Evaluating a Battle Narrative with Conflicting Numbers
A student is writing on a fifth-century BCE land battle. Three sources give casualty and troop figures. Source X, writing within a generation but not present, says the losing side fielded 30,000 and lost 20,000. Source Y, writing 400 years later and drawing on X, gives the same total but says 12,000 died. Source Z, a near-contemporary inscription set up by the winning city, lists the dead by tribe but gives no total and no enemy figures. The student's draft asserts 'the sources agree on the scale of the battle'. The teacher notes that round numbers like 30,000 are typical of ancient historiographic convention and that Z's silence about enemy losses is itself significant. The essay must reach a defensible conclusion about what can be claimed.
1. Explain why the student's claim that the sources 'agree on the scale' is misleading, and state what the sources actually let you claim.
Read the worked answer
The 'agreement' is not independent corroboration. Y is derivative of X, so X and Y are effectively one witness, not two. Their disagreement on deaths (20,000 vs 12,000) undermines even that single witness. The figure 30,000 is a conventional round number, so it may be a literary topos rather than a record.
Z is the only near-contemporary, public document, and it gives no totals at all - it commemorates its own dead by tribe, which served a civic and religious purpose, not a statistical one. Its silence on enemy losses is expected, not evidential.
What can be claimed: a battle occurred, it was remembered as large-scale, and the winning city publicly commemorated its casualties. Claims about absolute numbers are unsupported. A defensible sentence: 'The tradition preserves a memory of a major engagement, but the casualty figures derive from a single later literary source and cannot be verified.'
2. A classmate argues that Z is the most reliable source because it is contemporary and official. Give one reason to agree and one reason to qualify that judgement.
Read the worked answer
Agree: Z is closest in time and is a public monument, so its existence and its list of tribal casualties are hard to fabricate; it is the firmest anchor for the fact of the battle and for who was commemorated.
Qualify: Contemporaneity is not neutrality. Z was set up by the winning city to honour its own dead, so it is a commemorative document with a civic and religious function. It omits enemy numbers, likely omits some categories of dead, and offers no narrative of events. It is reliable for what it was made to do and silent on what it was not.
Best practice: treat Z as the anchor for existence and commemoration, and X/Y as a separate literary tradition to be handled sceptically. The two types of evidence answer different questions and should not be collapsed into one 'reliability ranking'.