Murray answers this question set in by Tim.
'I'm wondering why historians generally accept that Mons Graupius was indeed a great victory for Agricola. My understanding is that Tacitus' account is the only written evidence we have, and archaeology has turned up little physical evidence of the battle.
Is part of the reason that a great victory would have been too big a lie to pass off, so there must be some truth to the story? Or was it generally accepted for generals to make their victories more impressive so no one in Rome batted an eye at Tacitus' account?'
Join us on Patron patreon.com/ancientwarfarepodcast)
