We have discussed Livy's style of historical writing and how he constructs the macro-narrative of Ro ...

---

We have discussed Livy's style of historical writing and how he constructs the macro-narrative of Rome's long history from its origins. He is a Roman patriot, but an ambivalent one, given the trajectory of Rome from its virtuous past to its vicious present and its even more ambiguous future in Livy's day. He finds writing about past a respite from the more troubling times of the civil wars. Polybius, on the other hand, is a Greek writing as a witness to both contemporary events and things from the more recent past. His perspective is as a foreigner, but a privileged one with access to leading families in Rome. But he also writes in a Greek tradition of historiography, which since the times of Alexander the Great comprises a much broader view of events than narrow nationalistic histories. So what kind of history is he writing? Reflect on this with reference to the readings from Polybius, and write 400+ words in response looking at the guiding questions below. What does Polybius mean by "pragmatic history"? How does it differ from Livy's style of history? Why is Rome at the center of something that he claims is rather a "universal history," and what does that say about the structure of historical events? This might help The Rise of the Roman Empire (Penguin Classics)