What do you think?
Rate this book
Loeb Polybius histories #1
Histories, Volume I Books 1-2 [Loeb Classical Library] by Polybius [Loeb Classical Library,2010] [Hardcover] Revised
Polybius (born ca. 208 BCE) of Megalopolis in the Peloponnese (Morea), served the Achaean League in arms and diplomacy for many years, favouring alliance with Rome. From 168 to 151 he was hostage in Rome where he became a friend of Aemilius Paulus and his two sons, and especially adopted Scipio Aemilianus whose campaigns he attended later. In late life he was trusted mediator between Greece and the Romans whom he admired; helped in the discussions which preceded the final war with Carthage; and, after 146, was entrusted by the Romans with details of administration in Greece. He died at the age of 82 after a fall from his horse.The main part of Polybius's history covers the years 264-146 BCE. It describes the rise of Rome to the destruction of Carthage and the domination of Greece by Rome. It is a great work, accurate, thoughtful, largely impartial, based on research, full of insight into customs, institutions, geography, causes of events and character of people; it is a vital achievement of first rate importance, despite the incomplete state in which all but the first five of the forty books have reached us. Polybius's overall theme is how and why the Romans spread their power as they did.The Loeb Classical Library edition of Polybius is in six volumes.
Hardcover
First published January 1, 119
5 people are currently reading
363 people want to read
About the author
Polybius
494 books101 followersPolybius (ca. 200–118 BC), Greek Πολύβιος) was a Greek historian of the Hellenistic Period noted for his book called The Histories covering in detail the period of 220–146 BC. He is also renowned for his ideas of political balance in government, which were later used in Montesquieu's The Spirit of the Laws and in the drafting of the United States Constitution.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
July 17, 2013
Strictly speaking, this review is meant to cover the whole series of this translation and, of Polybius.
Now, that said, I can continue with the review.
I decided to read Polybius, all of Polybius, a few weeks back, largely because I was reflecting a while back that I really should read some of those sources that I spent so much time source-mining in my grad school days. Polybius is one of those sources which are not so much read as mined for useful nuggets. Yet, he has the reputation of being one of the more conscientious, if prickly historians in Greek historiography. That impression remained very strong reading over the surviving bits of his history.
Polybius, for those of you who may not be acquainted with him, wrote a history of something like 40+ books (i.e. scrolls)which covered from the end of the 2nd Punic War (lighty), through the 2nd Punic War to that watershed year 146 BCE which saw the destruction of Carthage and Corinth, symbolizing the subjugation of the Carthaginians and Greeks to Roman power. Polybius writes as a failed politicians and long-standing hostage to Rome with close links to such Roman luminaries as Scipio Aemillianus Africanus. Unfortunately, his history is highly fragmented with only the first five books surviving largely intact, but with substantial fragments from many other books. He is the source of much of what we know of that crucial period in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE when Rome grew from a regional power to the superpower in the Mediterranean. He is used widely by most writers of the period including Livy's parallel account in Latin.
This is a newish translation is quite readable. Like all Loeb editions, it has the Greek on one side which is nice from time to time, if you know Greek. It is harmless otherwise. Walbank collects all extant fragments, so you really do get the full picture of Polybius in so far as we have it. This is refreshing because most editions of Polybius only give the Roman bits, not so much the bits on the bickering in the Greek world in the last decades of independence.
Well worth reading, but, be ready for the text to be a bit jumpy due to the fragmented state of the text.
Now, that said, I can continue with the review.
I decided to read Polybius, all of Polybius, a few weeks back, largely because I was reflecting a while back that I really should read some of those sources that I spent so much time source-mining in my grad school days. Polybius is one of those sources which are not so much read as mined for useful nuggets. Yet, he has the reputation of being one of the more conscientious, if prickly historians in Greek historiography. That impression remained very strong reading over the surviving bits of his history.
Polybius, for those of you who may not be acquainted with him, wrote a history of something like 40+ books (i.e. scrolls)which covered from the end of the 2nd Punic War (lighty), through the 2nd Punic War to that watershed year 146 BCE which saw the destruction of Carthage and Corinth, symbolizing the subjugation of the Carthaginians and Greeks to Roman power. Polybius writes as a failed politicians and long-standing hostage to Rome with close links to such Roman luminaries as Scipio Aemillianus Africanus. Unfortunately, his history is highly fragmented with only the first five books surviving largely intact, but with substantial fragments from many other books. He is the source of much of what we know of that crucial period in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE when Rome grew from a regional power to the superpower in the Mediterranean. He is used widely by most writers of the period including Livy's parallel account in Latin.
This is a newish translation is quite readable. Like all Loeb editions, it has the Greek on one side which is nice from time to time, if you know Greek. It is harmless otherwise. Walbank collects all extant fragments, so you really do get the full picture of Polybius in so far as we have it. This is refreshing because most editions of Polybius only give the Roman bits, not so much the bits on the bickering in the Greek world in the last decades of independence.
Well worth reading, but, be ready for the text to be a bit jumpy due to the fragmented state of the text.
March 9, 2016
Alright, so this isn't an enthusiastic four stars. I almost typed "three" so that sort of support that statement. Polybius is honestly a slow reading sometimes and gets bogged down in details far too often, but his candor is kind of refreshing after being subjected to other Greek historians. I like how he addresses issues with the writing of history and explains his own take on it. Yes, these two books go on for far too long, but he is attempting to give a thorough background of the state of affairs relevant to the current (for his time) state of Rome.
I also admit, I like his non-Athenian, non-Roman viewpoint, which is just far too rare in reading ancient histories. I'm a fan of Laconia, so it's kind of nice to read a historian who agrees with me.
I also admit, I like his non-Athenian, non-Roman viewpoint, which is just far too rare in reading ancient histories. I'm a fan of Laconia, so it's kind of nice to read a historian who agrees with me.
January 4, 2021
At times insightful and compelling, at times overly detailed for instance in blow by blow battles or by not introducing a host of new protagonists, I'm still very happy that his histories have survived the ages to give us a near-contemporary account of what happened.
December 8, 2018
This book tells the tale of the Romans’ first overseas trip in 264 BC by which they announced their arrival on the world stage. You can jump straight in and enjoy it, but by coincidence Polybius takes up pretty much where Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ history fragments and I did appreciate having read that first. In my head Rome is always the glorious empire of later years, but as Dionysius makes clear, in the beginning Rome was a barbarian city state many hundreds of miles from the nearest centre of civilisation; not much more than a fort where they kept their slaves. They were addicted to war. Literate, but not producing any literature. At the time Polybius’ history opens the first plays in Latin are just being staged – and the only way they’ve managed that is because one of their slaves is a Greek called Livius Andronicus who is adapting Greek New Comedy.
So all the more amazing that, having conquered the Italian peninsula, but never having gone to sea, they practice rowing movements on shore before taking on the Carthaginians. By turns I’d admire first one side and then the other. The Romans for their guts, but then dismay that such a band of animals could so wound such an ancient and stylish sea-faring civilisation. Yet when the Romans invade Africa and immediately capture twenty thousand slaves the scales do fall from one’s eyes somewhat. The Carthaginians may do things which panache, but isn’t panache the hall-mark of all good pirates?
After the account of this first Punic War, Polybius gives us the Numidian War, which is fantastic because the Berbers are a great bunch of lads but they really don’t get much of a look-in on the world stage. There’s also an account of the Romans’ second holiday when they establish a beach-head in the Balkans.
It’s worth saying something about Polybius’s style. Whereas Dionysius’ history is essentially a novel, using all the rhetorical techniques he can lay his hands on, Polybius’ technique is crystal clear and totally precise. His battle scenes are the best I’ve read. If you want to know how they killed each other back in the day then this is the book for you. I definitely felt as if I were reading a reliable history rather than a story and for the later events I got the impression he had spoken to eye-witnesses – which is certainly possible given the time-frame.
But then at the end of the volume he gives some Greek history. His account can be a little confusing and I was just thinking it all might be a little too close to home for him when he suddenly emits the most astounding stream of bile against a historian called Phylarchus. Is it good history? Perhaps not. But very entertaining.
So all the more amazing that, having conquered the Italian peninsula, but never having gone to sea, they practice rowing movements on shore before taking on the Carthaginians. By turns I’d admire first one side and then the other. The Romans for their guts, but then dismay that such a band of animals could so wound such an ancient and stylish sea-faring civilisation. Yet when the Romans invade Africa and immediately capture twenty thousand slaves the scales do fall from one’s eyes somewhat. The Carthaginians may do things which panache, but isn’t panache the hall-mark of all good pirates?
After the account of this first Punic War, Polybius gives us the Numidian War, which is fantastic because the Berbers are a great bunch of lads but they really don’t get much of a look-in on the world stage. There’s also an account of the Romans’ second holiday when they establish a beach-head in the Balkans.
It’s worth saying something about Polybius’s style. Whereas Dionysius’ history is essentially a novel, using all the rhetorical techniques he can lay his hands on, Polybius’ technique is crystal clear and totally precise. His battle scenes are the best I’ve read. If you want to know how they killed each other back in the day then this is the book for you. I definitely felt as if I were reading a reliable history rather than a story and for the later events I got the impression he had spoken to eye-witnesses – which is certainly possible given the time-frame.
But then at the end of the volume he gives some Greek history. His account can be a little confusing and I was just thinking it all might be a little too close to home for him when he suddenly emits the most astounding stream of bile against a historian called Phylarchus. Is it good history? Perhaps not. But very entertaining.
October 10, 2020
My review is of the first edition, with the original translation by W.R. Paton, who died in 1921 before it was seen through the press. A short introduction was supplied by H.J. Edwards. The volume has been superseded by a second edition, in which Paton's translation has been revised by F.W. Walbank and C. Habicht, and a more extensive introduction provided. Comparing the two translations I find that the newer one is not greatly changed, but that its word choice is more judicious. I would have given the first edition a higher rating if I hadn't seen the second. Anyone interested in the rise of Rome, and in particular its wars with Carthage, should read Polybius's history. Goodreads lumps reviews of the two editions together, although they have different ISBN numbers.
(Added later) After reading the revised edition I have increased my rating from three to four stars. In Books 1 and 2 Polybius brings the history of Rome, Carthage, and Greece down to the point where the Second Punic War is about to begin. Book 2 is mainly about Greece, and includes a long digression criticizing a rival writer named Phylarchus. My only criticism of this edition is that the footnotes refer to numerous other publications by abbreviations that are not explained anywhere in the volume.
(Added later) After reading the revised edition I have increased my rating from three to four stars. In Books 1 and 2 Polybius brings the history of Rome, Carthage, and Greece down to the point where the Second Punic War is about to begin. Book 2 is mainly about Greece, and includes a long digression criticizing a rival writer named Phylarchus. My only criticism of this edition is that the footnotes refer to numerous other publications by abbreviations that are not explained anywhere in the volume.
December 8, 2010
Wow! Great history! The material about Carthage was interesting. Plus I got to meet Xanthippus the Spartan, Hannibal the Rhodian--who was at least as dashing as Rhett Butler--and a bunch of Hamilcars, Hannibals, and Hasdrubals.
December 16, 2024
The first two books in Polybius's universal history which provide an overview of his intentions in writing his histories and cover numerous conflicts most notably the second Punic War.
These first two books are readable and informative but weaker in many ways than other ancient historical works such as Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War.
His account of various conflicts often lack depth because of the wide scope Polybius sets out in his histories wishing to demonstrate how the world became intertwined which result in no events being discussed in adequete depth and his histories jumping around from place to place quite haphazardly.
Polybius is also quite a pretentious writer in my opinion. He outlines in the beginning of book one how his histories are used not only to explain history but to impart a moral message which means that often it feels as if Polybius is only relating a certain story to fit into his narrative or portrayal of a certain people. In trying to promote his histories as being superior he also often feels a need to put down other contemporary historians for areas in their accounts which are inferior to his own which takes away from his histories usually formal style. He also states he is impartial but shows clear bias most evidently in his discussion of his native Achaea and the Aetolians with whom he is clearly influenced by his background as a member of a prominent political family in the Achaean League.
Overall Polybius's histories are a valuable but flawed work which suffers from a need to link his history to a specific moral message and a focus on politics over culture.
These first two books are readable and informative but weaker in many ways than other ancient historical works such as Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War.
His account of various conflicts often lack depth because of the wide scope Polybius sets out in his histories wishing to demonstrate how the world became intertwined which result in no events being discussed in adequete depth and his histories jumping around from place to place quite haphazardly.
Polybius is also quite a pretentious writer in my opinion. He outlines in the beginning of book one how his histories are used not only to explain history but to impart a moral message which means that often it feels as if Polybius is only relating a certain story to fit into his narrative or portrayal of a certain people. In trying to promote his histories as being superior he also often feels a need to put down other contemporary historians for areas in their accounts which are inferior to his own which takes away from his histories usually formal style. He also states he is impartial but shows clear bias most evidently in his discussion of his native Achaea and the Aetolians with whom he is clearly influenced by his background as a member of a prominent political family in the Achaean League.
Overall Polybius's histories are a valuable but flawed work which suffers from a need to link his history to a specific moral message and a focus on politics over culture.
March 3, 2024
A friend trained in classics gave me this, in a deaccessioned library copy, when I told her I had finished reading Thucydides. While I found it useful—it works well to clear my mind of other stories and other styles—it’s not as engaging as Thucydides. The reason is suggested by the introduction, which, after praising Polybius for many qualities, remarks that his account lacks a certain “larger humanity,” so that “his narrative, for all its simplicity and clearness, fails often to interest just because it is so uniformly correct, so invariably instructive.”
To put it simply, in the Histories Polybius attempts to explain what made Rome great during the second and part of the third centuries B.C.E. Essentially, in this book’s view, the Romans became great through conquest, which meant fighting off attackers, subduing rivals, and simply expanding. That approach leaves out a lot, but Polybius’s overall view of what greatness means is still common in the world. You can supply your own examples. The upshot is that the events recounted here are ancient but by no means foreign or remote.
To put it simply, in the Histories Polybius attempts to explain what made Rome great during the second and part of the third centuries B.C.E. Essentially, in this book’s view, the Romans became great through conquest, which meant fighting off attackers, subduing rivals, and simply expanding. That approach leaves out a lot, but Polybius’s overall view of what greatness means is still common in the world. You can supply your own examples. The upshot is that the events recounted here are ancient but by no means foreign or remote.
Want to read
February 16, 2024as a forty-volume work that mostly covers the period from 264 BC to 146 BC. He died in 118 BC, and the exact date of the work is not known. It is believed that he wrote the work sometime between 146 B.C. and the time of his death.
In Greco-Roman antiquity, the first universal history was written by Ephorus (405–330 BCE). This work has been lost, but its influence can be seen in the ambitions of Polybius (203–120 BC) and Diodorus (fl. 1st century BC) to give comprehensive accounts of their worlds. Herodotus' History is the earliest surviving member of the Greco-Roman world-historical tradition, although under some definitions of universal history it does not qualify as universal because it reflects no attempt to describe an overall direction of history or a principle or set of principles governing or underlying it. Polybius was the first to attempt a universal history in this stricter sense of the term
In Greco-Roman antiquity, the first universal history was written by Ephorus (405–330 BCE). This work has been lost, but its influence can be seen in the ambitions of Polybius (203–120 BC) and Diodorus (fl. 1st century BC) to give comprehensive accounts of their worlds. Herodotus' History is the earliest surviving member of the Greco-Roman world-historical tradition, although under some definitions of universal history it does not qualify as universal because it reflects no attempt to describe an overall direction of history or a principle or set of principles governing or underlying it. Polybius was the first to attempt a universal history in this stricter sense of the term
July 6, 2023
In interesting account of Roman supremacy from the point of view from the conquered who became an admirer of the Roman political system.
July 5, 2025
Polybius is the man. I went into this with curtailed expectations after hearing that he isn’t as good as the other classical historians, but found myself loving it. I think Polybius’ main strength is that he has such a clear purpose for writing- it is to develop the virtue and educate the person reading his work, presumably a young man preparing for public life and potential leadership in the future. While he can go into the weeds on certain subjects, Polybius never loses sight of this goal and so his history is replete with applicable lessons that make you invest yourself in his tales.
This focus is also evident in topics that could otherwise be boring. Most men could read about the Macedonian phalanx vs the Roman legion and be interested, but somehow Polybius evokes the same interest while discussing the Roman constitution.
While Polybius’ writing is so enjoyable and informative, it has one major weakness— it’s not complete. Nothing was worse than being interested in something happening, getting to the end of a chapter or book, and then hearing the narrator say, “None of Book X has survived,” and then finding yourself dropped mid-stream into another story, of whom you know none of the characters. Therefore, I’d only recommend the first few books for the regular reader who wants to know more about the Punic Wars, while the fragments should be saved for the enthusiast (because there is still good stuff in there!).
This focus is also evident in topics that could otherwise be boring. Most men could read about the Macedonian phalanx vs the Roman legion and be interested, but somehow Polybius evokes the same interest while discussing the Roman constitution.
While Polybius’ writing is so enjoyable and informative, it has one major weakness— it’s not complete. Nothing was worse than being interested in something happening, getting to the end of a chapter or book, and then hearing the narrator say, “None of Book X has survived,” and then finding yourself dropped mid-stream into another story, of whom you know none of the characters. Therefore, I’d only recommend the first few books for the regular reader who wants to know more about the Punic Wars, while the fragments should be saved for the enthusiast (because there is still good stuff in there!).
April 21, 2012
I love ancient history. Quite often my books date from the 1800's which is hard to share in this forum. This is a wonderful book, these green collections of books are teh original greek texts on one side and the english on the other, which is pretty cool.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews