Valorizing the Barbarians: Enemy Speeches in Roman Historiography

7. Conclusions

conclUsions a small—BUt disParate—groUP of ancient historians The close scrutiny of oratorical and epistolary compositions that we have undertaken in the previous chapters suggests a number of conclusions about the work and thought of the six Roman historians who were the focus of our examinations. Before turning to them, however, we should note that the differences among these authors potentially render our conclusions broader and more significant in regard to the intellectual history of the Greco-Roman elite than might otherwise be the case. The earlier chapters focused, for instance, on historians whose floruit ranged from the mid-second century B.c. (Polybius) to the early third century a.d. (Cassius Dio). This means that we can chart some of the intellectual predilections of ancient historians from the midRepublican period to the mid-Empire. Further,oursurvey—thoughnaturallyconfinedtowealthy,well-connected, and educated types—encompasses figures of disparate backgrounds: Greeks living under Roman rule (Polybius, Cassius Dio); Italians (Sallust, Livy, possibly Tacitus); non-Italians (Pompeius Trogus, Cassius Dio); senators (Sallust , Tacitus, Cassius Dio); and non-senators (Polybius, Pompeius Trogus, Livy). To be certain, our sample size is quite small, and thus we cannot presume that these authors’ views represent those of similar ethnic and social groups. Nor, we should add, ought we to assume that these ancient historians’ backgrounds influence their thought in the same ways they might shape the Weltanschauung of contemporary human beings. One’s ethnic profile, for instance , likely betokened different associations from those of people inhabiting the modern “multicultural” West. We need not presume, then, that Pompeius Trogus’ Gallic ancestry compelled him to deem himself a Gaul, or a GallicRoman . He was, after all, a Roman citizen, the scion of Roman citizens, and though in chapter 2 we have seen reasons to conclude that Trogus possessed Chapter 7 164 conclUsions some affinity for his Gallic homeland, he did not necessarily experience a sense of ethnic kinship similar to that felt by some contemporary peoples. roman historiograPhy and societal “self-criticism” These important caveats notwithstanding, our examination suggests some conclusions pertaining to matters associated with ancient intellectual history and Greco-Roman historiography. As we have seen throughout this book, far from incessantly offering patriotic sentiments in their speeches, the ancient historians whose texts we have discussed all—to a greater or lesser degree— possessed the ability to present readers with portraits of Roman imperialism and colonialism that are at least partly negative in their tenor. The speeches of ostensible enemies of Rome, as they appear in Roman historiography, then, can go some way to demonstrate the nuanced opinions on expansionism that their authors promoted. In most cases, these historians provide texts that present readers with the opportunity to criticize Roman foreign policy. Although in some instances an author may have downplayed the efficacy of antiRoman polemic, all the historians we have examined provide enemy addresses that one can reasonably construe as potential evidence against the justice of Roman imperialism and colonial rule. In short, most of these enemy orations can be seen as both flattering and insulting by staunch defenders of Rome’s foreign policy. This sort of criticism, moreover, does not merely pertain to episodes in Roman history from the first century B.c. onward—from the period, that is to say, that coincides with many ancient historians’ views of Roman moral collapse. Rather—as we have seen, for example, in the case of Livy’s speeches of the Samnite C. Pontius—ancient Roman historians were willing to present potentially withering arguments about their society’s failings well before Roman conduct supposedly degenerated in the late Republic. This penchant to advertise both the benefits and the pitfalls of Roman imperialism presents itself early on, since Polybius, as we have seen in chapter 3, employs it to some effect in his Hannibalic orations. By the time Polybius composed his history, however, Rome’s expansionary inclinations were already manifest. Still, as far back as we can find complete orations put in the mouths of Rome’s adversaries , we can detect an inclination to observe—if not expound upon— the potentially negative aspects associated with the acquisition of an empire. Since, as we have concluded in chapter 1, Sallust demonstrates the same abilities one notices in Polybius’ speeches, we can also assert that this interest in highlighting both the perceived blessings and the perceived curses of Roman conclUsions 165 foreign policy exists in the earliest Roman accounts...