The Reasons for and the Course of the Third Punic War (149-146 BC)

Research Paper by: George Moulos

“The destruction of Carthage was a result of fear, hatred and a chance to settle old scores once and for all” Introduction:

The Third Punic War is considered to be among the most controversial wars of ancient times. The Third Punic War is thought by most ancient and modern historians to have been a product of the ambition of Roman senators. Modern and ancient historians have written for centuries about the reasons for the Third Punic War, however no single theory has been agreed upon. Hence, this research paper will outline the most popular theories regarding the reasons for the Third Punic War and will go on to outline the course of the war. This excerpt, from modern historian P.Bradley summarises the real cause behind the annihilation of Carthage during the Third Punic War;

“The destruction of Carthage was a result of fear, hatred and a chance to settle old scores once and for all...with those states which broke treaties and which involved Rome in long and costly wars”.

Unlike the first two Punic wars the third Punic war only consisted of a siege, the siege of Carthage. The Third Punic war is considered to be the most controversial of all the Punic wars due to certain differing perspectives which challenge the validity of the Roman declaration of war. At the time of the third Punic war Rome had taken Spain and Carthage had very limited land due to the peace treaty signed at the end of the second Punic war and the strict rules surrounding their diplomatic and militaristic capabilities. Reasons for the Third Punic war: The reasons for the third Punic war are largely thought to be the amalgamation of a few smaller reasons in conjunction with the willingness of Roman senators to destroy Carthage and use it to advance their political careers. However, the following theories could stand alone in causing the Third Punic Wars.

Cato the Elder Roman resentment: The popular opinion of most historians is that Cato the Elder, and a few other prominent senators, wanted to use the annihilation of Carthage to their own advantage and merely waited for an opportunity to destroy Carthage to arise. Cato and his allies within the Roman senate harboured a deep underlying hatred for Carthage because of the long and costly wars that it had with Rome in the past. According to a fellow senator, Appian, Cato concluded all his speeches in the senate, regardless of the topic by saying:

“Furthermore, it is my opinion that Carthage must be destroyed”

An opportunity for Cato the Elder arose when Carthage technically broke the treaty it had with Rome. The peace treaty was established at the end of the Second Punic War meant that any border disputes involving Carthage were to be discussed and decided upon within the Roman Senate. The treaty also explicitly stated that Carthage needed Rome’s approval to go to war. Carthage had declared war on Massinissa, the King of Numidia, without permission from the Roman senate, something that was forbidden according to the peace treaty they had signed with Rome. Carthage thought that the treaty had expired in 151 BC after all debts had been paid to Rome, but Rome saw the peace treaty as “a permanent declaration of Carthaginian subordination to Rome” (Ridley, R.T. “To Be Taken with a Pinch of Salt: The Destruction of Carthage”).

Political Fear:

It is thought by 'Gilbert Charles-Picard', a modern Roman-African specialist, that the Roman senate decided to treat Carthage in the cruel way that they did as they feared that the more democratic cities growing in Africa, Greece and Spain would influence Rome and its allies to move towards a democracy, or at least insight revolution (D. Hoyos, "A companion to the Punic Wars"). This also explains the harsh treatment of Corinth in 146 BC and Numantia in 133 BC.

Economic advantages:

Another reason for Rome to attack Carthage in 149 BC was the economic gain that its destruction would entail. Rome was a city of around 400,000 people and food was of the highest priority. The fertile lands surrounding Carthage were considered the most productive and accessible farmlands that weren’t under Roman rule. Rome also feared the competition which the Carthaginians had commercially. Something of a renaissance occurred after the second Punic war regarding Carthaginian trade. Historians base this theory of a Carthaginian renaissance in trade off the play ‘The Little Carthaginians’, from Poenulus. This text was written in 190 BC and presents an African merchant who was extremely successful, traveling and trading around Italy, including Rome. This is seen as proof that Carthaginian trade had once again boomed. Cato the Elder travelled to Carthage in 153 BC and noted (Appian, Lib. 69.3110-15) that he “feared and admired” Carthage’s agricultural lands. This written source is supported by the archaeological finds of Serge Lancel around the port of Carthage, showing a huge harbour which couldn’t be filled with warships and so it’s assumed it was filled with merchant ships between the second and third Punic wars. Commercial trade factors mainly benefitted the wealthy and so it is of popular opinion that, economically a Third Punic War would only benefit the aristocrats and the middle class of Rome. However, the gains in booty for the lower classes from previous wars proved to be a substantial incentive and so all people of Rome could benefit from the destruction of Carthage.

Psychological Fear:

Another view regarding the reason for the third Punic War is the psychological fear of the Carthaginians, or as Livy called it “metus Punicus”. One perspective, which conflicts with the views of many other historians is that “Cato was more fearful of Carthage than looking for political gain” (Kerry and Scullard), which would exemplify the psychological fear the Romans had at the time. The fear of the Carthaginians which came from the previous wars and the crushing defeats suffered by the Romans at the hands of Hannibal, including the complete annihilation of an estimated 75,000 Roman citizens at Cannae still scarred the people of Rome. This fear and hatred was handed down from generation to generation and the general ignorance of different cultures throughout antiquity meant that the fear of Carthaginian power was much stronger than was factually true at the time. Modern historian D.Hoyos calls this “the hereditary enemy” and talks on the theory of psychological fear in ‘A Companion to the Punic Wars’.

“The need for security seems to have been quite widespread among humans and, combined with ignorance, it has triggered many wars in the past”.

Numidian Threat:

Although Masinissa, the ruler in Kingdom of Numidia was an ally of Rome he posed the only possible threat, besides Carthage to Roman power in the western Mediterranean. Masinissa had attacked and pillaged Carthaginian territories in 193 BC as well as from 162-161 BC. Paul Veyne, a modern historian states in his book ‘The Roman Empire’, “It could be feared that he[Masinissa] and his sons would swallow it [Carthage] whole. So, ally though he was, it was preferable to get ahead of him.” Roman Imperialism:

After the Battle of Zama in 202 BC it was established that Rome were the hegemons of the Mediterranean, and some historians suggest they were “the policeman of the Mediterranean”. This imperialism is used by both ancient and modern historians to treat the declaration of war on Carthage in 149 BC as just another conquest for Rome, and as Paul Veyne puts it “they considered conquest a normal, everyday act” (‘The Roman Empire’). This imperialistic attitude is best exemplified in an ancient text written by Livy. Livy writes of senator Manlius Vulso who, in a speech before the senate summarised the Roman outlook of the world when he said “all peoples obey the Romans” (Livy 38.48.2-5).

Course of the Third Punic War: Numidian provocation:

argued that the Third Punic War began with the initial provocation of Carthage on behalf of the king of Numidia, Masinissa, in 151 BC. Masinissa launched raids on the Carthaginian borders established after the Second Punic War (as seen in the above map). These raids upon Carthaginian villages led to the pillaging of countless crucial Carthaginian farming villages. At this point, according to ancient written accounts by Roman senator Appian (Lib.74.340- 4) Carthage declared war on the Kingdom of Numidia and the peace treaty with Rome was officially broken. Carthage launches a small, defensive military attack on Masinissa which ends in a humiliating loss, and results in another 50 year debt to the Kingdom of Numidia. Modern historian Dexter Hoyos studies the possibility of collusion between Rome and the Kingdom of Numidia in ‘The Carthaginians’. He poses the question “To what extent was Massinissa in collusion with his allies?”.

Roman Actions:

Rome reacted with complete outrage and planned to institute ultimatums for Carthage that would “satisfy the people of Rome“ (Ridley, R.T., Classical Philology vol. 81, no. 2). At this point there was no question as to whether Rome would attack Carthage. Cato the Elder stated in the months preceding the attack on Carthage “for reasons to be mentioned later, we must attack the Carthaginians, after resolving initially to displace them, and later destroy the utterly” (Polybius). The Romans mustered an army and Scipio Auemilianus annhialated the lands surrounding the city of Carthage with feeble challenges from Carthage. Carthage sued for peace and Rome accepted, with the intention of implementing their ultimatums. Carthage was asked to give “300 well-born Carthaginian children” and “all their weapons and armour” (H.H Scullard, ‘A History of the Roman World’). Carthage complied, and Rome then asked the Carthaginian people to “leave their city while the Romans burnt it to the ground” (Livy, ‘Early History of Rome’). The city of Carthage refused and Scipio Auemillanus sieged Carthage in 149 BC and began the total blockade of the city. Modern historians Kerry and Scullard speak of Scipio’s strategy during the siege, “Scipio owed his success to sheer driving power rather than strategy...he mauled his way into the citadel”. The siege of Carthage lasted 3 years and ended in the sacking and destruction of Carthage. Only 50,000 Carthaginians were left, who were sold into slavery. Scipio proceeded to sow salt into the land as to prevent any future growth.

Conclusion:

This research paper has summarised the the many reasons for the Third Punic War and has outlined the course of the war itself. The actions that Rome took during the Third Punic War tarnished the reputation of Rome across the world and across history as modern historian H Scullard states was due to “the callous and calculating way in which Rome attacked Carthage, together with the nervous bullying which had goaded Carthage into retaliating against Masinissa”.

Bibliography:

Books:  F Hooper, 1979, ‘Roman Realities’, Washington, Wayne State University Press  D Hoyos, 2011, 'A Companion to the Punic Wars', London, John Wiley and Sons  H H Scullard, 1991, ‘A History of the Roman World 757 to 146 BC’ 4th, Edition, Routledge  N Bagnall, 2014, ‘The Punic Wars 264-146 BC’, Osprey Publishing

Websites:  http://www.history.com/topics/ancient-history/punic-wars , 27/7/15  http://www.britannica.com/event/Third-Punic-War , 27/7/15  http://www.dl.ket.org/latinlit/historia/republic/punic4.htm , 28/7/15  https://europeanhistory.boisestate.edu/westciv/punicwar/17.shtml , 28/7/15  http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/historians/notes/punicwars.html , 28/7/15

Lectures:  Taylor and Walton, 1844, ‘Lectures on the History of Rome from the First Punic War to the Death of Constantine. In a Series of Lectures, Including an Introductory Course on the Sources and Study of Roman History’