Livy and Polybius - Biases?

[Paralus]

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.

There is little doubt Polybios used the Scipionic circle for information but it is equally clear that he utilised many sources outside of this circle.

And that is why I believe academics should not make the claim Livy had no military experience. It is not fact, just opinion.

"Opinion" based on Livy's work and the failings in his military narrative.

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

Polybios has been well studied. Book six is an excellent example of his interest in both political and military matters. "Ordo" would appear to be non-technically used as a unit of troops (Cic. Phil. 1.8.20). Polybios, on the other hand, regularly uses "speirai" to describe such.



I see no great problem with Polybios' numbers for the second Punic war. Now, I've not gone and counted every single notice of Roman troops in his work, but the main battles seem fine. The oversize legions for Cannae (where Livy reports two traditions) are not problematical and nor is Polybios' explanation of the mid-Republican army and its recruitment. These are things he may well have been privy to and the Scipionic circle could certainly supply such detail. I'm more of a believer in that Polybios' numbers (4,200) are the minimum and "regular" draft and that the state levied legions to a number it thought fit for purpose (Flamininus had oversize legions in the second Macedonian war for example).

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.

The final row of Hannibal's troops were his hardened veterans of the Italian campaign - including former allies of Rome. These troops followed him out of Italy for the very good reason, one strongly suspects, that they will have been dealt with summarily by Rome. Nothing alters for Zama: running away here is unlikely in the extreme to save them from Roman retribution. They would fight.



Livy uses Polybios for the battle description and even follows the Megalopolitan's praise for Hannibal's tactics and command of his army. Where he differs is in relation to Hannibal's third line. The plan was clearly to wear the Romans down so that by the time the Romans reached the third line, they would be prey to Hannibal's best troops. It did not turn out that way - as happens in battle. But Livy clearly errs in thinking Hannibal placed his best troops last because he did not trust them.

Livy also misunderstands Polybios' description of the fighting styles of the opposing troops at Zama. Polybios describes the Carthaginian mercenaries as more dextrous compared to the Roman maniple and that this sees the mercenaries winning at first by inflicting many wounds. Livy misunderstands that this agility meant the mercenaries had no real fighting strength and were immediately pushed back.

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.

Can you supply a reference to that please?

The question is who was Polybius’ source? Both could have changed the original source.

Livy is clearly following the earlier author (Polybios) here as he does for much of this part of his history as a reading of both will conclusively show (where Polybios survives). It far less likey that Polybios was transcribing a source which Livy, much later, also happened to transcribe. So the question is: why did Livy alter what he found in Polybios?

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.

Numbers in ancient sources are ever problematic as we've discussed elsewhere (concerning that army). Again it depends upon the source being used and claiming that Polybios manipulated figures would need a decent rationale.

Ah Michael, you are testing my memory, which at this point fails me. I have read another academic article that explains this.

Livy, 31.34.3-4:
Nothing is so uncertain or so unpredictable as the mental reaction of a crowd. What he thought would make them more ready to enter any conflict caused, instead, reluctance and fear; [4] for men who had seen the wounds dealt by javelins and arrows and occasionally by lances, since they were used to fighting with the Greeks and Illyrians, when they had seen bodies chopped to pieces by the Spanish sword,1 arms torn away, shoulders and all, or heads separated from bodies, with the necks completely severed, or vitals laid open, and the other fearful wounds, realized in a general panic with what weapons and what men they had to fight.

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.

That explains much. I had to enlarge your post 250% to read it it is so small. That line above is unintelligible on the site. Often the only way to read your post is to qoute it so as the text appears normal size. Can I suggest using the reply box to compose so as we can all read what you're writing? Utising the "quote" feature will make matters far more user-friendly as well.