An Analysis Of Polybius's Third Punic War

There is a symbiosis between history and collective memory. In Ancient Rome’s oral tradition, history was exclusive to aristocratic historians – an amalgamation of their individual memory, and the greater Roman one. What resulted was a collective memory, plagued by the predispositions of context, for the contextual frameworks of narrative and legend dictated its nature. In its memory, Rome defined itself as superior . The Punic Wars delineated its beginning. During this period, Polybius constructed his history to cultivate a cultural identity of superiority. But as a result, he also cultivated the selectivity of a Roman-centric memory. Both the perpetrator of dominion and the memory of dominion, the discourse on the Second Jewish Revolt united

In the instance of the Third Punic War, this repository was Roman-centric, enamoured in the fervour of its own superiority. Polybius was most critical in perpetuating these ideas. As a Greek prisoner of war, the poignant memory of his father advocating Roman rule infiltrated his writings. Just like his father, Polybius’s contemporary, Panaetius conceived similar ideals: if the subjugated states were morally inferior, a state’s dominion was justified. This was Polybius’ rationale . Harnessing Stoic philosophy as its didactic foundation, Roman supremacy would bring the hopes of political reunification to fruition; fulfilling what Alexander the Great could not in his oikaumenn . What began as mere memories manifested in the Roman military mindset, in its propulsion to subdue. Not only was Polybius’ milieu essential in writing history (Halbwach ), but his milieu served his history. Polybius envisaged his history to be a pragmatike historia: a record for generals and politicians to avoid repeating past mistakes. It was a history belonging to the victors. The victors subsequently controlled the future – the victors’ metanarrative . As a self-fulfilling ideal, Rome’s superior identity both initiated its intentions to control the future and actualised it in the extermination of Carthage. Ideology became action. The roots of this action were situated in one poignant individual memory, and consequently an empire’s whole

Polybius manipulated the fervour of violence – both in conquered Romans and Romans as conquerors – to reconstruct a traumatised identity in the battle of Cannae. The visceral imagery of Roman soldiers lying in mounds, alive and dead manipulated the frailty of memory, for memory consequently contorted into allegory. It emphasised with the Romans and vilified the Carthaginians . This was the guise for Roman Defensive Imperialism. Every Carthaginian was slaughtered to inspire fear in all future enemies of Rome: not only were human beings massacred but dogs were cut in half . Violence was no longer an oppressor, but a tool. It propagated ideology: the myth of the superior state. Yet there was a deeply ironic contradiction. Polybius condemned the Carthaginians for their brutality, yet the brutality of Roman vengeance was the paragon of Roman eminence. With violence at its genesis, the metanarrative of Rome was