemning Omar were written by Bishop Gregory Bar Hebræus, a Christian who spent a great deal of time writing about Moslem atrocities without much historical documentation.

So who did burn the Library of Alexandria? Unfortunately most of the writers from Plutarch (who apparently blamed Caesar) to Edward Gibbons (a staunch atheist or deist who liked very much to blame Christians and blamed Theophilus) to Bishop Gregory (who was particularly anti-Moslem, blamed Omar) all had an axe to grind and consequently must be seen as biased. Probably everyone mentioned above had some hand in destroying some part of the Library's holdings. The collection may have ebbed and flowed as some documents were destroyed and others were added. For instance, Mark Antony was supposed to have given Cleopatra over 200,000 scrolls for the Library long after Julius Caesar is accused of burning it.

It is also quite likely that even if the Museum was destroyed with the main library the outlying "daughter" library at the Temple of Serapis continued on. Many writers seem to equate the Library of Alexandria with the Library of Serapis although technically they were in two different parts of the city.

The real tragedy of course is not the uncertainty of knowing who to blame for the Library's destruction but that so much of ancient history, literature and learning was lost forever.

Selected sources:
"The Vanished Library" by Luciano Canfora
"Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" by Edward Gibbons

Victors don't write history, but historians do.

That didn't change history at all. Might be, those books expressed the view of history as seen by the writer. But even different views don't change history.