06-16-2019, 06:33 AM
(This post was last modified: 06-16-2019, 06:44 AM by Steven James.)
Michael wrote:
"Playing down" or glossing over mistakes is eminently possible but that is a different thing to writing for or on behalf of the Scipios.
I don’t think Polybius was writing for the Scipios. However, Polybius could have used as his source the writings of Africanus’ son. That to me is the elephant in the room. The sad part is we do not know how much impact or influence the writings of Africanus’ son had.
Michael wrote:
Livy's military service is an open question
And that is why I believe academics should not make the claim Livy had no military experience. It is not fact, just opinion.
Michael wrote:
His handling of military matters is widely accepted as showing a lower level of comprehension of same than Polybios
Yes, academics have come to the conclusion without a thorough investigation of Polybius. Now if Polybius is suppose to provide the most reliable breakdown or description of the Roman legion, then how is it that this legion cannot be substantiated with the army numbers provided by Polybius for the Second Punic War? Both are at odds. And I have yet still to see the great study that proves that Polybius is more reliable in military matters than Livy. The only one I know of is the one I have undertaken. And Livy is far more aware of what an ordo is than Polybius will ever be. And Livy knew an ordo was not another name for a maniple as academia seems to believe.
Michael wrote:
One might note that, at Zama, Livy claims that Hannibal kept his experienced Italian veterans in the rear at Zama because he could not trust them whereas Polybios correctly divines Hannibal's purpose.
You cannot hide a dead elephant with one grasshopper. How do we know that Polybius “correctly divines Hannibal’s purpose” when none of us were an eye witness to Zama. Just because Polybius tells us does not mean Polybius is right.
Michael wrote:
There is no question that Polybios both served and was trained in military matters.
That does not make Polybius an expert on Roman military matters. In fact it could be an impediment. The Romans are not organised in the same manner as the Greeks. My translation of Polybius’ account of Ecnomus has Polybius describing the wedge formation in relation to the file organisation, and yet, I have not found anything to suggest the Roman fought by file or even acknowledged a file system. They do have an ordo system to do that.
Michael wrote:
Livy, where he can be compared with his source, often does this himself. An example which comes to mind is the conference at Lysimachaia between the Roman legates and Antiochos. Livy's source, Polybios (18.50-52), relates the speeches of both sides: the Roman is short and to the point; that of Antiochos some two and a half times longer. Livy (33.39-40) not only evens these up but alters the order of Antiochos' reply to match the Roman demands. In Polybios' text, the Romans attempt to blindside Antiochos by introducing coached ambassadors from Lampsakos and Smyrna resulting in Antiochos abruptly terminating matters on the basis he will not have such disputes mediated by Romans, though he was happy for the Rhodians to do so. Livy edits this out in its entirety as it will not do to have Romans being so belligerent: the war is all Antiochos' fault and Rome only defends herself.
The question is who was Polybius’ source? Both could have changed the original source. When it comes to army numbers concerning Greece, Plutarch does mention that Polybius got his army numbers wrong. I’ve shown in another post (Nameless city) how Polybius has manipulated the figures for the Carthaginian army.
Michael wrote:
I also find it more than odd that the Macedonians are horrified by the wounds caused by the gladius (31.34-3-4). It's not as if Macedonian cavalry, using the deadly kopis for slashing, had not ever seen such. Nor, for that matter, the infantry gutting the enemy with sarisai. Here John Ma ("Chaironeia 338: Topographies of Commemoration" JHS 2008, 72-91) is instructive. One might also question whether in hand to hand combat a gladius could so neatly decapitate the enemy.
Ah Michael, you are testing my memory, which at this point fails me. I have read another academic article that explains this.
Michael wrote:
Why do you "give up"?
My method of replying to this forum is to copy what has been written, and then paste it in a Word document. Then I copy and paste back into the forum. Every time I did this, the posting came out in a font too small to read. After trying different ways, the result was the same so I wrote “I give up” and left it. It has now been fixed, I presume by a moderator.
"Playing down" or glossing over mistakes is eminently possible but that is a different thing to writing for or on behalf of the Scipios.
I don’t think Polybius was writing for the Scipios. However, Polybius could have used as his source the writings of Africanus’ son. That to me is the elephant in the room. The sad part is we do not know how much impact or influence the writings of Africanus’ son had.
Michael wrote:
Livy's military service is an open question
And that is why I believe academics should not make the claim Livy had no military experience. It is not fact, just opinion.
Michael wrote:
His handling of military matters is widely accepted as showing a lower level of comprehension of same than Polybios
Yes, academics have come to the conclusion without a thorough investigation of Polybius. Now if Polybius is suppose to provide the most reliable breakdown or description of the Roman legion, then how is it that this legion cannot be substantiated with the army numbers provided by Polybius for the Second Punic War? Both are at odds. And I have yet still to see the great study that proves that Polybius is more reliable in military matters than Livy. The only one I know of is the one I have undertaken. And Livy is far more aware of what an ordo is than Polybius will ever be. And Livy knew an ordo was not another name for a maniple as academia seems to believe.
Michael wrote:
One might note that, at Zama, Livy claims that Hannibal kept his experienced Italian veterans in the rear at Zama because he could not trust them whereas Polybios correctly divines Hannibal's purpose.
You cannot hide a dead elephant with one grasshopper. How do we know that Polybius “correctly divines Hannibal’s purpose” when none of us were an eye witness to Zama. Just because Polybius tells us does not mean Polybius is right.
Michael wrote:
There is no question that Polybios both served and was trained in military matters.
That does not make Polybius an expert on Roman military matters. In fact it could be an impediment. The Romans are not organised in the same manner as the Greeks. My translation of Polybius’ account of Ecnomus has Polybius describing the wedge formation in relation to the file organisation, and yet, I have not found anything to suggest the Roman fought by file or even acknowledged a file system. They do have an ordo system to do that.
Michael wrote:
Livy, where he can be compared with his source, often does this himself. An example which comes to mind is the conference at Lysimachaia between the Roman legates and Antiochos. Livy's source, Polybios (18.50-52), relates the speeches of both sides: the Roman is short and to the point; that of Antiochos some two and a half times longer. Livy (33.39-40) not only evens these up but alters the order of Antiochos' reply to match the Roman demands. In Polybios' text, the Romans attempt to blindside Antiochos by introducing coached ambassadors from Lampsakos and Smyrna resulting in Antiochos abruptly terminating matters on the basis he will not have such disputes mediated by Romans, though he was happy for the Rhodians to do so. Livy edits this out in its entirety as it will not do to have Romans being so belligerent: the war is all Antiochos' fault and Rome only defends herself.
The question is who was Polybius’ source? Both could have changed the original source. When it comes to army numbers concerning Greece, Plutarch does mention that Polybius got his army numbers wrong. I’ve shown in another post (Nameless city) how Polybius has manipulated the figures for the Carthaginian army.
Michael wrote:
I also find it more than odd that the Macedonians are horrified by the wounds caused by the gladius (31.34-3-4). It's not as if Macedonian cavalry, using the deadly kopis for slashing, had not ever seen such. Nor, for that matter, the infantry gutting the enemy with sarisai. Here John Ma ("Chaironeia 338: Topographies of Commemoration" JHS 2008, 72-91) is instructive. One might also question whether in hand to hand combat a gladius could so neatly decapitate the enemy.
Ah Michael, you are testing my memory, which at this point fails me. I have read another academic article that explains this.
Michael wrote:
Why do you "give up"?
My method of replying to this forum is to copy what has been written, and then paste it in a Word document. Then I copy and paste back into the forum. Every time I did this, the posting came out in a font too small to read. After trying different ways, the result was the same so I wrote “I give up” and left it. It has now been fixed, I presume by a moderator.
