It has also been my impression that Bell is widely considered to be an unreliable source on the history of mathematics. My impression is reinforced by this line from the Wikipedia entry on Bell.
I stand corrected then. I’ll probably keep recommending it, as it’s definitely an entertaining read, but I’ll sure to caveat the historical accuracy.
There’s definitely some of that snobbery evident in Euclid. Although Euclid did do a great deal of work in number theory (his is the first credited proof of the infinitude of primes, for instance), he did all of his number theory in geometrical terms. (a number is a line of a certain length, for instance).
But even at that, some of Archimedes’ later work does seem like it might have even been edging towards the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Who knows what might have happened, had not that Roman soldier been so impatient?