Publication: Parcialidad en el relato histórico: Aníbal
Authors
Zapata Ferrer, Almudena
item.page.secondaryauthor
item.page.director
Publisher
Murcia: Centro de Estudios del Próximo Oriente y la Antigüedad Tardía – CEPOAT
publication.page.editor
publication.page.department
DOI
item.page.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/article
Description
Abstract
La historiografía grecolatina, porque sus autores consideran su
historia como obra
propagandística, como recreación literaria o porque son una mer
a compilación de datos, ofrece
con una evidente parcialidad el relato histórico. Así aparece e
n las fuentes conservadas sobre la
Segunda Guerra Púnica y sobre Aníbal. Los objetivos del trabajo
son mostrar la conservación
de los historiadores del bando vencedor y la parcialidad que mu
estran en la narración del
comportamiento de Aníbal.
Roman Historiography, considered by the Latin writers as a prop aganda tool, as a literary recreation or as a just simple compilation, shows a no table bias in the historical account. This is discernible in the extant sources for the Second Punic War and Hannibal. There are two goals in this study: to signalize that only the chroniclers tha t defended the victor’s point of view have been preserved and the bias that show in the narration of Hannibal’s behavior.
Roman Historiography, considered by the Latin writers as a prop aganda tool, as a literary recreation or as a just simple compilation, shows a no table bias in the historical account. This is discernible in the extant sources for the Second Punic War and Hannibal. There are two goals in this study: to signalize that only the chroniclers tha t defended the victor’s point of view have been preserved and the bias that show in the narration of Hannibal’s behavior.
publication.page.subject
Citation
Antigüedad y Cristianismo, nº 29, 2012
item.page.embargo
Collections
Ir a Estadísticas
Sin licencia Creative Commons.