07-08-2019, 10:08 AM
Michael Park wrote (too many Michaels)
Firstly, I do not assume the battle has been embellished or falsified. I believe this battle took place something in the manner in which the various sources render it.
You did say “That Roman history was so distorted within living memory of at least some of those there beggars belief.” My response was that any embellishment or falsification did not have to occur while those who participated were alive, but much later.
Michael Park wrote
On the matter of Polybios, the date of publication of his history is, and shall remain, a matter of debate.
Exactly, but you also claim that Polybius’ work “had been in circulation for a century” before Diodorus. The earliest source that mentions using Polybius is Diodorus, that is all the evidence we have.
Michael wrote:
No one - including myself - argues that there are not contradictory stories or details within stories about the same subject/action. One need only look at the different traditions regarding the legions raised for Cannae or Scipio's forces which left Sicily.
I cannot understand that you find it a problem. If you follow Livy from the legion levies and movements from the appointment of Fabius Maximus to the battle of Cannae, it is self explanatory.
Michael wrote:
I would argue that is different than inventing an entirely new tradition out of whole cloth.
When you compare all sources for the Second Punic War and examine the contradictions, you will find an entirely new tradition of invention. For example, Livy has Gnaeus Scipio in Iberian defeating Carthaginian fleets, raiding all over Iberia, capturing town after town, and yet Appian claims Gnaeus Scipio did nothing of importance.
Firstly, I do not assume the battle has been embellished or falsified. I believe this battle took place something in the manner in which the various sources render it.
You did say “That Roman history was so distorted within living memory of at least some of those there beggars belief.” My response was that any embellishment or falsification did not have to occur while those who participated were alive, but much later.
Michael Park wrote
On the matter of Polybios, the date of publication of his history is, and shall remain, a matter of debate.
Exactly, but you also claim that Polybius’ work “had been in circulation for a century” before Diodorus. The earliest source that mentions using Polybius is Diodorus, that is all the evidence we have.
Michael wrote:
No one - including myself - argues that there are not contradictory stories or details within stories about the same subject/action. One need only look at the different traditions regarding the legions raised for Cannae or Scipio's forces which left Sicily.
I cannot understand that you find it a problem. If you follow Livy from the legion levies and movements from the appointment of Fabius Maximus to the battle of Cannae, it is self explanatory.
Michael wrote:
I would argue that is different than inventing an entirely new tradition out of whole cloth.
When you compare all sources for the Second Punic War and examine the contradictions, you will find an entirely new tradition of invention. For example, Livy has Gnaeus Scipio in Iberian defeating Carthaginian fleets, raiding all over Iberia, capturing town after town, and yet Appian claims Gnaeus Scipio did nothing of importance.
