Fact Or Fiction

[Guest spartacus]

For our insight into the Roman world most turn to the writings of the likes of polybius, livy and Suetonius for example, so how accurate are there accounts, separating fact from fiction!

Homers Odyessy and illiad works are seen by many as grossly exaggerated which I feel is a little harsh as ancient writers tended to put their stories into song purely for the readers enjoyment!

Polybius was held in high esteem and reminds me of a modern-day war correspondent, his accounts were often drawn from events he witnessed such as the burning of Carthage-146bc, the sacking of Corinth and it is said, but not proven that he was at the side of Scipio during the siege of Numantia -134bc so I would say that his accounts can be viewed with a great deal of accuracy

My favourite source is Suetonius, he comes across as a man of great wit and intellect, he is remembered most as Hadrians private secretary, and this post gave him a wonderful insight into the emporers private life, he was a prolific writer, some of his works included Royal Biographies, Roman Masters and Customs and his best known work- The Twelve Caesars his talent was to create a dramatic and moving narrative which engrosses the reader, again if the reader sifts out the obvious entertainments and exaggerations then I would say his accounts were quite accurate

Titus Livius (Livy) wrote the majority of his works in the reign of Augustus, it is said he wrote over 140 books, Although I found his style of writing clear and intelligible, he was prone to superstition and quite one-sided and bias when writing about his fellow countrymen, that said his works are still worth reading for their educational value

In my opinion I would say Polybius accounts are more accurate, a lot of passages in Livys books are copied directly from Polybius, in some cases word for word

There are other literary sources, some more accurate and factual than others but from a personal viewpoint I tend to lean towards the three examples of writers I have given, purely for accuracy and the easy availibility of their works

[Primus Pilus]

Suetonius is certainly the most entertaining. I've never valued him as the most reliable (mainly because of his use of gossip and rumor), but all of the ancients certainly have their flaws. Of course there is truth in every ancient source. One just has to try to get through the propoganda of that period.

 

My personal favorites are (though I personally value all the sources, these are just my favorites):

 

Dio Cassius. Seems to comprise similar 'facts' to most other sources and yet does so without quite as much bias. (IMO anyway)

 

Livy. Regardless what anyone might think of his style or his propoganda, without Livy, we know virtually nothing of the early Republic.

 

Tacitus. Terribly biased, but invaluable nonetheless. Without Tacitus, we know even less than the minimal amount we know as it is regarding ancient Germanics.

 

Caesar. Of course, he is probably the most biased, but what a brilliant and detailed account of some of the most violent and world shaking events in world history.

 

Suetonius. As already suggested, you can't beat him for reading ancient history and feeling entertained at the same time.

 

Most overlooked or underated: Appian of Alexandria. (His material on the civil wars of the late Republic is invaluable.)

 

Honorable mention: Polybius for his treatment of the Punic Wars.

[Guest spartacus]

PP, without a doubt any roman enthusiast should read Suetonius, he was extremeley clever, in my opinion way ahead of his time!

 

Tactius, unfortunately is our only source for germanic information, a great shame!

 

But every enthusiast has their favourites, but I would say to any "newcomer" that the written word must be diassected to reveal the truth!

 

I will reiterate all writers of that time were prone to exaggeration, separating fact from fiction is a task one must do for themselves, using their better judgement!