Polybius and the Basis of Roman Imperialism

The work of Polybius is fundamental to any understanding of Rome's rise to empire and his merits as an historian have rightly intensified the scrutiny applied to his every word. However, in this paper I will argue that scholars have credited many passages in which Polybius appears to weigh in on Roman imperial aspirations with undue explanatory significance. F. W. Walbank, evaluating Holleaux's thesis that Rome came inadvertently to empire, famously argued that these passages show that Polybius believed that the Romans, guided by the shadowy hand of Tyche, set out to conquer the world, despite the apparently solid conclusions to the contrary which Holleaux drew from his narrative. Subsequently, Derow removed the apparent contradiction, showing that the Holleaux thesis, whether or not it is historically valid, is more a product of Livy and the Republican historical tradition than Polybius. In Derow's view, Polybius explicitly shows the Romans cleverly manipulating others into starting their wars. Like all historians ancient and modern, Polybius must have had his own synthetic interpretation, but comparison with other Greek authors reveal that attempts to find a key to his view of the Romans' ultimate intentions in these scattered programmatic statements are, as Derow said of Holleaux's interpretation, "based upon either more or less than Polybius himself provides". For the majority of Greek writers conquest was not in and of itself an ethical problem. From the idea of the succession of empires which Herodotus takes up, possibly from further east and the stark Realpolitik of Thucydides, to the lionization of Philip V and other monarchs in the epitome of Pompeius Trogus' largely Greek-sourced <i>Philippica</i>, conquest is treated as the obvious measure of a monarch or state's success. When Dionysius of Halicarnassus sets out document the early history of Rome he attempts to reconcile his Greek readers to Roman domination by showing that the Romans are essentially Greek. Their history is, moreover, a source of both practical and ethical <i>exempla</i> in that they acquired it by largely virtuous conduct and because it accordingly overshadows its predecessors in extent and stability. Therefore, when Polybius speaks of Rome daring to contend for dominion over the whole world, (I.3.6), the novelty is not in the goal but the possibility of success and he does not imply that Roman militarism or imperial aspirations are in any way unique. Seeing that Polybius did not feel the need to explain Carthaginian expansion or Hieron's attempts to dominate Sicily we can with justification look to him for an explanation of why the Romans succeeded, but not any unique motivation. I argue here that when Polybius, like other Greek authors writing on the Republic, appears to credit the Romans with advanced planning or systematic subjugation of the known world he is not making any particular historical assertion. Rather, what we see is a combination of hindsight and the influence of a political theory which assumes that states naturally expand and seek dominion over others. In so far as such programmatic statements discuss Roman aims and motives they were intended to offer not an explanation, but a truism. Works Cited Derow, P.S. 1979. "Polybius, Rome, and the East." <i>JRS</i> 69: 1-15. Eckstein, E. 2006. <i>Mediterranean Anarchy, Interstate War, and the Rise of Rome.</i> Berkeley: University of California Press. Gruen, E. 1984. <i>The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome.</i> Berkeley: University of California Press. Holleaux, M. 1921. <i>Rome, la Grèce et les monarchies hellénistiques au IIIe siècle avant J.-C..</i> Paris: E. de Boccard. Walbank, F.W. 1963. "Polybius and Rome's Eastern Policy." <i>JRS</i> 53: 1-13.