Livy Puns

Greetings. I am reading Discourses On Livy, which I find to be quite an interesting book. As such, It has also grown a curiosity on me for the history of Rome, and I wondered if reading Livy's work would be a fine place to start, considering Discourses talks so much abour it. Thank you.

Hi im new to Data science, can someone help me with the configuration changes required for Apache Livy to work in local mode?

I find the Penguin maps to be blotchy and hard to read (and it also lacks terrain of course). Does anyone have recommendations on what they use?

I’ve read quite a bit on the Perseus Project website (which is great, as I’m sure is known here), but I’m struggling to find a complete edition (Or collection) in physical book form. A good deal of Ebook/, abridged versions, or standalone books with only some of Livy’s Libri are popping up for me.

Does anyone have any suggestions/knowledge of good printings available?

Penguin Classics, Oxford Classics, etc. In English please.

In my current project, I have spark integrated with livy in an interactive mode. Query is our input, when we fire a query from spark, it executes on presto and the presto results needs to be sent back to livy. We are creating data frame from the presto results. How can I get the results back to Livy without using the df.collect() method. At present we are using collect for development, but I worry about its impact when we have huge data. Can anyone suggest me a good approach? Thanks in advance

I am looking for works similar to these or good commentaries on these

I'm looking for some opinions on this book. I haven't yet read it but I'm a big fan of Machiavelli's style. I really enjoyed The Prince and Art of War. Does he have any interesting or controversial takes on things? Thank you all in advance.

Livy said: >Victory in war does not depend entirely upon numbers or mere courage; only skill and discipline will insure it. We find that the Romans owed the conquest of the world to no other cause than continual military training, exact observance of discipline in their camps and unwearied cultivation of the other arts of war. Without these, what chance would the inconsiderable numbers of the Roman armies have had against the multitudes of the Gauls? Or with what success would their small size have been opposed to the prodigious stature of the Germans? The Spaniards surpassed us not only in numbers, but in physical strength. We were always inferior to the Africans in wealth and unequal to them in deception and stratagem. And the Greeks, indisputably, were far superior to us in skill in arts and all kinds of knowledge.

>But to all these advantages the Romans opposed unusual care in the choice of their levies and in their military training. They thoroughly understood the importance of hardening them by continual practice, and of training them to every maneuver that might happen in the line and in action. Nor were they less strict in punishing idleness and sloth. The courage of a soldier is heightened by his knowledge of his profession, and he only wants an opportunity to execute what he is convinced he has been perfectly taught. A handful of men, inured to war, proceed to certain victory, while on the contrary numerous armies of raw and undisciplined troops are but multitudes of men dragged to slaughter.

I notice the Romans are always seen as invincible and superior their opponents in every way. Like the quote by Livy above, the Romans weren't exactly the perfect army in military abilities, tactics, and strategies. In fact much of the time the Romans were outmatched in many essential areas!Roman Legions were often inferior to their opponents in many essential fields such as quality of weapons,physical conditioning of soldier,numbers, skill of individual warriors, thickness of armor, quality of weapons!For example take armor and weapons. Generally history books make it seem that Romans had the most advanced armor and weaponry in Europe and their opponents often fought with poor armor. But if one researches the enemies the Romans fought, often they had armor and weaponry as heavy as those the Romans had especially some of the more vicious Germanic tribes of the post Pax Romana such as the Visigoths and the Franks!! And the Romans weren't master of tact

Any given information is greatly appreciated!

In the intro of one of my Livy collections, the translator says Livy "understood little or nothing about the practical business of war"; I've seen similar comments made about him, like he obviously never served in the Roman army because he gets basic facts about the military wrong. I find this surprising because he seems to go into so much detail about battles and logistics, as if he knows what he's talking about. I'm no expert myself so I don't have a Roman military bullshit detector or whatever.

What exactly is wrong with how Livy writes about military matters?

I don’t know if any of you follow livies HQ on twitter but is it? It says official and but I just wanted to make sure. ( If You don’t know what Taylor Nation Is it’s a place where Taylor Swifts team can post new merch releases and smaller things more capitalist related than taylor’s actual twitter.)

I'm looking specifically at Ad Urbe Condita 22, when he accounts Flaminius being trapped by Hannibal. Was Livy trying to highlight Flaminius' rash and impulsive character, or was he trying to account the event in detail?

Livy said: >Victory in war does not depend entirely upon numbers or mere courage; only skill and discipline will insure it. We find that the Romans owed the conquest of the world to no other cause than continual military training, exact observance of discipline in their camps and unwearied cultivation of the other arts of war. Without these, what chance would the inconsiderable numbers of the Roman armies have had against the multitudes of the Gauls? Or with what success would their small size have been opposed to the prodigious stature of the Germans? The Spaniards surpassed us not only in numbers, but in physical strength. We were always inferior to the Africans in wealth and unequal to them in deception and stratagem. And the Greeks, indisputably, were far superior to us in skill in arts and all kinds of knowledge.

>But to all these advantages the Romans opposed unusual care in the choice of their levies and in their military training. They thoroughly understood the importance of hardening them by continual practice, and of training them to every maneuver that might happen in the line and in action. Nor were they less strict in punishing idleness and sloth. The courage of a soldier is heightened by his knowledge of his profession, and he only wants an opportunity to execute what he is convinced he has been perfectly taught. A handful of men, inured to war, proceed to certain victory, while on the contrary numerous armies of raw and undisciplined troops are but multitudes of men dragged to slaughter.

I notice the Romans are always seen as invincible and superior their opponents in every way. Like the quote by Livy above, the Romans weren't exactly the perfect army in military abilities, tactics, and strategies. In fact much of the time the Romans were outmatched in many essential areas!Roman Legions were often inferior to their opponents in many essential fields such as quality of weapons,physical conditioning of soldier,numbers, skill of individual warriors, thickness of armor, quality of weapons!For example take armor and weapons. Generally history books make it seem that Romans had the most advanced armor and weaponry in Europe and their opponents often fought with poor armor. But if one researches the enemies the Romans fought, often they had armor and weaponry as heavy as those the Romans had especially some of the more vicious Germanic tribes of the post Pax Romana such as the Visigoths and the Franks!! And the Romans weren't master of tact