This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Books This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook Latin Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Classical Greece and Rome Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Rome Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rome, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the city of Rome and ancient Roman history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomeWikipedia:WikiProject RomeTemplate:WikiProject RomeRome Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. European history Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 31 December 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Ab urbe condita (Livy) to History of Rome (Livy). The result of the discussion was moved.

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 13:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DO "most modern scholars" really believe that Rome was founded in 753 BC? Obviously that is the traditional date, and that became the date used in the Roman calendar, but there's obviously no contemporary evidence that would enable anyone to specify so precise a date as that. john k (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. It's been recognized since the days of Newton that the reign lengths of the seven traditional kings have been inflated. Also archeologoy has shown that Rome didn't become a real city before c. 600 (which btw would fit the number of kings much better), though the first settlements goes much further back Fornadan (t) 10:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. It's an insoluble problem, or at least never has been solved. Archaeology is not precise enough to solve it. Archaeology has shown nothing whatsoever concerning actual events. Whatever you mean by "real city" has nothing to do with the foundation of Rome. All there is, is legend. We'd like to find an inscriptional king list, or an Etruscan bilingual with kingly names on it, or a lost manuscript detailing the history of early Rome, or some new Linear B tablets outlining transactions with a city on the far side of Italy (hither Italy and Thither Italy). So far there is nothing. I propose we write to the government of Italy proposing to reserve the whole city of Rome for archaeological exvacation and move the populace to British Columbia. What I mean is, not every problem has a solution and until solutions appear we just use the traditional date. It is hard to accept I know, especially for moderns who are accustomed to reconciled solutionary data. Sorry, there isn't any. Light is both waves and particles.Dave (talk) 02:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this: "This collection is vital to many descriptions, portrayals, histories and other projects referring to the history of the Kingdom and Republic. Although slightly biased, it contains many references to sources, and does present the general history of Rome in a good writing style which is very understandable and readable. However, the reliability of the work has often been questioned since Titus Livy was a Roman and his account of events seems to glorify the Romans. Even so, the books are invaluable in that they reflect the reactions of the people of ancient Rome to events and their interest in various traditions. Other sources, such as Suetonius's Lives of the Twelve Caesars tend to generally agree in their hintings of the periods covered by "History of Rome."

Here are my reasons: first, these views are unsubstantiated. Second, the style is that of a book report, and at the secondary school level. I got nothing at all against secondary schools. I once taught in one. However, this is an encyclopedia and we are not interested in student book report assessments of Livy. Third, this is too trivial to be of encyclopedic interest. I think, if you can't say anything significant, don't take up the space, let someone else do it. If no one steps forward to do it, well, Wikipedia has reached its limitations, nothing in equals nothing out. Trivia are still approximately nothing.Dave (talk) 21:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that writing was too good to be true for Wikipedia. In fact it was copied, cut and paste, from Webster's and I am probably going to find the same thing for most of the rest of it. This confirms my general impression of this being a "phony article" - bibiography that references nothing, otherwise no sources, larded thick with student opinions of the book report type, big discrepancies in style. Why do that? To give the impression that an article gap has been filled? Come to Wikipedia, you can look ANYTHING up, and by the time you finish with us you won't know which end is up, but then your significant other had better things to do with your time anyway than your wasting it on intellectual pursuits. So, I'm taking a hand here. This is on my list. You can't just cut and paste, you have to give credit; ethically, even where the copyright has expired. If you can't follow the ethics, write for some other Internet site. I'm going to rewrite a bit putting the plagiarized source in as a reference.Dave (talk) 12:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice there is a growing number of refs in German. This is an English encyclopedia. Most folks can't read German. No doubt scholars are required to have at least a minimal reading knowledge but most folks are not scholars. I've had to remove references in Hungarian and Chinese because only a minute proportion of the English-speaking population could ever read them. Why is German any different? In principle, it isn't. However is some cases a particular language is critical to the article (Latin, Greek) and more people do know German than, say, Hungarian, German being at least partially in the same language family as English. A lot of the early scholarship on Livy was in fact German. There is no lack of English bibliography. Therefore I am going to leave the German in but I would ask that you keep it to a minimum. If you really want to see German, work on the German Wikipedia. I hear it is pretty good.Dave (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, because your point is otherwise taken, but classical scholars are expected to be fluent (not minimal) in German (also French). Tons of the research can only be found in German. GermanicusCaesar (talk) 13:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I notice the move. For whatever it is worth, I approve. A second possibility, which I did not want to mention because my first choice would have been my own suggestion, was the one to which Appleyard actually moved it. It in fact has seniority, as it appeared in an internal link. This is fine. Thanks a lot. Teamwork is almost always better. I'm still plugging through the expansion/update/rework.Dave (talk) 09:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow.

Years of discussion of moving the page around without anyone bringing up the appropriate policies (WP:USEENGLISH WP:COMMONNAMEs), the actual name of the work (The History of Rome), or any research into establishing that. Here's Ngram's top 10 results from "Livy's *": "Livy's history" and "Livy's History" are the 2d and 3d and "Livy's Ab" is nowhere to be seen. It exists but is nowhere near the top result. Libri ab Urbe Condita is the Latin title of the work known in English as Livy's History of Rome even among specialists. Every single English-language source or reference used by this page itself calls it the History of Rome, Roman History, or Livy's History. This article is completely in the wrong place, which is causing related articles (such as Livy's own) to become confused in their own handling: the relevant section of his page is still well-formatted but the lead paragraph now uses the Latin in its running text and an ad hoc WP:OR translation instead of the thing's English name and a link. The page should be moved and the lead sentence should be formatted something along the lines of

The History of Rome (Latin: Ab Urbe Condita) was a monumental work...

or if we're being really persnickety

The History of Rome (Latin:  AB VRBE CONDITA){{refn|group=n|Explanatory footnote about Latin titles and the occasional inclusion of ''libri'' before or after the other words.<ref>With a citation.</ref>}} was a monumental work...

Further, aside from that move, the editors above who were claiming that libri isn't part of the title, is somehow misleading, or is Italian obviously don't know what they're talking about. The Libri was patently part of the title... but so much so (for every Latin work of more than one volume) that it is almost invariably omitted from such titles. [It was a generic descriptor,—"Livy's Books on the History of Rome from the Founding of the City",—not a title as now understood.] As User:Noetica pointed out, the COMMON "USELATIN" name of this work is Ab Urbe Condita tout suite. Every move discussion above was inconclusive or opposed. How did the page get moved to the (even more) wrong title in spite of them? Even if the Latinists win out and y'all avoid using the thing's English name, we should at least be using its proper Latin name. — LlywelynII 15:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The current title is entirely inappropriate, and doesn't appear to have been the product of any sort of consensus. The actual title in Latin is simply Ab Urbe Condita, to which the number of books is sometimes appended; but the number of books isn't technically part of the title, and if it's not even given then it makes no sense to say libri. Some reasonable alternatives would be:

• "Ab Urbe Condita (book)" or
• "History of Rome (Livy)",

but I prefer the Latin title, as it's likely to be encountered in a great many scholarly citations, is less likely to be confused with a modern work by less knowledgeable readers, and because History of Rome isn't a translation of the Latin title. At the same time, I don't think that From the Founding of the City is a good alternative, because while a literal translation, it's not widely used as the English title; in other words, neither English title is a better alternative than the Latin. Ideally it wouldn't need a disambiguator at all, but since we have a dating system at that page, "(Livy)" or "(Book)" would seem appropriate. I favour "(Livy)", since there could be other works with a similar title, while there's no risk of confusion with the author's name. Comments? P Aculeius (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: after a bit more research, I can't even find authority for the title Ab Urbe Condita. Supposedly Livy called it his Annales. Perhaps "History of Rome" or "History of Rome from the Founding of the City" would be preferable as a standard English title; most English-language sources use an English title, and few if any use Ab Urbe Condita (to say nothing of Annales). P Aculeius (talk) 22:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If English is the most important, I'd have the page moved to "History of Rome (Livy)", as it is commonly referred to as by most English writers (though often his work is referenced as just "Livy, 3.11" with no title included); however, modern Latin writings seem to agree on "Ab Urbe Condita" (CIL and PIR, for example). DGRBM seems to agree on "Ab Urbe Condita", and that is my preference as well, for it is the more popular of the Latin titles and is just as familiar to historians. In fact, this work is the only "Ab Urbe Condita" (to my knowledge), whereas "History of Rome" and "Annales" are recurring titles among Roman authors. With that being said, I have not seen his work referred to as "Ab Urbe Condita" by a single primary source. I believe the title appears beginning in the late 19th century, in the Latin works of Mommsen, but he is only the first that I am aware of. Psychotic Spartan 123 02:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always on the fence with English/Latin titles. Since I've been using short cites and bibliographic references, I always try to give the Latin title, followed by the common English title or titles, if any, in the bibliography. But in this case I have to say that since Ab Urbe Condita doesn't appear to be the original title, or one used in antiquity, and doesn't exactly correspond with "History of Rome", it should probably be under "History of Rome (Livy)" (since there are several other "Histories of Rome"). I think it's more accurate to say that 19th century scholars were describing it as the "History of Rome ab Urbe Condita", rather than intending to give the work the title of Ab Urbe Condita.

I'm not sure that DGRBM uses that title, at least not consistently. If you look at volume II, p. 791, the article on Livy himself, and the one where the work is described in detail, it says: "The great and only extant work of Livy is a History of Rome, termed by himself Annales (xliii. 13), extending from the founding of the city to the death of Drusus . . ." On page 795 it again refers to "his Annals", but otherwise alludes to the work simply as "Livy". I do not see Ab Urbe Condita mentioned anywhere in the article. It's possible it's used somewhere in DGRBM, but I've been working my way through Roman gentes and individuals mentioned in all three volumes for several weeks, on a daily basis, and I can't remember running across that title, at least not since the beginning of July. The introductions and related material in my Penguin Classics editions of all thirty-five books don't use the title; they refer to it as History of Rome or simply History. Broughton calls it Livy's History or simply "Livy". So at this point "History of Rome (Livy)" seems like the most appropriate title. P Aculeius (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't own a physical copy of DGRBM, but on the Perseus website it uses Ab Urbe Condita on the Livy article and as the title of the article regarding the work. It is possible that the title used on the website is not consistent with the original work - and I only scanned the articles when writing my first comment last night, so what I said was based largely on my memory. History of Rome (Livy) is certainly accurate, albeit imperfect considering the inconsistencies among our sources. Ab Urbe Condita is what I've personally referred to it as, and so I may just be biased out of personal preference. Psychotic Spartan 123 17:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been using the archive.org copies, working directly from the scanned copies. You might want to bookmark them! It's nice to be able to see the exact articles in context with no editorial changes, and to be able to flip back and forth through each volume. Currently I have a window with one tab for each volume, plus tabs for Harper's Dictionary of Classical Literature and Antiquities and one for the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities. Plus the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography is also available on this site, although I haven't really referred to it yet. I've left my DGRBM and Harper's on the shelf, both to save wear and tear and because it's actually much more convenient leafing through them on Firefox. I have Broughton (vol. I only, sadly) and Livy next to my chair!

• DGRBM vol. I
• DGRBM vol. II
• DGRBM vol. III
• DGRA
• Harper's DCLA
• DGRG vol. I
• DGRG vol. II
• Plus, LacusCurtius

These are a great online resource! Too bad PW isn't available for free... and in English... P Aculeius (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've bookmarked all of them. Thanks! The links are definitely nice to have. Psychotic Spartan 123 18:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The conversation seems to have gotten sidetracked.

Yes, English is the most important for the English wiki, so there is actually a consensus now to move the thing to its correct placement as discussed at length above? — LlywelynII 16:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In a footnote this article asserts that Livy uses "the chronology of Varro" -- which is wrong. Every authority on Livy I have read says the opposite, that he drew on authorities who wrote before Varro. Further, the dates in Ab Urbe Condita fit better with a non-Varronian chronology: there are no Dictator years (as on the Fasti Capitolini); his date for the Battle of the Allia fits 386 BC better than 390 BC; & his date for the founding of Rome & the start of the Republic differ from those Varro gives. Lastly, there is no point to having this footnote in this article -- this assertion is not referenced anywhere else in the article. So I'd like to just remove it if no one objects. -- llywrch (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noting the chronology he does use is worth mentioning. — LlywelynII 16:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please visit Ab urbe condita and comment on proposals for moving or deleting the page and replacing it with this article.Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 02:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commented there, but for easier reference, see the discussion above. There's no evidence that Livy ever called his history this. The original Latin title is unclear, and the likeliest candidate is Annales. As far as I can tell, Ab Urbe Condita is a modern interpretation, and even if we use it, there's no reason to append libri CXLII to it, any more than to any other Roman literary production conventionally described according to the number of books that originally made it up. The best title for this article would probably be English, "History of Rome (Livy)". P Aculeius (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The title History of Rome (Livy) is unfortunately already occupied, but History of Rome (book) would still be available – that said, (book) is not ideal, given that the work technically consisted of 142 books originally, although these books were originally scrolls that probably contained no more text than a typical modern book chapter. The title Ab Urbe Condita Libri contradicts MOS:CT – it's a title in Latin, not English –, and per the above discussions, libri should not be added. However, since the work is so widely known as Ab urbe condita, the title Ab urbe condita (Livy) is a good solution, and I've therefore moved the article to this title per WP:BOLD. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I, at least, concur with this move. The previous name Ab urbe condita libri was hugely unwieldy; this name deals both with disambiguating AUC-the-epoch while calling it by what most people are probably going to hear it as. Ifly6 (talk) 03:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not already occupied. It just redirects here. Yes, as discussed repeatedly above, History of Rome (Livy)'s where the page should be moved to. — LlywelynII 16:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand what this section (for which I just created a title) is doing in the article. It is a summary of the foundation myths described in the first book, but I think its contents would be better located in the pages of each of these myths. And why only describe these events? was it the beginning of a project to detail all Livy's books?@InformationvsInjustice: T8612 (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article should include the date of the first (Latin) printed edition (editio princeps). This year marks the starting point for the increased reception in (post-classical) European art and literature. (In the Middle Ages, Livy was not read that much, some humanists like Petrarca being rather the exception from the rule.) --2001:A61:360A:F501:6169:C43E:5A78:D5BE (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source? T8612 (talk) 00:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have access to the Briscoe, Oakley, and Ogilvie commentaries on Livy? It doesn't appear that WP:LIBRARY is of any help in this regard. Ifly6 (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have Ogilvie here, and Briscoe's 31-37 on Archive.org. Oakley's commentaries are huge. T8612 (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs a section on the history of the title of the work. How does it come to be known in English as History of Rome? How do we know it was "perhaps originally titled Annales"? Where does Ab urbe condita come from and why is it used by modern editors? Srnec (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]