Livy question

[Vulg]

Hi,

Recently purchased Livy's first history books of Rome (1-5) as I found suggested in some deep dank archive here.

How many books has Livy written exactly? If he has other is it worth buying them?

Similar to this I have Polybius as well.

Any help is appreciated.

[QuintusSertorius]

If you're looking for an entertaining tale, Livy is fine. Don't however expect great history, Livy was full of crap.

[Atilius]

How many books has Livy written exactly? If he has other is it worth buying them?

Livy's History of Rome was organized into 142 books. Of these, books 1-10 and 21-45 have survived. The first 10 books cover the period beginning with the mythical arrival of Aeneas in Italy up to 292 BC, and books 21-45 cover 218 BC to 167 BC, starting with the outbreak of the 2nd Punic War and concluding with the victory at Pydna.

If you're looking for an entertaining tale, Livy is fine. Don't however expect great history, Livy was full of crap.

Livy was a Roman patriot and a chauvinist. His work must be read with a critical eye. While Polybius is more credible, his work is much less complete. Consequently, Livy's history is the foundation on which the scholarship of ancient Rome is based.

[Urg]

Even though Livy's history is occasionally (ie. rarely) problematic, Livy was not "full of crap".

It's so easy to criticise someone else's work, and modern historians always seem to assume they know better than the ancients.

In fact Livy provides a critical analysis of various ancient sources. His work is invaluable.

[Lvcretivs]

Even though Livy's history is occasionally (ie. rarely) problematic, Livy was not "full of crap".
It's so easy to criticise someone else's work, and modern historians always seem to assume they know better than the ancients.
In fact Livy provides a critical analysis of various ancient sources. His work is invaluable.

Excuse me, but regardless Livy's indubitable merits as source material for much of Rome's earlier history, I wouldn't wager neither on the historical veracity and historiographic objectiveness of his 'annalistic' sources nor on his critical-objective, reflective 'ethos' as an historian. Livy's ideological mentality was typical Augustean - he was, just as Praetor wrote,

[...] a Roman patriot and a chauvinist. His work must be read with a critical eye [...]

and isn't just

occasionally (ie. rarely) problematic

I know that many seem to prefer Livy over Polybios, because Livy provides an much more coherent narrative of <irony> 'Rome's glorious rise to world domination' </irony> and an wealth of nice moralistic exempla of Roman virtue, but as a historian, he should always be read in conjunction with other ancient and modern historians.

[QuintusSertorius]

Even though Livy's history is occasionally (ie. rarely) problematic, Livy was not "full of crap".

It's so easy to criticise someone else's work, and modern historians always seem to assume they know better than the ancients.

In fact Livy provides a critical analysis of various ancient sources. His work is invaluable.

Not only was Livy not there (ancient historians rarely were), he wasn't (ever) a soldier, and he read every source he had access to with an agenda in mind.

If you want a view of how Romans of his age saw their history, he's wonderful. For anything like a faithful narrative of the past, look elsewhere.

[vartan]

For those of you studying Augustus and his age, Livy is interesting as he was writing during Augustus. Augustus inevitably affected almost every significant corner of Roman culture and life in his time. Studying how Roman history is portrayed as written during Augustus is, I think, an interesting endeavor.

[Atilius]

For anything like a faithful narrative of the past, look elsewhere.

As I wrote earlier, Livy's history is by far the most detailed account of Rome, which means in most cases there is no "elsewhere".

It's through Livy that we know about the churn of the republican political system: the periods of rule by the decemvirs, the military tribunes with consular powers, and the consuls. No other author gives us more information about the contention between the plebeians and the patricians, and the rise of the plebeians as they were admitted to more and more magestries.

Livy mentions the establishment of almost all coloniae established in the time periods covered by his surviving books, and in many cases tells us how many colonists participated in its foundation. He informs us when new tribes were created, indicating the enfranchisement of new citizens. He tells us far more than any other author about the responsibilities of the various magestries and the operation and scope of the Roman assemblies. It's through Livy's mention of what man held what office that we are able to piece together which of the lesser families were plebeian and which were patrician. The great majority of what we know about Roman laws prior to the mid 2nd C BC is known through Livy. Livy tells us who the consuls were for virtually every year in which consuls were elected, and he is our only source for most years for which the fasti are illegible. Particularly in the later surviving books, Livy often goes into great detail about the number of Roman and allied soldiers raised, and how many formed new legions and how many were used as replacements.

Livy is indispensible: if one were to read only one of the ancient historians of Rome it would be him.