Talk:Roman historiography

message: While the text of this article appears to be pretty good, the "Sources" at the bottom have a funny smell to them. For example, there are a surprising number of editions published by the "Bristol Classical Press" listed. I'd be surprised if these editions are of the same quality as the OCL, Bude, or Teubner series. My inclination would be to refer the reader to the individual articles for critical editions of the primary texts, & only include secondary works, for example Hermann Bengtson, Introduction to Ancient History, 6th edition. translated by R.I. Frank & Frank D. Gilliard (Berkeley: University of California, 1970). It may be old, but its bibliography extensively covers  German-language publications on ancient history up to the mid-1960s. -- llywrch (talk) 22:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Ditto Ennius's treatment of Roman history as epic poetry in his Annals. — LlywelynII 21:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Ennius

message: Ditto that Varronian chronology currently redirects to the caveat paragraph at list of Roman consuls instead of here. The problem is already addressed on that talk page (Archive 1), but apparently has never been fixed. The issues with Roman chronology dealt with in 
* .
probably have their most fitting home here, even though addressing it appropriately will increase the page by at least ⅓. — LlywelynII 15:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Varro

message: This article contains this statement:
(in section: History; subsection: Foundation.)
"The most well-known originator of Roman historiography was Quintus Fabius Pictor, also known as the "Founder of Historiography". "
while the article and therefore the section/subsection titles relate to Roman historiography and not historiography in general, the above sentence explicitly says that he is known as father of historiography (in general, without limiting the scope to roman historiography).
i am not very familiar with the topic, but while herodotus goes as father of history (see his article), it makes little sense to have a later roman author hold a title of a similar meaning even if the wording (founder of historiography vs. father of history) is slightly different. the Quintus Fabius Pictor article makes no mention of this "title" casting more doubt on the correctness of the cited statement. perhaps the editor meant to say that certain roman sources of the classical age called Quintus Fabius Pictor by this title or that he is viewed by todays scolars as founder of ROMAN historiography? or is there some subtle distinction between the meaning of "founder of historiography" vs. "father of history" so that it is not a contradiction to have two different persons hold these titles? Anyway i think some clarification would not harm the article. 89.134.199.32 (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Have modified the claim (for which I find no sources, online or off) to a more moderate and, I hope, justifiable statement. Jacobisq (talk) 06:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  odd enough - founder of historiography vs. father of history - pictor vs herodotus 

message: Have removed this term for which I find no source-usage. Please provide source, if reinstating.Jacobisq (talk) 06:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Gracchan annalists

message: Similarities and differences between Greek and Roman historiography 119.2.125.141 (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  World history 

message: Is this article at the correct title? It doesn't seem quite right to me - does anyone call what Caesar, Tacitus,and Suetonius wrote "historiography"? Obviously this can't be at "Roman history", but what about "Roman historical literature" or "Historical literature of Ancient Rome"? Seltaeb Eht (talk) 00:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Historiography means the "writing of history" and this article treats the writing of history in Roman antiquity, so it's fine to me.Barjimoa (talk) 07:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title?