Talk:Livy

Historian?
Would it not be more correct to say that Livy was a state propagandist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.80.226.136 (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, because he tried to ignore the adulterated information kept by the patricians. Instead of doing that, he used " Annuales" and ( ... I don't remember the name) as more reliable sources. It's true that he agreed with Augustus, but he tried also to give a good image of the roman Republic, didn't he? More than propagandistic, he is a patriot. Propagandistic could be considered, for example, Vergilius, because, his masterspiece tried to justificate the divine descendance of the Emperor. Moreover, putting the tag " state propagandistic" wouldn't be objective: wasn't he or no an historian? Greetings

--Brisk 90 (talk) 09:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a highly debated and contentious statement in academic circles today, still. his sources were die and varied, not just the Annalists, they also included Polybius, and Fabius, for example. Most modern opinion would fall on the side of caution, i.e. that he is doing something quite subtle and not at as crude as being a 'propagandist' (an entirely modern evaluative category anyway). It's certainly not true to say he 'agreed with Augustus', absolutely not, there is no evidence either way of that (in one famous section he certainly states Augustus' opinion about a matter, but that's not the same thing). See for example, Andrew Feldherr, Mary Jaeger, Jason P Davies, Catherine Edwards, Gary Miles and especially David Levene. GermanicusCaesar (talk) 02:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Note
Machiavelli's other work was an analysis of Livy.
 * Yeah, "Discorsi". More than that, I think it was some kind of analysis of Roman Republic, in comparance with monarchy and despotism. ( " The prince"... I don't remember the exact name, sorry.)

--Brisk 90 (talk) 09:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Pic?
If anybody's known italian (I think...) see if this is in fact a pic of Livy and if we can use it:. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:09, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think so, it says Titvs Livius under it.

No ancient portrait of Livy survives; all images you'll find will be imaginary portraits. The image used in the wikipedia entry Livy is taken from a 1906 book "after a copper engraving"; the original engraving must be much older.Xiphophilos (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If the picture is only an imaginary picture then I think it should be removed from the page as it is non-factual. Anyone have any objections? Davidzuccaro (talk) 10:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it should be removed. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Padua
Padua is not on Po river!!!


 * It's in the Po River Valley though. GermanicusCaesar (talk) 02:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Concerns
"he did little to distinguish between fact and fiction. Although he frequently plagiarized previous authors, he hoped that moral lessons from the past would serve to advance the Roman society of his day". Statements such as this really require citation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.237.47.14 (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Politics
"Many of Livy's comments on Roman politics seem surprisingly modern today. For example, he wrote (of the year 445 BC):"

As someone who is unfamiliar with Roman politics, the quote provided does little to elucidate the point. Perhaps some analysis of the quote is in order illustrating exactly how it provides proof of Livy's 'modern' views.--Funkmonkey232002 13:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If you are not aware of any modern war in which the ruling class "could look forward even to an unsuccessful war with greater complacency than to an ignominious peace," then I really don't know what to say to you. Rick Norwood 19:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed this to here from the article. I object on the following grounds: first, it is unsupported. There are no references to standard theories or proposals by any author. Second, it is not encyclopedic. I would regard it as conversational. What is being presented here other than the editor's conversatonal opinion that some of Livy's political writing seems to him to be modern? There's no definition of modern or non-modern. I could say with equal validity, naw, none of this here seems modern. Yes it does. No it doesn't. Yes it does. No it doesn't. Well if you don't know it does you don't know much. And so on. We aren't having a coffee-table exchange; this is an encyclopedia. Instruct us, inform us, teach us, give us some tools to teach others. Do some research on this, tell us what it is. Third, there is not enough detail to make it understandable. But don't make it understandable; we don't care what your personal opinion is. Junk it. Try harder next time.Dave (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

"Many of Livy's comments on Roman politics seem surprisingly modern today. For example, he wrote (of the year 445 BC): "War and political dissension made the year a difficult one. Hardly had it begun, when the tribune Canuleius introduced a bill for legalizing intermarriage between the nobility and the commons. The senatorial party objected strongly on the grounds not only that the patrician blood would thereby be contaminated but also that the hereditary rights and privileges of the gentes, or families, would be lost. Further, a suggestion, at first cautiously advanced by the tribunes, that a law should be passed enabling one of the two consuls to be a plebeian, subsequently hardened into the promulgation, by nine tribunes, of a bill by which the people should be empowered to elect to the consulship such men as they thought fit, from either of the two parties. The senatorial party felt that if such a bill were to become law, it would mean not only that the highest office of state would have to be shared with the dregs of society but that it would, in effect, be lost to the nobility and transferred to the commons. It was with great satisfaction, therefore, that the Senate received a report, first that Ardea had thrown off her allegiance to Rome in resentment at the crooked practice which had deprived her of her territory; secondly, that troops from Veii had raided the Roman frontier, and, thirdly, that the Volscians and Aequians were showing uneasiness at the fortification of Verrugo. In the circumstances it was good news, for the nobility could look forward even to an unsuccessful war with greater complacency than to an ignominious peace." "

"Livy's enthusiasm for the republic is evident from the first pentade of his work, and yet the Julio-Claudian family (the imperial family) were as much fans of Livy as anyone." This is a highly contentious statement. Multiple articles abound in which learned scholars declare him the 'ultimate Augustan' or a republican or doing something else entirely. (just check in JSTOR for the title "Livy and Augustus" there are several articles by different authors there, include P.G. Walsh, with exactly that title). Furthermore, this assertion doesn't even cite any of those articles! is it original research? Certainly it's contentious statement with no citations. GermanicusCaesar (talk) 02:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Changes to Livy links
I understand what you are trying to do, buddy. There are actually two articles, this one on Livy and his life and times, and another Ab Urbe condita, on his history. They were once one article. There is no sense in remerging because both articles are going to grow, which is why, I believe, they were made distinct. Now, the old article had full links to the works of Livy in Latin and English. These belong actually under the article on the history, so I moved them there. What I did not realize is that the reader, such as you, would be looking for them under this article. We have two choices. We can refer the reader to there from here or we can duplicate the material. I prefer to refer the reader to there. Now, for your changes, thank you for trying to fix it. The question is how best to do so. You did not properly cite any of the links. This of course means you need more experience on Wikipedia. Second, you moved the reference to the Britannica article to the very end. That is not how the template works. The software automatically right-justifies and wraps, so the text appears on the left and the template on the right. Nifty, hey? Otherwise the template causes extra space to be left at the bottom, disordering the format. So, I put that back. And finally, you didn't give any reasons for your changes. It's all right, the reasons are manifest. If you have any more observations, however, please discuss. Thanks.

Changes to Bibliography
Hello appietas. Thank you for thinking of more ways to enhance the article and trying to do it. Let me help you with the philosophy and details. First of all you gave no reasons for your changes. It is customary to do so on Wikipedia. But that's all right, I understand the changes! You are trying to expand the Livy bibliography, and justifiably so. I probably should explain, this article was tagged for having no in-line notes. That is where sources are typically identified. Sometimes they are called "sources." I have been trying to put these in but looking it all up takes time. I will get there. Now, sometimes there are multiple references to one source. In that case we can save space by putting the source in a "Bibliography." Now, this article had an extensive bibiography that was not used in any way in the "Notes!" Typically this is called "Additional reading" or as I have it now "Additional bibliography." If you look at the bibliographies of scholarly articles, they never just put in items a propos of nothing, they are always used in the text. However, many articles of Wikipedia have additional reading. Nothing wrong with that. Second, you did not cite these properly. We use "cite book", "cite journal", "cite encyclopedia" and the like to achieve standardization and accuracy of citation. Third - well, the third is my fault, considering that you lack experience on Wikipedia. There are actually two articles, one on Livy and one on his work. Someone else made that decision and I agree with it as both articles have considerable material and will expand; moreover, other Latin authors are handled in this way. Unfortunately this article had all the bibiography and the other none. I set about to remedy that by moving the items that had to do only with the history to that article. I didn't finish the job, but mainly I did not realize people would be looking for a Livy history bibliography in this article! We have two choices (apart from re-merging the articles, which I oppose): a duplicate bibliography or a divided bibliography. Now, I know Wikipedia frowns on duplication, so it seems to me two bibliographies are needed. So here is what I am going to do - finish moving items that seem to belong in the other article to that article, including the new ones you just put in. If you don't see them here, don't get excited, look there. If you think they belong in both places please discuss - notify us of your reasons. Also I will properly cite your items. I think some may be duplicates anyway.Dave (talk)

Editions and manuscripts
Please note, someone before my time made the decision to have two articles, one on Livy and one on his history. I agree with that. Even though there was only a modicum of material at the time, this forward-looking editor could see they were going to grow into two articles. Well, they certainly are not contracting! If you really feel there should be one article, propose a merger. I will oppose it but you might carry the issue, requiring someone else in the future to propose a split. Meanwhile, each article should have the material most suitable for it, don't you agree? Editions and manuscripts don't go under the life of Livy, as I see it. I just now put in more adequate references to the other article. We can put more if you like but I see the media of the history as definitely belonging under the history. If you disagree please discuss before trying to put that material back. Thanks. Your sincere input is certainly valuable even though you might be inexperienced in Wikipedia.Dave (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Patavium
"Patavuim was part of Cisalpine Gaul therefore Titus Livius may not have been born a roman citizen"

It is wrong, there were a lot of roman citizen in Cisalpine Gaul at the time ( settlers, veterans). --Diegriva (talk) 12:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Armchair Historian.
Livy was a historian in the loosest sense of the word. He did not travel much and had no intimate knowledge of political workings of Rome. In my opinion the real ancient historians came out of Greece. Greeks like Timaeus and Herodotus considered travel and research as an important factor in the writing of history. They would study the lands and customs of different cultures to gain sympathy of both sides. Its not even fair to say that Livy was ignorant to the Greek methodology because in the 3rd century BCE Rome expanded south and came in contact with bilingual Greek historians. While Greek models of historic writings were available, Roman historians such as Livy used history in a nationalistic sense to inflate Roman superiority. His information often comes from unreliable sources and they were often contradictory. Quintilian once said about the work of Livy that it is "more beautiful than truthful". This is just my opinion as infulenced by The Historians Of Ancient Rome. 2nd edition. Jason Pare 15:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hopefully you didn't mean that TACITUS or other Italian/Latin historians should be ignored? 68.19.21.71 (talk) 13:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Work?
A full detail of the original scope of the work and what of it has been preserved to modern times has not been given. - A very strange omission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.123.100.246 (talk) 12:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Section on Dates
This section is very confused. I'm a postgraduate student specialising in Livian studies and I can barely make any sense of it. If you were a school student trying to find out some basic information about who Livy was and when he lived this section is almost of no help. It's not until several paragraphs in that any actual discussion of his actual dates is given; and I assume that by 'dates' what is meant is birth and death and maybe writing dates? There's a paragraph about manuscript traditions, and I assume because there is another whole article about the AUC as a work, that that section belongs there? I fixed it a bit and I'll see if I can get around to dedicating some time to fixing it if someone else doesn't fix it first. GermanicusCaesar (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please do. You're right. At the very least, this section should be merged into the section on his life, though it perhaps goes into excessive detail on the problem. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

BC/AD vs BCE/CE
Hello,

I was surprised to see my edits reverted back to the academically obsolete (at least at institutions and publications I'm familiar with) and generally offensive BC/AD designations from the more inclusive and academically current BCE/CE designations. The person reverting the edits said the Christian-based designations were more widely accepted by academics. Where? By whom? When? Surely not in 2023 at reputable institutions? I found it really strange and out of touch with current academia. Can anyone explain? Thank you! Sparky091601 (talk) 04:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)