The Third Punic War and the Nature of Roman Imperialism

The Third Punic War has been an issue of contention among historians both ancient and modern. The issues of contention are about the nature of the war, whether it was defensive from a Roman standpoint or an act of aggression. Out of the ancient sources, the only eyewitness account from a historian is the one from Polybius. It is important to note that Polybius was a Greek hostage of Rome who was released and then went on campaign with Scipio Africanus. He is known for interviewing many veterans to clarify the details of the events he witnessed adding to the validity of his work. However only fragments of his work remain. Of the next closest historian in the chronological time frame is Diodorus Siculus. His work, the Biblitheca Historica, attempts to cover a wide swath of time . The work begins with mythological Troy and ends with the beginning of Caesar in Gaul. The next historian in the timeline was Livy . Livy attempted to encompass the entire history of Rome to his present day. Appian ,Pliny , and Plutarch were born long after the events but nevertheless still have their own rendition of the events of the Third Punic war because of how important it was in the history of Rome. These historians helped shape the theory of defensive imperialism as the reason for the Third Punic War. However modern historians have reanalyzed the circumstances and have put forward new arguments to the table. The modern sources are “War and Imperialism in Republican Rome” by W.V. Harris and “Fear, Greed and Glory” in War and Society in the Roman World by J.Rich and Graham Shipley. The modern sources point out the disparity between the power of Rome and Carthage at the time of the Third Punic War . Another important fact that is emphasized upon is the unfavorable peace terms forced upon Carthage after the Second Punic War. The goal is to determine the nature of Roman Imperialism and how it relates to this war through the analysis of modern and ancient sources.

Polybius is the most direct source relating to the topic of the Third Punic War due to his presence in Rome for the events leading to the siege of Carthage and his attendance at the siege itself . In the first section of Book 36, Polybius makes it clear that he is attempting to show events of the war as close as possible to the historical [1]events. The first step that Rome had to take before declaring war was finding justification for the war itself. In general, it is stated that if the war was justified then victories have greater effect and risks of defeat are mitigated (vice versa if the pretext for the war does not have merit).[2] This statement shows that Rome was calculated in its foreign policy and opportunistic for wars of expansion. Rome had the excuse from its ally Numidia, who was reporting that Carthage was creating an army which was not allowed under the treaty. This was followed by an ultimatum to disband their army and navy and allow Roman commissioners to inspect the process. Carthage was threatened with the prospect of war if they did not comply. The Carthaginians attempted to use diplomacy to appease Rome and sent envoys. Carthage faced a poison pill situation which was to either give up their independence or to go to war.[3] However, diplomacy on Carthage’s behalf failed because once their ambassadors arrived in Rome, they found that the Roman army was mobilizing for war.The only diplomacy offered was an unconditional surrender which was an impossible option for an independent power. Polybius stated that a surrender to Rome was the forfeiture of all holdings to Roman authority. In this surrender demand, Rome left the fate of the city of Carthage itself deliberately ambiguous. This was a two pronged attack on Carthage as it threatened them diplomatically and militarily. The government of Carthage decided that the best course of action was to submit to the Roman demands because the terms offered allowed for their self governance. However Utica, a city near Carthage, was occupied by the Roman military. After complying with these demands the Romans upped the ante and demanded that the entire city be relocated ten miles from the sea[4] . Polybius then stated that the city of Carthage was furious with these demands and the townspeople began to persecute the Italians residing in Carthage. Rome now had the war that they desired to wage with Carthage and the siege that would lead to the destruction of a formerly great power had now begun. Polybius was a Greek and the Third Punic War was viewed through multiple lenses in Greece. One view was that Rome had destroyed a perpetual enemy and had acted fairly. The other viewpoint was that Rome had shifted its policy to one of imperialist expansion similar to that of Sparta and Athens and that Roman policy was shifting to expansionism. Some stated that Rome was abandoning the principles that had helped it gain hegemony over Italy. This specific conflict is used as an example. Rome was known for fighting fair but some of Polybius’s Greek counterparts stated that in the case of this war, the Romans used deceit and treachery to instigate a war that could be used to wipe Carthage off the face of the Earth. This is a valid point as the Roman government kept making ultimatums which the Carthaginians accepted until a certain point. The argument made here is that the Romans, despite their reputation for meeting their opponents on the field of battle, tried to gain hegemony over Carthage through political manipulation first. The inclination of Polybius seems to favor the viewpoint of Roman instigation due to his Greek background as well as his relatively unbiased recollection of events by representing both powers in his account of the conflict.

[5] Pliny’s account of a speech by Cato the Elder was a powerful account of an excellent orator doing what he did best. Cato the Elder had a mortal hatred for Carthage which stemmed from his participation in the Second Punic which had claimed the lives of many of his counterparts. His views were reinforced by the immense suffering and the destruction of farmland in Italy due to his agricultural background.Cato followed the cursus honorem and therefore even in his old age had great influence in Roman politics. He was known for ending his speeches at the senate with the phrase “Carthage must be destroyed.” The speech that was attested to finally convincing the Senate to advise the government to declare war was a fiery one. Cato used a ripe fig as a metaphor for the threat of Carthage by claiming that it was picked the day before in Carthage. This was used to show how class Carthage was to Roman holdings in Mediterranean. Pliny’s account claims that this speech motivated Rome to declare war. Cato’s warmongering could be attributed to defensive imperialism from his own personal experience with the Carthaginians. His views were undoubtedly shaped by the invasion of Italy by Hannibal which many Romans thought was impossible due to the Carthage’s severe defeat in the First Punic War. The reasoning was solid as no Roman could have foreseen the success of Hannibal and the utter destruction of so many legions. Despite the ultimate Roman victory and Carthage being severely weakened, Cato was wary that Carthage could rise again and advocated its destruction while Rome had the capacity to do so.

Ultimately his belief was an ill found paranoia as Carthage was so weakened it was essentially a vassal of Numidia and these concerns were exploited by a hawkish government to expand the Republic.

[6] Diodorus Siculus left behind a massive encyclopedia of Greco Roman history whose sheer magnitude is astonishing. Tragically his account of the Third Punic war is fragmented, but what remains attempts to sum up and justify the political climate that led to the Third Punic War. It opens by stating that Carthage violated its treaty with Rome by going to war with Masinissa and Rome’s displeasure. This was followed by Carthage sending envoys to mediate their relations with Rome. Carthage promised to punish the members of its government responsible for the war but Rome was unhappy that the punishment did not occur during the war but after the fact and presented an ultimatum. This account matches Polybius’s version of the events. Carthage complied with the ultimatum and disarmed and appeared to have submitted to the ultimatum. Diodorus claims that “The Romans, being immovable in their resolve to destroy Carthage”. Once again the tipping point for Carthage was the ruthless demand to relocate their city cutting off its access from the sea. The siege of Carthage began and Diodorus unflatteringly portrayed Hasdrubal as someone who spoke strong words but while under siege would host debaucherous banquets while his fellow citizens starved. After the Romans managed to take the city and put it to the torch Scipio Aemilianus Africanus Numantinus the conquering general was said to have cried uncontrollably.His reason for this by alluding to the fickleness of fortune and quoting Homer. Diodorus justifies Rome’s conquest of Carthage by blaming Carthage for violating its treaty with Rome. Another example that provides justification is unreliably the portrayal of Hasdrubal as a hedonist, who oblivious to the suffering of his people who would not accept favorable peace terms . Carthage was portrayed as a victim of fortune and the conquering Roman general as a figure who did what had to be done while showing remorse. [7]

Livy’s work “The Summaries,” opens with Cato advocating that the Carthaginian army used to fight Massinissa was raised for the purpose of ultimately fighting Rome. He explains that the Romans were cautious and decided to investigate the issue by sending a commision to Carthage. The initial standpoint was to hold back from military action if the Carthaginians burned their fleet and disbanded their army. Massinissa was a Roman Ally and Carthage had not returned the son of Massinissa therefore war had to be declared , after this the city of Utica aligned with Rome. This was viewed as a positive omen accelerating the conflict. Livy describes the terms that Rome offered to Carthage as insulting and that gave them a resolve to fight. The Carthaginians are shown to be virtuous because they released Roman prisoners due to their respect for Scipio Aemilianus. Livy repeats the statements of the earlier historians by mentioning that Rome kept making their demands more and more unfavorable to one’s that Carthage would be unable to accept and would have to fight. Cato is portrayed as war monger , pushing for war multiple times before getting his wish. The war in Spain is mentioned as being unsuccessful leading to dissent among the population. Carthage’s power was greatly diminished and could not withstand a Roman assault , leading to the opportunity that a successful war in Africa would deflect attention from the Spanish War. This reinforces the belief that the war was one of opportunistic expansionism. Rome saw an opportunity to expand its borders while quelling dissent at home. This supports the political angling and ramifications of a successful war with Carthage.

[8] Harris argues in “War and Imperialism in Ancient Rome” that the Third Punic War was an act of ruthless aggression fueled by greed for the wealth of Carthage. Carthage had done nothing to provoke Rome and ancient historians were drawn to the dramatic destruction of Carthage but found the facts that led to the war unsuitable for their audiences. Polybius was stated as the best source due to his closeness to the situation. However, there is no evidence that Carthage was becoming militant again but was only seeking to defend itself from the raids of Numidia. The general mood of the Roman of the aristocracy favored expansion and Carthage was exceedingly wealthy meaning that recruitment would not be a problem due to potential spoils of war. The goal of moving Carthage ten miles inland had the purpose of ending Carthaginian exports to give Roman merchants supremacy of the Mediterranean basin. The goal for the senate in 149 BC was war or the ultimate humiliation of Carthage that would have rendered it utterly dependent on Rome. The Romans geared for military action regardless whether Carthage accepted or refused the series of ultimatums. It is a possibility that the Roman legislative body was paranoid that Carthage could return to its former heights but this was unlikely due to its diminished state. The behavior of the Roman government can more likely justified with power hunger due to the reward of Carthage’s destruction was greater than that of its continued existence. It is unlikely they lied to themselves and believed the war was defensive but made the decision to go to war in cold blood using a technical justification to legitimize their decision.

[9] Rich states that by the mid second century the opportunities for triumphs by generals was reduced due to conflicts being longer and further away from Italy now that Roman hegemony was assured . There was less military activity than in the past. Since a political career was heavily reliant upon military experience this led to the clamor for expansionist wars by leaders of the military to pad their resumes. Roman politics were strongly individualistic as a skilled orator could influence voting assemblies.Roman commanders were entitled to the spoils of war of a vanquished enemy and this further contributed to the hawkish policies of the later Republic. Roman attitudes towards the declaration of war was to protect their allies and to humble powers that have acted arrogantly. The concept of just war was one that was taken very seriously in ancient Rome and indeed the Third Punic War delayed by question of whether it was justified or not. It is important to take into account that wars for profit were not viewed as dishonorable. Senators used defensive arguments to hide their motives for actually declaring war due to the fact that in the case of a conflict with a wealthy enemy they had a vested interest in the spoils of war. The prospect of wealth and glory helped justify the human cost of war. The fear of Carthage dating back from the Second Punic War helped rationalize the decision to go to war and also allowed the senate the ability to say that they have acted in public interest.

[10] Historically Carthage, by the mid first century BC, posed no threat to Rome. Rome was a power that was militaristic and its upper hierarchy was inclined towards warfare as political careers were directly tied with military success. The notion of defensive imperialism is invalid due to Carthage not posing any threat at all to Roman power. Imperialism and greed was the motivating factor for the conflict. Carthage’s location as a trade hub was ideal and this damaged the Roman economy because as long a foreign power had control of the area , then Roman traders were unable to dominate the Mediterranean basin. Rome was looking for a reason to go to war with Carthage and Carthage gave them by having skirmishes with Numidia. The whole diplomatic process was rigged to fail for Carthage with the Romans increasing their demands to the point that Carthage could not meet them. Skilled orators such as Cato played their role in fabricating a casus belli. The Third Punic War was crucial juncture in the policy of the Republic as it laid down the blueprint for overseas expansion.What cannot be denied is that Carthage earned the enmity of Rome after two prior wars and its existence after the Second Punic War was precarious.The government of Rome realized there was an opportunity to eliminate one of the Republic’s most hated enemies and engineered its demise through political and military action

[1] Polybius 36–1

[2] Polybius 36–2

[3] Polybius 36–3

[4] Livy, Ep. 49

[5] Polybius Book 36–10

[6] Pliny Natural Histories 15. 74–75

[7] Diodorus Siculus 32 1–3, 6–7, 23–25

[8] Livy Summaries Periocha 47–49 Loeb vol XIV p13–31

[9] W.V. Harris War and Imperialism in Republican Rome p234–240 1979

[10] J. Rich War and Society in the Roman World ‘Fear Greed and Glory” 1993