Posted at 10.02.2018
When considering the Second Punic War and why the anger of Hamilcar Barca was attributed by Poluybius to its outbreak we should take the following into account. First of all, we should look at the reason for the Second Punic Warfare; was it credited to revenge, a lust of power or enlargement of Carthage's empire? Also, are the sources of enough time, that are few and were not all written at the time. Just a few ancient sources talk about this era of record, known as the age of the Roman Republic.
Some historians who have written about the Second War speak about events which happened centuries before they were born and for that reason relied on other historical sources that people ourselves do not have access to. As well, this topic is an issue of great debate. Polybius is a historian who gives very good accounts of occasions that resulted in the warfare, blaming the Carthaginians for creating the war yet it also increases a very large question that we turn to explore on this.
Most of your theorizing and knowledge about the Second War comes from Polybius the closest author of enough time. We count on the fact that what he claims is the reality as he was a Greek, however the writing is from a perspective apart from Roman. Therefore we must look at the evidence that is left out in the literary resources and what modern historians have concluded from these options regarding the reasons for the outbreak of the Second War. If they trust Polybius' point of view that it was the anger of Hamilcar Barca that brought on the Second Punic Conflict.
So first we have to check out our key source Polybius who is a Greek historian writing background about the Romans. He packages for himself very high expectations in his conversations about the Punic Wars declaring that any man who take "take the role of the historian" must "discard all considerations of this kind. " He seems to keep to this group of standards that most ancient historical writers try to attain yet when looking at his known reasons for the causes of the second punic war we can easily see suggestions of bias immediately in the appraisal of Hamilcar and Hannibal for he varies from other freelance writers in saying the crossing of the Ebro and Hannibal's siege of Saguntum were the "beginnings" of the issue and not the true "causes". These basic causes being identified way more with anger of Hamilcar Barca and the expulsion of the Carthaginians from Sardinia. We've other ancient freelance writers who did not accept his reasoning of the matter such as Cicero who had written "The siege of Saguntum was the cause of the second Punic conflict, which Hannibal carried on against our ancestors". Cicero wrote this a long time after Polybius.
Next, we should look at the background of the next Punic Battle. This occurred soon after the First Punic Conflict. Hamilcar was the overall of the Army which fought from the roman armies that invaded Carthage. Even though it concluded with the Carthaginian's defeat Hamilcar was seen as a war hero and was extremely popular with his soldiers, which could have made the ruling clique of Carthage uneasy and desire to remove him from metropolis as he was both ambitious and successful. There might are also fear that without a military marketing campaign to take up Hamilcar that he could have annoyed the already unstable domestic politics of that time period.
Also, after the defeat of Carthage in the First Punic War of 241 BC Hamilcar might not have harboured motives of beginning further hostilities with Rome as he had led the initial peace negotiations with the Romans. He'd have had a need to keep what was left with their armies to protect the Carthaginian towns against the indigenous Iberians. In the long run, Hamilcar remaining Carthage for the Iberian Peninsula. He had taken possession of many gold mines exploiting the country's wealth. He were able to produce vast quantities of precious metal to improve the depleted coffers of Carthage and perhaps his own private money. Hamilcar also managed to overcome many tribes and increased how big is his military with the tribesmen he conquered (question?
Once Carthage defeated their foes during the Mercenary Conflict there been around two get-togethers, the reformist party led by Hamilcar Barca the other, led by Hanno the fantastic and the old Carthaginian aristocracy. When he and Hamilcar were commanders of Carthage's armies, the troops recognized Hamilcar.
Another factor which must be taken under consideration was enough time between the First and Second Punic Battle and the seizure of Sardinia. Rome possessed annexed Sardinia by revisiting the terms of the treaty that ended the first Punic Conflict. In those days Carthage was under siege, employed in a tough civil war, they had to accept the increased loss of Sardinia and Roman conditions for ongoing tranquility, which also increased the battle indemnity levied against Carthage following first Punic War. This caused relations between both powers to reach a delicate truce.
The loss of the united states after having just lately lost Sicily could have had serious effects on the income of Carthage, jeopardising the personal revenue of the commercial school and could have made the ruling class deeply resentful at dropping another income source. That Hamilcar Barca was one of these ruling classes in Carthage meant that he would have been resentful at losing.
Due to the Carthage for the passions of its empire were required to go on a program of international extension to find an alternative solution source of income. Also, if there was to be any probability of being able to fight the Romans, maybe realising at the same time that conflict between your two power was inevitable and that they would have to be adequately prepared. To do so and become on similar footing with Rome they might need to have a limitless supply of manpower, resources to cover that manpower as (mercenaries?) and activities to keep it effectively employed and battle ready. The ruling clique appear to have dispatched Hamilcar upon this military campaign to re-establish Carthaginian control over Spain and overcome new place as well. Taking his makes together with his son-in-law Hasdrubal and nine-year old Hannibal he set off to do this with maybe the guarantee of future revenge at heart.
When he settled into Spain while campaigning for Carthage Hamilcar appears to have assumed a princely status in Spain which the government of Carthage didn't dispute as long as he didn't use his electric power against them.
Polybius himself appears to think that "the success of the Carthaginian venture in Spain" was one of the sources of the next Punic War which Hamilcar who was simply angered by the results of the First Punic Warfare and the subsequent Roman actions of taking Sicily and Sardinia designed "using these resources to prepare for a warfare against Rome", many modern historians support this point of view. Looking at such modern historians such as Gavin de Beet appears to agree with the idea that Hamilcar developed Spain as basics and source for both manpower and supplies for future years invasion of Italy. In retrospect to the another historian, Caven, suggests that Hamilcar might have wanted a base far enough from both Carthage and Rome to avoid e3ither from knowing that which was occurring.
In contrast to this we have Cassius Dio who talks of the Roman envoys which were sent to research what Hamilcar was up to in Spain and exactly how they were satisfied in his description: "that he was appreciated to fight against the Spaniards to ensure that the money that was still owing to the Romans for Carthaginians might be paid; for it was impossible to obtain it from any source. " This debate appears to be most evident with the deficits of Sardinia and Sicily combined with the depleted gold mines that existed in Carthage that was used to try to keep carefully the empire afloat. There seems to be hesitation of Dio's tale as Polybius says that Rome experienced nothing to do with Spain until 226BC but even if Dio is incorrect about the visit of the Roman embassy in 331BC, there seems to have been reliable facts from Polybius to suggest that Hamilcar was planning for a conflict of revenge. It really is true that Hamilcar himself may have presumed that it was inevitable that another was with Rome was a possibility, even expecting that it would occur and he'd take command but there was no apparent move created by him to the Romans and it seems that in turn the Romans were not overly suspicious of Carthage, likely seeing a weakening empire that was endeavoring to lick its wounds.
Yet we must also consider that the development of Carthaginian power in Spain and Hamilcar's gaining of almost princely position in Spain questions Hamilcar's motives regarding what his true plan was. For centuries this has been debated endlessly by both early and modern historians.
Yet during the nine years that Hamilcar put in restoring the wealth of Carthage, shipping silver precious metal and other earlier materials in the southern and east of the united states Patricia Southern argues that the accusation of him using Spain as basics for the bringing up and training of your army to utilize against the Romans was more of a renowned interpretation to make clear the long have a problem with Hannibal. This is supported once we have no idea whether this was a true simple fact or not as he made both his son-in-law Hasdrubal and more famous boy Hannibal take an oath, which would later be said to have brought on Hannibal to build up a deep-rooted loathing of Rome.
If the oath is at simple fact true then Hamilcar may have had small ripple effects in producing the Roman-hating frame of mind of his child Hannibal, he himself was not accountable for the first episode that was made against the Romans, having drowned while laying siege to 1 of the cities of Spain again under the control of Carthage in 229BC. This is ten years before the Second War.
Goldsworthy another historian says that there was no complete triumph on Rome's part; Carthage made Rome nervous as it was not absorbed to their slowly broadening empire. That they had been so successful in Spain that gave them a fresh place to recruit solders and resources to give a major army, reinforced the Carthaginian proven fact that there was no reason behind circumstances such as themselves to back down from Rome. Goldsworthy does not count out the fact that Hannibals' siege of Saguntum and the crossing of River Ebro was purely a conquest for electric power and glory. He concludes that the demands of Rome and the Carthaginian's need to reassert themselves as a significant power is what might well have really led to the Second Punic Conflict.
So from this we can conclude from considering the ancient resources and the modern historian opinions that it is possible that Polybius could attribute the outbreak of the next Punic Battle to the anger of Hamilcar Barca as he do from the evidence that we have at that time and take it as fact played an important role in bringing about the Second Battle despite his death ten years before the war actually occurred. Yet it is because of the happenings of the First Punic Battle and the success in Spain distilled a hatred for Rome within the Carthaginian people and his son Hannibal who had grown up in the First Conflict. That also Rome had not helped matters in intruding and challenging time upon time upon Carthage it could not have led to the desire for the location to want to reassert as an Empire which is the more likely factor that led to the incursion of the Second Punic Conflict. The battle though no matter was unavoidable as the previous one didn't yield with a total win on Rome's part which would in turn have ended Carthage from hoping to rise again as a significant power. So from this we can say that yes Polybius was appropriate to state that Hamilcar was very likely a significant cause for contributing into Hannibal start the next Punic Battle.