A well known saying states that history is written by the victors, allowing them to portray events and characters in a certain light. This is true in the case of Hannibal, a Carthaginian military commander who looms large in Roman history. As the Romans finally triumphed over him and Carthage, all available sources on Hannibal are written by his enemies. Two of these authors are Livy, a Roman, and Polybius, a Greek with ties to important Roman figures. Both historians use a similar method in explaining Hannibal, discussing what and who influenced his actions. This, along with their inherent biases, make separating Hannibal as characterized by his Roman enemies and a historical Hannibal, a very difficult task. Although both authors use the framework of discussing what influenced Roman’s great bogeyman, using the same basic facts about the man, they do not portray him in the same way. Livy focuses on the impact Hannibal’s father, Hamilcar, played in his son’s temperament and future ambitions. Livy begins with relating the story of Hamilcar having his young son swear upon a sacrifice that he would be the enemy of Rome (Livy 21.1). His father instilled a virulent hatred for the Roman state in Hannibal, going so far as to add an element of religion to ensure that the pledge would not be broken. Once commander, Hannibal seemed to believe that “war with …show more content…
In fact, the first thing Polybius does in his piece is to attribute every good and bad thing that happened to Rome and Carthage to Hannibal (Polybius 9.22). Polybius’ presentation of Hannibal may be colored by his experience of watching the destruction of Carthage in addition to his opinions of Carthaginians in general. In his description of the destruction, he defends the actions of Rome all but daring Carthage to disobey their requests after their surrender (Polybius