Ptolemy\'s map of Germania

[D B Campbell]

He's indeed often mistaken, but we can be too critical.

Agreed. Note that Livy has now been absolved of one of the few major blunders normally imputed to him. (At 33.8.13, where he is usually ridiculed for imagining that the Macedonians "laid down" their sarissas before attacking, it has now been shown that Livy meant "levelled" their sarissas: Class. J. 100.4, 2005, pp. 349-363.)

[Megas Alexandros]

Livy did use older sources, mainly Polybius, but his descriptions are full of flaws (Polybius on the other hand, did a very good job). He did read the older sources, but he did not understand them. (especially military terminology). That's why every ancient historian has to doubt Livy

He's indeed often mistaken, but we can be too critical. For instance, his chronology of the Republic is more or less accurate (sack of Rome in 386 BCE, expulsion of the kings in c.506), and I am always surprised to see the consuls he mentions for a year "explained" with a reference to the Varronian chronology. It is poor scholarship to explain what is acceptable by comparing it to something that is demonstrably wrong.

I agree. But, no matter his mistakes, some information would be forever lost if he had not written them down. For example - some of Polybius' accounts from 35-39.books would be lost if Livy didn't interpret them wrong )