Under the mass of wounds, he fell at the foot of Pompey's statue. Everyone wanted to seem to have had some part in the murder, a
nd there was not one of them who failed to strike his body as it lay there, until, wounded thirty-five times, he breathed his last. Background information: Nicolaus of Damascus wrote this account of the murder of Caesar a few years after the event. Although he did not directly witness the event, he did have the opportunity to interview many of the people who were there.
Is this a reliable source for a historian to use when writing about Caesar’s death?
A) No, because Nicolaus was not an eyewitness to the assassination.
B) No, because this account was written long after Caesar’s death.
C) Yes, because Nicolaus interviewed many of the people there.
D) Yes, because this account was written in the same year as Caesar’s death.
The correct answer is C) Yes, because Nicolaus interviewed many of the people there.
This a reliable source for a historian to use when writing about Caesar’s death because Nicolaus interviewed many of the people there.
Although it is not a hundred percent bulletproof reliable story, it can be considered reliable in that Damascus wrote it using testimonies of people that witnessed the incident. Let's remember that a primary source is the one that directly witnessed the event. It could be a journal, a letter, a photograph of people that were there. But secondary sources are also valid when the research is done properly and the sources are serious and double-checked.
