05-23-2005, 08:23 PM
Well, to me this paragaph is enough to disqualify all Herodotus narrative
"The Greeks of Thrace and the islands off Thrace furnished one hundred and twenty ships, and the companies of these ships must then have consisted of twenty-four thousand men. As regards the land army supplied by all the nations--Thracians, Paeonians, Eordi, Bottiaei, Chalcidians, Brygi, Pierians, Macedonians, Perrhaebi, Enienes, Dolopes, Magnesians, Achaeans, dwellers on the coast of Thrace--of all these I suppose the number to have been three hundred thousand"
Those are disparated numbers not from remote locations but from those close to Greece.
As for Livius, I would discar most of his numbers, especially on enemy troops, he gets himself continually in trouble because first, he counts any Roman legion present in a battle at full complement, then he is at pains to inflate the enemy numbers as to be as much as possible superior to the Romans. I think in the end is a question of some method, as I said, I give credit to the numbers given by reliable first hand accounts on friendly troops, and that is it. You can, either put faith in ancient sources in general (or in some writers in particular) or not, but I think you should not give them half credit, syaing "he is inflating here, but here he is not" or "we can reduce thenumber xfolds" (on what basis?)
"The Greeks of Thrace and the islands off Thrace furnished one hundred and twenty ships, and the companies of these ships must then have consisted of twenty-four thousand men. As regards the land army supplied by all the nations--Thracians, Paeonians, Eordi, Bottiaei, Chalcidians, Brygi, Pierians, Macedonians, Perrhaebi, Enienes, Dolopes, Magnesians, Achaeans, dwellers on the coast of Thrace--of all these I suppose the number to have been three hundred thousand"
Those are disparated numbers not from remote locations but from those close to Greece.
As for Livius, I would discar most of his numbers, especially on enemy troops, he gets himself continually in trouble because first, he counts any Roman legion present in a battle at full complement, then he is at pains to inflate the enemy numbers as to be as much as possible superior to the Romans. I think in the end is a question of some method, as I said, I give credit to the numbers given by reliable first hand accounts on friendly troops, and that is it. You can, either put faith in ancient sources in general (or in some writers in particular) or not, but I think you should not give them half credit, syaing "he is inflating here, but here he is not" or "we can reduce thenumber xfolds" (on what basis?)
AKA Inaki
