Talk:Livy

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Historian?

message: 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)
thread_title: Note

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: No, it should be removed. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Pic?

message: Padua is not on Po river!!!
: It's in the Po River Valley though. GermanicusCaesar (talk) 02:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Padua

message: "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)
thread_title: Concerns

message: "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)
thread_title: Politics

message: 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)
thread_title: Editions and manuscripts

message: "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)
thread_title: Patavium

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Armchair Historian. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Work? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Section on Dates 

message: 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)
thread_title:  BC/AD vs BCE/CE