Livy probably didn’t know either - he was writing several centuries later. While he had access to records (eg lists of consuls and magistrates), there were clearly gaps, and he ends up describing the same events more than once. Shortly after this, Camillus fights two campaigns against the same neighbours of Rome in what may be a muddling of one occurrence.
Right, I always find it funny to think of a historian today writing about something from the 18th century and being considered a primary source. But it's the best we have when dealing with ancient history.
I know! There are definitely elements that feel a little too convenient, like how quickly the Romans defeat the Gauls after being sacked. Might be Livy engaging in a bit of revisionary history, but it's impossible to know for sure.
Livy probably didn’t know either - he was writing several centuries later. While he had access to records (eg lists of consuls and magistrates), there were clearly gaps, and he ends up describing the same events more than once. Shortly after this, Camillus fights two campaigns against the same neighbours of Rome in what may be a muddling of one occurrence.
Right, I always find it funny to think of a historian today writing about something from the 18th century and being considered a primary source. But it's the best we have when dealing with ancient history.
Ah, interesting read. It's just so hard to tell which moments in Livy's account are true, even ignoring the bias. Enjoyed the, thank you.
I know! There are definitely elements that feel a little too convenient, like how quickly the Romans defeat the Gauls after being sacked. Might be Livy engaging in a bit of revisionary history, but it's impossible to know for sure.