Chapter 2 Hannibal, Practical Experience, and the Model Historian 1 Introduction The previous chapter demonstrated that, despite his belief in the didactic pur- pose of history, Polybius places considerable emphasis on the instructive value of practical experience. As this chapter will show, the significance of practical experience for Polybius becomes evident not just in the digressions and pro- grammatic passages discussed previously but also in his narrative of historical events. Polybius’ depiction of Hannibal, the great Carthaginian leader and ad- versary of Rome, is a model example of the importance of practical experience in Polybius’ narrative. In contrast to other leading figures prominent only in the later, fragmentary books of Polybius, the surviving early books preserve a more complete account of Hannibal’s early progression from a young man to a more seasoned commander. This presents an opportunity to trace the impact of practical experience on the development of an individual who had a pro- found impact in the events recorded in Polybius’ work.1 When Polybius pauses in Book Nine (9.22–6) to reflect upon the character (φύσις, 9.22.7) of Hannibal,2 he claims that Hannibal alone was the cause of all that happened both to the Romans and to the Carthaginians in the Second Punic war (9.22.1). Polybius here singles out Hannibal as a great and marvelous subject (μέγα τι φύεται χρῆμα καὶ θαυμάσιον, 9.22.6). The choice of the adjective θαυμάσιον holds important historiographical weight – both for Polybius and 1 Pédech (1964), 204–53 provides a full discussion of the pivotal role that historical agents play in shaping the events of history in Polybius’ text. See especially 204–10 on the fundamental importance of historical actors in Polybius’ understanding of historical causation. 2 Polybius’ approach in seeking to evaluate Hannibal in this manner is consistent with Gill’s distinction between ‘character-viewpoint’ and ‘personality-viewpoint’ as defined by his stud- ies of Plutarch and Tacitus (1983), Greek tragedy (1986), and ancient literature more generally (1990). The ‘character-viewpoint’, which he argued is the primary focus of ancient authors, seeks to evaluate and pass judgment on the individual based on his actions and behavior. The ‘personality-viewpoint’, on the other hand, which is a more modern approach, seeks to understand the individual in a more psychological manner without the same emphasis on moral judgment. I will, therefore, use the term ‘character’ as opposed to ‘personality’ in my discussion of Polybius’ depiction of Hannibal and others. © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004426122_004 36 Chapter 2 for historians in general as early as Herodotus – which marks Hannibal as a historical subject especially worthy of attention and study.3 Perhaps surpris- ingly, given Polybius’ close ties the Scipios – the family of Hannibal’s greatest adversary – and alleged historical bias toward Rome,4 Hannibal emerges as one of the great, if tragic, heroes of Polybius’ text. As Pédech (1964) has shown, Polybius suppresses the negative aspects of Hannibal’s character and is no- ticeably embarrassed when he admits (9.22.7–10) that others have offered sig- nigicantly less favorable depictions.5 But for Polybius, Hannibal represents not a monstrous villain but a rational and calculating figure demonstrating qualities not unlike the Romans themselves.6 In particular, his abilty to con- trol the masses consistently marks Hannibal as an ideal leader in Polybius.7 At the same time, there are several counter-examples in Polybius’ text that call into question any suggestion of a universally positive depiction of Hannibal.8 As this chapter will demonstrate, these apparently conflicting readings of Polybius can be resolved if we see the differences in Hannibal’s behavior not as inconsistencies but as evidence of development. For Polybius, the funda- mental qualities that make Hannibal so remarkable enable him not simply to overcome his failures but also to learn from them.9 3 Cf. Herodotus’ promise to record deeds both great and marvelous (ἔργα μεγάλα τε καὶ θωμα- στά, 1.proem) and Polybius’ claim that what is special about his own work and the marvel- ous fact of his times (τὸ γὰρ τῆς ἡμετέρας πραγματείας ἴδιον καὶ τὸ θαυμάσιον τῶν καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς καιρῶν, 1.4.1) is that Fortune had inclined the affairs of nearly the whole world in one direc- tion. For more on the significance and meaning of θῶμα in Herodotus, see Hartog (1980), 243–9. For Herodotus’ description of both ethnographic and historical “wonders” to establish connections between these two aspects of his work, see Munson (2001). 4 On Polybius’ personal relationship with Scipio Aemilianus and his family, see Walbank HCP, 1.3–6 and Champion (2004a), 17. For evidence of bias on the part of Polybius in favor of Rome, see especially Serrati (2006). 5 See especially Pédech (1964), 215–16. For a full discussion by Pédech (1964) of the two oppos- ing character types in Polybius with examples of each, see 216–29. Other individuals repre- senting this prototype for Pédech include Hamilcar, Scipio Africanus, and Aemilius Paullus. For a list of passages in which individuals including Hannibal are portrayed as the rational hero, see 242–3. Seretaki and Tamiolaki (2018) suggest that this characterization of Hannibal is influenced by Xenophon’s Cyropaedia. 6 See Stocks (2014). 7 See Thornton (2010a), who argues that Polybius represents Hannibal in this way to serve as a model for Greek popular assemblies. 8 Eckstein (1989) specifically challenges the interpretation of Pédech (1964), 215–16. Champion (2004a), 117–21 sees some ambiguity in the depiction of Hannibal by Polybius and argues that the negative qualities attributed to Hannibal are representative of the historian’s character- ization of the Carthaginians more generally. 9 As Gill (1983) showed, it is not inconsistent with the practice of ancient historiography to see a change in character occur in the historian’s portrayal of certain individuals. This, however, .