VandalCarthage:

The inconsistencies and inaccuracies in Livy's material is really undeniable, being best illustrated in the Carthaginian histories, in which modern authors frequently have to take Polybios over Livy - the man personally lived through and participated in many of the histories he recounted, and traced the steps of many characters he described.
And that's precisely the reason for Polybius' value -- he is an earlier contemporary to his events. He was not writing total history, nor did he intend to write about any larger period than the concrete scope of his work. That's why Polybius and Thucydides are completely inadequate for comparison with Livy, and should be compared to someone like Tacitus instead. As far as whole histories go, that of Ephorus didn't survive and that of Diodorus is inferior to Livy, so as a total historian Livy is unsurpassed from antiquity.

oudysseos

But the guy opening this thread asked specifically about Livy's accuracy, not about the quality of his writing or his relevance in historiography
Not just about accuracy, but about Livy's merit as a historian. Hence my reply. You can't compare him to someone like Polybius who lived early enough to be able to speak to Massinissa or to one of Scipio's legates, and then blame Livy for failing to live up to that. Yes, in some matters of detail Polybius can be preferred, but as overall history, a standard neither Polybius nor Thucydides come even close to living up to, the whole of history of Livy is unsurpassed.