User:Ifly6/List of primary source errors

I noted that the primary sources are bad on my user page. That is a conclusory assertion. This page is meant to document it and provide a list of errors or, otherwise places which are questioned by modern historians, in the primary sources.

The early republic in general
Absolutely everything that Livy and Dion Hal have to say about the early republic has been questioned to one degree or another. I'm serious. The "date" of the founding of Rome is questioned; the date of the monarchy's overthrow is questioned; whether the monarchy was overthrown at all is questioned; the dates surrounding the conflict of the orders (including the "closing of the patriciate" and other elements) are questioned; whether the conflict of the orders occurred at all is questioned; the second decemvirate is widely regarded as a fiction.

There are three or four different dating reconstructions used by various ancient sources. The traditional one is the Varronian chronology, which is usually abbreviated with something like "Varronian 509" (meaning events are dated to 509 BC, if you believe that chronology). Most of the time, dates without a specification are Varronian, simply because it is the traditional chronology (blame Augustus for choosing it). Cornell, Beginnings of Rome (1995), devotes a whole appendix to the topic of just "how do you date?".

The year in which the consulship was established is reportedly Varronian 509. The ancient sources themselves said the consulship was initially called the praetorship (while at the same time saying that the praetorship was created in Varronian 367). Then Livy's famous remark about a praetor maximus creates a whole bunch of confusion, suggesting three or more chief magistrates. Urso (2011) thinks that the word "consul" is first attested in Varronian 449; Wiseman (1995) argues it originated in Varronian 397. Drogula (2019) argues it did not take a classical form until after Varronian 367.

Polybius

 * Polybius' conception of the Roman constitution as being divided into monarchial (consular), aristocratic (senatorial), and popular (comitial) elements is wrong. "Polybius' 'monarchical' consuls highlight the mechanical nature of his approach, which shows little direct engagement with the nuts and bolts of the Roman institutions and their practical functioning".
 * Polybius' story about how the tides fell, the lagoon drained, and Scipio Africanus took New Carthage is physically impossible given how little the tides move in the Mediterannean.


 * Plutarch confuses Scipio Africanus and Scipio Nasica in discussing the consulship of 194 BC.


 * Plutarch says that Gaius Gracchus was the first to speak towards the forum rather than the comitium. The first was the Gaius Licinius Crassus who was plebeian tribune in 145 BC.


 * Plutarch's date for the birth of Cato the Elder self-contradicts his own narrative that places the elder Cato as a young man during the second Punic war.
 * Plutarch's claim that Cato the Elder had the cognomen Priscus (meaning "elder") is unlikely when the elder Cato was alive. Note that Cato the Elder was a novus homo.
 * Plutarch claims that Cato the Younger was assaulted by Quintus Poppaedius Silo before the Social War. If he did so, it would have been such an extreme breach of protocol of a client against a ward of his patron that it couldn't have happened.
 * Plutarch claims Pompey "leapt up upon seeing Cato and rushed forward to greet him, praising his virtue so all could hear" when Cato met him in Asia during the Third Mithridatic War, which is "likely exaggerated" and "difficult to imagine".
 * Plutarch says Cato helped Lucullus get a triumph approved by the senate because Cato was just so moral and indignant at the senate's treatment of Lucullus... when Cato had two or three years of opportunity to do so before he started (which was coincidentally right after Lucullus married Cato's niece).
 * "Plutarch tailored his presentation of the [second Catilinarian conspiracy] in each biography to best develop the particular themes he wished to explore... [he] 'is much more interested in his moralising...'".
 * Plutarch's depiction of Cato's grain dole (Cat. Min. 26.1 et seq) has a chronology that "may need adjustment". Moreover, his claim that only the senate approved the grain dole expansion proposal is implausible given the extensive monies that Cato's bill would have spent.
 * Plutarch says that in 62 BC, the senate was considering removing Metellus Nepos from his office as tribune, which is definitely ultra vires. Even the attempt to do so would have been both legally and politically impossible.
 * Plutarch attributes Cato's hatred of Caesar to prophetic foresight when it is teleological history hiding a mundane personal feud.
 * Plutarch (along with Livy and Appian) places the formation of the First Triumvirate before Caesar's election to the consulate. This is contradicted by Cicero's letter in December of that year. Plut. Cat. Min. 33.1 likely duplicates the story of Cato's being led away to prison during Caesar's consulship for obstructionist filibustering. He also mistakenly combines the lex Vatinia with the senatorial assignment of Transalpine Gaul as one of Caesar's provinces.
 * Plut. Cat. Min. 34.3 claims Clodius forced Cato out of the city to Cyprus. This is unlikely and ignores Cato's own reasons to go to Cyprus (among other things, the command greatly buttressed Cato's reputation).
 * Plutarch incorrectly reports the time when Pompey (as governor of Spain) loaned Caesar (in Gaul) a legion in both his biographies of Caesar and Pompey, but not in his biography of Cato, which is consistent with the timing in Caes. BG.
 * Plut. Cat. Min. 51.5 has Cato react by shouting about Caesar deceiving and tricking the senate after Curio's proposal that both Pompey and Caesar give up their commands. "This may be a fabrication".
 * Plutarch's account of Cato's suicide "[is] probably as much fiction as fact, ornamented later... to present his suicide as the final act of a true philosopher".


 * Plutarch credits Pompey with the defeat of Lepidus' forces outside Rome in 77 BC. He is wrong. Pompey was in northern Italy at the time fighting Lepidus' legate, Marcus Junius Brutus.


 * "Only Plutarch places such a strongly partisan emphasis on Caesar’s rehabilitation of Marius's honours... His view is only superficially plausible and is fatally undermined by a more fine-grained analysis of the facts. We should give it up".
 * Plutarch reports Caesar was in debt by some 31 million sesterces before he even held his first public office or started lavishing money on the people. This is implausible and contradicted by Appian.
 * Plutarch's account of Caesar's response to the Catilinarian conspiracy in the senate "holds little weight given [his] confusion about the precise nature of [Caesar's] proposal".
 * "When Plutarch complains [of] Caesar’s behaviour in his consulship [in] shameless pandering to the people... he forgets that there was by now an old tradition of reformist, 'popular' measures ostentatiously presented with the blessing of the senate and intended... to elevate the prestige of the senate as a whole... by visibly demonstrating its concern for those under its care".
 * Plut. Pomp. 48.1 says Pompey filled the city with soldiers in 59. This is a legal impossibility: Pompey at the time was not a military commander.
 * Plut. Caes. 14.13 claims that Caesar's tactics during his consulship in 59 BC led to senators all boycotting the senate. There is no contemporaneous evidence of this. A boycott also is incompatible with the senate's having clearly met (and insulted Caesar to his face) and made independent decisions during that year.


 * Suetonius claims that in 62 BC, Caesar was removed from this praetorship and Metellus Nepos from his tribunate. The senate had no such powers and this claim "cannot possibly be correct".


 * Ancient sources disagree as to the date of Brutus' birth. Cic. Brut. 324 says he was born ten years after Hortensius' debut, which was in 95 BC, placing Brutus' birth in 85 with an age at death of 42. Vell. Pat. 2.7.1 says he was 36 when he died (37th year). Livy Per. 124 says he was about forty. Scholars think that Vell. Pat. or Cic. might be incorrectly transmitted and have proposed various emendations. The "accepted" date is 85 BC.


 * When Valerius Maximus makes "minor slips of the pen" the translator has "often corrected them without pointing this out in a footnote", something done "consistently when Valerius gets someone's first name wrong".
 * Val Max 1.6.5 claims a prodigy occurred during the Second Punic War (which ended in 201) warning Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus. It, however, actually occurred at the start of the war against Syria in 192 BC.
 * Val Max 1.7.5 claims Marius built the temple to Jupiter. He actually built the temple to Courage.
 * Val Max 2.2.4 confuses one Quintus Fabius Maximus and his son with a second Quintus Fabius Maximus and son who lived a century later. Valerius also confuses Suessula in Campania with Suessa in Latium.
 * Val Max 2.5.1 confuses Manius Acilius Glabrio with his homonymous son. The former vowed a temple for victory over Antiochus. The latter was the man who built it.
 * Val Max 2.8.3 confuses Gnaeus Fulvius Flaccus with his brother Quintus Fulvius Flaccus; contra Val Max, the former was never offered a triumph (having left for exile after being charged for treason).
 * Val Max 3.2.16 confuses Cato the Elder with his son Marcus Porcius Cato Licinianus in attribution of feats at the Battle of Pydna. He also mistakenly attributes the elder Cato as commander, when the actual commander was Lucius Aemilius Pallus.
 * Val Max 3.2.ext9 confuses Gelon with Hieronymus as the last of that dynasty's kings of Syracuse.
 * Val Max 3.4.4 thinks that Gaius Terentius Varro was made dictator after the battle of Cannae. He was not. The actual dictator was Marcus Junius Pera.
 * Val Max 3.4.5 thinks Marcus Perperna triumphed. He did not, having died overseas before returning to Rome.
 * Val Max 5.1.pref provides an incorrect etymology for the word liberalitas.
 * Val Max 5.1.7 misattributes a story about the freeing of a slave (actually a member of the Numidian court) to Scipio Aemilianus, rather than the actual liberator, Scipio Africanus.
 * Val Max 5.2.ext3 confuses recipient of the Roman gift of Pergamum (what would later become the province of Asia) won in the war against Antiochus. The gift was given to Eumenes II, not Attalus.
 * Val Max 5.4.ext7 confuses the matter of who captured a city during the Social War. The city was captured by the Italians, not the Romans.
 * Val Max 6.3.2 says that one Publius Mucius killed his fellow plebeian tribunes for treason. Those killed were actually military tribunes.
 * Val Max 6.4.1 incorrectly believes Titus Manlius Torquatus (consul 235 BC) was the son of Titus Manlius Torquatus (consul 347 BC).
 * Val Max 6.6.4 incorrectly believes that envoys sent by the Carthaginians were liars who were posing as envoys.
 * Val Max 6.9.13 mistakenly attributes the post of pontifex maximus to Quintus Servilius Caepio. It also mistakenly reports his execution (he was instead exiled).
 * Val Max 7.5.2 "conflate[s] four different generations of the Cornelius Scipio Nasica family". He claims Scipio Nasica suppressed Tiberius Gracchus's efforts "by the force of his prestige". Valerius is wrong; he did so by murder.
 * Val Max 7.6.1 confuses the office held by Tiberius Gracchus in 216 BC. He was master of horse, not consul, that year. He was consul (posterior) the next year.
 * Val Max 8.12.ext1 implies Plato and Euclid were contemporaries. Plato died over two decades before Euclid was born.
 * Val Max 8.14.ext3 thinks that Theodectes was Aristotle's student; Theodectes was actually one of Aristotle's predecessors.


 * Val Max 3.2.17 claims that Tiberius Gracchus wanted to abolish the senate. Valerius Maximus' engages in a "hostile tradition" which "greatly overstates" TG's actual aims. There are no indications that TG wanted to abolish the senate whatsoever.