The second Punic war, more famously known as the Hannibalic war, was a turning point for Roman rule it was the dawn of the Roman empire. The Punic wars marked the end of a minor, mostly peaceful, democratic, land-based regional power the Roman republic and the beginning of a great, violent, autocratic, sea-based empire that conquered vast parts of the western world and so changed the way people were governed. These wars resulted in the destruction of Carthage and the enslavement of its population and Roman domination across the Mediterranean. This essay will try to understand why the second Punic war was very well-documented and featured much in the writing of Roman historians. It will look at the motives of the historians who wrote about the war against Hannibal and how they wrote their accounts and their attitudes towards Hannibal himself and then at the results of this war which proves why the second Punic war was so significant to the history of Rome.
The main source for the Punic wars is Polybius who was present at the third Punic war but had information about the first two wars from earlier. As he was living through the second century BC, Polybius was able to see the rising supremacy of Rome first-hand. He wanted to understand how and by a state of what kind of constitution almost the whole world of the inhabited world was conquered and fell under the sole rule of the Romans in a period of not quite 53 years an event without parallel in history. His Histories covered the three Punic wars which are in fact the main subject and constitute the starting and ending points for the Histories in its final form. This leads one to question why Polybius saw the Punic wars as being very important and why he thought it necessary to make them the main subject of his works. The pace of Polybius narration demonstrates the care and emphasis he placed on the history of the second Punic war Book 3 is devoted exclusively to the first few years of the war and is the longest of the complete books.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Polybius lived and wrote in a predominantly non-literate society and so written documents did not enjoy the status they have today as evidence for historical reconstruction. And so, serious historical research was derived largely from eyewitness oral accounts and this was Polybius preferred method of acquiring evidence for his work. Polybius was able to question both Romans and non-Romans of an earlier generation about their experiences in the war against Hannibal and to interview younger men who had heard accounts from their elders. However, for earlier events, such as those of the first Punic war, he had to rely heavily upon written sources and so was unable to conduct his ideal method of research. Polybius was very much against the use of written sources which can be seen through his principal criticism of Timaeus of Tauromenium (who was Polybius source for the earlier events) being that he relied heavily upon written documents. When Polybius recounted the events of the second Punic war, he was less reliant on written sources and was able to conduct his favoured sort of research based on the oral testimony of eyewitness accounts. This could be a reason as to why the war against Hannibal featured prominently in his Histories as he was able to do his preferred method of research and more material and evidence was available to him (more written sources for Polybius account of the second Punic war are known than for the first). Furthermore, the historians Polybius used in his writing of the war against Hannibal would have moved in political and social circles frequented by him and so he had privileged access to well-informed oral testimony.
The Roman mixed constitution was in Polybius eyes the best available political organisation and he believed it to be the most important factor in Roman imperial success. According to him, this success led to a political and moral peak at the time of the second Punic war. However, this could not last Polybius states in Book 6 that all things, included the best-devised political systems, are subject to change and decline. According to him, Roman degeneration set in after the victory against Hannibal. In many passages from Book 7 onwards, and with increasing frequency as the work progresses, Polybius takes care to remark upon signs of Roman deterioration. The story of the third Punic war and Carthages tragic fall punctuates this change from the time of Roman moral excellence, in the first and second Punic wars, to degeneracy.
The Punic wars were also central to Polybius work because they served as the main vehicle for his major narrative themes: the rise of Rome to Mediterranean-wide dominance and the decline from the moral and political excellence by means of which the Romans had acquired their empire. The Greeks of Polybius day were very much aware of the fact that they lived in a world of overwhelming Roman power and that this power had been established as a result of the Romans victory in the Punic wars. Any historical explanation of how this power had so radically changed the world had therefore to first understand and come to terms with the conflicts between the Roman republic and Carthage. And this is why these events are at the centre of Polybius political consciousness and his Histories.
Unfortunately, Polybius description of the events of the second Punic war are mostly lost but Livy, who followed him closely, can be read as a substitute. Livy added information from other authors or invented episodes, but mostly followed Polybius. In Roman tradition, the second Punic war was a time of heroes above all, Fabius the Delayer, Marcellus, and Scipio who with their country-men were tested to the limit by the vengeful figure of the Carthaginian Hannibal. Livys narrative contributes to this picture of heroism, and is often seen as painting only that picture. He wrote the war which I am going to describe was the most memorable of all wars every waged the war, that is, which, under the leadership of Hannibal, the Carthaginians waged with the Roman People. Livy seems to deliberately present the paradox of Romans behaving badly in books 21-30 of Ab Urbe Condita so as to break both the traditional mould of heroic stereotyping and the traditional historiographical concepts of time and causality. By analysing in such a way, Livy aims to show the corruption of ancient morality beginning not in the late Republic, but as early as the Hannibalic War. Livys tempered handling of the topic of Rome and Carthage allows him both to feel partiality towards his own people and, at the same time, to present two sides in a more realistic and balanced light. So once again, the war against Hannibal is featured prominently by a historian in order to show how the moral and political standing of the Romans took a turning point after this war; but also because looking back, this was a period of pride for the as mentioned before, it was a time of heroes. Another Roman writer Sallust also believed that the war marked the start of the beginning of Romes political corruption and of the erosion of its core values by luxury and wealth.
Before the second Punic war, there was no historiography in Rome; but the clash of civilisations it involved proved a potent stimulus to historiography, which was taken up by the two senators (and participants in the war), Quintus Fabius Pictor and Lucius Cincius Alimentus, who may be considered to be the founders of Roman historiography.
After the first Punic war, the Carthaginians, bitter from their defeats in the Mediterranean Sea, sent one of their best generals, Hannibal, to invade Italy. Hannibal has been described as being one of the most capable, daring and fearless generals who ever lived. Livy wrote These admirable qualities of the man were equalled by his monstrous vices: his cruelty was inhuman, his perfidy worse than Punic; he had no regard for truth, and none for sanctity, no fear of the gods, no reverence for an oath, no religious scruple. Throughout Roman historiography, Hannibal is seen largely through the eyes of the Romans, in whose interest it was to exaggerate his military genius in order to magnify their own victory over him. So the war against Hannibal was of great importance to Roman history as the Romans could look back on it with pride at their victory over such a great general and enemy as Hannibal. Hannibal had tried to persuade the southern Italian allies of Rome to abandon Rome, but when Rome reconquered them, the previously fiercely independent allies were turned into conquered colonies. This created great tension in southern Italy, leading in 90 BC to the Social War, when the allies revolted. When Hannibal fled to Antiochus of Syria, who was resisting the Romans in the eastern Mediterranean, Scipio with his brother Lucius went there and defeated him in the Battle of Magnesia in 190 BC, thus establishing Roman power in the eastern Mediterranean.
Other reasons as to why the war against Hannibal was so significant can be seen in the results of this war. The first Punic war began while Rome was one of several moderately strong powers around the Mediterranean Sea and broke out when the Carthaginians and the Romans began to fight over the island of Sicily. After some years, the Romans forced the Carthaginians out of Sicily forever. Then the Romans demanded and received Cosica, Sardinia and war reparations. This was the beginning of Romes long imperial history of conquering other nations. The first Punic war resulted in Rome learning essential tactics and strategies and skills such as how to conduct a large war, how to battle at sea, and how to finance and support a great army. Furthermore, they gained their very first provinces that were not within Italy. This set the Roman republic on the road to become the Roman empire. The second Punic war furthered this change that Rome was undergoing. By the end of this war, Rome was a supreme power and Carthage was changed from being a near-equal with Rome into an enslaved state which had to come begging to Rome if it wanted to go to war. Rome also gained other territories after this war. When Spain became the first distant province, governors had to be away from Rome for more than a year at a time. This meant that the provinces were nearly independent of the capital and had to be run completely different compared to before the imperial days. For example, they needed to have permanent standing armies that were loyal to their commanders instead of to Rome. Rome had now become the dominant and rapidly changing power of the world.
The second Punic war revealed the latent power of Rome its huge resources of money and manpower, its powerful navy and army and the stability and resilience of its political institutions for example, the senate. The Hannibalic war, claimed Polybius, marked the moments when the Romans decided that they wanted to rule the world It was owing to their defeat of the Carthaginians in the Hannibalic War that the Romans, feeling that the chief and most essential step in their scheme of universal aggression had now been taken, were first emboldened to reach out their hands to grasp the rest and to cross with an army to Greece and the continent of Asia. Romes ultimate victory over Hannibal paved the way for its conquest of the Mediterranean. Rome entered the second Punic war as the dominant city in Italy and then emerged as a world power. The war left Rome in control of Cisalpine Gaul, Sicily, Sardinia and Spain this was the beginning of a real empire.
Moreover, the destruction of Carthage removed a trading rival, and so the period after the war saw a massive growth in Roman trade, ports, and the industries of textiles and olive oil which produced trade goods.
In conclusion, it is clear that the war against Hannibal was very important to Romans as it was a period of victory and pride and historians wrote of it as being the peak of Roman moral and political excellence. The war was very well-documented since historiography started after the war and so its participants could write about it and those who wrote of it later had a wide range of sources available and could get eye-witness accounts from the participants of the war the evidence for the events of this war was readily available. Also, Hannibal was a formidable enemy and so the Romans winning victory over him was incredible and a prideful moment in their history something to be well-documented. Both the first and second Punic wars were turning points in the history of Rome. The first Punic war gave Rome the islands surrounding Italy and the technology and knowledge to build and support a navy. The second Punic war gave the Romans Spain, much of northern Africa, and the important islands of the Mediterranean. Before the wars, the Roman republic was a minor power, equivalent to the other Hellenistic states around the Mediterranean and semi-barbaric tribes within Europe. After the wars, the Roman empire was a supreme naval power that controlled most of the land surrounding the Mediterranean Sea, including present-day Greece, Spain and northern Africa. The three Punic wars, spanning a total of 118 years, transformed the Roman empire from a minor democratic state, centred around Rome, to a great ocean-spanning empire.
Stuck on your essay?
