Polybius

In the same way, he gives us descriptions of battles as if he had been an actual spectator, but whose features would serve well enough for battles in any period, and whose distinctness contrasts, on the other hand, with the want of connection and the inconsistency that prevail elsewhere, even in his treatment of chief points of interest.

The difference between such a compiler and an original historian may be best seen by comparing Polybius himself with the style in which Livy uses, expands, and abridges his annals in those periods of which Polybius's account has been preserved.

Johann von Müller has given a stiff, formal, pedantic aspect of history in the endeavor to remain faithful in his portraiture to the times he describes.

We much prefer the narratives we find in old Tschudi.

For example, the fable of Menenius Agrippa, in the same way he gives us descriptions of battles as if he had been an actual spectator, but whose features would serve well enough for battles in any period, and whose distinctness contrasts, on the other hand, with the want of connection and the inconsistency that prevail elsewhere, even in his treatment of chief points of interest.

The difference between such a compiler and an original historian may be best seen by comparing Polybius himself with the style in which Livy uses, expands, and abridges his annals in those period, of which Polybius's account has been preserved.

Johann von Müller has given a stiff, formal, pedantic aspect of history in the endeavor to remain faithful in his portraiture to the times he describes.

We much prefer the narratives we find in old Chudi.

And the idea of regime, the idea of thinking about essentially who rules and how and in what ways, it comes from the classical Greece, among other traditions.

So you have Plato and Aristotle, Polybius, all writing about regime, what we would now call regime type.

You have Machiavelli, St. Thomas Aquinas, Jean Baudin in the medieval period.

and the early modern period, all also talking about regime type.

For the centuries following the captivity, his authorities are unfortunately scanty and of little value.

From the captivity to Antiochus Epiphanes, his main sources are the Septuagint books of, one, Esdras and Esther, some legends of Alexander the Great, the letter of Aristeas, One Maccabees, and occasionally Polybius.

From this point, he relies largely on two lost universal histories of Augustan writers, Strabo and Nicolaus of Damascus.

The latter was undoubtedly his chief authority for the very full account of the reign of Herod the Great, though he does not accept all of his statements without question and appears to have had access to some less eulogistic history of that monarch.

For example, the fable of Menenius Agrippa, in the same way he gives us descriptions of battles as if he had been an actual spectator, but whose features would serve well enough for battles in any period, and whose distinctness contrasts, on the other hand, with the want of connection and the inconsistency that prevail elsewhere, even in his treatment of chief points of interest.

The difference between such a compiler and an original historian may be best seen by comparing Polybius himself with the style in which Livy uses, expands, and abridges his annals in those period, of which Polybius's account has been preserved.

Johann von Müller has given a stiff, formal, pedantic aspect of history in the endeavor to remain faithful in his portraiture to the times he describes.

We much prefer the narratives we find in old Chudi.

And maybe if they hadn't been, if that one piece had been preserved, then we would have found that archaeologically and we would have found out more, a greater understanding of early civilization.

I mean, we lost Polybius, who we know was in there.

And he's I mean, he's someone who or at least he has we believe he likely was in there and we don't have his history.

He interviewed survivors of these of some of these wars that they fought in the Second Punic War and stuff.