06-18-2001, 07:27 PM
Well, you're right about the shortness of the descriptions in most books, they usually are. But that's probably only because of the shortness of the sources. Sometimes there's just too little material to make the distinction who's right and who is wrong.<br>
Polybius is usually considered to be more trustworthy, because he was a witness to the Roman Army in action during the Third Punic War (149-146 BC) and was a guest to the Scipio family, who could probably provide him with data about the operations and the army of their ancestors.<br>
Livy lived another 150 years later and was a less conscientious historian with an agenda, so is usually considered less trustworthy.<br>
But these considerations only really come into play when both authors write about the same subject and we have to choose which one to accept. If there's only one to go by, as is the case here, Livy for the 4th century BC, Polybius for the Second Punic War and after, it is much more difficult. Even if we can decide that they can both be trusted for their period, how do we decide who is right for the period right in the middle, the First Punic War.<br>
So that's your basic historical problem in a nutshell, but Marius, please tell us your own opinions about the descriptions! There is no rule that says that good, new evidence can't prove both Polybius and Livy wrong.<br>
<br>
Greets<br>
<br>
Jasper <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ujasperoorthuys.showPublicProfile?language=EN>Jasper Oorthuys</A> at: 6/19/01 8:30:22 am<br></i>
Polybius is usually considered to be more trustworthy, because he was a witness to the Roman Army in action during the Third Punic War (149-146 BC) and was a guest to the Scipio family, who could probably provide him with data about the operations and the army of their ancestors.<br>
Livy lived another 150 years later and was a less conscientious historian with an agenda, so is usually considered less trustworthy.<br>
But these considerations only really come into play when both authors write about the same subject and we have to choose which one to accept. If there's only one to go by, as is the case here, Livy for the 4th century BC, Polybius for the Second Punic War and after, it is much more difficult. Even if we can decide that they can both be trusted for their period, how do we decide who is right for the period right in the middle, the First Punic War.<br>
So that's your basic historical problem in a nutshell, but Marius, please tell us your own opinions about the descriptions! There is no rule that says that good, new evidence can't prove both Polybius and Livy wrong.<br>
<br>
Greets<br>
<br>
Jasper <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ujasperoorthuys.showPublicProfile?language=EN>Jasper Oorthuys</A> at: 6/19/01 8:30:22 am<br></i>
