[Sidenote: Qualities of Livy’s History.] Livy derived his material from earlier historians, such as Fabius Pictor, Valerius Antias, Licinius Macer, Claudius Quadrigarius, and Polybius, following sometimes one and sometimes another, but seldom trying to reconcile conflicting statements of his authorities. When they did not agree, he usually accepted the statement that seemed to him most probable. He did not try to discover new truths by the study of original sources, such as inscriptions and other monuments, nor did he make careful studies of battlefields, routes of march, or the like. He did not, as most modern historians do, try to establish facts by independent research, but he worked over the accounts of his predecessors with the intention of presenting the whole of Roman history in an attractive literary form. In this he was so successful that his history soon became the one source from which all subsequent writers drew their information. His lack of military knowledge makes his description of battles and other military matters somewhat untrustworthy, and the early part of his work suffers from his inability to understand the gradual growth of Roman civilization, but such defects are more than compensated for by the admirable literary qualities of his history. He is, moreover, truthful, so far as he knows the truth, and any incorrect statements are due rather to insufficient knowledge than to any desire to conceal or pervert the truth. In his accounts of the dealings of the Romans with other peoples he is partial to the Romans, but that is because his sincere admiration for the Roman greatness leads him to believe that the Romans were in the right and acted rightly, and his partiality to the Scipios is to be accounted for in a similar way.