Titus Livius (Livy) Ab urbe condita 32.17

Benjamin Oliver Foster, Ph.D. (Editor), Frank Gardener Moore (Editor), Evan T. Sage, Ph.D. (Editor), Alfred C. Schlesinger, Ph.D. (Editor)

View: By Section

Ab urbe condita. Titus Livius (Livy). Benjamin Oliver Foster, Ph.D. (Editor), Frank Gardener Moore (Editor), Evan T. Sage, Ph.D. (Editor), Alfred C. Schlesinger, Ph.D. (Editor). Medford, MA. .

Sponsored by Perseus Project, Tufts University.

Funding provided by The National Endowment for the Humanities.

Current edition Perseus

History of Rome (English) (Foster, Benjamin Oliver; Moore, Frank Gardener; Sage, Evan T.; Schlesinger, Alfred C., translators. Cambridge, Mass.; London: Harvard University Press; William Heinemann, Ltd., 1919-1959. (Loeb Classical Library))

Editions (3)
Ab urbe condita Perseus (Pars I-IV, Libri I-XL. Editio Stereotypica. Weissenborn, Wilhelm; Mueller, Moritz, editors. Leipzig: Teubner, 1884-1911.) — 32.17 focus
Ab urbe condita Perseus (Livy in Fourteen Volumes. Foster, Benjamin Oliver; Moore, Frank Gardener; Schlesinger, Alfred C., editors. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann, Ltd., 1919-1959 (printing).) — 30.17 focus
Ab urbe condita libri, erklärt von M. Weissenborn Perseus (Weissenborn, W.; Müller, H. J., editors. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1873-1883.) — 32.17 focus
Translations (2)
History of Rome Perseus (Spillan, D.; Edmonds, Cyrus; McDevitte, William A., translators. London: Henry G. Bohn, 1849-1868. (Bohn's Classical Library)) — 32.17 focus
History of Rome Perseus (Volumes 1-2. Roberts, Canon, Rev, translator. London, New York: J. M. Dent and Sons; E. P. Dutton and Co., 1912.) — 32.17 focus

Notes on the current edition

Ab Urbe Condita With An English Translation, books 1-10, 21-45, with periochae 11-20

1. B.C. 198
2. The value of the nummus or sestertius was about four cents, or two pence.
3. The value of the nummus or sestertius was about four cents, or two pence.
4. B.C. 198
5. For the Roman testudo, see the note on XXXI. xxxix. 14. Livy seems to mean that the multitude of spears, projecting in front of the phalanx, offered a projection against frontal attack comparable to that afforded by the testudo. To visualize this battle, we must picture the phalanx diminished in frontage sufficiently to fit it into the breach in the wall (this protected it against flank attack), and correspondingly deepened. Since the ranks, from front to rear, carried spears of increasingly greater length, the points presented an almost impenetrable barrier. In the characteristic Roman attack, the soldiers threw their javelins to break up, at least temporarily, the hostile formation, and then closed in individual hand-to-hand combat. The mass of the phalanx, in this situation, was too dense to be affected by the javelins, and the spears projecting in front prevented the Romans from closing in and reaching the enemy with their swords.