Livy's Account Of The Battle Of Zama

Is Livy’s account of the battle of Zama more successful as a piece of literature than a work of history?

Livy wrote history. But, it differed from what is now typically described as a “good” history. He was more concerned with creating an accurate and useful account of moral history and of the history of characters than a purely factual recollection of events. His overall aim was to show how Rome became great, and to use that as a guide for securing future prosperity. Despite what many critics have said, this approach to history is still valuable and worth reading. Livy’s literary skill, rather than detracting from his history, improves it and makes it even more powerful. However, before we can ascertain whether Livy was more successful in a historical or a literary capacity, we must explain what we mean by (and the differences between) “literature” and “history.” …show more content…
History often attempts to establish why events unfolded in a particular way, providing analysis of prior events as evidence. History does not aim to provide the most entertaining or convenient explanation of the past, rather the most thorough and the most accurate. By contrast, literature can interpret, embellish and even make up its sources. Literature does not have to be grounded in reality; it sets out to provide the best possible story. However, literature and history are not distinct; there are many similarities between the two. Both aim to tell a story. One bases itself in fact the other is an artistic form. Literature and history can be intertwined with powerful effect; literary skill makes history more compelling and dramatic. Livy attempts, often successfully, to fulfill the role of both historian and