Niebuhr's lectures on Roman history, Vol. 2 (of 3)Niebuhr, Barthold Georg
History
Niebuhr's lectures on Roman history, Vol. 2 (of 3)
Niebuhr, Barthold Georg
Rome -- History
In Livy’s work we may clearly distinguish the different sources. In
the beginning, the description of the siege of Saguntum is taken
beyond a doubt from Cœlius Antipater; other parts follow most closely
in the footsteps of Polybius; elsewhere he has either made use of the
_Annales Pontificum_, or of those annalists who had embodied them in
their histories. The whole of the third decade is written with evident
fondness for the subject; yet he is wanting in the knowledge of facts,
in experience of real life, and in the power of taking a general
view: he never gets away from the _umbracula_ of the school. Wherever
he deviates from Polybius, he is altogether unworthy of belief; and
however beautifully his history of the war is written, it is still
quite plain that he was unable to bring before his mind one single
event, as it really happened: his account of the battle of Cannæ, for
instance, is untrue and impossible; whilst, on the other hand, that
of Polybius is so excellent, that one may get a most distinct idea of
the locality, and even draw a map from his statements, and the better
one knows the nature of the spot, the clearer becomes his description.
The work of General Vaudoncourt, published some years ago at Milan
under the title of _Campagnes d’Annibal_, which, merely because its
author is such an able man, has been praised by every body, is an
utterly worthless production. The maps are good for nothing, and the
plans are drawn from fancy; he did not understand how to read an
author critically, he had no knowledge of Greek, and he has not given
anything new: there is only one point of ancient tactics about which
I have learned anything from him. He is especially mistaken in the
notion which he has formed of the battle array of the Carthaginians;
he believes them to have been drawn up in phalanx, which they were
not. They were just as moveable as the Romans, and the sword alone was
the weapon which they relied on: lances they very likely had none,
but javelins in abundance. Ulric Becker’s treatise on the history
of the war of Hannibal (in Dahlmann’s “Researches in the Field of
History”),[15] although not a mature work, is really valuable, and
should not be overlooked.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account