Reliability of history

Since I wrote yesterday's blog, I was thinking about Attila the Hun. This morning, I decided to google him up and find out more about the tyrant and find out why people today, still refer to him in a most derogatory manner. Was he really that bad, and what sort of legacy did he pass along to humanity? He died in 453 AD and was 47 years of age when he expired from a nose bleed. Yup, a nose bleed! Some people have all the luck. Although he lived by the sword, he certainly didn't die by the sword, unless of course he tripped on it, and well you know the rest. Attila was also known as the "Scourge of God". Interesting how nasty PR like that can be held closely in the psyche of mankind and passed down generation to generation through the centuries, and actually be conveyed without the benefit of the written word for the masses at the time. Since most people in the dawn of the dark ages, weren't able to read or write, it's lucky for us, that they were astute enough to amass intelligence and pass it on through their verbal skills. This is all amazing, if you think of it. For example, a lot is written about his battle exploits and the fear he instilled in the enemy (most of Europe from the looks of it). In the heat of the battle, in the middle of nowhere special, but assume that it is a forest or plain of some kind, the battle rages on. We know about the battles, and some of the details as if they happened yesterday. But think about this, for a moment. Who was actually writing this down at the time. Did they have a reporter who was there, setting up his little portable writing desk with its quill, parchment or bark and ink well set? This scenario is a little ridiculous, and of course the scribe wouldn't have lasted long enough to dot his 'i's, as he would have been fair game for anyone weilding a broadaxe.

Now this really has me wondering about the accuracy of history in general. Someone had to tell someone else what happened, and eventually it goes round and round until it reaches the ears of a writer (which may have taken a few years, as travel was not that popular) so they could jot it all down, on whatever parchment was lying around at the time. The situation here is also problematic. A piece of parchment, like a scap of paper today, always gets lost, which creates another problem for the recorder of this knowledge. Have you ever played telelphone (also called Broken Telephone, operator, grapevine, whisper down the lane and Pass It Down) at a party, as a youngster? Someone starts the game going by quietly whispering something in their neighbour's ear. The person next to them, then relays the information to another person and so on. Eventually, the last person in the circle, is asked to repeat what they thought they heard. Wouldn't you know that what comes out of their mouths is not in any way shape or form, anything like what was input from the originator of the phrase. Everyone laughs and has a chuckle, which is all good for a party game, but this is no way to treat historical documentation. This is the crux of the problem with history and the lack of credible writing implements, and unbiased reliable sources.