Talk:Livy: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:39, 17 June 2008

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Classical Greece and Rome Start‑class Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Historian?

Would it not be more correct to say that Livy was a state propagandist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.80.226.136 (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, because he tried to ignore the adulterated information kept by the patricians. Instead of doing that, he used " Annuales" and ( ... I don't remember the name) as more reliable sources. It's true that he agreed with Augustus, but he tried also to give a good image of the roman Republic, didn't he? More than propagandistic, he is a patriot. Propagandistic could be considered, for example, Vergilius, because, his masterspiece tried to justificate the divine descendance of the Emperor. Moreover, putting the tag " state propagandistic" wouldn't be objective: wasn't he or no an historian? Greetings

--Brisk 90 (talk) 09:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Machiavelli's other work was an analysis of Livy.

Pic?

If anybody's known italian (I think...) see if this is in fact a pic of Livy and if we can use it: [1]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:09, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think so, it says Titvs Livius under it.

Padua

Padua is not on Po river!!!

Concerns

"he did little to distinguish between fact and fiction. Although he frequently plagiarized previous authors, he hoped that moral lessons from the past would serve to advance the Roman society of his day". Statements such as this really require citation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.237.47.14 (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Politics

"Many of Livy's comments on Roman politics seem surprisingly modern today. For example, he wrote (of the year 445 BC):"

As someone who is unfamiliar with Roman politics, the quote provided does little to elucidate the point. Perhaps some analysis of the quote is in order illustrating exactly how it provides proof of Livy's 'modern' views.--Funkmonkey232002 13:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not aware of any modern war in which the ruling class "could look forward even to an unsuccessful war with greater complacency than to an ignominious peace," then I really don't know what to say to you. Rick Norwood 19:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 Would it not be more correct to say that Livy was a state propagandist?   <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.80.226.136|70.80.226.136]] ([[User talk:70.80.226.136|talk]]) 00:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+: I don't think so, because he tried to ignore the adulterated information kept by the patricians. Instead of doing that, he used " Annuales" and ( ... I don't remember the name) as more reliable sources. It's true that he agreed with Augustus, but he tried also to give a good image of the roman Republic, didn't he? More than propagandistic, he is a patriot. Propagandistic could be considered, for example, Vergilius, because, his masterspiece tried to justificate the divine descendance of the Emperor. Moreover, putting the tag " state propagandistic" wouldn't be objective: wasn't he or no an historian? Greetings
+--[[User:Brisk 90|Brisk 90]] ([[User talk:Brisk 90|talk]]) 09:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 == Note ==