Amanda Mazur History 532:81, Ancient Greece 1

What does mean by ‘Pragmatic History’?

“The student of politics is interested in the doings of nations, cities and monarchs. As I have confined my attention strictly to these last matters and as my whole work threats of my nothing else…its perusal will have no attraction to the larger number.”1

Polybius is one of the three towering figures of historiography. Born in 203

B.C., he wrote during the Hellenistic period, and was transported in Rome in 168B.C. as an

Achaean hostage.2 It was during his time in Rome under a laissez-faire house arrest at the villa of Aemilius Paulus that he began to write his epic history. Upon completion, the work spanned over forty volumes, of which only five survive in entirety, and the sixth is only partially available.3 He not only chronicled the history but also played an important role in what is arguably the most important period for the Romans, a period which witnessed the breathtaking rise of a powerful Italian city-state to dominion over the Mediterranean basin; and along with , his rigorous methodology in historical research has provided a model for accurate and successful historical writing through to the present day.

Greece itself, stricken by the and steadily weakened by the quarreling between the various city-states, was slowly declining in economic strength and, at least in some states, in population. No one heeded Thucydides' terrible warnings about the dangers of stasis.4 The states which grew out of the fragments of Alexander's empire did not

1 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, trans. W.R Paton (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1960-1968), 9.1. 2 F.W Walbank, Polybius, Rome, and the Hellenistic World: Essays and Reflections (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002) 22. 3 Arnaldo Momigliano, Polybius Between the English and the Turks, (Oxford: Hollywell Press, 1974) 12. 4 Thucydides, trans. Rex Warner. History of the Peloponnesian War. (London: Penguin Classics, 1954), 1.18. Amanda Mazur History 532:81, Ancient Greece 2 keep the peace among themselves. In the West, Rome, cruelly hurt by Hannibal's campaign, was perhaps beginning her long period of decline. 5

Polybius’ views on the writing of history differed a great deal from his contemporaries as well his more predecessors. His work was to be purely political and military, and not follow the previous methods of story-telling which by creating illusion in were fashioned to thrill the audience.6 The strongest theme that his work produces is clearly attempt to necessitate history writing as a medium that would inform people about past events and past actions, as well as to show the importance of Fortune and personal prowess as integral aspects for the growth and success of individual people and of entire states.7 In essence, he wished to create a useful, universal history that could be utilized functionally, rather than an epic story, based on the imagination of the author rather than actual events.

Polybius’ Histories is a history that discusses the contemporary events of his time, with his narrative spanning 264 B.C. to 146 B.C., and Rome’s continuous warring with

Carthage during the Punic Wars. The events that he wrote of were limited to a much smaller period of time than previous historians, and thus were more tangible, and as such can to some extent be classified as more reliable due to the plethora of sources and primary material that

Polybius would have been able to access.

The twentieth-century historian Frank Walbank, probably the most notable of all Classicists to have studied Polybius’ work, has written an abundance of literature on The Histories and claims that Polybius’ writing style was almost Machiavellian in nature, and that he could be

“ruthless, hard and realistic.”8 The aim of an essay of this nature therefore is to recognize the

5 Stanley Barney Smith, “Polybius of Megalopolis,” The Classical Journal Vol. 45, No. 1 (1949):7. 6 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 2.56. 7 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 1.4.2. 8 Walbank, Polybius, Rome and the Hellenistic World, 4. Amanda Mazur History 532:81, Ancient Greece 3 elements of Polybius’ work that differed from the previous histories that had been written, as well as taking into account his methodology, especially with reference to his sources and the methodology of his examination of evidence. What this shall provide is a broad survey of

Polybius’ writings, taking into account his pragmatic nature. Throughout the work, Polybius gives various reasons for the way in which he has written his history, and he also has many examples of other historians whom he admonishes with great polemic for their own histories.9

Thus, it is the purpose of this essay to discuss what Polybius meant by ‘pragmatic’ history, and whether his own writing stood up in its entirety to the standard that he set.

Polybius’ Rise of the Roman Empire aimed to create a written history that was not a tragedy, but a useful history that was meant to inform future generations of problems that had occurred and he states,

There are two roads to reformation for mankind…the knowledge gained from true history is the best of all educations for practical life. For it is history alone which will mature our judgment and prepare us to take right views. 10

The historian Thucydides made a similar declaration in his own introduction with regard to the usefulness of his history, “And it may well be that my history will seem less easy to read because of the absence in it of a romantic element. It will be enough for m, however, if these words of mine are judged useful.”11

As a pragmatic historian, it was Polybius’ aim to provide a useful, non-bias history that was based on his military and political experience. The importance of understanding history was the main basis for his work. If a person had sufficient knowledge of past events, it was unlikely that he would make the same mistakes as his predecessors, and that “History alone can supply him with the precedents.”12 Polybius’ history had a double purpose; it aimed to

9 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 3.59.3. 10 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 9.1. 11 Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, 1.22. 12 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 3.31. Amanda Mazur History 532:81, Ancient Greece 4 provide training and experience for politicians as well as to teach the reader the vicissitudes of

Fortune by describing what happened to those in the past.13 Thus the reader would gain a greater education and understanding of the contemporary world and how to act accordingly.

The purpose therefore of his history was to be wholly pragmatic; it was to be a balanced account of affairs that would educate and inform without bias towards a certain side. Although there are times when Polybius does seem to be driven by his own bias (a point that will be touched upon later), his main aim was to create this pragmatic history.

Polybius’ target audience shows that his work was to be both useful and pragmatic. His core audience was to be statesmen and students, and there are many examples within his text that allude to this. In Book Three, Polybius discusses the distinction between causes, pretexts and beginnings with regard to war, and this most certainly was directed at statesmen. He writes,

“A physician cannot help the sick if he is ignorant of the causes of certain conditions of the body, nor can a statesman help his fellow citizen if he cannot follow how, why or by what process every event has developed.”14 It is clear also that Polybius’ treatment of the change in character of Philip V was to be a direct piece of ‘useful’ information, as was the account of the

Roman Constitution, which would help the reader to further understand the Roman political scene.15 According to Walbank however, although Polybius’ work would be most useful to statesmen, it was not in essence generated for a small group, and was to be accessible and readable to any reader.16 Polybius himself states that he was writing for anyone interested in the affairs of nations cities and rulers, and thus, basically a universal history that enveloped

13 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 1.12. 14 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 3.7. 15 For his treatment of Philip V, see Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 7.72. His account of the Roman Constitution, Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 3.118. 16 F.W Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius Vol. 1(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957) 13. Amanda Mazur History 532:81, Ancient Greece 5 the whole scale rise of the Roman Empire as the dominant state within the Mediterranean at this time.17

Accordingly, Polybius was the first to attempt to write a universal history. Previously, historians had written of a single state, or a limited period of time, and Polybius concludes,

“In earlier times the world’s history had consisted, so to speak, of a series of unrelated episodes, the origins and results of each being as widely separated as their localities.”18 Thus, it was Polybius’ aim to create a history that showed the growth of Rome as a leader and how after 220 B.C. (and the final defeat of Carthage and the Roman victory in the Third Punic

War) Rome had finally implanted itself at the center of the political world, and therefore of history, becoming an “organic whole.”19 In addition, akin to previous historians, Polybius gives the reasoning behind his own writing of this epic history; the unification of the oecumene, and thus the entire world coming under the power of Rome.20

As previously mentioned, Polybius was highly critical and polemical with regards to other historians and their work. In Book Twelve he blames several for using too narrow a subject matter at the start, and therefore having to exaggerate the importance of incidents.21 The importance of Hieronymus of Syracuse is vehemently questioned, and Polybius staunchly rebuts with regards to that man that,

The fact, as it seems to me, is that those who write narratives of particular events, when they have to deal with a subject which is circumscribed and narrow, are compelled for lack of facts to make small things great and to devote much space to matters really not worthy of record. There are some also who fall into a similar error through lack of judgment. How much more justifiable indeed it would be for a writer to devote those pages of narrative which serve to fill up his book to overflowing to

17 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 9.1. 18 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 1.3. 19 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 1.2. 20 The term oecumene can be loosely translated to mean ‘the inhabited earth’. 21 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 12.7. Amanda Mazur History 532:81, Ancient Greece 6

Hiero and Gelo, making no mention at all of Hieronymus. This would be both more agreeable to the curious reader and more useful to the student.22

To Polybius, the man was not as important to the historical narrative as other tyrants had been, yet historians found it necessary to write of him in great detail, which could be due to either a lack of subject matter, or possibly through a lack of judgment. Polybius is also scathing of the

Greek historian Timaeus for believing in the fable that the Alpheius goes under the sea to come up again in Syracuse.23 From his scathing attack, it becomes increasingly clear that

Polybius’ hatred of Timaeus ran deep and the most probable reason was for Tiamaeus’ lack of experience in the outside world, which Polybius rightly counted as a necessary constituent in the formation of a well rounded historical narrative. Timaeus apparently spent fifty years researching in the libraries of Athens, and thus believed that he was ready to write a history with no real experience of the matters on which he was writing, a point which was in direct contrast to Polybius’ need for physical involvement and understanding to create a legitimate written history.24

Polybius likens the writing of history to the study and practice of medicine. He splits history and medicine into three defined groups; that of theory (studying from books as

Timaeus did), diet, and surgery, which was “concerned with producing genuine skill in each professional treatment.”25 The practical study of medicine is likened to the study of politics, which both needs a hands-on approach. Without the knowledge gained from these forms of study, and the practice of merely restricting oneself to “haunt the libraries” would be to

“persuade oneself, that the resources of documentary research alone can equip one to write an adequate history of recent events is naïve beyond words.”26

22 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 7.7. 23 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 7.7. 24 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 12.25. 25 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 12.25. 26 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 12.25 Amanda Mazur History 532:81, Ancient Greece 7

Polybius based much of his writing on his own experiences both as a political and military figure for he had done much travelling in “journeys through Africa, Spain and Gaul, and voyages on the seas that lie on the farther side of those countries.”27 Therefore, travel and an extended knowledge of the places that one was to write of was a necessary element to

Polybius in the creation of a written history.

Of course, in modern historiographical writing, it would be unheard of for a person to have little or no evidence prior to writing anything on a topic, but through the historic record of those who came before Polybius, this was not the case, and for the most part ‘historians’ per se could easily manipulate the truth. Herodotus, ‘the father of history’ himself even at points alludes to the fact in his Histories that some of his sources may not have been gained through personal knowledge.28 Where he was lacking in data, he may have had recourse to analogy, and although for the most part he makes reasoned inferences, “sometimes his opinions may be slightly more tenuous.”29 Even Polybius’ most esteemed historian,

Thucydides shows at points that some of his evidence may have been more the result of imagination than hard facts. Thucydides claims that he had “Found it difficult to remember the precise words in speeches…so my method has been…to make the speakers say what, in my opinion, was called for by the situation.”30 Polybius lived and wrote in a society that was semi-oral, and for the most part totally illiterate. Greek sources and writers of history did not value written documents highly. Books ranked behind travel, autopsy, interrogation of

27 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 3.59. 28 Herodotus, trans. Aubrey De Selincourt, The Histories. (London: Penguin Classics, 1954). 29 Aubrey De Selincourt, “Introduction,” in Herodotus, The Histories, xxi. 30 Thucydides, trans. Rex Warner, History of the Peleponnesian War with an Introduction and Notes by M.I. Finley, (London: Penguin Classics, 1954) 1.22. Amanda Mazur History 532:81, Ancient Greece 8 eyewitnesses, and personal political experience, and this attitude informed a Greek tendency, from Thucydides onward, for serious history to be orally derived, contemporary history. 31

There are several instances in which Polybius condemns other historians for their use of fictionalized speeches in order to create an effect. Within Book Two, he condemns vehemently historians and poets who “represent speeches which might have been delivered, or to enumerate all of the possible consequences of the events under consideration.”32 The historian’s task was to educate students by truth, both by using words and actions.33 Timaeus once again is at the crux of his criticism, and once again the theme of rhetorical prowess rather than historical accuracy arises as Polybius describes the apparent diatribe that Timaeus writes by concluding “In other words, he tries to show off his rhetorical powers, but provides no account of what was actually spoken.”34

Polybius was very free to criticize his predecessors in terms of their invention of speeches, but he himself included thirty-seven, and it is highly unlikely that he was present for all of them. Speeches did however maintain an integral role in his writing. To Polybius, a speech was only useful if full “knowledge of the cause was known and added…” and therefore meant that people could forecast the future from understanding previous events. 35

However, it is one of the more enduring points of his work that was trying to gain as much factual evidence as possible in order to create the most truthful and pragmatic discourse possible within the realms of the Ancient World. Craighe Champion’s work on the authority of speeches used within Polybius highlights the problems that are faced by both ancient and

31 D.W. Baronowski, Polybius on the Causes of the Third Punic War,” Classical Philology Vol. 90 (1995): 17. 32 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 2.63. 33 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 2.64. 34 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 2.64. 35 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 2.24. Amanda Mazur History 532:81, Ancient Greece 9 modern historians in obtaining and conveying a truthful speech that could be used as a useful historical source.

Champion’s work focuses on Agelaus’ speech at Naupatctus which signaled the beginning of the symploké, which was the point at which affairs became totally intertwined between east and west.36 Agelaus was the Aetolian Ambassador, who was appealing to Philip

V of Macedon for peace at Naupactus against Philip’s imperialistic scheme which in essence wanted world sovereignty. It was at this point that Polybius believed that history became universal, and thus personally deemed his history to be the most important ever written. 37

There were no longer discrete historical theaters, and history from this point must be regarded as wholly synoptic and universal in scope. Champion argues that although Polybius tailored his speeches to some extent, it still remained within the historical narrative, having tried to obtain as much correct information as possible, and thus, Champion’s work succinctly backs up the claim that Polybius was a pragmatic historian.38

There are two differing viewpoints on the authenticity of Polybius’ speech, especially with regard to Agelaus’ speech. Deininger believes that the speech is wholly historical, while

Mørkholm concludes that by considering the history, the speech must have been made up.39

Deininger’s argument states that for the most part, Polybius wanted a unified Hellenic state, and therefore any sentiments which ran against this principle, especially in regard to are most likely to be factual. According to Eckstein, who has provided an invaluable translation of these German sources, Mørkholm upholds this view because he believes that

36 Craighe Champion, “The Nature of Authoritative Evidence in Polybius and Agelaus’ Speech at Naupactus,” Transactions of the American Philological Association Vol. 127 (1997): 111. 37 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 1.3. 38 Champion, “The Nature of Authoritative Evidence in Polybius and Agelaus’ Speech at Naupactus,” 114. 39 The two conflicting views are highlighted in Eckstein,. Senate and General:I ndividual Decision-Making and Roman F oreign Relations, 264-194 B.C. Berkeley and Los Angeles: 1987), 45. Amanda Mazur History 532:81, Ancient Greece 10 neither Rome nor Cathage were overly interested in Greece at this time, and thus Polybius is trying to force his ‘universality’.40 This argument is synthesized by Champion, “Polybius selected and embellished a tradition about Agelaus’ speech that advanced his own theory of symploké, and I have argued that such an enhancement would well be within the bounds of his historical principles.”41 I believe that Polybius was to an extent trying to create this universal history, and it was not in Polybius’ interest to create a speech merely for entertainment. Polybius, as can be seen throughout this essay tried to source out as much correct primary evidence as possible in order to strengthen his argument.

However, there are a few instances in Polybius’ work in which he had obviously not been present when they had been spoken. Having condemned Timaeus so heatedly for his fictionalized speeches, there are instances in Polybius’ own writing where he reads like compositions from a verbatim account. When Polybius starts to write speeches that were obviously not recited within either Rome or Achaea, the provenance of his evidence comes into question. 42

The historian Phylarchus is also vehemently chastised by Polybius. Phylarchus wrote of the cruelty of Antigonus and Aratus over the people of Mitniea, but “Eager to stir the hearts of those ready to pity…he talks of women embracing…and again of the tears and lamentations of men and women.”43 Polybius clearly does not like the way in which

Phylarchus over-emphasized the importance of events in order to get a reaction, and it clearly shows that Polybius wanted history to be truthful and based solely on facts, rather than creating an emotional line. As has previously been said, it was his aim to create a true account

40 Eckstein, Senate and General, 75. 41 Champion, “The Nature of Authoritative Evidence in Polybius and Agelaus’ Speech at Naupactus,” 117. 42 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 6.21. 43 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 2.56. Amanda Mazur History 532:81, Ancient Greece 11 of events in order to educate those who read it, rather than to “amaze his readers by a series of thrilling anecdotes.”44

The main reason for Polybius’ criticism of other historians (of which there are a multitude, including many more on Timaeus and on a plethora of other historians) has been disputed by several historians in the last decade. Walbank, who in the world of Classical academia is one of the most prolific historians of Polybius, has claimed that the German

Classicist Frank Susemihl asserted in an article published in 1891 that Polybius was merely trying to look after and correct other people’s work as well as his own, for the common advantage. 45 However, another school of thought initially developed by Rudolph Von Scala, and in more recent academia championed by Arthur Eckstein concludes that Polybius’ behavior “would hardly have had the effect of creating…increased popularity for his own writings in contemporary professional circles.”46 This argument can be strengthened by the noticeable fact that he criticizes other forms of history writing such as genealogies and geographies which may have attracted the perusal of the common reader – and categorically states that they were often filled with mythological events and fantastical aspects, which

Polybius refutes as such “We are certainly entitled to criticize and ridicule the wild outpourings of those authors who dream dreams and write like men possessed.”47

In essence, those who did not strictly fit into the exact methodology that Polybius utilized were to be criticized, and to Polybius, the basis of pragmatic history was not to create an instant reaction, but to chronicle events in a way that would provide useful and profitable as literature for future generations.

44 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 2.56. 45 F. Susemihl, Geschite der grieschiescen Literatur in der Alexandrinerzeit (Munich, 1891-2), 117 cited in F. W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary of Polybius Vol. 1, 55. 46 Arthur M. Eckstein, Moral Visions in the Histories of Polybius (Berkely: University of California Press, 1995) 76. 47 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 12.12. Amanda Mazur History 532:81, Ancient Greece 12

The source material that Polybius used in his work are discussed at length, and the reasons that he chose them are discussed in order to give the reader a better idea of both the provenance there of, and are testament to the apparent reliability of his history. Polybius quotes Heracleitus of Rhodiapolis in Lycia as stating “The eyes are more accurate than the ears.”48 Polybius tries to gain his information from both informants and from previous literature, and as previously mentioned, he viciously attacks Timaeus for relying solely on literature (here regarded as a function of the ears) rather than travelling to different places, or at the least using eye-witness accounts and oral tradition to glean his information.49

The study of history is based on three different areas of investigation according to

Polybius, “The first being the study and collation of written sources, the second the survey of cities, places, rivers, harbors and generally the peculiar features of land and sea and the distances between them, and the third, political experience.”50 Without political and actual experience of an event or place, it was near impossible to create a convincing history, and even if Timaeus were to use eye-witness accounts it was unlikely that he would be able to glean much more from them than for, as Polybius argues, the interrogator leads the discussion from question to question, and if there person being interviewed was neither equipped with the knowledge, or had vast experience themselves, the subject “may as well not be there.”51

Polybius was at a great advantage when looking for eye-witnesses. Not only was he already in Rome having been exiled to the city for sixteen years after the defeat of the

Achaean League, he was surrounded by Romans, as well as many other foreigners or ‘aliens’

48 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 12.27. 49 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 12.27. The use of oral tradition to gain historical facts was actually a method used a great deal by Herodotus. He presents his argument as a collection of oral accounts, often stating “The Persians say”, “The Athenians do not agree”, as well as stating that often he is told more than what he believes (2.123). 50 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 12.25. 51 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 12.28. Amanda Mazur History 532:81, Ancient Greece 13 within the city whom he could use if he did not have first hand experience of an event or place. An excellent example of an eye-witness account that he drew directly from Rome was from a friend of Perseus who gave Polybius an oral account of the negotiations between

Perseus and Eumenes.52 Polybius was also able to glean first hand accounts of the sack of

Carthage from Gaius Laelius, which proved to be an invaluable addition to his work.53 Hence, his focus on contemporary or near contemporary history; it was easier for him to gain this information, and he could glean more factual information by sourcing his information this way.

Polybius did use written sources within his history, but unlike the historian Timaeus, he used it in conjunction with other accounts and personal experience as much as possible. Of course, there were elements to his history that he could not access either personally, or through first hand accounts, and therefore he did rely heavily on at least four historians for the period preceding 220 B.C. For the First Punic War he relied upon Philinius of Acragas and

Fabinius Pictor. Pictor was a contemporary of the Hannibalic War and Polybius used his work for his own Gallic account. However, it appears that in some areas Pictor’s work has been merged with Philinius and so it is hard to discern which historian provided comments for each event for Polybius.

For events within Greece, Polybius used Aratus of Sicyon and Phylarcus. Aratus was the named source for the Cleomenean War, and Phylarcus was used for the history from the period 272-220 B.C.54 Polybius does berate Phylarcus for sensationalizing at points, but as there was no other evidence for this period, he had to use elements of his predecessor in order to create a full history.55 In fact, Polybius even utilizes the writings of Timaeus when there are

52 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 24.8. 53 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 10.3. 54 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 2.56. 55 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 2.57. Amanda Mazur History 532:81, Ancient Greece 14 no other sources for him to use to create his narrative, such as on his section on the

Pythagoreans in South Italy.56

Polybius’ main narrative however starts from when he can get eye-witness contemporary accounts in 220 B.C. The first reference that he uses regards Hannibal crossing the Alps in 218 B.C., and Polybius states “On these matters I can speak with some confidence, as I have questioned men who were actually present on these occasions about the circumstance, having personally explored the country, and have crossed the Alps myself to obtain first-hand information and evidence.”57 First hand evidence, as previously mentioned was a key factor in the characteristics of Polybius’ work. It meant in essence that he could state with certainly what he wrote from his own personal memory, rather than being at the behest of the limits of other people’s memories.

Polybius didn’t use many archives nor inscriptions in his work, and as has been stated, he was highly polemical of Timaecus on such matters, berating him further by stating that he was a man who “discovered inscription on the backs and buildings and the lists of proxemi on the doorsteps of temples.”58 Polybius’ use of archives is rare due to the characteristic of his writing and his pragmatic approach. Access to archives also would have been relatively limited, as he would have only been able to access those of Achaea and Rome, for as von Fritz notes, many foreign states would not allow or appreciate a foreigner rummaging in their archival sources.59 In addition, as Walbank has noted, it would have only been when his good friend Scipio Aemilianus reached prominence within Rome that Polybius would have been able to access the archives within Rome itself.60

56 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 4l2l 57 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 3.48. 58 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 12.2. 59K. von Fritz, The Theory of the Mixed Constitution in Antiquity: A Critical Analysis of Polybius’ Political Ideas. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1954), 241. 60 Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius Vol. 1, 82. Amanda Mazur History 532:81, Ancient Greece 15

There is only one instance that has been highlighted by Walbank in which Polybius actually uses an inscription, and it is one that he himself found. Walbank states, “He is quite ready to boast of his own discovery of an inscription left by Hannibal in the Temple of Hera… and to use the statistics that it contained.”61 This isolated incident does not show a loss of the work’s pragmatic character in any way, and quite to the contrary it highlights Polybius’ ability to find sources for information that had not previously been recorded. Without recording this inscription, there would have been a chance that this of history would have been lost.

Therefore, to create a universal pragmatic history meant being able to thread together many different avenues of data and on this occasion his only choice was to use this inscription.

Polybius was in essence a military man, and his education in this field was exemplary, and as such, he has been branded by many modern historians as quite possibly the best military historian of antiquity. 62 Whilst serving under the Achaean league, he had been a hipparch. At its most basic, this was the position of a cavalry officer, a position in which

Polybius excelled in. Recounting military successes and failures allowed Polybius to create this useful history, especially given his intended audience. An excellent example of which he writes in when Fabius sorted out Minucuis forces when they had been placed in danger, and

Polybius writes of Fabius, “Those in Rome…had been given a clear demonstration of how the foresight, logical thinking and cool calculation of a general differ from the rashness and bravado of a mere soldier.”63 Another excellent example of military tactics can be found in

Book Five, when Polybius recites an incident in which one of Philip’s attacks upon Melitaea failed because the ladders were too short, and therefore Polybius drives home a point about

61 Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius, 84. 62 W.K. Pritchett, Studies in Ancient Greek Topography, Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1965-9), 48. 63 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 3.105. Amanda Mazur History 532:81, Ancient Greece 16 the necessity of being fully prepared before taking on any military escapade.64 These examples clearly play a purely pragmatic function, for they allow the reader to learn about the successes and mistakes of previous people.

However, there are examples within his work where Polybius is not wholly pragmatic.

There is evidence of bias, prejudice and moralistic traits throughout his work. Prejudice can be openly deduced in his treatment of Aetolia in Book Four, in which he describes the people as aggressive in spirit, haughty and cowardly.65 Kenneth Sacks explores this bias and concludes that it is based on Polybius’ patriotism, “When Polybius wrote about third-century

Anatolia, he envisioned a northern neighbor thirsting for conquest…and as a patriot, he heaped abuse at every opportunity.”66 Patriotism, as with any bias, is clearly not a thoroughly pragmatic approach to historical writing, and it does seem that on this occasion he let his guard down sufficiently for the weaknesses to be pounced upon. Walbank goes as far as to suggest that in fact, Polybius was incredibly bias throughout his work, and that his assessment was often shrouded by his personal opinions of both the Achaeans and the Romans.67

In addition we can see examples in his history in which mere pragmatic success was not enough to please him sufficiently, and following his internal moral code he condemns certain actions. When the Aetolian statesmen Alexander refused to pay more money in order to save his own life, Polybius vehemently condemns this action, for he believed (quite understandably) that is was ridiculous to lose one’s own life over a matter of money if the individual in question did have the necessary funds to save themselves.68 If Polybius had been wholly pragmatic, he would have not shown this bias. Alexander survived this ordeal, and

64 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 3.105. 65 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 4.3, 4.64, 4.79. 66 Kenneth Sacks, “Polybius’ Other Views of Aetolia,” Journal of Hellenic Studies 95 (1975):106. 67 Walbank,. Polybius (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1972), 13. 68 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 26.12-14. Amanda Mazur History 532:81, Ancient Greece 17 therefore his plight was successful, but Polybius was quick to assert the idiocy of his actions.

Eckstein believes that Polybius was fuelled by moralistic motives in his writing, and that the conclusions drawn by earlier historians, claiming that Polybius was wholly pragmatic (for example, (Walbank) paints too simple a picture. Eckstein highlight a significant example to back up this example; in 171-170 B.C. the people of Cydonia seized Appolonia even though they were drawn together by a treaty. Polybius condemns the Cydonians actions, even though they brought monetary and political gratification to the people, and Polybius states that it was

“an act universally agreed to have been terribly and treacherous.”69 There is a definite moralistic undertone to this argument.

In conclusion, we can see that Polybius aimed to create a practical, pragmatic history that would be useful for generations to come. Its aim was not to provide a source of entertainment to the everyday reader with a plethora of literary guises, but to provide a handbook that would give factual accounts of various actions and their outcomes. In essence, what Polybius means by pragmatic history is just that, a balanced, for the most part non- biased account of contemporary events, to help the statesmen or the student to take their own judgment on actions. His main source of information was eye-witness accounts that he himself compiled, and with his vast geographical, military and political knowledge he was able to create as trustworthy a history as possible at this time. Although there are elements of bias and misinterpretation in some of his sources, these cannot be treated as strong reasons to trust him. Due to his circumstances at different times, he was merely voicing his own opinions or beliefs, or his own personal interpretations of events. It is clear that his aim was not to mislead the reader, but to educate and heighten their understanding of events. His greatest

69 Polybius 14.1 cited in Eckstein, Moral Vision in the Histories of Polybius (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995), 64. Amanda Mazur History 532:81, Ancient Greece 18 concern was that his history was pragmatic in the broadest sense, even if his own personal ethics and morals did sometimes work their way into the narrative. Polybius’ work was the result of watching the actions and reactions of events, and thus being able to learn from mistakes without making them again, therefore creating a piece of work that would be useful, and universal for all those who found it.