In the broadest sense, history is a recalling of humanity. First passed in the oral tradition, then later as written word, details of culture, individual lives and tradition became transcribed in text. Historians, however serve another purpose entirely. Their purpose calls for the piecing of individual stories locked in the past much like a tapestry. Historiographical tradition began and developed roughly in the period from 500-336 B.C. with Greece and later became inherited by Rome as with other cultural aspects of Greek tradition. Rome however, under both the Roman Empire and the Roman Republic was driven by law, forming a different genre of history; one driven and influenced by politics.
Following the Jurgurthine War (112-105 B.C.) and in the wake of the Republic, Romans were left in a moment of reflection. The transparency of the dismantled status of
…show more content…
The realization sparked an influx of historical works. “For the first time Romans became aware that their life differed greatly from that of their ancestors and that the continuity of Roman tradition had been broken. That experience proved extremely disturbing. How did the past, seen as glorious and idea, fir with the troubled present?” (Breisach, 1994, 52). Ironically, dictations of Roman civilization were first compiled by Greek historian Polybius. His body of work, Histories, focused entirely on the foundations of the Roman political sphere, to include its construct, military institutions, origination and development of the city and its constitution. In Histories Polybius develops a framework on why he believes Rome found success: the consuls, the senate and the people. According to Polybius, the strength of Rome laid in its constitution. “The result of this power of the several estates for mutual help or harm is a union sufficiently firm for all emergencies, and a