2. Polybius, Histories, 1.31.8, 1.62.1, 1.62.4-1.62.6, 6.47.9, 6.51-6.52, 6.51.1-6.51.2, 6.56.1-6.56.5, 15.33.10 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE)
| 6.47.9. Up to the present it would be just the same thing to discuss it with a view to comparison with the constitutions of Sparta, Rome, and Carthage, as to take some statue and compare it with living and breathing men. 6.51. 1. The constitution of Carthage seems to me to have been originally well contrived as regards its most distinctive points.,2. For there were kings, and the house of Elders was an aristocratical force, and the people were supreme in matters proper to them, the entire frame of the state much resembling that of Rome and Sparta.,3. But at the time when they entered on the Hannibalic War, the Carthaginian constitution had degenerated, and that of Rome was better.,4. For as every body or state or action has its natural periods first of growth, then of prime, and finally of decay, and as everything in them is at its best when they are in their prime, it was for this reason that the difference between the two states manifested itself at this time.,5. For by as much as the power and prosperity of Carthage had been earlier than that of Rome, by so much had Carthage already begun to decline; while Rome was exactly at her prime, as far as at least as her system of government was concerned.,6. Consequently the multitude at Carthage had already acquired the chief voice in deliberations; while at Rome the senate still retained this;,7. and hence, as in one case the masses deliberated and in the other the most eminent men, the Roman decisions on public affairs were superior,,8. so that although they met with complete disaster, they were finally by the wisdom of their counsels victorious over the Carthaginians in the war. 6.51.1. The constitution of Carthage seems to me to have been originally well contrived as regards its most distinctive points. 6.51.2. For there were kings, and the house of Elders was an aristocratical force, and the people were supreme in matters proper to them, the entire frame of the state much resembling that of Rome and Sparta. 6.52. 1. But to pass to differences of detail, such as, to begin with, the conduct of war, the Carthaginians naturally are superior at sea both in efficiency and equipment, because seamanship has long been their national craft, and they busy themselves with the sea more than any other people;,2. but as regards military service on land the Romans are much more efficient.,3. They indeed devote their whole energies to this matter, whereas the Carthaginians entirely neglect their infantry, though they do pay some slight attention to their cavalry.,4. The reason of this is that the troops they employ are foreign and mercenary, whereas those of the Romans are natives of the soil and citizens.,5. So that in this respect also we must pronounce the political system of Rome to be superior to that of Carthage, the Carthaginians continuing to depend for the maintece of their freedom on the courage of a mercenary force but the Romans on their own valour and on the aid of their allies.,6. Consequently even if they happen to be worsted at the outset, the Romans redeem defeat by final success, while it is the contrary with the Carthaginians.,7. For the Romans, fighting as they are for their country and their children, never can abate their fury but continue to throw their whole hearts into the struggle until they get the better of their enemies.,8. It follows that though the Romans are, as I said, much less skilled in naval matters, they are on the whole successful at sea owing to the gallantry of their men;,9. for although skill in seamanship is of no small importance in naval battles, it is chiefly the courage of the marines that turns the scale in favour of victory.,10. Now not only do Italians in general naturally excel Phoenicians and Africans in bodily strength and personal courage, but by their institutions also they do much to foster a spirit of bravery in the young men.,11. A single instance will suffice to indicate the pains taken by the state to turn out men who will be ready to endure everything in order to gain a reputation in their country for valour. 6.56.1. Again, the laws and customs relating to the acquisition of wealth are better in Rome than at Carthage. 6.56.2. At Carthage nothing which results in profit is regarded as disgraceful; at Rome nothing is considered more so than to accept bribes and seek gain from improper channels. 6.56.3. For no less strong than their approval of money-making is their condemnation of unscrupulous gain from forbidden sources. 6.56.4. A proof of this is that at Carthage candidates for office practise open bribery, whereas at Rome death is the penalty for it. 6.56.5. Therefore as the rewards offered to merit are the opposite in the two cases, it is natural that the steps taken to gain them should also be dissimilar. 15.33.10. For terrible is the cruelty of the Egyptians when their anger is aroused. |
|
