|
The third century before the common era was a time of empire-making and empire-breaking especially in the western Mediterranean, where a conflict was brewing that would shape the future of the known world. |
Ancient Sources
(- threads, 15 posts)
 Titus Livius
Historical Thread
|
"A great writer who did much to shape Rome's thought about the past and to bring it into line with Augustus's hopes for the present and future." H.H. Scullard, From the Gracchi to Nero, p247
Of the scant sources on the mid-republic, our only companion to Polybios is Livy. Born Titus Livius at Patavium in the middle of the first century BC, his work Ab Urbe Condita, chronicled the history of Rome from its foundation to around 9BC, a period of 744 years. It was an enormous work of 142 books of which only thirty-five survive intact, including books XXI to XXX, which detail the war against Hannibal. With the patronage of the emperor Augustus, Livy had access to the masses of official documents, treaties and histories stored in the huge libraries of Rome. Livy’s work utilizes many contemporary historians, with several mentioned by name; Q. Fabius Pictor , Cincius Alimentus , Silenos of Kaleakte , Valerius Antias , L. Coelius Antipater and Polybios, who is used extensively but only mentioned once by name. Livy would have been unable to question people who had taken part in the war, but by using Polybios as a major source he allows us to fill in the gaps of the surviving fragments of The Histories.
Unfortunately, the nature of Livy’s work is extremely pro-Roman and he blames Carthage and Hannibal completely for starting the Second Punic War. Even though there was a big difference between the politics of the mid-republic and those of the Augustan principate, Livy spent much of his time comparing his own period to that of the Hannibalic War, which he saw as the high point of Roman skill, morality and imperialism . He disliked the Rome of his time due to the moral degeneration of his people through the influence of foreign luxury and Greek culture. Livy sought to explain the new order and save his generation by championing the past, as Cicero did. He assigns the Roman victory over Hannibal to the cohesion of the Senate, the people and the acquiescence of powerful generals to the greater good. He gives a lot of credit to the Italian allies as well, praising their loyalty and willingness to obey their superiors.
This obvious partiality makes it easy to criticise Livy when compared with Polybios, especially when you take into account Livy’s lack of experience in politics and warfare and the fact that he did not visit the historical sites of the war . He fails to evaluate his sources, putting too much stock in pro-Roman literature, and utilizes the information for an entire event before questioning its usefulness. However, his style of writing is far easier to read than Polybios’s and does on occasion recognise Roman exaggeration . Livy shows his worth when Polybios’s text is incomplete or, on rare occasions, doubtable, by filling in the gaps and in places enriching our understanding of the events, especially when it comes to his accuracy over the victors of consular elections, the disposition of the legions and the Roman political scene in general. It is this exactness that is probably Livy’s greatest strength and he may have used the Annales Maximi of P. Mucius Scaevola to obtain this degree of accuracy . Without Livy, our understanding of the events of the Second Punic War would be a lot cloudier.
|
4 Posts Viewing 4 - 1 |
Accuracy (* Publius Fabius Scipio, Nov 9, 2004 - 09:05 ) Unfortunately (* Kallistos Alexandros, Nov 9, 2004 - 09:00 ) Livy compared to Polybios (* Publius Fabius Scipio, Nov 9, 2004 - 07:58 ) Livy (* Kallistos Alexandros, Nov 8, 2004 - 22:49 )|
4 Posts Viewing 4 - 1 |
