08-30-2014, 06:44 AM
This is just my standard, but for the Second Punic War I would consider Livy a secondary source. He may not have been a historian by modern standards, but he was a historian nonetheless, and his account was based on other sources, some primary and some secondary.
I would consider Quintus Fabius Pictor, Silenos of Kaleakte, Sosylus of Sparta, et al the primary sources for that war, along with any inscriptions or documents preserved from the time.
I think of Polybius as a secondary source for the Second Punic War too, because he was born in 200 B.C., one year after that war ended. That would be like me -- born in the 1980s -- writing a book about the Vietnam War. I would be a secondary source. But Polybius is a primary source for lots of other events.
I guess my point is that for some of these ancient events, we don't necessarily have primary sources. Obviously, my view is completely at odds with another expressed earlier in this thread, that "primary" or "secondary" depends one where our source is in the chain of research.
But then again, I'm a journalist and not a historian. I guess it comes down to who's defining it.
I would consider Quintus Fabius Pictor, Silenos of Kaleakte, Sosylus of Sparta, et al the primary sources for that war, along with any inscriptions or documents preserved from the time.
I think of Polybius as a secondary source for the Second Punic War too, because he was born in 200 B.C., one year after that war ended. That would be like me -- born in the 1980s -- writing a book about the Vietnam War. I would be a secondary source. But Polybius is a primary source for lots of other events.
I guess my point is that for some of these ancient events, we don't necessarily have primary sources. Obviously, my view is completely at odds with another expressed earlier in this thread, that "primary" or "secondary" depends one where our source is in the chain of research.
But then again, I'm a journalist and not a historian. I guess it comes down to who's defining it.
