Livy is best known (aside from his jingoistic emphasis on Rome's
greatness and inevitiable ascension) for the questionable accuracy
of his battle-discriptions. Livy was not a soldier, nor was he
in a position to ever have observed warfare. As such, the
usual western/ancient habit of rhetorically "enhancing" and
sculpting battle-scenes was, in Livy's case, unrelieved by
any practical experience or elevated state of knowledge. As
such, Livy's battles are not easily distinguishable from
each other. When he does attempt to distinguish important
battles, he does so with eccentric details that often obscure
the true facts of the occasion, which can only be extracted
from other accounts, if available.
I sometimes feel the parallel between LoGH and Livy.
Niether works show a grounded grasp of the actual details
of tactics and strategy (let alone logistics), and both
show an exaggerated respect for the importance of leadership
over every other factor.
Mitch Hagmaier
Quest Labs
So, Walter, how's that?