What Does Polybius Mean by Pragmatic His

Amanda Mazur History 532:81, Ancient Greece

What does Polybius mean by ‘Pragmatic History’?

“The student of politics is interested in the doings of nations, cities and monarchs. As I have confined my attention strictly to these last matters and as my whole work threats of my

nothing else…its perusal will have no attraction to the larger number.”1

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

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

Achaean hostage.2 It was during his time in Rome under a laissez-faire house arrest at the

villa of Aemilius Paulus that he began to write his epic history. Upon completion, the work

spanned over forty volumes, of which only five survive in entirety, and the sixth is only

partially available.3 He not only chronicled the history but also played an important role in

what is arguably the most important period for the Romans, a period which witnessed the

breathtaking rise of a powerful Italian city-state to dominion over the Mediterranean basin;

and along with Thucydides, his rigorous methodology in historical research has provided a

model for accurate and successful historical writing through to the present day.

Greece itself, stricken by the Peloponnesian War and steadily weakened by the

quarreling between the various city-states, was slowly declining in economic strength and, at

least in some states, in population. No one heeded Thucydides' terrible warnings about the

dangers of stasis.4 The states which grew out of the fragments of Alexander's empire did not

1 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, trans. W.R Paton (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1960-1968), 9.1.2 F.W Walbank, Polybius, Rome, and the Hellenistic World: Essays and Reflections (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002) 22.3 Arnaldo Momigliano, Polybius Between the English and the Turks, (Oxford: Hollywell Press, 1974) 12.4 Thucydides, trans. Rex Warner. History of the Peloponnesian War. (London: Penguin Classics, 1954), 1.18.

1


keep the peace among themselves. In the West, Rome, cruelly hurt by Hannibal's campaign,

was perhaps beginning her long period of decline. 5

Polybius’ views on the writing of history differed a great deal from his contemporaries as well

his more predecessors. His work was to be purely political and military, and not follow the

previous methods of story-telling which by creating illusion in were fashioned to thrill the

audience.6 The strongest theme that his work produces is clearly attempt to necessitate history

writing as a medium that would inform people about past events and past actions, as well as to

show the importance of Fortune and personal prowess as integral aspects for the growth and

success of individual people and of entire states.7 In essence, he wished to create a useful,

universal history that could be utilized functionally, rather than an epic story, based on the

imagination of the author rather than actual events.

Polybius’ Histories is a history that discusses the contemporary events of his time,

with his narrative spanning 264 B.C. to 146 B.C., and Rome’s continuous warring with

Carthage during the Punic Wars. The events that he wrote of were limited to a much smaller

period of time than previous historians, and thus were more tangible, and as such can to some

extent be classified as more reliable due to the plethora of sources and primary material that

Polybius would have been able to access.

The twentieth-century historian Frank Walbank, probably the most notable of all Classicists to

have studied Polybius’ work, has written an abundance of literature on The Histories and

claims that Polybius’ writing style was almost Machiavellian in nature, and that he could be

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

5 Stanley Barney Smith, “Polybius of Megalopolis,” The Classical Journal Vol. 45, No. 1 (1949):7. 6 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 2.56.7 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 1.4.2.8 Walbank, Polybius, Rome and the Hellenistic World, 4.

2


elements of Polybius’ work that differed from the previous histories that had been written, as

well as taking into account his methodology, especially with reference to his sources and the

methodology of his examination of evidence. What this shall provide is a broad survey of

Polybius’ writings, taking into account his pragmatic nature. Throughout the work, Polybius

gives various reasons for the way in which he has written his history, and he also has many

examples of other historians whom he admonishes with great polemic for their own histories.9

Thus, it is the purpose of this essay to discuss what Polybius meant by ‘pragmatic’ history,

and whether his own writing stood up in its entirety to the standard that he set.

Polybius’ Rise of the Roman Empire aimed to create a written history that was not a tragedy,

but a useful history that was meant to inform future generations of problems that had occurred

and he states,

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

The historian Thucydides made a similar declaration in his own introduction with regard to

the usefulness of his history, “And it may well be that my history will seem less easy to read

because of the absence in it of a romantic element. It will be enough for m, however, if these

words of mine are judged useful.”11

As a pragmatic historian, it was Polybius’ aim to provide a useful, non-bias history that was

based on his military and political experience. The importance of understanding history was

the main basis for his work. If a person had sufficient knowledge of past events, it was

unlikely that he would make the same mistakes as his predecessors, and that “History alone

can supply him with the precedents.”12 Polybius’ history had a double purpose; it aimed to 9 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 3.59.3.10 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 9.1.11 Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, 1.22.12 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 3.31.

3


provide training and experience for politicians as well as to teach the reader the vicissitudes of

Fortune by describing what happened to those in the past.13 Thus the reader would gain a

greater education and understanding of the contemporary world and how to act accordingly.

The purpose therefore of his history was to be wholly pragmatic; it was to be a balanced

account of affairs that would educate and inform without bias towards a certain side.

Although there are times when Polybius does seem to be driven by his own bias (a point that

will be touched upon later), his main aim was to create this pragmatic history.

Polybius’ target audience shows that his work was to be both useful and pragmatic. His core

audience was to be statesmen and students, and there are many examples within his text that

allude to this. In Book Three, Polybius discusses the distinction between causes, pretexts and

beginnings with regard to war, and this most certainly was directed at statesmen. He writes,

“A physician cannot help the sick if he is ignorant of the causes of certain conditions of the

body, nor can a statesman help his fellow citizen if he cannot follow how, why or by what

process every event has developed.”14 It is clear also that Polybius’ treatment of the change in

character of Philip V was to be a direct piece of ‘useful’ information, as was the account of

the Roman Constitution, which would help the reader to further understand the Roman

political scene.15 According to Walbank however, although Polybius’ work would be most

useful to statesmen, it was not in essence generated for a small group, and was to be

accessible and readable to any reader.16 Polybius himself states that he was writing for anyone

interested in the affairs of nations cities and rulers, and thus, basically a universal history that

13 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 1.12.14 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 3.7.15 For his treatment of Philip V, see Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 7.72. His account of the Roman Constitution, Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 3.118.16 F.W Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius Vol. 1(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957) 13.

4


enveloped the whole scale rise of the Roman Empire as the dominant state within the

Mediterranean at this time.17

Accordingly, Polybius was the first to attempt to write a universal history. Previously,

historians had written of a single state, or a limited period of time, and Polybius concludes,

“In earlier times the world’s history had consisted, so to speak, of a series of unrelated

episodes, the origins and results of each being as widely separated as their localities.”18 Thus,

it was Polybius’ aim to create a history that showed the growth of Rome as a leader and how

after 220 B.C. (and the final defeat of Carthage and the Roman victory in the Third Punic

War) Rome had finally implanted itself at the center of the political world, and therefore of

history, becoming an “organic whole.”19 In addition, akin to previous historians, Polybius

gives the reasoning behind his own writing of this epic history; the unification of the

oecumene, and thus the entire world coming under the power of Rome.20

As previously mentioned, Polybius was highly critical and polemical with regards to other

historians and their work. In Book Twelve he blames several for using too narrow a subject

matter at the start, and therefore having to exaggerate the importance of incidents.21 The

importance of Hieronymus of Syracuse is vehemently questioned, and Polybius staunchly

rebuts with regards to that man that,

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

17 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 9.1.18 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 1.3.19 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 1.2.20 The term oecumene can be loosely translated to mean ‘the inhabited earth’.21 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 12.7.

5


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

To Polybius, the man was not as important to the historical narrative as other tyrants had

been, yet historians found it necessary to write of him in great detail, which could be due to

either a lack of subject matter, or possibly through a lack of judgment. Polybius is also

scathing of the Greek historian Timaeus for believing in the fable that the Alpheius goes

under the sea to come up again in Syracuse.23 From his scathing attack, it becomes

increasingly clear that Polybius’ hatred of Timaeus ran deep and the most probable reason

was for Tiamaeus’ lack of experience in the outside world, which Polybius rightly counted as

a necessary constituent in the formation of a well rounded historical narrative. Timaeus

apparently spent fifty years researching in the libraries of Athens, and thus believed that he

was ready to write a history with no real experience of the matters on which he was writing, a

point which was in direct contrast to Polybius’ need for physical involvement and

understanding to create a legitimate written history.24

Polybius likens the writing of history to the study and practice of medicine. He splits

history and medicine into three defined groups; that of theory (studying from books as

Timaeus did), diet, and surgery, which was “concerned with producing genuine skill in each

professional treatment.”25 The practical study of medicine is likened to the study of politics,

which both needs a hands-on approach. Without the knowledge gained from these forms of

study, and the practice of merely restricting oneself to “haunt the libraries” would be to

“persuade oneself, that the resources of documentary research alone can equip one to write an

adequate history of recent events is naïve beyond words.”26

22 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 7.7.23 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 7.7.24 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 12.25.25 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 12.25.26 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 12.25

6


Polybius based much of his writing on his own experiences both as a political and

military figure for he had done much travelling in “journeys through Africa, Spain and Gaul,

and voyages on the seas that lie on the farther side of those countries.”27 Therefore, travel and

an extended knowledge of the places that one was to write of was a necessary element to

Polybius in the creation of a written history.

Of course, in modern historiographical writing, it would be unheard of for a person to

have little or no evidence prior to writing anything on a topic, but through the historic record

of those who came before Polybius, this was not the case, and for the most part ‘historians’

per se could easily manipulate the truth. Herodotus, ‘the father of history’ himself even at

points alludes to the fact in his Histories that some of his sources may not have been gained

through personal knowledge.28 Where he was lacking in data, he may have had recourse to

analogy, and although for the most part he makes reasoned inferences, “sometimes his

opinions may be slightly more tenuous.”29 Even Polybius’ most esteemed historian,

Thucydides shows at points that some of his evidence may have been more the result of

imagination than hard facts. Thucydides claims that he had “Found it difficult to remember

the precise words in speeches…so my method has been…to make the speakers say what, in

my opinion, was called for by the situation.”30 Polybius lived and wrote in a society that was

semi-oral, and for the most part totally illiterate. Greek sources and writers of history did not

value written documents highly. Books ranked behind travel, autopsy, interrogation of

27 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 3.59.28 Herodotus, trans. Aubrey De Selincourt, The Histories. (London: Penguin Classics, 1954).29 Aubrey De Selincourt, “Introduction,” in Herodotus, The Histories, xxi.30 Thucydides, trans. Rex Warner, History of the Peleponnesian War with an Introduction and Notes by M.I. Finley, (London: Penguin Classics, 1954) 1.22.

7


eyewitnesses, and personal political experience, and this attitude informed a Greek tendency,

from Thucydides onward, for serious history to be orally derived, contemporary history. 31

There are several instances in which Polybius condemns other historians for their use

of fictionalized speeches in order to create an effect. Within Book Two, he condemns

vehemently historians and poets who “represent speeches which might have been delivered,

or to enumerate all of the possible consequences of the events under consideration.”32 The

historian’s task was to educate students by truth, both by using words and actions.33 Timaeus

once again is at the crux of his criticism, and once again the theme of rhetorical prowess

rather than historical accuracy arises as Polybius describes the apparent diatribe that Timaeus

writes by concluding “In other words, he tries to show off his rhetorical powers, but provides

no account of what was actually spoken.”34

Polybius was very free to criticize his predecessors in terms of their invention of

speeches, but he himself included thirty-seven, and it is highly unlikely that he was present for

all of them. Speeches did however maintain an integral role in his writing. To Polybius, a

speech was only useful if full “knowledge of the cause was known and added…” and

therefore meant that people could forecast the future from understanding previous events. 35

However, it is one of the more enduring points of his work that was trying to gain as much

factual evidence as possible in order to create the most truthful and pragmatic discourse

possible within the realms of the Ancient World. Craighe Champion’s work on the authority

of speeches used within Polybius highlights the problems that are faced by both ancient and

31 D.W. Baronowski, Polybius on the Causes of the Third Punic War,” Classical Philology Vol. 90 (1995): 17.32 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 2.63.33 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 2.64.34 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 2.64.35 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 2.24.

8


modern historians in obtaining and conveying a truthful speech that could be used as a useful

historical source.

Champion’s work focuses on Agelaus’ speech at Naupatctus which signaled the

beginning of the symploké, which was the point at which affairs became totally intertwined

between east and west.36 Agelaus was the Aetolian Ambassador, who was appealing to Philip

V of Macedon for peace at Naupactus against Philip’s imperialistic scheme which in essence

wanted world sovereignty. It was at this point that Polybius believed that history became

universal, and thus personally deemed his history to be the most important ever written. 37

There were no longer discrete historical theaters, and history from this point must be regarded

as wholly synoptic and universal in scope. Champion argues that although Polybius tailored

his speeches to some extent, it still remained within the historical narrative, having tried to

obtain as much correct information as possible, and thus, Champion’s work succinctly backs

up the claim that Polybius was a pragmatic historian.38

There are two differing viewpoints on the authenticity of Polybius’ speech, especially

with regard to Agelaus’ speech. Deininger believes that the speech is wholly historical, while

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

Deininger’s argument states that for the most part, Polybius wanted a unified Hellenic state,

and therefore any sentiments which ran against this principle, especially in regard to Aetolia

are most likely to be factual. According to Eckstein, who has provided an invaluable

translation of these German sources, Mørkholm upholds this view because he believes that

36 Craighe Champion, “The Nature of Authoritative Evidence in Polybius and Agelaus’ Speech at Naupactus,” Transactions of the American Philological Association Vol. 127 (1997): 111.37 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 1.3.38 Champion, “The Nature of Authoritative Evidence in Polybius and Agelaus’ Speech at Naupactus,” 114. 39 The two conflicting views are highlighted in Eckstein,. Senate and General:I ndividual Decision-Making and Roman F oreign Relations, 264-194 B.C. Berkeley and Los Angeles: 1987), 45.

9


neither Rome nor Cathage were overly interested in Greece at this time, and thus Polybius is

trying to force his ‘universality’.40 This argument is synthesized by Champion, “Polybius

selected and embellished a tradition about Agelaus’ speech that advanced his own theory of

symploké, and I have argued that such an enhancement would well be within the bounds of

his historical principles.”41 I believe that Polybius was to an extent trying to create this

universal history, and it was not in Polybius’ interest to create a speech merely for

entertainment. Polybius, as can be seen throughout this essay tried to source out as much

correct primary evidence as possible in order to strengthen his argument.

However, there are a few instances in Polybius’ work in which he had obviously not

been present when they had been spoken. Having condemned Timaeus so heatedly for his

fictionalized speeches, there are instances in Polybius’ own writing where he reads like

compositions from a verbatim account. When Polybius starts to write speeches that were

obviously not recited within either Rome or Achaea, the provenance of his evidence comes

into question. 42

The historian Phylarchus is also vehemently chastised by Polybius. Phylarchus wrote

of the cruelty of Antigonus and Aratus over the people of Mitniea, but “Eager to stir the hearts

of those ready to pity…he talks of women embracing…and again of the tears and

lamentations of men and women.”43 Polybius clearly does not like the way in which

Phylarchus over-emphasized the importance of events in order to get a reaction, and it clearly

shows that Polybius wanted history to be truthful and based solely on facts, rather than

creating an emotional line. As has previously been said, it was his aim to create a true account

40 Eckstein, Senate and General, 75.41 Champion, “The Nature of Authoritative Evidence in Polybius and Agelaus’ Speech at Naupactus,” 117.42 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 6.21.43 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 2.56.

10


of events in order to educate those who read it, rather than to “amaze his readers by a series of

thrilling anecdotes.”44

The main reason for Polybius’ criticism of other historians (of which there are a

multitude, including many more on Timaeus and on a plethora of other historians) has been

disputed by several historians in the last decade. Walbank, who in the world of Classical

academia is one of the most prolific historians of Polybius, has claimed that the German

Classicist Frank Susemihl asserted in an article published in 1891 that Polybius was merely

trying to look after and correct other people’s work as well as his own, for the common

advantage. 45 However, another school of thought initially developed by Rudolph Von Scala,

and in more recent academia championed by Arthur Eckstein concludes that Polybius’

behavior “would hardly have had the effect of creating…increased popularity for his own

writings in contemporary professional circles.”46 This argument can be strengthened by the

noticeable fact that he criticizes other forms of history writing such as genealogies and

geographies which may have attracted the perusal of the common reader – and categorically

states that they were often filled with mythological events and fantastical aspects, which

Polybius refutes as such “We are certainly entitled to criticize and ridicule the wild

outpourings of those authors who dream dreams and write like men possessed.”47

In essence, those who did not strictly fit into the exact methodology that Polybius

utilized were to be criticized, and to Polybius, the basis of pragmatic history was not to create

an instant reaction, but to chronicle events in a way that would provide useful and profitable

as literature for future generations.

44 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 2.56.45 F. Susemihl, Geschite der grieschiescen Literatur in der Alexandrinerzeit (Munich, 1891-2), 117 cited in F. W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary of Polybius Vol. 1, 55.46 Arthur M. Eckstein, Moral Visions in the Histories of Polybius (Berkely: University of California Press, 1995) 76.47 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 12.12.

11


The source material that Polybius used in his work are discussed at length, and the

reasons that he chose them are discussed in order to give the reader a better idea of both the

provenance there of, and are testament to the apparent reliability of his history. Polybius

quotes Heracleitus of Rhodiapolis in Lycia as stating “The eyes are more accurate than the

ears.”48 Polybius tries to gain his information from both informants and from previous

literature, and as previously mentioned, he viciously attacks Timaeus for relying solely on

literature (here regarded as a function of the ears) rather than travelling to different places, or

at the least using eye-witness accounts and oral tradition to glean his information.49

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

Polybius, “The first being the study and collation of written sources, the second the survey of

cities, places, rivers, harbors and generally the peculiar features of land and sea and the

distances between them, and the third, political experience.”50 Without political and actual

experience of an event or place, it was near impossible to create a convincing history, and

even if Timaeus were to use eye-witness accounts it was unlikely that he would be able to

glean much more from them than for, as Polybius argues, the interrogator leads the discussion

from question to question, and if there person being interviewed was neither equipped with

the knowledge, or had vast experience themselves, the subject “may as well not be there.”51

Polybius was at a great advantage when looking for eye-witnesses. Not only was he

already in Rome having been exiled to the city for sixteen years after the defeat of the

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

48 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 12.27.49 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 12.27. The use of oral tradition to gain historical facts was actually a method used a great deal by Herodotus. He presents his argument as a collection of oral accounts, often stating “The Persians say”, “The Athenians do not agree”, as well as stating that often he is told more than what he believes (2.123).50 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 12.25.51 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 12.28.

12


within the city whom he could use if he did not have first hand experience of an event or

place. An excellent example of an eye-witness account that he drew directly from Rome was

from a friend of Perseus who gave Polybius an oral account of the negotiations between

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

Carthage from Gaius Laelius, which proved to be an invaluable addition to his work.53 Hence,

his focus on contemporary or near contemporary history; it was easier for him to gain this

information, and he could glean more factual information by sourcing his information this

way.

Polybius did use written sources within his history, but unlike the historian Timaeus,

he used it in conjunction with other accounts and personal experience as much as possible. Of

course, there were elements to his history that he could not access either personally, or

through first hand accounts, and therefore he did rely heavily on at least four historians for the

period preceding 220 B.C. For the First Punic War he relied upon Philinius of Acragas and

Fabinius Pictor. Pictor was a contemporary of the Hannibalic War and Polybius used his work

for his own Gallic account. However, it appears that in some areas Pictor’s work has been

merged with Philinius and so it is hard to discern which historian provided comments for each

event for Polybius.

For events within Greece, Polybius used Aratus of Sicyon and Phylarcus. Aratus was

the named source for the Cleomenean War, and Phylarcus was used for the history from the

period 272-220 B.C.54 Polybius does berate Phylarcus for sensationalizing at points, but as

there was no other evidence for this period, he had to use elements of his predecessor in order

to create a full history.55 In fact, Polybius even utilizes the writings of Timaeus when there are 52 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 24.8.53 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 10.3.54 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 2.56.55 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 2.57.

13


no other sources for him to use to create his narrative, such as on his section on the

Pythagoreans in South Italy.56

Polybius’ main narrative however starts from when he can get eye-witness

contemporary accounts in 220 B.C. The first reference that he uses regards Hannibal crossing

the Alps in 218 B.C., and Polybius states “On these matters I can speak with some

confidence, as I have questioned men who were actually present on these occasions about the

circumstance, having personally explored the country, and have crossed the Alps myself to

obtain first-hand information and evidence.”57 First hand evidence, as previously mentioned

was a key factor in the characteristics of Polybius’ work. It meant in essence that he could

state with certainly what he wrote from his own personal memory, rather than being at the

behest of the limits of other people’s memories.

Polybius didn’t use many archives nor inscriptions in his work, and as has been stated,

he was highly polemical of Timaecus on such matters, berating him further by stating that he

was a man who “discovered inscription on the backs and buildings and the lists of proxemi on

the doorsteps of temples.”58 Polybius’ use of archives is rare due to the characteristic of his

writing and his pragmatic approach. Access to archives also would have been relatively

limited, as he would have only been able to access those of Achaea and Rome, for as von

Fritz notes, many foreign states would not allow or appreciate a foreigner rummaging in their

archival sources.59 In addition, as Walbank has noted, it would have only been when his good

friend Scipio Aemilianus reached prominence within Rome that Polybius would have been

able to access the archives within Rome itself.60

56 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 4l2l57 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 3.48.58 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 12.2.59K. von Fritz, The Theory of the Mixed Constitution in Antiquity: A Critical Analysis of Polybius’ Political Ideas. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1954), 241.60 Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius Vol. 1, 82.

14


There is only one instance that has been highlighted by Walbank in which Polybius

actually uses an inscription, and it is one that he himself found. Walbank states, “He is quite

ready to boast of his own discovery of an inscription left by Hannibal in the Temple of

Hera…and to use the statistics that it contained.”61 This isolated incident does not show a loss

of the work’s pragmatic character in any way, and quite to the contrary it highlights Polybius’

ability to find sources for information that had not previously been recorded. Without

recording this inscription, there would have been a chance that this of history would have

been lost. Therefore, to create a universal pragmatic history meant being able to thread

together many different avenues of data and on this occasion his only choice was to use this

inscription.

Polybius was in essence a military man, and his education in this field was exemplary,

and as such, he has been branded by many modern historians as quite possibly the best

military historian of antiquity. 62 Whilst serving under the Achaean league, he had been a

hipparch. At its most basic, this was the position of a cavalry officer, a position in which

Polybius excelled in. Recounting military successes and failures allowed Polybius to create

this useful history, especially given his intended audience. An excellent example of which he

writes in when Fabius sorted out Minucuis forces when they had been placed in danger, and

Polybius writes of Fabius, “Those in Rome…had been given a clear demonstration of how the

foresight, logical thinking and cool calculation of a general differ from the rashness and

bravado of a mere soldier.”63 Another excellent example of military tactics can be found in

Book Five, when Polybius recites an incident in which one of Philip’s attacks upon Melitaea

failed because the ladders were too short, and therefore Polybius drives home a point about 61 Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius, 84.62 W.K. Pritchett, Studies in Ancient Greek Topography, Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1965-9), 48.63 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 3.105.

15


the necessity of being fully prepared before taking on any military escapade.64 These

examples clearly play a purely pragmatic function, for they allow the reader to learn about the

successes and mistakes of previous people.

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

There is evidence of bias, prejudice and moralistic traits throughout his work. Prejudice can

be openly deduced in his treatment of Aetolia in Book Four, in which he describes the people

as aggressive in spirit, haughty and cowardly.65 Kenneth Sacks explores this bias and

concludes that it is based on Polybius’ patriotism, “When Polybius wrote about third-century

Anatolia, he envisioned a northern neighbor thirsting for conquest…and as a patriot, he

heaped abuse at every opportunity.”66 Patriotism, as with any bias, is clearly not a thoroughly

pragmatic approach to historical writing, and it does seem that on this occasion he let his

guard down sufficiently for the weaknesses to be pounced upon. Walbank goes as far as to

suggest that in fact, Polybius was incredibly bias throughout his work, and that his assessment

was often shrouded by his personal opinions of both the Achaeans and the Romans.67

In addition we can see examples in his history in which mere pragmatic success was

not enough to please him sufficiently, and following his internal moral code he condemns

certain actions. When the Aetolian statesmen Alexander refused to pay more money in order

to save his own life, Polybius vehemently condemns this action, for he believed (quite

understandably) that is was ridiculous to lose one’s own life over a matter of money if the

individual in question did have the necessary funds to save themselves.68 If Polybius had been

wholly pragmatic, he would have not shown this bias. Alexander survived this ordeal, and

64 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 3.105.65 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 4.3, 4.64, 4.79.66 Kenneth Sacks, “Polybius’ Other Views of Aetolia,” Journal of Hellenic Studies 95 (1975):106.67 Walbank,. Polybius (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1972), 13.68 Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, 26.12-14.

16


therefore his plight was successful, but Polybius was quick to assert the idiocy of his actions.

Eckstein believes that Polybius was fuelled by moralistic motives in his writing, and that the

conclusions drawn by earlier historians, claiming that Polybius was wholly pragmatic (for

example, (Walbank) paints too simple a picture. Eckstein highlight a significant example to

back up this example; in 171-170 B.C. the people of Cydonia seized Appolonia even though

they were drawn together by a treaty. Polybius condemns the Cydonians actions, even though

they brought monetary and political gratification to the people, and Polybius states that it was

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

moralistic undertone to this argument.

In conclusion, we can see that Polybius aimed to create a practical, pragmatic history

that would be useful for generations to come. Its aim was not to provide a source of

entertainment to the everyday reader with a plethora of literary guises, but to provide a

handbook that would give factual accounts of various actions and their outcomes. In essence,

what Polybius means by pragmatic history is just that, a balanced, for the most part non-

biased account of contemporary events, to help the statesmen or the student to take their own

judgment on actions. His main source of information was eye-witness accounts that he

himself compiled, and with his vast geographical, military and political knowledge he was

able to create as trustworthy a history as possible at this time. Although there are elements of

bias and misinterpretation in some of his sources, these cannot be treated as strong reasons to

trust him. Due to his circumstances at different times, he was merely voicing his own opinions

or beliefs, or his own personal interpretations of events. It is clear that his aim was not to

mislead the reader, but to educate and heighten their understanding of events. His greatest

69 Polybius 14.1 cited in Eckstein, Moral Vision in the Histories of Polybius (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995), 64.

17


concern was that his history was pragmatic in the broadest sense, even if his own personal

ethics and morals did sometimes work their way into the narrative. Polybius’ work was the

result of watching the actions and reactions of events, and thus being able to learn from

mistakes without making them again, therefore creating a piece of work that would be useful,

and universal for all those who found it.

18

What Does Polybius Mean by Pragmatic His

Documents

Transcript of What Does Polybius Mean by Pragmatic His