Talk:Polybius

message: Is this the same Polybius that developed the Polybius square? The Anome
:Yes. Securiger 18:16, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, not as Wikipedia mentions it. First of all, Polybius wrote in Greek, and secondly, even if he had used Roman letters, U and V were not distinct and W was not even invented yet. I'm removing the section. Chris Weimer 23:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the same person. He describes it in Hist. X.45.6 ff. The article "Polybius square" simply gives an example with the Latin alphabet because that is the way it is commonly used today. It could be used with any alphabet, and in fact has even been used with Japanese hiragana. But I agree there is no need to have an example table in this article, when there is one in the article on the square itself. -- Securiger 01:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you kidding me? Nationalism and racism have been around since man first saw a difference in himself. --98.233.250.37 (talk) 13:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Just so you know, the manual of style on year numbering systems states that there is no preference of BC/AD and BCE/CE over the other, but that the page should remain consistent in whatever style it contains. I think the page is fine the way it is. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 05:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: As much as (see the main "Polybius" page's history) the arcade game of the same name is undoubtedly fictitious, I think it merits a disambiguatory mention or a page of its own. What do we make of it? 
Matthew Platts 17:30, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arcade Game Hoax 

message: It is certainly true that Polybius has in the past had a high reputation and that needs to be said.  However it needs to be source.  To say without source that his writing shows " clearness, penetration, sound judgment" implies it is an undisputed fact.  It is a POV and that's only okay if quoting someone. Dejvid 19:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced pro Polybius stuff

message: The Callicrates link in the 'As a historian' section links to the wrong Callicrates - the 5th century architect rather than the 2nd century politician, who doesn't have a page of his own. Afraid I'm not computer-literate enough to sort this out myself!
131.111.128.119 (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Callicrates 

message: Not even close! I agree with Green - the style and focus of Polybius is nowhere near as intellectually informed nor detached as is that of Thucydides. Even given the fact that most modern readers - myself included- must rely on translations - Thucydides comes across as the consummate writer and thinker - a man so in tune with his subject matter and his purpose - to write a history for all time that the clear, brillantly balanced prose, combined with often surprising aphoristic humour is as readable today by a modern audience as it was a thousand years ago. 
Polybius by contrast is by turns dull and fussy. He wastes a lot of time on personal attacks on the works of contemporary or recent Greek historians and in a very telling omission does not even refer to the greatest of all historians - Thucydides. Polybius demonstrates on many occaisions that he is biased, is very definitely NOT a fan of the Athenians and had a tendency to over interpret events to serve a literary rather than an historical model. Any analysis which compares Polybius to Thucydides is bound to show Polybius as a neophyte when compared to a master.
165.12.252.111 (talk) 05:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Successor to Thucydides? 

message: In the article it says that Polybius invented the Polybius Square (good for him. I can see that it would be useful) but then goes on to note that the idea "...lends itself to cryptography and stenography" neither of which could Polybius have anticipated. Surely such notes are pointless.In the same way, the concept of a clock, lends itself to time travel and Einstein's theory of relativity... but that does not mean that the inventor of the clock should get credit for those ideas or deserve to bask in their light. I am sure that Polybius was a nice chap, and with an able mind, allied with a good deal of spare time to ponder about things, he was obviously productive. Let's not get carried away and credit him with everything.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.233.172 (talk) 11:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cryptography... Stenography? 

message: Third paragraph:
:Polybius's The Histories provides a detailed account of Rome's ascent to empire and included his eyewitness accounts of the Roman victory over Hannibal and the Sack of Carthage in 146 BC.
Polybius was born in 200 BC. The Roman victory over Hannibal occurred in 202 BC, during the Second Punic War. Polybius was an eyewitness for the sack of Carthage during the Third Punic War. Polybius interviewed people who had witnessed the defeat of Hannibal, but this sentence makes it appear that Polybius himself had winessed the event.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weibel (talk • contribs) 05:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polybius at the Battle of Zama? 

message: it is surprising to find it claimed that polybius was afraid to voice his criticism of rome.  this is not the case, as his assessment of rome's annexation of sardinia makes quite clear.  he viewed that as an unjustified land grab and saw that as the proper case of the second punic war.  in other instances, polybius does report negative stories about roman officials, again, showing that he was not merely some toady.  i do not believe that he was at complete liberty -- for whatever reason -- but the reality is that he was perfectly capable of providing a damning narrative of rome and romans when he decided to.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.71.222 (talk) 20:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  polybius and rome 

message: Source it.  Don't do it. Classical Greek, Classical Latin, Ecclesiastical Latin, modern Greek, British English, and American English all read these things differently and we don't want that mess in our lead sentences. Plenty of people are going to pronounce the first syllable /pɒli/ and they're not "wrong" to do so. Start a Wiktionary entry instead, unless it's an entry for something like Ctesiphon that's utterly incomprehensible without some pointers. — LlywelynII 06:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation

message: A "state in which monarchical, aristocratic, and popular elements were in a stable equilibrium" is a mixt constitution, not one with separated powers of executive, legislative and judicial.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.26.8 (talk) 04:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  mixed up constitution 

message: What is the source for this section? Was the author of this section referring to the 7th book of The Histories?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurlbut (talk • contribs) 23:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section 4.1 Sources; 7th Volume 

message: It's stated in the introductory section that Polybius's introduction of "the people", in addition to separation of powers and checks & balances, influenced Montesquieu et al.  The reference (#2) is a footnote 12 to a paper that makes no mention of the supposed introduction to "the people".  Polybius writes about what "the people" did in various areas in his The Histories but I haven't yet found any discussion of the *concept* of "the people", i.e. what it means, what it's justification or significance is, etc.  If it's not in the ultimate source text nor mentioned in the reference, it should be removed here. 76.149.32.44 (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing content in reference - "the people"