used him as a source as did John of Antioch when writing his World Chronicle. An English translator of the Roman History wrote in 1705 that Herodian "still preserves a Majesty suitable to the Greatness of the Subject which he treats, and has something in him so pleasing and comely, as perhaps all the Art and Labour of other Men can never reach.” Altheim commended Herodian's wide vision of the period, and F.A. Wolf acclaimed Herodian's lack of bias and superstition. However, not all views of Herodian are positive. For example, Wolf also charged Herodian with a deficiency in critical faculty. While the author of the Historia Augusta drew from Herodian, he also censured him for bias, and Herodian was by no means Zosimus’ first choice. Similarly, Joannes Zonaras only utilized Herodian where Cassius Dio's history leaves off. Herodian has long been criticized for a lack of historical accuracy, but recent studies have tended to side with him, legitimizing his historical facts. In the second book, Herodian states that his intention was to “narrate only the most important and conclusive…actions separately and in chronological order.” (2.15.7) Because of this, Herodian sometimes conflates a large number of events into a single reference or two. For example, all of Caracalla's campaign in the north during 213 through 214 is condensed into two short allusions. Similarly, a single reference to a winter in Sirmium sums up Maximinus’ battles on the Rhine and Danube in 236 through 238. Herodian also occasionally falls short in his descriptions of geography. He confuses Arabia Scenite with Arabia Felix and claims that Issus was where the final battle and capture of Darius III took place. In regards to Cassius Dio, both he and Herodian admittedly make many errors in their histories. Dio is credited as the expert when it comes to the senate; however, Herodian challenges Dio on his description of the people's reaction to the proclamation of Septimius Severus as their new emperor. Dio's work is not always the more accurate of the two and must not be immediately chosen over Herodian's. References Browning, Robert. The Classical Review, New Series, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Jun., 1971), pp. 194–196. Oxford: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Carney, T.F.. The Classical Review, New Series, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Jun., 1971), pp. 194–196. Oxford: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Downey, Glanville. The Classical Journal, Vol. 67, No. 2 (Dec., 1971 - Jan., 1972),