Livy question

[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.