09-18-2019, 11:14 AM
Michael wrote:
I`d like to ask those club members why they think that Polybius omitted the actions that Appian and Livy say Thermus and Octavius took part? Or do they perhaps believe that Appian and Livy fabricated these battles?
I wouldn’t hold your breath. I'm still waiting on Paralus (Michael) to answer my questions on the Livy and Polybius biases thread. It is probable the Polybian faithful most likely hold the view that Polybius had correctly decided fact from fiction and only dealt with the facts.
Polybius (1 44) has a Carthaginian fleet of 200 ships conveying 10,000 troops. Diodorus (24 1 2) claims 4,000 troops. Who is correct? Now if a study had been undertaken on Polybius to determine if he is reliable, then the question would be answered.
At the battle of Mylae in 260 BC, CIL 12 2 25 has 43 Carthaginian ships sunk and captured. Eutropius has 45 Carthaginian ships, Orosius has 44 Carthaginian ships, and Polybius has 80 Carthaginian ships. Here we find Polybius is the only one above the average of 43 to 45 ships, but a difference of 35 to 37 ships. Previous to the battle of Mylae Polybius mentions 50 ships and 30 Carthaginian ships being captured at Mylae. It becomes obvious how Polybius has made his mistake. What the blind followers of Polybius do not realise, or do not want to acknowledge is Polybius is a very sloppy historian, and he must have had a broken abacus.[
Enclosed a few examples reported by Plutarch highlighting contradictions between Polybius and other writers.
Plutarch Aemilius 15:
“Aemilius, accordingly, delighted, gave them, not as many men as Polybius states, but as many as Nasica himself says they took, in a short letter which he wrote concerning these exploits to one of the kings, that is, 3,000 of his Italians who were not Romans, and his left wing numbering 5,000. In addition to these, Nasica took 120 horsemen, besides 200 of the mixed Thracians and Cretans with Harpalus.”
Plutarch Aemilius 16: “These men, according to Polybius, were still asleep when the Romans fell upon them; but Nasica says that a sharp and perilous conflict took place for possession of the heights.”
Plutarch Aemilius 19: “The king of the Macedonians, on the other hand, according to Polybius, as soon as the battle began, played the coward and rode back to the city, under pretence of sacrificing to Heracles, a god who does not accept cowardly sacrifices from cowards, nor accomplish their unnatural prayers…“However, a certain Poseidonius, who says he lived in those times and took part in those actions, and who has written a history of Perseus in several books, says it was not out of cowardice, nor with the excuse of the sacrifice, that the king went away.” Poseidonius makes the claim that Perseus was wounded during the fighting.
Here is another example of the contradictory accounts that faced the ancient historians. Livy (37 48) writes: “After the new consuls had assumed office a rumour-so Valerius Antias tells us-gained wide currency in Rome to the effect that the two Scipios-Lucius and Africanus-had been invited to meet Antiochus for the purpose of receiving back the young Scipio, and that they were arrested, the king's army at once led against the Roman camp, which was captured, and the entire Roman force wiped out. It was further stated that the Aetolians gained fresh courage from this, and refused to carry out the commands laid upon them; their leaders went to Macedonia, Dardania and Thrace to raise a force of mercenaries. Valerius goes on to say that it was reported that A. Terentius Varro and M. Claudius Lepidus were sent by the propraetor A. Cornelius from Achaia to carry this news to Rome. He supplements this tale by informing us that on their appearance before the senate the Aetolians were questioned on this among other matters, and asked from whom they had heard that the Roman commanders were made prisoners by Antiochus and their army destroyed, and that they stated in reply that they had been so informed by their envoys, who were with the consul. I have no other authority for this story, and whilst in my opinion it lacks confirmation, I have not passed it over as entirely groundless.”
I`d like to ask those club members why they think that Polybius omitted the actions that Appian and Livy say Thermus and Octavius took part? Or do they perhaps believe that Appian and Livy fabricated these battles?
I wouldn’t hold your breath. I'm still waiting on Paralus (Michael) to answer my questions on the Livy and Polybius biases thread. It is probable the Polybian faithful most likely hold the view that Polybius had correctly decided fact from fiction and only dealt with the facts.
Polybius (1 44) has a Carthaginian fleet of 200 ships conveying 10,000 troops. Diodorus (24 1 2) claims 4,000 troops. Who is correct? Now if a study had been undertaken on Polybius to determine if he is reliable, then the question would be answered.
At the battle of Mylae in 260 BC, CIL 12 2 25 has 43 Carthaginian ships sunk and captured. Eutropius has 45 Carthaginian ships, Orosius has 44 Carthaginian ships, and Polybius has 80 Carthaginian ships. Here we find Polybius is the only one above the average of 43 to 45 ships, but a difference of 35 to 37 ships. Previous to the battle of Mylae Polybius mentions 50 ships and 30 Carthaginian ships being captured at Mylae. It becomes obvious how Polybius has made his mistake. What the blind followers of Polybius do not realise, or do not want to acknowledge is Polybius is a very sloppy historian, and he must have had a broken abacus.[
Enclosed a few examples reported by Plutarch highlighting contradictions between Polybius and other writers.
Plutarch Aemilius 15:
“Aemilius, accordingly, delighted, gave them, not as many men as Polybius states, but as many as Nasica himself says they took, in a short letter which he wrote concerning these exploits to one of the kings, that is, 3,000 of his Italians who were not Romans, and his left wing numbering 5,000. In addition to these, Nasica took 120 horsemen, besides 200 of the mixed Thracians and Cretans with Harpalus.”
Plutarch Aemilius 16: “These men, according to Polybius, were still asleep when the Romans fell upon them; but Nasica says that a sharp and perilous conflict took place for possession of the heights.”
Plutarch Aemilius 19: “The king of the Macedonians, on the other hand, according to Polybius, as soon as the battle began, played the coward and rode back to the city, under pretence of sacrificing to Heracles, a god who does not accept cowardly sacrifices from cowards, nor accomplish their unnatural prayers…“However, a certain Poseidonius, who says he lived in those times and took part in those actions, and who has written a history of Perseus in several books, says it was not out of cowardice, nor with the excuse of the sacrifice, that the king went away.” Poseidonius makes the claim that Perseus was wounded during the fighting.
Here is another example of the contradictory accounts that faced the ancient historians. Livy (37 48) writes: “After the new consuls had assumed office a rumour-so Valerius Antias tells us-gained wide currency in Rome to the effect that the two Scipios-Lucius and Africanus-had been invited to meet Antiochus for the purpose of receiving back the young Scipio, and that they were arrested, the king's army at once led against the Roman camp, which was captured, and the entire Roman force wiped out. It was further stated that the Aetolians gained fresh courage from this, and refused to carry out the commands laid upon them; their leaders went to Macedonia, Dardania and Thrace to raise a force of mercenaries. Valerius goes on to say that it was reported that A. Terentius Varro and M. Claudius Lepidus were sent by the propraetor A. Cornelius from Achaia to carry this news to Rome. He supplements this tale by informing us that on their appearance before the senate the Aetolians were questioned on this among other matters, and asked from whom they had heard that the Roman commanders were made prisoners by Antiochus and their army destroyed, and that they stated in reply that they had been so informed by their envoys, who were with the consul. I have no other authority for this story, and whilst in my opinion it lacks confirmation, I have not passed it over as entirely groundless.”
