Analysis Of Livy's 'History Of Rome'

Register to read the introduction… And actually he says it in the preface that one should not actually zero in on the mythical part but on the undertakings of the peoples day to day life. For example the life of Remus and Romulus shows how superstitious the Roman society was from the onset. This is seen when Remus and Romulus consulted the tutelary deities by means of augury to know who was to give his name to the city they founded (Kirschenbaum, 1996); and this is also seen in the latter stories i.e. the defeat at Lake Trasimenus is also linked to some bad omens (ibid.). From this, one will find out that the story of the lives of Romulus and Remus though highly mythical establishes the general lifestyle of the Romans which was rooted in superstition. Hence this work qualifies as a historic text despite of the fact that it is a bit mythical at the beginning; the mythical part is a springboard of the Ancient history divorcing it would be leaving out some important truths.

In conclusion, Livy’s “History of Rome” qualifies as a work of history because, firstly Livy as a historian does not show bias in telling the story. Apart from that Livy being an ancient historian adopts the use of myths which serves as a platform for the rest of the historical facts of the Roman history. These two reasons qualifies Livy’s story as