• @PugJesusOPM
    link
    English
    32 months ago

    The thing about history is that there very often is no consensus, and the mainstream views on figures can very often change with evidence, or even simply the changing of values in wider society. Wiki correctly notes many of the criticisms in the section on reform, but Wiki is just an encyclopedia - excellent for a quick overview, but generally lacking the nuance and depth of more specific writing. This isn’t faulting Wiki, mind you - I adore Wiki, just acknowledging its limitations!

    I’m an anti-Diocletian and anti-Constantine partisan, which, while more supported in modern historical academia (though I would not accuse either view of being the consensus view, just an accepted one), was deeply unpopular for a good stretch of the 20th century. So, understandably, many of the sources and authors cited still have positive outlooks on Diocletian (and Constantine).

    • Track_Shovel
      link
      fedilink
      English
      22 months ago

      You’re very right.

      I also acknowledge that wiki’s function is exactly as you describe - quick reference/starting point. It’s not the be all end all of a debate or subject.

      Interesting about how the views have changed on him though