What do you think?
Rate this book
The Rise of the Roman Empire
Polybius, himself a Greek and an active contemporary participant in political relations with Rome, wrote the forty books of his Universal History primarily to chronicle and account for the Roman conquest of Greece between 200 and 167 B.C. He saw that Mediterranean history, under Rome's influence, was becoming an organic whole, so he starts his work in 264 B.C. with the beginning of Rome's clash with African Carthage, the rival imperialist power, and
ends with the final destruction of Carthage in 146 B.C.
ends with the final destruction of Carthage in 146 B.C.
576 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 171
316 people are currently reading
9,411 people want to read
About the author
Polybius
407books93followersPolybius (ca. 200�118 BC), Greek Πολύβιος) was a Greek historian of the Hellenistic Period noted for his book called The Histories covering in detail the period of 220�146 BC. He is also renowned for his ideas of political balance in government, which were later used in Montesquieu's The Spirit of the Laws and in the drafting of the United States Constitution.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 143 reviews
Read
April 29, 2019Polybius' account of the rise of Rome, from city on seven hills to world power, has great vigour, reading book one which deals with the first punic war when Rome leapt out of Italy into conflict with Carthage for control over Scilly I had the sensation that the narrative was pursuing me like an elephant, bearing down on me as I fled before it. Although I remembered the injunction to either come home with my shield or on my shield, I cast it away the better to escape unencumbered, some Carthaginian has it now.
Polybius is also one of the hugely unlucky authors of antiquity, as only the first five books of his universal history survive along with fragments of the rest, in this translation we get the remaining bits of book six - discussing constitutions, part of Polybius' thesis is that it was Rome's distinctive mixed constitution that propelled the city state to dominance, and book twelve which deals with how unreasonably stupid other historians are, admittedly in his august opinion.
The other part of Polybius's thesis is that the world is so interconnected in the second century BC and experience so globalised that we need a universal history - one can no longer , if one ever could look at a historical event as a discrete, disconnected happening, no, everything is interconnected, the rustling of a foot soldier's wolf skin in Italy has a bearing on events in Egypt. Therefore Polybius' history proceeds in parallel, we must understand Philip V of Macedon's politics to appreciate how and why he got involved in the Hannibalic war, and how Philip V's activities interlinked with those of the other Macedonian dynasties in Asia and Egypt to realise how the Romans were drawn east to become masters of the universe, unfortunately because nobody in the medieval period had the sitzfleisch to copy out the whole of his history, it cuts out awkwardly after the battle of Cannae in Italy, which rather spoils the effect and leaves us with Livy, who saw the war with Hannibal, if not the whole of Roman history, as a great moral drama in which Hannibal wins for a while because of his low tricks, like ambushes and having tactics generally. Polybius by contrast is analytical and thoughtful - his theme was thrust in his face, on the loosing side against Rome, the question of how this mysteriously warlike people came out of nowhere and conquered everywhere and took him as a hostage to an alien country was unavoidable.
The reason for this success for Polybius lay in Rome's constitution. Polybius has a Buddenbrooks view of constitutions, Kingship tends towards tyranny, aristocracy to oligarchy, democracy to mob rule, though not like some poncy optimist might think, over three generations, but immediately from one generation to the next. The best constitutions however escape this by being mixed, with each element balancing the other out & preventing, or at least holding off the inevitable decline. In his view the Athenian constitution was ok but like a ship without a captain and so doomed, Plato's constitution had never been tested in practise, Sparta with its equal division of land the best at achieving stability but did not provide the basis for massive expansion, the Roman constitution through trial and error however allowed the achievement of empire and if that is what you want, then it is the model to follow, he doesn't care for the Carthaginian constitution as they practised bribery, not as in promising greatness or tax cuts, but as in literally handing out coins for votes. Polybius's vision of history is cyclical, so everything tends to decay, he came from Acadia and as he says the Arcadian tends to be dour, unless they practise dancing and music (which presumably in exile he didn't, allowing his dourness to flourish and flower like a thistle), still I think there can be no doubt what lies in the future for Rome, When a state has warded off so many serious threats, and has come to attain undisputed supremacy and sovereignty, it is easy to see that, after a long period of settled prosperity, lifestyles become more extravagant and rivalry over political positions and other such projects becomes fiercer than it should be. If these processes continue for very long, society will change for the worse. The causes of the deterioration will be lust for power combined with contempt for political obscurity, and personal ostentation and extravagance. It will be called a democratic revolution, however, because the time will come when the people will feel abused by some politicians' self seeking ambition and will have been flattered into vain hopes by other's lust for power (p412) however just as you think he was bang on the money it turns out he thinks it will all end in mob rule rather than in tyranny and dictatorship and the rule of one man calling himself Augustus.
The other factor in Roman success is personal risk, the Carthaginians hire mercenaries and so in Polybius' opinion have no stake in their wars, while the Romans send out their sons and will not ransom them either - you either fight to the death or fight to victory, third ways are not Roman. His account of the First Punic war shows how extreme this was with Rome consecutively constructing three fleets - loosing the first two in storms, while all the rowers had to be trained on land as they had no maritime tradition to draw on. They even invent a boarding plank with a barb to be able to storm enemy ships - this such a good bit of equipment that it has never become an established part of naval architecture. They fight with no sense that compromise might be an option. There is also a discussion of how the Romans constructed their camps, and organised their army, down to the details of the curvature of their shields, although this isn't all positive, Polybius believes that the Roman emphasis on discipline made it difficult for the soldiers to fight back independently when ambushed at Lake Trasmene.
Full of insight and vigour, but tragically incomplete.
Polybius is also one of the hugely unlucky authors of antiquity, as only the first five books of his universal history survive along with fragments of the rest, in this translation we get the remaining bits of book six - discussing constitutions, part of Polybius' thesis is that it was Rome's distinctive mixed constitution that propelled the city state to dominance, and book twelve which deals with how unreasonably stupid other historians are, admittedly in his august opinion.
The other part of Polybius's thesis is that the world is so interconnected in the second century BC and experience so globalised that we need a universal history - one can no longer , if one ever could look at a historical event as a discrete, disconnected happening, no, everything is interconnected, the rustling of a foot soldier's wolf skin in Italy has a bearing on events in Egypt. Therefore Polybius' history proceeds in parallel, we must understand Philip V of Macedon's politics to appreciate how and why he got involved in the Hannibalic war, and how Philip V's activities interlinked with those of the other Macedonian dynasties in Asia and Egypt to realise how the Romans were drawn east to become masters of the universe, unfortunately because nobody in the medieval period had the sitzfleisch to copy out the whole of his history, it cuts out awkwardly after the battle of Cannae in Italy, which rather spoils the effect and leaves us with Livy, who saw the war with Hannibal, if not the whole of Roman history, as a great moral drama in which Hannibal wins for a while because of his low tricks, like ambushes and having tactics generally. Polybius by contrast is analytical and thoughtful - his theme was thrust in his face, on the loosing side against Rome, the question of how this mysteriously warlike people came out of nowhere and conquered everywhere and took him as a hostage to an alien country was unavoidable.
The reason for this success for Polybius lay in Rome's constitution. Polybius has a Buddenbrooks view of constitutions, Kingship tends towards tyranny, aristocracy to oligarchy, democracy to mob rule, though not like some poncy optimist might think, over three generations, but immediately from one generation to the next. The best constitutions however escape this by being mixed, with each element balancing the other out & preventing, or at least holding off the inevitable decline. In his view the Athenian constitution was ok but like a ship without a captain and so doomed, Plato's constitution had never been tested in practise, Sparta with its equal division of land the best at achieving stability but did not provide the basis for massive expansion, the Roman constitution through trial and error however allowed the achievement of empire and if that is what you want, then it is the model to follow, he doesn't care for the Carthaginian constitution as they practised bribery, not as in promising greatness or tax cuts, but as in literally handing out coins for votes. Polybius's vision of history is cyclical, so everything tends to decay, he came from Acadia and as he says the Arcadian tends to be dour, unless they practise dancing and music (which presumably in exile he didn't, allowing his dourness to flourish and flower like a thistle), still I think there can be no doubt what lies in the future for Rome, When a state has warded off so many serious threats, and has come to attain undisputed supremacy and sovereignty, it is easy to see that, after a long period of settled prosperity, lifestyles become more extravagant and rivalry over political positions and other such projects becomes fiercer than it should be. If these processes continue for very long, society will change for the worse. The causes of the deterioration will be lust for power combined with contempt for political obscurity, and personal ostentation and extravagance. It will be called a democratic revolution, however, because the time will come when the people will feel abused by some politicians' self seeking ambition and will have been flattered into vain hopes by other's lust for power (p412) however just as you think he was bang on the money it turns out he thinks it will all end in mob rule rather than in tyranny and dictatorship and the rule of one man calling himself Augustus.
The other factor in Roman success is personal risk, the Carthaginians hire mercenaries and so in Polybius' opinion have no stake in their wars, while the Romans send out their sons and will not ransom them either - you either fight to the death or fight to victory, third ways are not Roman. His account of the First Punic war shows how extreme this was with Rome consecutively constructing three fleets - loosing the first two in storms, while all the rowers had to be trained on land as they had no maritime tradition to draw on. They even invent a boarding plank with a barb to be able to storm enemy ships - this such a good bit of equipment that it has never become an established part of naval architecture. They fight with no sense that compromise might be an option. There is also a discussion of how the Romans constructed their camps, and organised their army, down to the details of the curvature of their shields, although this isn't all positive, Polybius believes that the Roman emphasis on discipline made it difficult for the soldiers to fight back independently when ambushed at Lake Trasmene.
Full of insight and vigour, but tragically incomplete.
October 31, 2016
I think reading this book by Polybius (c. 200-118 B.C.) is simply fascinating, informative and rewarding since, I think, we can learn and better understand the Roman Empire from the Greek statesman and historian's views as supported by written and oral sources.
I think, posting a review for this book needs time and ideas for my ŷ friends, therefore, its scope will include a few topics worth mentioning and elucidating (probably more details for future inclusion):
1) How Hannibal crossed the Alps,
2) How Archimedes' contribution defended Cyracuse, and
3) How Scipio saved his father's life & his character.
Moreover, the section on Roman constitution compared to the others is also interesting.
However, before I forget, I'd like to reveal a section that needs improving for its next revised edition (again, if I don't forget I would inform those in charge at Penguin Books soon). I encountered such a problem when I read the footnote on page 527 as follows:
I. In Book XVIII. 35.
From my note there: I can't find any to read in this Book, i. e. p. 513 (?).
In other words, Book XVIII was ended by chapter 32, therefore, I can't find chapter 35 to read as suggested there! It's a bit disappointing for me, would some Penguin Books people in the UK see to the matter, please?
In brief, this book by Polybius is highly recommended to any interested reader of ancient history and you can't help admiring his god-like narrative of war engagements here and there.
I think, posting a review for this book needs time and ideas for my ŷ friends, therefore, its scope will include a few topics worth mentioning and elucidating (probably more details for future inclusion):
1) How Hannibal crossed the Alps,
2) How Archimedes' contribution defended Cyracuse, and
3) How Scipio saved his father's life & his character.
Moreover, the section on Roman constitution compared to the others is also interesting.
However, before I forget, I'd like to reveal a section that needs improving for its next revised edition (again, if I don't forget I would inform those in charge at Penguin Books soon). I encountered such a problem when I read the footnote on page 527 as follows:
I. In Book XVIII. 35.
From my note there: I can't find any to read in this Book, i. e. p. 513 (?).
In other words, Book XVIII was ended by chapter 32, therefore, I can't find chapter 35 to read as suggested there! It's a bit disappointing for me, would some Penguin Books people in the UK see to the matter, please?
In brief, this book by Polybius is highly recommended to any interested reader of ancient history and you can't help admiring his god-like narrative of war engagements here and there.
March 28, 2019
The book in this collection of books on Roman constitution and government was super interesting, and the way it was written was super easy to read. The battles in the other books were fascinating, but they sometimes just bled together and there were those books that just dragged on... I may have skim read those ones...
Obviously I'm not rating this on the content, just on how it was set out and my enjoyment (which wasn't much because I had to rush read for school)
Obviously I'm not rating this on the content, just on how it was set out and my enjoyment (which wasn't much because I had to rush read for school)
October 26, 2022
Knocking out another of my yearly history picks from the library of my friend David. Though not quite as good as Herodotus, this one had some entertaining moments, especially when Polybius takes Timaeus to task, which he does frequently and with vigor. Some of the descriptions of troop deployment were tedious. The sheer number of names in this history is overwhelming, but I still managed to learn something. I'm just glad I don't have to take a test.
August 27, 2020
Hannibal, Scipio, The Punic Wars. Dramatic and interesting history with in depth character analysis and description of the time's political and military machinations
September 8, 2017
Thanks to Jan-Maat for bringing this to my attention. I have read quite a bit set during the Roman Empire, or shortly before it, and wondered about all the references to the glories of the republic. And I knew Hannibal had taken his army and his elephants over the Alps, but had no context for the feat. Polybius filled in lots of holes in my knowledge of the history of Rome.
May 28, 2018
To herald the opening of the sixteenth century, from the little Venetian printing press came forth all the great authors of antiquity, each bearing on the title-page the words Ἅλδο� � Μανούτιος Ῥωμαῖος κα� Φιλέλλην [Aldus Manutius, a Roman and a lover of Greece]; words which may serve to remind us with what wondrous prescience Polybius saw the world’s fate when he foretold the material sovereignty of Roman institutions and exemplified in himself the intellectual empire of Greece.
Polybius is the last scientific historian of Greece. The writer who seems fittingly to complete his progress of thought is a writer of biographies only.
—Oscar Wilde, The Rise of Historical Criticism
__________
I read Polybius for a first-hand account of the period of the History of Rome he discusses in his work, and did not do so with an especially analytical or critical eye.
So in lieu of my own thoughts, I thought I would share some more learned ones; below are some extracts from Oscar Wilde's , The Rise of Historical Criticism. After finishing it, I do look forward to enjoying Polybius' work once again, and reading with a more analytical eye.
__________
He starts by accepting the general principle that all things are fated to decay (which I noticed in the case of Plato), and that ‘as iron produces rust and as wood breeds the animals that destroy it, so every state has in it the seeds of its own corruption.�
. . . Born in the serene and pure air of the clear uplands of Arcadia, Polybius may be said to reproduce in his work the character of the place which gave him birth. For, of all the historians—I do not say of antiquity but of all time—none is more rationalistic than he, none more free from any belief in the ‘visions and omens, the monstrous legends, the grovelling superstitions and unmanly craving for the supernatural� (δεισιδαιμονίας ἀγεννοῦ� κα� τερατείας γυναικώδους [Polybius, xii. 24]) which he himself is compelled to notice as the characteristics of some of the historians who preceded him. Fortunate in the land which bore him, he was no less blessed in the wondrous time of his birth. For, representing in himself the spiritual supremacy of the Greek intellect and allied in bonds of chivalrous friendship to the world-conqueror of his day, he seems led as it were by the hand of Fate ‘to comprehend,� as has been said, ‘more clearly than the Romans themselves the historical position of Rome,� and to discern with greater insight than all other men could those two great resultants of ancient civilisation, the material empire of the city of the seven hills, and the intellectual sovereignty of Hellas.
Before his own day, he says, the events of the world were unconnected and separate and the histories confined to particular countries. Now, for the first time the universal empire of the Romans rendered a universal history possible. This, then, is the august motive of his work: to trace the gradual rise of this Italian city from the day when the first legion crossed the narrow strait of Messina and landed on the fertile fields of Sicily to the time when Corinth in the East and Carthage in the West fell before the resistless wave of empire and the eagles of Rome passed on the wings of universal victory from Calpe and the Pillars of Hercules to Syria and the Nile.
. . . Herodotus, while believing on principle in the supernatural, yet was sceptical at times. Thucydides simply ignored the supernatural. He did not discuss it, but he annihilated it by explaining history without it. Polybius enters at length into the whole question and explains its origin and the method of treating it. Herodotus would have believed in Scipio’s dream. Thucydides would have ignored it entirely. Polybius explains it. He is the culmination of the rational progression of Dialectic. ‘Nothing,� he says, ‘shows a foolish mind more than the attempt to account for any phenomena on the principle of chance or supernatural intervention. History is a search for rational causes, and there is nothing in the world—even those phenomena which seem to us the most remote from law and improbable—which is not the logical and inevitable result of certain rational antecedents.�
Some things, of course, are to be rejected a priori without entering into the subject: ‘As regards such miracles,� he says, ’as that on a certain statue of Artemis rain or snow never falls though the statue stands in the open air, or that those who enter God’s shrine in Arcadia lose their natural shadows, I cannot really be expected to argue upon the subject. For these things are not only utterly improbable but absolutely impossible.�
‘For us to argue reasonably on an acknowledged absurdity is as vain a task as trying to catch water in a sieve; it is really to admit the possibility of the supernatural, which is the very point at issue.�
What Polybius felt was that to admit the possibility of a miracle is to annihilate the possibility of history: for just as scientific and chemical experiments would be either impossible or useless if exposed to the chance of continued interference on the part of some foreign body, so the laws and principles which govern history, the causes of phenomena, the evolution of progress, the whole science, in a word, of man’s dealings with his own race and with nature, will remain a sealed book to him who admits the possibility of extra-natural interference.
. . . in the case of the wonderful rise of the Roman Empire—the most marvellous thing, Polybius says, which God ever brought about—are to be found in the excellence of their constitution (τ� ἰδιότητ� τῆ� πολιτείας), the wisdom of their advisers, their splendid military arrangements, and their superstition (τ� δεισιδαιμονί�). For while Polybius regarded the revealed religion as, of course, objective reality of truth, he laid great stress on its moral subjective influence, going, in one passage on the subject, even so far as almost to excuse the introduction of the supernatural in very small quantities into history on account of the extremely good effect it would have on pious people.
But perhaps there is no passage in the whole of ancient and modern history which breathes such a manly and splendid spirit of rationalism as one preserved to us in the Vatican—strange resting-place for it!—in which he treats of the terrible decay of population which had fallen on his native land in his own day, and which by the general orthodox public was regarded as a special judgment of God sending childlessness on women as a punishment for the sins of the people. For it was a disaster quite without parallel in the history of the land, and entirely unforeseen by any of its political-economy writers who, on the contrary, were always anticipating that danger would arise from an excess of population overrunning its means of subsistence, and becoming unmanageable through its size. Polybius, however, will have nothing to do with either priest or worker of miracles in this matter. He will not even seek that ‘sacred Heart of Greece,� Delphi, Apollo’s shrine, whose inspiration even Thucydides admitted and before whose wisdom Socrates bowed. How foolish, he says, were the man who on this matter would pray to God. We must search for the rational causes, and the causes are seen to be clear, and the method of prevention also. He then proceeds to notice how all this arose from the general reluctance to marriage and to bearing the expense of educating a large family which resulted from the carelessness and avarice of the men of his day, and he explains on entirely rational principles the whole of this apparently supernatural judgment.
. . . Having now examined Polybius’s attitude towards the supernatural and the general ideas which guided his research, I will proceed to examine the method he pursued in his scientific investigation of the complex phenomena of life. For, as I have said before in the course of this essay, what is important in all great writers is not so much the results they arrive at as the methods they pursue. The increased knowledge of facts may alter any conclusion in history as in physical science, and the canons of speculative historical credibility must be acknowledged to appeal rather to that subjective attitude of mind which we call the historic sense than to any formulated objective rules. But a scientific method is a gain for all time, and the true if not the only progress of historical criticism consists in the improvement of the instruments of research.
Now first, as regards his conception of history, I have already pointed out that it was to him essentially a search for causes, a problem to be solved, not a picture to be painted, a scientific investigation into laws and tendencies, not a mere romantic account of startling incident and wondrous adventure. Thucydides, in the opening of his great work, had sounded the first note of the scientific conception of history. ‘The absence of romance in my pages,� he says, ‘will, I fear, detract somewhat from its value, but I have written my work not to be the exploit of a passing hour but as the possession of all time.� Polybius follows with words almost entirely similar. If, he says, we banish from history the consideration of causes, methods and motives (τ� δι� τί, κα� πως, κα� τίνος χάριν), and refuse to consider how far the result of anything is its rational consequent, what is left is a mere ἀγώνισμα [Barren exercise], not a μάθημα [Significant piece of thought], an oratorical essay which may give pleasure for the moment, but which is entirely without any scientific value for the explanation of the future. Elsewhere he says that ‘history robbed of the exposition of its causes and laws is a profitless thing, though it may allure a fool.� And all through his history the same point is put forward and exemplified in every fashion.
. . . He thus may be said to have anticipated one of the most important truths of the modern methods of investigation: I mean that principle which lays down that just as the study of physiology should precede the study of pathology, just as the laws of disease are best discovered by the phenomena presented in health, so the method of arriving at all great social and political truths is by the investigation of those cases where development has been normal, rational and undisturbed.
The critical canon that the more a people has been interfered with, the more difficult it becomes to generalise the laws of its progress and to analyse the separate forces of its civilisation, is one the validity of which is now generally recognised by those who pretend to a scientific treatment of all history: and while we have seen that Aristotle anticipated it in a general formula, to Polybius belongs the honour of being the first to apply it explicitly in the sphere of history.
I have shown how to this great scientific historian the motive of his work was essentially the search for causes; and true to his analytical spirit he is careful to examine what a cause really is and in what part of the antecedents of any consequent it is to be looked for. To give an illustration: As regards the origin of the war with Perseus, some assigned as causes the expulsion of Abrupolis by Perseus, the expedition of the latter to Delphi, the plot against Eumenes and the seizure of the ambassadors in Bœotia; of these incidents the two former, Polybius points out, were merely the pretexts, the two latter merely the occasions of the war. The war was really a legacy left to Perseus by his father, who was determined to fight it out with Rome.
Here as elsewhere he is not originating any new idea. Thucydides had pointed out the difference between the real and the alleged cause, and the Aristotelian dictum about revolutions, ο� περ� μικρῶ� ἀλλ� ἐ� μικρῶ� [Not about trivial issues but arising from trivial causes], draws the distinction between cause and occasion with the brilliancy of an epigram. But the explicit and rational investigation of the difference between αἰτί� [Origin], ἀρχ� [Cause], and πρόφασις [Pretext] was reserved for Polybius. No canon of historical criticism can be said to be of more real value than that involved in this distinction, and the overlooking of it has filled our histories with the contemptible accounts of the intrigues of courtiers and of kings and the petty plottings of backstairs influence—particulars interesting, no doubt, to those who would ascribe the Reformation to Anne Boleyn’s pretty face, the Persian war to the influence of a doctor or a curtain-lecture from Atossa, or the French Revolution to Madame de Maintenon, but without any value for those who aim at any scientific treatment of history.
. . . One of the greatest difficulties with which the modern historian has to contend is the enormous complexity of the facts which come under his notice: D’Alembert’s suggestion that at the end of every century a selection of facts should be made and the rest burned (if it was really intended seriously) could not, of course, be entertained for a moment. A problem loses all its value when it becomes simplified, and the world would be all the poorer if the Sibyl of History burned her volumes. Besides, as Gibbon pointed out, ‘a Montesquieu will detect in the most insignificant fact relations which the vulgar overlook.�
Nor can the scientific investigator of history isolate the particular elements, which he desires to examine, from disturbing and extraneous causes, as the experimental chemist can do (though sometimes, as in the case of lunatic asylums and prisons, he is enabled to observe phenomena in a certain degree of isolation). So he is compelled either to use the deductive mode of arguing from general laws or to employ the method of abstraction, which gives a fictitious isolation to phenomena never so isolated in actual existence. And this is exactly what Polybius has done as well as Thucydides. For, as has been well remarked, there is in the works of these two writers a certain plastic unity of type and motive; whatever they write is penetrated through and through with a specific quality, a singleness and concentration of purpose, which we may contrast with the more comprehensive width as manifested not merely in the modern mind, but also in Herodotus. Thucydides, regarding society as influenced entirely by political motives, took no account of forces of a different nature, and consequently his results, like those of most modern political economists, have to be modified largely 20 before they come to correspond with what we know was the actual state of fact. Similarly, Polybius will deal only with those forces which tended to bring the civilised world under the dominion of Rome (ix. 1), and in the Thucydidean spirit points out the want of picturesqueness and romance in his pages which is the result of the abstract method (τ� μονοειδὲ� τῆ� συντάξεως [Uniformity of structure]) being careful also to tell us that his rejection of all other forces is essentially deliberate and the result of a preconceived theory and by no means due to carelessness of any kind.
. . . Now, Polybius points out that those phenomena particularly are to be dwelt on which may serve as a παράδειγμα [Example] or sample, and show the character of the tendencies of the age as clearly as ‘a single drop from a full cask will be enough to disclose the nature of the whole contents.� This recognition of the importance of single facts, not in themselves but because of the spirit they represent, is extremely scientific; for we know that from the single bone, or tooth even, the anatomist can recreate entirely the skeleton of the primeval horse, and the botanist tell the character of the flora and fauna of a district from a single specimen.
Regarding truth as ‘the most divine thing in Nature,� the very ‘eye and light of history without which it moves a blind thing,� Polybius spared no pains in the acquisition of historical materials or in the study of the sciences of politics and war, which he considered were so essential to the training of the scientific historian, and the labour he took is mirrored in the many ways in which he criticises other authorities.
. . . But the chief object of his literary censure is Timæus, who had been unsparing of his strictures on others. The general point which he makes against him, impugning his accuracy as a historian, is that he derived his knowledge of history not from the dangerous perils of a life of action but in the secure indolence of a narrow scholastic life. There is, indeed, no point on which he is so vehement as this. ‘A history,� he says, ‘written in a library gives as lifeless and as inaccurate a picture of history as a painting which is copied not from a living animal but from a stuffed one.�
November 20, 2013
Polybe, grec envoyé comme otage à Rome au deuxième siècle était devenu l'ami des puissants de la plus célèbre des cités Latine. Il entreprit de rédiger une histoire universelle des événements récents qui avaient vu l'essor inexorable de l'influence romaine sur les affaires du monde méditerranéenne. Les événements relatés vont des prémisses de la première guerre punique (laquelle fait défaut dans Tite-Live) jusqu'à la destruction finale de Carthage lors de la troisième guerre punique. Les théâtres d'opération vont de l’Espagne à la Mésopotamie, et Polybe rentre dans force détails pour saisir l'enchainement des causes et des conséquences.
Malheureusement, malgré ses mille cinq cent pages, l'ouvrage devient rapidement un vrai gruyère, et on est réduit à se contenter d'une myriade de morceaux éparts qui bien que ne manquant pas d'intérêt individuellement, nous privent de la vision d'ensemble à laquelle l'auteur voulait donner vie. La lecture préalable de Tite-Live permettra de ne pas être trop désorienté. Si on retrouve le souci d'exactitude de Thucydide, on note que Polybe ne manque aucune occasion d'égratigner les historiens qui l'ont précédés lorsqu’il juge qu'ils ont manqué d'esprit critique ou d'objectivité, mais lui même n'est pas exempt de critiques.
Il marque sa personnalité dans le livre, préférant toujours le parti du plus fort, le plus raisonnable à ses yeux. L’intérêt l'emporte sur la justice. Il méprise les causes perdues, quelque soit les ressorts de justice qui les animaient, ce qui l’amène à prononcer des jugements parfois désagréables à lire.
L'édition est agrémentée de nombreuses notes qui préviennent le lecteur, lorsque Polybe prend des libertés avec la vérité. On regrette quand même l’absence totale de cartes, ce qui réduit souvent le lecteur à contempler des suites de syllabes là où il devrait concevoir des noms de villes, de peuples ou de pays.
Malheureusement, malgré ses mille cinq cent pages, l'ouvrage devient rapidement un vrai gruyère, et on est réduit à se contenter d'une myriade de morceaux éparts qui bien que ne manquant pas d'intérêt individuellement, nous privent de la vision d'ensemble à laquelle l'auteur voulait donner vie. La lecture préalable de Tite-Live permettra de ne pas être trop désorienté. Si on retrouve le souci d'exactitude de Thucydide, on note que Polybe ne manque aucune occasion d'égratigner les historiens qui l'ont précédés lorsqu’il juge qu'ils ont manqué d'esprit critique ou d'objectivité, mais lui même n'est pas exempt de critiques.
Il marque sa personnalité dans le livre, préférant toujours le parti du plus fort, le plus raisonnable à ses yeux. L’intérêt l'emporte sur la justice. Il méprise les causes perdues, quelque soit les ressorts de justice qui les animaient, ce qui l’amène à prononcer des jugements parfois désagréables à lire.
L'édition est agrémentée de nombreuses notes qui préviennent le lecteur, lorsque Polybe prend des libertés avec la vérité. On regrette quand même l’absence totale de cartes, ce qui réduit souvent le lecteur à contempler des suites de syllabes là où il devrait concevoir des noms de villes, de peuples ou de pays.
May 7, 2023
“A pretty face is better than recommendations,� that’s a quote from the book, and it’s a very Roman (or conquered Greek who thinks they are Roman) thing to say.
Old history books transcend the history they are writing about and always give the reader two things: (1) the history they are writing about, and (2) a meta-history (a history about the history) that is often more interesting than the history they are telling. This book gives the reader both.
Polybius gives the reader the ‘character� for what the Romans really believed. The mien (person’s look or manner) of the individual is a pre-requisite for effective leadership at least that’s how Polybius tells the story. For Polybius appearance is as important as reality, and I would say that appearances can be deceptive.
Polybius is aware of Machiavellian duplicity and warns his readers to the absurdness of trusting others words when duplicity will suffice. Friends are friends when they need you, but will turn on you when they can. Polybius is never at a wont to warn the reader about the real of the world.
Polybius writes a universal history that shows how Rome flourished and probably needed Carthage to awake them ultimately leading to the decimation of the Greeks and the mastering of the Romans over the whole world. Polybius ignores the pretexts and focuses on the real causes of events while realizing nothing ever happens in a vacuum, and assumes the greatness of Rome for the final reel in the movie.
Geography, astronomy, and science are necessary for understanding history. Polybius educates the reader in all three as he lets his history unfold.
Judea is mentioned in passing and he mostly comments how in a later chapter he will talk about the riches within their holy temple. Unfortunately, that chapter no longer seems to exist and wasn’t in this version of the book.
Polybius documents particularities about the Roman Legions and why they are so formidable as matter-of-fact asides within his history telling. Josephus did the same and both make for some of the most fascinating looks at the might of the Roman Legions and why they were destined to take over the world.
At times this book is painful to read but one knows that they must finish the excruciatingly detailed descriptions of the Greeks being duped by the Romans who want what’s best for themselves while the Greeks are wasting themselves fighting the Anatolians. The names never stop coming, and a gold-star is deserving for anyone who does finish this book, because the reward is embedded within Polybius� narratives and his asides are worth the trouble.
The Punic War descriptions and Hannibal’s wreaking havoc on the Roman People (can’t yet call them an Empire) are some of the best descriptions I’ve read.
With this book, one gets a great history and, in the process, how a Roman (or conquered Greek) sees the world as nothing but a vassal state for the manifest destiny inherent in the superior mind set of the Roman people (at least according to Polybius), and Polybius realizes that without a great enemy such as Hannibal, Rome might never have thrived, because it took an existential threat to focus Rome towards its eventual hegemony of the known world.
Old history books transcend the history they are writing about and always give the reader two things: (1) the history they are writing about, and (2) a meta-history (a history about the history) that is often more interesting than the history they are telling. This book gives the reader both.
Polybius gives the reader the ‘character� for what the Romans really believed. The mien (person’s look or manner) of the individual is a pre-requisite for effective leadership at least that’s how Polybius tells the story. For Polybius appearance is as important as reality, and I would say that appearances can be deceptive.
Polybius is aware of Machiavellian duplicity and warns his readers to the absurdness of trusting others words when duplicity will suffice. Friends are friends when they need you, but will turn on you when they can. Polybius is never at a wont to warn the reader about the real of the world.
Polybius writes a universal history that shows how Rome flourished and probably needed Carthage to awake them ultimately leading to the decimation of the Greeks and the mastering of the Romans over the whole world. Polybius ignores the pretexts and focuses on the real causes of events while realizing nothing ever happens in a vacuum, and assumes the greatness of Rome for the final reel in the movie.
Geography, astronomy, and science are necessary for understanding history. Polybius educates the reader in all three as he lets his history unfold.
Judea is mentioned in passing and he mostly comments how in a later chapter he will talk about the riches within their holy temple. Unfortunately, that chapter no longer seems to exist and wasn’t in this version of the book.
Polybius documents particularities about the Roman Legions and why they are so formidable as matter-of-fact asides within his history telling. Josephus did the same and both make for some of the most fascinating looks at the might of the Roman Legions and why they were destined to take over the world.
At times this book is painful to read but one knows that they must finish the excruciatingly detailed descriptions of the Greeks being duped by the Romans who want what’s best for themselves while the Greeks are wasting themselves fighting the Anatolians. The names never stop coming, and a gold-star is deserving for anyone who does finish this book, because the reward is embedded within Polybius� narratives and his asides are worth the trouble.
The Punic War descriptions and Hannibal’s wreaking havoc on the Roman People (can’t yet call them an Empire) are some of the best descriptions I’ve read.
With this book, one gets a great history and, in the process, how a Roman (or conquered Greek) sees the world as nothing but a vassal state for the manifest destiny inherent in the superior mind set of the Roman people (at least according to Polybius), and Polybius realizes that without a great enemy such as Hannibal, Rome might never have thrived, because it took an existential threat to focus Rome towards its eventual hegemony of the known world.
Read
June 7, 2017I have put this aside for now. Polybius's history is said to be important to our understanding of the formation of the Roman Empire. This I cannot dispute. But there is no art to description of events, and little analysis. It is basically one damn thing after another, which is principally, one damn battle after another, with no reflection on whether any of this is good. Turncoats and killing without sympathy or apparent need are denounced, but the general continuous war and carnage are treated as normal.
September 23, 2023
The Histories, on which Polybius� reputation rests, consisted of 40 books, the last being indexes. Books I–V are extant.
Polybius� original purpose was to narrate the history of the 53 years (220�168 bce)—from Hannibal’s Spanish campaign to the Battle of Pydna—during which Rome had made itself master of the world. Books I–II form an introduction covering Roman history from the crossing into Sicily against the Carthaginians in 264 and including events in various other parts of the world (especially Achaea) between 264 and 220. In Book III, Polybius sketches a modified plan, proposing to add an account of how the Romans exercised their supremacy and to extend coverage to the destruction of Carthage, in 146.
The events of 168�146 were related in Books XXX–XXXIX. Polybius probably conceived his revision after 146, having by this date completed his narrative down to the end of the Second Punic War. At least Books I–VI seem to have been published by about 150; there is no information as to when the rest of the work, including the revised plan in Book III, appeared.
Polybius� original purpose was to narrate the history of the 53 years (220�168 bce)—from Hannibal’s Spanish campaign to the Battle of Pydna—during which Rome had made itself master of the world. Books I–II form an introduction covering Roman history from the crossing into Sicily against the Carthaginians in 264 and including events in various other parts of the world (especially Achaea) between 264 and 220. In Book III, Polybius sketches a modified plan, proposing to add an account of how the Romans exercised their supremacy and to extend coverage to the destruction of Carthage, in 146.
The events of 168�146 were related in Books XXX–XXXIX. Polybius probably conceived his revision after 146, having by this date completed his narrative down to the end of the Second Punic War. At least Books I–VI seem to have been published by about 150; there is no information as to when the rest of the work, including the revised plan in Book III, appeared.
July 19, 2014
Polybius blends the retelling of the events with his own philosophy about the nature and goals of historical study in addition to his ruminations about the future of Empire (which are pretty much spot on), which can make the text feel a bit uneven at times. That being said, the chapters concerning Hannibal and his campaign against Rome are probably some of the most epically rendered set pieces in written antiquity. And they really help to show how Rome, after vanquishing an enemy this determined and this smart, set its sights on the broader goal of taking over the known world. Best read in small snippets as it can be kind of dry at times.
April 25, 2024
I don't really know anything about Ancient Rome and this is the first Ancient History text I've read; I wasn't expecting much, but actually it surprised me. Polybius' personality comes through at times and I quite enjoyed it. He scorns other historians, informs the reader as to what he's doing and why, and generally enlivens the proceedings with his comments.
That's not to say that there weren't times when my brain glazed over a bit, especially in the sections where the Romans are fighting a seemingly endless procession of tribes I've never heard of before. But I did learn a fair amount, including why in the world that guy Hannibal crossed the Alps with elephants, and what happened next.
I do plan on following this up with some more reading about early Rome, and I'm glad I gave this a try. It wasn't as intimidating as I expected it to be.
That's not to say that there weren't times when my brain glazed over a bit, especially in the sections where the Romans are fighting a seemingly endless procession of tribes I've never heard of before. But I did learn a fair amount, including why in the world that guy Hannibal crossed the Alps with elephants, and what happened next.
I do plan on following this up with some more reading about early Rome, and I'm glad I gave this a try. It wasn't as intimidating as I expected it to be.
January 10, 2025
Polybius taught me the word “vicissitude� and after that I just felt like my friends liked me a lot more
March 27, 2018
*DISCLAIMER* I have not read this entire text; I didn’t think it prudent to, and have skimmed over about 30 percent of it. My review is based off what I read thoroughly (with notes), which I can say firmly is at least 60 percent.
November 27, 2016
This book is a sweeping account of the time period of about 260 - 150 BC or so, by the Greek/Roman historian Polybius - who lived during this time period and accompanied the great Roman general Scipio on many of his campaigns.
It had really interesting parts that were very enlightening and intriguing to read. It goes into a lot of detail but in my opinion the beauty of history frequently lies in those details that would be lost if we read a summary or commentary of the work.
He starts of with the First Punic War and describes its culmination. Then he goes onto trace the rebuilding of the Carthaginian Empire in Spain by Hamilcar and then Hasdrubal - he frequently analyses their tactics and thinking. When Hannibal takes command we have a nice and detailed account of the different communications he has with the Celts and Gauls living South of the Alps and also East of the Ebro river, we see the genius tactics of Hannibal in subduing or persuading to get these tribes to join him against Rome.
Especially interesting was certain specific details - such as the crossing of the Alps with Hannibal's huge army containing many animals, horses, mule-trains etc. The way Polybius describes the snow-laden mountainside and the difficulties and tactics employed by the Carthaginians really makes you imagine and think about it. Also I loved the different river crossings that were attempted with elephants etc and how with amazing tactics Hannibal manages to transport his entire army across a raging river with a huge barbarian army waiting on the opposite bank - you should read to find out - I won't spoil it.
There are frequently very exciting events happening such as the betrayal of the Romans by certain Celtic garrisons, massacring the Romans while they sleep and defecting to the Carthaginians - and then we have the amazing Scipio and his great tactics - especially his sack and massacre of the city of New Carthage (Hannibal's main base in Spain) and the way in which he evades the tide through an amphibious assault is really amazing to learn about.
The story is both a story of heroism and of backstabbing and cunning guile. Both the Romans and the Carthaginians are the protagonists and the antagonists simultaneously. Polybius obviously really admires Hamilcar and Hannibal, and Scipio. He tells an amazing tale while frequently side tracking to comment and analyse different decisions taken and events that unfold.
His amazing descriptions of the phalanx formation and its genius logic were also very memorable, as he really seems quite knowledgable about the details of ancient warfare. We even get to learn about Roman soldier uniforms and how colourful they actually were (not just red and gold like they're in films) - and how they had colourful feathers etc poking 1.5 feet out of their helmets etc. The book is full of stuff which seem insignificant but which are very interesting in my opinion.
He relies a lot on 'tyche' or fate/fortune/luck as a causality in certain events which he cannot find a way of explaining in human terms, such as natural events such as bad weather turning the tide of a battle etc.
All in all this is a pretty fun book to read for anyone interested in the rise of Rome, the period in which Rome really consolidates its power around the Mediterranean basin, that is around 250 - 150 BC or so. It is also interesting to see a contemporary outlook of these times, and seeing certain subtle references to daily life in those times just makes the book even more immersive.
As I'm not a historian of Rome, some parts of the book such as the excessively detailed descriptions of Rome's constitution and political transformations etc did bore me a tiny bit - on the whole it was insignificant though, so I give this ancient book a solid four stars - and that is me using a 2016 benchmark point scale.
It had really interesting parts that were very enlightening and intriguing to read. It goes into a lot of detail but in my opinion the beauty of history frequently lies in those details that would be lost if we read a summary or commentary of the work.
He starts of with the First Punic War and describes its culmination. Then he goes onto trace the rebuilding of the Carthaginian Empire in Spain by Hamilcar and then Hasdrubal - he frequently analyses their tactics and thinking. When Hannibal takes command we have a nice and detailed account of the different communications he has with the Celts and Gauls living South of the Alps and also East of the Ebro river, we see the genius tactics of Hannibal in subduing or persuading to get these tribes to join him against Rome.
Especially interesting was certain specific details - such as the crossing of the Alps with Hannibal's huge army containing many animals, horses, mule-trains etc. The way Polybius describes the snow-laden mountainside and the difficulties and tactics employed by the Carthaginians really makes you imagine and think about it. Also I loved the different river crossings that were attempted with elephants etc and how with amazing tactics Hannibal manages to transport his entire army across a raging river with a huge barbarian army waiting on the opposite bank - you should read to find out - I won't spoil it.
There are frequently very exciting events happening such as the betrayal of the Romans by certain Celtic garrisons, massacring the Romans while they sleep and defecting to the Carthaginians - and then we have the amazing Scipio and his great tactics - especially his sack and massacre of the city of New Carthage (Hannibal's main base in Spain) and the way in which he evades the tide through an amphibious assault is really amazing to learn about.
The story is both a story of heroism and of backstabbing and cunning guile. Both the Romans and the Carthaginians are the protagonists and the antagonists simultaneously. Polybius obviously really admires Hamilcar and Hannibal, and Scipio. He tells an amazing tale while frequently side tracking to comment and analyse different decisions taken and events that unfold.
His amazing descriptions of the phalanx formation and its genius logic were also very memorable, as he really seems quite knowledgable about the details of ancient warfare. We even get to learn about Roman soldier uniforms and how colourful they actually were (not just red and gold like they're in films) - and how they had colourful feathers etc poking 1.5 feet out of their helmets etc. The book is full of stuff which seem insignificant but which are very interesting in my opinion.
He relies a lot on 'tyche' or fate/fortune/luck as a causality in certain events which he cannot find a way of explaining in human terms, such as natural events such as bad weather turning the tide of a battle etc.
All in all this is a pretty fun book to read for anyone interested in the rise of Rome, the period in which Rome really consolidates its power around the Mediterranean basin, that is around 250 - 150 BC or so. It is also interesting to see a contemporary outlook of these times, and seeing certain subtle references to daily life in those times just makes the book even more immersive.
As I'm not a historian of Rome, some parts of the book such as the excessively detailed descriptions of Rome's constitution and political transformations etc did bore me a tiny bit - on the whole it was insignificant though, so I give this ancient book a solid four stars - and that is me using a 2016 benchmark point scale.
April 3, 2011
Having a guilty pleasure that includes reading roman adventure novels of carnage and conquest, not to mention modern historians takes on the conflicts and events of the ancient world, I feel compelled to occassionally take on the guys that tend to be the source materials. These can seem pretty forbidding at the outset, but contemporary translations of Herodotus and Polybius made them both pretty easily digested. I really enjoyed David Anthony Durham's take on the Second Punic War (Prince of Carthage) and I have started a series from a UK writer whose characters are in the midst of the first punic war (both of which gain some modern relevance with todays events in Tunisia where the original Carthage was located). Polybius' The Rise of the Roman Empire may not be a page turner, but it is loaded with historical detail and speculations about motivations of individuals and societies and tangents about conflicts in other parts of the world that set the stage for the rise of the Roman juggernaut. Good stuff.
Next up, Plutarch.
Next up, Plutarch.
March 4, 2021
After Herodotus� Histories and Thucydides� History of the Peloponesian wars, this book logically follows the genre. The book is very readable and well written. The level of detail of the narrative differs greatly, probably because of parts that were lost in time.
I especially enjoyed reading Hannibal’s journey through the mountains and subsequent battles in Italy.
I especially enjoyed reading Hannibal’s journey through the mountains and subsequent battles in Italy.
August 29, 2023
I have been reading this book very gradually for several months, so at the point I'm writing this review, the whole of the text is not particularly fresh in my mind.
The reason I started reading this book was that I started reading Salammbô, Flaubert's novel set in Carthage during the Mercenary War. From the introduction to the translation of Salammbô I was reading, I learned that Flaubert mostly used Polybius as a source. Then when I was in a bookshop, I saw a copy of Polybius for sale, and bought it. Since it was a physical copy rather than an e-book I ended up returning to it often enough that I actually managed to finish it eventually---unlike Salammbô, which I still haven't finished. In fact it's now been long enough since I read any of Salammbô that if I want to start reading it again, I'll probably just restart from the beginning of the book.
That's the proximal cause for me reading this book anyway. I guess if you want to go into deeper motivations, I think the main reason I kept reading is that I'm curious about what people were like and how they thought during antiquity. What kept me reading it was not so much the history being told, but the character of Polybius as revealed in the text.
I was interested in *some* of the history, like the story of the First and Second Punic Wars. I had the advantage of knowing the basic outline of the story beforehand, in those cases. But the rest of the book is about what was going in Greece during this time (Polybius was a Greek, not a Roman), and that all kind of went over my head. In principle, there should be an interesting story about how Greek was incorporated into the Roman world. But Polybius's account of it was, for me, a bit too disjointed; it came across as a series of disconnected stories about Greeks feuding with one another, with Rome as an outside power who got dragged in every now and then. To be fair, that might have been how it came across at the time to the Greeks as well.
The disjointedness might also be a side-effect of me only reading the book every now and then over several months. And also, the fact that substantial portions of the story were cut out obviously didn't help either. Actually this is one of the disappointing things about this book. A lot of what Polybius wrote has been lost to history, unfortunately. He divided the text into thirty nine books, but apparently only the first five survive in full, with the rest surviving only in fragments. The Penguin edition which I was reading has been abridged, on top of that.
Anyway, with regard to the character of Polybius, it's strikingly different from the other ancient historian I've read, which is Herodotus. For me, Polybius is rather less likeable. His approach to writing history is more "scientific" and "rational"; he's less of an entertainer than Herodotus. I guess he's following the tradition of Thucydides in this (unfortunately I haven't read Thucydides, so can't compare). Also, while Herodotus comes across as quite genial, IIRC, Polybius is rather curmudgeonly. He likes to criticise rivial historians and to pontificate about morality, and a lot of the statements he makes about human nature or the nature of history or whatever come across as questionable and a bit dumb or naive, rather than wise. But it's still interesting to get to know such a character; it's not something that I would necessarily count as a negative aspect of the book. It's possible that these differences in the character of Polybius and Herodotus reflect something about the changes between the Greek and Roman "character" in general; that would accord with my impression of what those changes were. But it could of course also just be individual personality differences.
What else? Oh, one thing I think I learned from this book is that the expansion of Rome was not justified simply as a matter of raw might-makes-right style conquering all available neighbours just because they can, at least not at this stage of their history during the 2nd century BC. The way Polybius tells it, they just interacted with neighbouring powers as peers, helped resolve conflicts, stood up for themselves when necessary, and just managed to end up in a place where they had total dominance over everyone else because of that. Kind of like how people sometimes say (quite controversially) that the British empire was basically an accident. This might not be a really accurate view of what they were doing (Polybius wrote the Histories while living in Rome, and was generally strongly pro-Roman) but even then it's interesting to see it could be portrayed that way, since I think there are certainly other empires in history which did openly conquer just because they could without feeling that they needed to justify it.
The reason I started reading this book was that I started reading Salammbô, Flaubert's novel set in Carthage during the Mercenary War. From the introduction to the translation of Salammbô I was reading, I learned that Flaubert mostly used Polybius as a source. Then when I was in a bookshop, I saw a copy of Polybius for sale, and bought it. Since it was a physical copy rather than an e-book I ended up returning to it often enough that I actually managed to finish it eventually---unlike Salammbô, which I still haven't finished. In fact it's now been long enough since I read any of Salammbô that if I want to start reading it again, I'll probably just restart from the beginning of the book.
That's the proximal cause for me reading this book anyway. I guess if you want to go into deeper motivations, I think the main reason I kept reading is that I'm curious about what people were like and how they thought during antiquity. What kept me reading it was not so much the history being told, but the character of Polybius as revealed in the text.
I was interested in *some* of the history, like the story of the First and Second Punic Wars. I had the advantage of knowing the basic outline of the story beforehand, in those cases. But the rest of the book is about what was going in Greece during this time (Polybius was a Greek, not a Roman), and that all kind of went over my head. In principle, there should be an interesting story about how Greek was incorporated into the Roman world. But Polybius's account of it was, for me, a bit too disjointed; it came across as a series of disconnected stories about Greeks feuding with one another, with Rome as an outside power who got dragged in every now and then. To be fair, that might have been how it came across at the time to the Greeks as well.
The disjointedness might also be a side-effect of me only reading the book every now and then over several months. And also, the fact that substantial portions of the story were cut out obviously didn't help either. Actually this is one of the disappointing things about this book. A lot of what Polybius wrote has been lost to history, unfortunately. He divided the text into thirty nine books, but apparently only the first five survive in full, with the rest surviving only in fragments. The Penguin edition which I was reading has been abridged, on top of that.
Anyway, with regard to the character of Polybius, it's strikingly different from the other ancient historian I've read, which is Herodotus. For me, Polybius is rather less likeable. His approach to writing history is more "scientific" and "rational"; he's less of an entertainer than Herodotus. I guess he's following the tradition of Thucydides in this (unfortunately I haven't read Thucydides, so can't compare). Also, while Herodotus comes across as quite genial, IIRC, Polybius is rather curmudgeonly. He likes to criticise rivial historians and to pontificate about morality, and a lot of the statements he makes about human nature or the nature of history or whatever come across as questionable and a bit dumb or naive, rather than wise. But it's still interesting to get to know such a character; it's not something that I would necessarily count as a negative aspect of the book. It's possible that these differences in the character of Polybius and Herodotus reflect something about the changes between the Greek and Roman "character" in general; that would accord with my impression of what those changes were. But it could of course also just be individual personality differences.
What else? Oh, one thing I think I learned from this book is that the expansion of Rome was not justified simply as a matter of raw might-makes-right style conquering all available neighbours just because they can, at least not at this stage of their history during the 2nd century BC. The way Polybius tells it, they just interacted with neighbouring powers as peers, helped resolve conflicts, stood up for themselves when necessary, and just managed to end up in a place where they had total dominance over everyone else because of that. Kind of like how people sometimes say (quite controversially) that the British empire was basically an accident. This might not be a really accurate view of what they were doing (Polybius wrote the Histories while living in Rome, and was generally strongly pro-Roman) but even then it's interesting to see it could be portrayed that way, since I think there are certainly other empires in history which did openly conquer just because they could without feeling that they needed to justify it.
Read
February 19, 2025”I think there can be no doubt what lies in the future for Rome. When a state has warded off many serious threats, and has come to attain undisputed supremacy and sovereignty, it is easy to see that, after a long period of settled prosperity, lifestyles become more extrava-gant, and rivalry over political positions and other such projects becomes fiercer than it should be. If these processes continue for very long, society will change for the worse. The causes of the deterioration will be lust for power combined with contempt for political obscurity, and personal ostentation and extravagance. It will be called a democratic revolution, however, because the time will come when the people will feel abused by some politicians' self-seeking ambition, and will have been flattered into vain hopes by others' lust for power.
Under these circumstances, all their decisions will be motivated by anger and passion, and they will no longer be content to be subject or even equal to those in power. No, they will want everything, or almost everything, for themselves. When this happens, the new constitution will be described in the most attractive terms, as 'freedom' and "democracy', but in fact it will be the worst of all constitutions, mob-rule.�
Prophetic in Roman times and hopefully not our own.
Under these circumstances, all their decisions will be motivated by anger and passion, and they will no longer be content to be subject or even equal to those in power. No, they will want everything, or almost everything, for themselves. When this happens, the new constitution will be described in the most attractive terms, as 'freedom' and "democracy', but in fact it will be the worst of all constitutions, mob-rule.�
Prophetic in Roman times and hopefully not our own.
January 24, 2025
I loved this book for passages such as the following:
"In my opinion, nature has proclaimed to men that truth as the greatest of gods and has invested her with the greatest power. at least, when all are trying to suppress her and all probabilities are on the side of falsehood. she somehow finds her own means of penetrating into the hearts of men. and sometimes shows her power at once sometimes after being darkened for years. Alas, by her own force prevails and crushes falsehood." Voila un homme!
Much of the criticism of his writings I found unwarranted. I like that he goes into major digressions on his process and how various authors failed. Its good for future historians and readers to understand these things. I appreciate even more is musings on various events. There are so many passages where he is giving the reader the wisdom of the ages from one who lived through incredible times.
Sadly, much of his work is missing but this also may have redeeming aspects. The reason this is 4 and not 5 is he is long winded and to his credit, admittedly so. He also dwells too much on Greek affairs for my taste. Its actually a 4.5ish but we do not have that option now do we?
"In my opinion, nature has proclaimed to men that truth as the greatest of gods and has invested her with the greatest power. at least, when all are trying to suppress her and all probabilities are on the side of falsehood. she somehow finds her own means of penetrating into the hearts of men. and sometimes shows her power at once sometimes after being darkened for years. Alas, by her own force prevails and crushes falsehood." Voila un homme!
Much of the criticism of his writings I found unwarranted. I like that he goes into major digressions on his process and how various authors failed. Its good for future historians and readers to understand these things. I appreciate even more is musings on various events. There are so many passages where he is giving the reader the wisdom of the ages from one who lived through incredible times.
Sadly, much of his work is missing but this also may have redeeming aspects. The reason this is 4 and not 5 is he is long winded and to his credit, admittedly so. He also dwells too much on Greek affairs for my taste. Its actually a 4.5ish but we do not have that option now do we?
June 8, 2019
I enjoyed this contemporary account of the Punic Wars. True to his word Polybius describes “world� history of the time touching on events in Byzantium, Spain, Greece, Egypt and Syria. Especially enjoyable was his discussion of various constitutional structures. His argument for a mixed design with coequal constituencies checking each other’s authority seems obviously superior but only because of modern day use. After the fall of Republican Rome and for the next 1,500 years, such a government has seldom found. One of Polybius’s tenants was that the “people� had a special obligation to hold the aristocracy ( Executive and Senate) accountable for their individual character. It was through public honors and punishments that the right type of person was motivated to lead justly and unselfishly.
February 13, 2021
A fascinating account of the Punic wars and contemporary events in Greece by a Greek historian.
September 6, 2022
Solid history, felt like a combo of Thucydides and Tacitus' Annals but with a far sassier narrator. I will say I wish this volume translated the fragments of book 9 or any other besides book 12. Book 12 (save one comparison between the art of history and medicine) is just complaining about other historians, though Polybius gets some entertaining jabs in.
September 14, 2022
Often clear-eyed and insightful into world politics circa 250-146 BC, I can't say this was a page turner
March 10, 2011
Polybius was a Greek born into an aristocratic family of the Achaean League and was selected as one of the 1000 aristocratic hostages transported to Rome. He fell into the good graces of the house of the Scipios. He read the family archives and grew fond of Publius Cornelius Scipio and his son. Out of the forty or so Histories that he wrote only about five remained extant. The Roman Empire as an event fascinated Polybius and he sought to document its rise.
This work is written in a dry, factual manner but he remains what Edward Gibbons called "a philosophical historian" examining deeply the causes and consequences of the Punic Wars as a loyal outsider. Particularly well written is his theory of the transitional structure of government from anarchy to oligarchy to despotism. This section clearly influenced the Founding Fathers of the United States when they drew up the Constitution. Another interesting section is the organization of the Roman military and Polybius' belief that military service was an intrinsic part of Roman citizenship. Finally, his description of the Second Punic War is very well written. He interviews veterans and provides a dispassionate analysis behind the causes for Carthaginian aggression.
Overall this book was interesting as a historical artefact of first hand historiography but it was difficult to maintain constant interest.
This work is written in a dry, factual manner but he remains what Edward Gibbons called "a philosophical historian" examining deeply the causes and consequences of the Punic Wars as a loyal outsider. Particularly well written is his theory of the transitional structure of government from anarchy to oligarchy to despotism. This section clearly influenced the Founding Fathers of the United States when they drew up the Constitution. Another interesting section is the organization of the Roman military and Polybius' belief that military service was an intrinsic part of Roman citizenship. Finally, his description of the Second Punic War is very well written. He interviews veterans and provides a dispassionate analysis behind the causes for Carthaginian aggression.
Overall this book was interesting as a historical artefact of first hand historiography but it was difficult to maintain constant interest.
April 20, 2015
3.5 stars.
I am not a historian, and have encountered almost all the content of this book in later works that probably just cribbed from Polybius. My rating reflects my enjoyment of the history, not it's importance.
The content itself is a roller coaster ride. It begins with books covering two wars between Rome and Carthage. The history is exciting and the writing captures it. Next are two books on The Social War occurring in Greece. Compared to the previous conflict, this is children squabbling over the father's estate. And Polybius's style changes from war-correspondent to gossip monger. I understand the importance of ascendant Rome and degenerate Greece rallying for one last attempt at glory, but it is a chore to read through. And that is the end of the history that survives. A great work written to describe how Rome came to rule the known world and by the chance of history, it is cutoff when Rome is at her lowest point.
This translations contains fragments from two later books. The first is a fascinating study on Roman politics and camp formation. The second is embarrassingly petty sniping of previous historians that Polybius didn't take kindly to. With 2000 years of perspective, he gets as much mud on himself as he does his targets.
I am not a historian, and have encountered almost all the content of this book in later works that probably just cribbed from Polybius. My rating reflects my enjoyment of the history, not it's importance.
The content itself is a roller coaster ride. It begins with books covering two wars between Rome and Carthage. The history is exciting and the writing captures it. Next are two books on The Social War occurring in Greece. Compared to the previous conflict, this is children squabbling over the father's estate. And Polybius's style changes from war-correspondent to gossip monger. I understand the importance of ascendant Rome and degenerate Greece rallying for one last attempt at glory, but it is a chore to read through. And that is the end of the history that survives. A great work written to describe how Rome came to rule the known world and by the chance of history, it is cutoff when Rome is at her lowest point.
This translations contains fragments from two later books. The first is a fascinating study on Roman politics and camp formation. The second is embarrassingly petty sniping of previous historians that Polybius didn't take kindly to. With 2000 years of perspective, he gets as much mud on himself as he does his targets.
June 2, 2012
It is an absolute shame that most of this work did not make it down to the present day. And on that note I make my only criticism of this edition: the jacket and web material on this book state that it covers the Second Punic War and the later destruction of Carthage. The original work may have, but what is left to us is the history of the Second Punic War up to the battle of Cannae and nothing further. My favorite quote is on the use of religion as a means of control: "In Rome, nothing plays a more elaborate or extensive role in people's private lives and in the political sphere than superstition. Many of my readers might find this strange, but it seems to me that it has been done for the sake of the common people. In a state of enlightened citizens, there would presumably be no need for such a course. But since the common people everywhere are fickle...the only option is to use mysterious terrors and all this elaborate drama to restrain them. I very much doubt that the men who in ancient times introduced the masses to the idea of the gods and the concept of Hades just happened aimlessly to do so..."
March 12, 2022
Polybius is now my favorite ancient historian (so far I've read Herodotus, Thucydides, Livy - and Polybius). He is definitely a more critical and witty historian than Livy - though he doesn't cover internal Roman politics and political discussions to the extent that Livy does. His Histories contain 40 books, out of which only five exist in complete form, and many of the others in extracts. The Oxford edition that I read, translated by Robin Waterfield, contains books 1-5, and the extracts that we still have from the very important book 6 as well as book 12.
Polybius set out to write the first "universal history" of his times (not the first universal history ever - he mentions Ephorus of Cyme, whose works no longer remain, as having done this first). Given the interconnectedness of world events in his time, Polybius argues that historians can no longer fully understand history by writing separate regional, "partial" histories, but that history must now be understood comprehensively to arrive at a true understanding. In his Histories, Polybius sets out to explain "how and thanks to what kind of political system almost the entire known world was conquered and brought under a single empire, the empire of the Romans, in less than fifty-three years - an unprecedented event." As such, while the main focus of his first five books is on the history and battles of the Second Punic War, he also weaves in the histories of the Greek Social War and the Fourth Syrian War. (The interconnectedness of these histories is then extended to later times in the books not included in the Oxford edition and/or no longer extant).
The Histories is at its most vivid in its portrayal of the astounding feats of Hannibal in the Second Punic War. Rome and Carthage, the equally matched great powers of their time, started bumping up against each other in Sicily, leading to the First Punic War, which Rome eventually won. Hamilcar was a Carthaginian general during this war, and after the defeat, he expanded Carthage's territory in Spain. His son Hannibal, according to Polybius, was raised to hate the Romans, so that once he obtained power he looked to resettle scores and to defeat Rome. Instead of taking a direct route towards Rome, Hannibal made the dramatic decision to march tens of thousands of troops - and several dozen war elephants - northeast from Spain, across the river Rhones, and then across the alps, to attack Rome from a northern direction. Polybius' descriptions of the journey and subsequent battles are an enjoyable and dramatic read, especially his anecdotes about how the elephants were transported across the river (without falling into it) and how they were used in war.
In Book 6, Polybius explains how the political system of the Romans enabled them to take over such a large part of the world. Applying Greek political theory to the history of Rome, he discusses how in political history there are six kinds of constitutions, the three virtuous ones and the three degenerate ones, made up of the rule of the one, the few, and the many. Political history starts with people gathering together in bands and selecting one strong person to lead them, eventually establishing kingship, which corruptions into tyranny. Tyranny is then overthrown by the elite, who establish aristocracy, which degenerates into oligarchy. Oligarchy is then overthrown by the people, who establish democracy, which degenerates into mob rule. The best constitution is the "mixed" one that draws from all three elements and the Roman republic is the perfect example of that mixed constitution. Polybius sees kingly power represented in the consuls, aristocratic power represented in the Senate, and democratic power represented by the people (usually but not exclusively through the tribunes). Rome's constitution was more deliberative, and also younger, than Carthage's, so that significant losses were eventually turned into Roman victory against a comparatively more decadent, and less deliberative, more tyrannical, Carthage. Polybius' analysis of constitutions has since been influential in modern political philosophy (since Machiavelli), including on the Founding Fathers.
Polybius is at his best when he goes off on one of his rants. In Book 5, for example, he goes off on almost two pages about how one commander would have easily conquered a town if he had only brought ladders long enough for the job - violently excoriating the commander for his idiocy ("Imagine a general whose strategy for capturing a town was just to turn up there, without having given the matter a moment's thought, without having made any plans, and without even having measured the height of the walls or cliffs or whatever he was intending to use to gain entrance into the town. Who could not find fault with him for that? ... The mathematics involved in making ladders and so on of the required length are not difficult, and, methodically applied, are infallible.").
Book 12 is a full book-sized rant against another Greek historian, Timaeus, who Polybius criticizes for being inaccurate and for making things up. Polybius argues against historians who only write history based on reading many books reclined on their couch (like I do). Instead, political history consists of three things: studying history, inspecting and mapping geographies, and having practical political experience. Polybius, himself having been an officer in war, is unapologetic about criticizing those historians who, without battle knowledge, make errors in their descriptions of battle tactics. He takes pride in basing his Histories on eyewitness testimonies and on having himself traversed the territories of the battles he describes.
Thoroughly entertaining, and important for understanding the third century Roman world, Polybius The Histories is a major accomplishment and highly recommended reading for anyone with an interest in ancient history.
Polybius set out to write the first "universal history" of his times (not the first universal history ever - he mentions Ephorus of Cyme, whose works no longer remain, as having done this first). Given the interconnectedness of world events in his time, Polybius argues that historians can no longer fully understand history by writing separate regional, "partial" histories, but that history must now be understood comprehensively to arrive at a true understanding. In his Histories, Polybius sets out to explain "how and thanks to what kind of political system almost the entire known world was conquered and brought under a single empire, the empire of the Romans, in less than fifty-three years - an unprecedented event." As such, while the main focus of his first five books is on the history and battles of the Second Punic War, he also weaves in the histories of the Greek Social War and the Fourth Syrian War. (The interconnectedness of these histories is then extended to later times in the books not included in the Oxford edition and/or no longer extant).
The Histories is at its most vivid in its portrayal of the astounding feats of Hannibal in the Second Punic War. Rome and Carthage, the equally matched great powers of their time, started bumping up against each other in Sicily, leading to the First Punic War, which Rome eventually won. Hamilcar was a Carthaginian general during this war, and after the defeat, he expanded Carthage's territory in Spain. His son Hannibal, according to Polybius, was raised to hate the Romans, so that once he obtained power he looked to resettle scores and to defeat Rome. Instead of taking a direct route towards Rome, Hannibal made the dramatic decision to march tens of thousands of troops - and several dozen war elephants - northeast from Spain, across the river Rhones, and then across the alps, to attack Rome from a northern direction. Polybius' descriptions of the journey and subsequent battles are an enjoyable and dramatic read, especially his anecdotes about how the elephants were transported across the river (without falling into it) and how they were used in war.
In Book 6, Polybius explains how the political system of the Romans enabled them to take over such a large part of the world. Applying Greek political theory to the history of Rome, he discusses how in political history there are six kinds of constitutions, the three virtuous ones and the three degenerate ones, made up of the rule of the one, the few, and the many. Political history starts with people gathering together in bands and selecting one strong person to lead them, eventually establishing kingship, which corruptions into tyranny. Tyranny is then overthrown by the elite, who establish aristocracy, which degenerates into oligarchy. Oligarchy is then overthrown by the people, who establish democracy, which degenerates into mob rule. The best constitution is the "mixed" one that draws from all three elements and the Roman republic is the perfect example of that mixed constitution. Polybius sees kingly power represented in the consuls, aristocratic power represented in the Senate, and democratic power represented by the people (usually but not exclusively through the tribunes). Rome's constitution was more deliberative, and also younger, than Carthage's, so that significant losses were eventually turned into Roman victory against a comparatively more decadent, and less deliberative, more tyrannical, Carthage. Polybius' analysis of constitutions has since been influential in modern political philosophy (since Machiavelli), including on the Founding Fathers.
Polybius is at his best when he goes off on one of his rants. In Book 5, for example, he goes off on almost two pages about how one commander would have easily conquered a town if he had only brought ladders long enough for the job - violently excoriating the commander for his idiocy ("Imagine a general whose strategy for capturing a town was just to turn up there, without having given the matter a moment's thought, without having made any plans, and without even having measured the height of the walls or cliffs or whatever he was intending to use to gain entrance into the town. Who could not find fault with him for that? ... The mathematics involved in making ladders and so on of the required length are not difficult, and, methodically applied, are infallible.").
Book 12 is a full book-sized rant against another Greek historian, Timaeus, who Polybius criticizes for being inaccurate and for making things up. Polybius argues against historians who only write history based on reading many books reclined on their couch (like I do). Instead, political history consists of three things: studying history, inspecting and mapping geographies, and having practical political experience. Polybius, himself having been an officer in war, is unapologetic about criticizing those historians who, without battle knowledge, make errors in their descriptions of battle tactics. He takes pride in basing his Histories on eyewitness testimonies and on having himself traversed the territories of the battles he describes.
Thoroughly entertaining, and important for understanding the third century Roman world, Polybius The Histories is a major accomplishment and highly recommended reading for anyone with an interest in ancient history.
November 5, 2013
Rating this based on the first six books; I don't recommend fighting through the fragments. A good student should be able to come up with dozens of interesting topics to discuss based on those first six books if he is thinking while reading. Polybius would be far more interesting if he stopped trying to justify his work.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 143 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.