[Sherman Logan]

I suspect Gibbon knew a great deal more about the primary sources than you do, especially since you seem to be more anxious to defend what you for some obscure reason see as a slur on the honor of the Romans/Catholics.

I think we should keep in mind that apparently just about all the ancient “historians” lied with astonishing freedom. The notion that history is supposed to present an unbiased version of the past is another modern one.

Not that modern historians don’t slant their presentations, they’re just not open about it like the ancients were.

[Antoninus]

I suspect Gibbon knew a great deal more about the primary sources than you do,

I'm sure he did. That doesn't mean that Gibbon didn't massage the data to fit his own pre-conceived biases which were quite strong. That's why whenever I see him cited as a source, I take exception. Yes, he was a historian, but he was also very much a polemicist.

I think we should keep in mind that apparently just about all the ancient “historians” lied with astonishing freedom. The notion that history is supposed to present an unbiased version of the past is another modern one.

That depends on the ancient historian in question. Some clearly made things up. Others, however, simply reported what they heard. For example, Suetonius is a gossip-monger, but I don't know if I'd call him a liar. Regardless, I do not take what he wrote as gospel truth--only as gossip and possibly slander.

Procopius on the other hand was an eye-witness to much of what he records in his public histories and wrote at a time when other eye-witnesses were very much alive and could confirm or refute what he wrote. It's something of a shame that he's best known for the slander that's attributed to his name which clearly is composed largely of lies.