Quote:
Originally Posted by Ithekro
There are scholarly points to The Bible, as events after King Soloman can be cross-referenced in other nations histories. The point is the writting style used to look at those events was done by the rabbi at different times to "justify" their losses (they almost never spend time justifying victories). Particularlly when the Jews were enslaved and later scatted following the fall of their Kingdoms. While "divine intervention" is used from time to time as well as the standard "lack of faith" or "breaking God's laws", there is subtext of political reasoning and blame put on the crown or on the high priests...depending on which faction wrote that part of the book.
Meaning that the survivors (and losers in this case) are the ones that wrote the histories of their own people. There are text from the ones that won those wars, but they didn't particularly endure. The Losers survived, and thus they wrote the history books.
That doesn't change the fact that they lost.
How much history is written by the losing parties in wars since the days when peoples were not wiped out? Where nations did not disappear from the world? How many histories of Napoleon are written by Frenchmen? How many histories of the Vietnam War are written by Americans (we lost, remember). When a peoples survive the war, they can write about it. It is up to time to see if their version survives or not. It is also up to time to see which side gets more press. Because sometimes the losers are the survivors in the long run.
|
If the loser survived in the long run, they are then not the loser in the grand scheme of things.
In other words, they are the winners writing the history.
The losers, they won the battle, but lost the long term war.