The Outbreak of the Second Punic War Who is to blame?

[CatoTheYounger]

---

Rome

The Ebro Treaty of 226 BC signed by Hasdrubal Barcid states that Carthage may not carry out any armed intervention north of the Ebro River. Carthage had respected that treaty due to their thoughts that the treaty went both ways: if Carthage cannot go north of the Ebro River which would interfere with Roman territories then Rome should not go south of the Ebro, thus interfering with Carthage. So sly was Rome, that the mention of Rome not going south was never acknowledged in the agreement, which Hasdrubal had signed after his defeat in the First Punic War (Errington 53).
The city of Saguntum is south of the Ebro River in Spain, about 100 miles south. Rome had consciously thought to enter into fides with the city of Saguntum. Fides is an informal relationship, which means that Rome was only under a moral obligation to Saguntum, where Rome will not injure Saguntum. Fides, however, never puts Rome under a binding obligation to protect her from third parties (Dorey 35). Fides has the possibility of not hurting Saguntum, but never puts any lawful pressure on Rome to help Saguntum in their time of need. However, as seen by Rome, Saguntum is under the protection of the Lutatius Treaty of 241, which secured safety for the allies of both Rome and Carthage. Rome’s purposes for entering into a diplomatic relationship with Saguntum are entirely to Rome’s advantage: for future operations in Spain against Carthage (Dorey 33). Roman territory is on the mainland of Italy, Sicily, Sardinica, and Corsica: Rome’s territory is very central. Saguntum in what is now modern day Spain, is far from where Rome lies, Rome’s purpose for future operations against Carthage is to expand her own territory.

In honor of fides between Rome and Saguntum, Rome helped Saguntum settle a civil war by executing the leaders of one of the sides, which so conveniently, this group in the civil war was in favor of Carthage (Errington 55). What is striking is fides does not call Rome to decide actions as they did here in Saguntum. Fides is a mere informal friendship, which states that Rome will possibly help Saguntum if they are under attack, but fides main purpose is to be friends instead of enemies. Rome’s interference was not her responsibility. This example of fides that Rome demonstrates here is not consistent through her friendship with Saguntum later on.
Bust of Hannibal Barca

In 220 BC Hannibal had been conquering land south of the Ebro River for Carthage, now that he was Commander-in-Chief. However, he had been avoiding any aggression towards Saguntum because of their ties with Rome (Dorey 33). Saguntum was nervous of it only being a matter of time until Hannibal attacked their city. Thus they asked for aid from Rome, which they were entitled to because of Rome and Saguntum’s friendship. But, Rome had ignored them, for months. So much for the fides example that Rome had demonstrated earlier during Saguntum’s civil war, Rome has been inconsistent in helping their friends. But Rome was under no legal obligation to Saguntum, but since Saguntum was persistent in asking for help, Rome had to comply to show everyone else who was under Roman fides that Rome is a reliable state and will come to the aid of their friends (Errington 55-56). Rome had only chosen to ignore her friends for months before deciding it was their moral obligation to help.

Therefore, Rome sent an embassy to Nova Carthage, which is south of Saguntum, to tell Hannibal to not interfere with Saguntum and to not continue conquering north of the Ebro River because he would then be entering into Roman territory (Dorey 33). Sending an envoy seems to have been the ploy of picking a fight and egging Hannibal on. Which is what Hannibal had thought for he believed that Rome should not be interfering in the matter at all. Hannibal had been avoiding Saguntum and the Ebro River for the sake of Rome. Hannibal in retaliation to Rome’s message made the first action of the Second Punic war: he had besieged Saguntum.
When the siege was underway, Rome had already left for another war campaign in the opposite direction of Saguntum, in Illyria, and the Senate did not see the need to help their friends. Thus they did not call their consuls back. Once the campaign from Illyria had returned it was only a few weeks before the new consuls were to be elected, thus they decided to wait until after the election to send aid to Saguntum (Errington 57). Rome was under no legal contract that said Rome had to come to Saguntum’s aid and no serious interest was shown in helping until Saguntum had already fallen.

After the fall of Saguntum, Rome spoke with the Carthaginian Senate and demanded for Hannibal to be handed over to Rome. Rome had no interest in stopping Hannibal from the attack in the first place, but after their friends had been taken under Carthaginian control did they decide to intervene. The points made justifying Hannibal’s actions by the Carthaginian Senate through the Lutatius’ treaty of 241 were ignored completely by Rome. Carthage stated that, Saguntum was not an ally at the time of the treaty and it did not have an amendment for future allies, which was a true point (Errington 60). Rome did not go to Carthage for arguing legal points; they did not want the matter to be settled. Therefore, Rome had stated to the Carthaginian Senate that Hannibal must have had to cross the Ebro River from Nova Carthage to take siege of Saguntum. However from this map, Saguntum is shown below the Ebro River and below Saguntum is Nova Carthage. Their point was false and Rome was bending their reasons to make war with Carthage and it worked: the Second Punic War began in March 218 BC.

[CatoTheYounger]

Although I am a huge fan of the Roman Republic(NOT the Empire) I struggle to find them to be a nation of good faith in terms of their dealing with other nations. Roman honor was an important aspect of Roman society. But I have to step away from them when they deal with Carthage. Seems to me they were not only at fault, but desperate to justify their actions ( because they knew their actions were not just). In essence, history reminds you that what a nation says it stands for is not as important to the nation in question as the perception that the nation is about what it quite often cannot live up to. And the answer is to burry the truth in Victors justice, historical manipulation and rhetoric.

My not being there at the time is not significant. By their own treaties and standards, few would acquit them of their war mongering followed by their desperate need to prove it was justified. For the record, I think it was only a matter of time before the two clashed again. And I think that is exactly the reason the Romans were desperate to justify not only their casus belli, but also the less then honorable way in which they conducted the war.(surprise attack during cease fire, Beheading Hasdrubal after Hannibal's repeated respect for Roman captured, etc..). So what does this say about the way nations carry on about their virtues, and how it makes them unique and superior, when they are forced to cover up and excuse away conduct that is the exact oposite for their supposed reason for national pride?

The Romans even in their glory days of Republican virtues, still were only faithful to what they said they were about, when it was convenient. So in that sense they are no worse villain then every other powerful nation that ever existed. But certainly no better then any. Of course that is just my opinion.

Doesn't matter some 2000 odd years later who was in the right and who was not, but it's an interesting study of the way people are when there is a dispute, and what they will stoop to to win, and then justify their actions. And many may see the wrong party and the wronged party quite opposite.

[CatoTheYounger]

THE TREATY WITH SAGUNTUM
It is nearly fifty years since Professor J. S. Reid showed that
Polybius's account of the diplomatic exchanges between Rome and
Carthage immediately before the outbreak of the Second Punic War
was heavily coloured by pro-Roman propaganda (1), and suggested
that in 219 the Saguntines, when directly threatened by Hannibal,
became «dediticii» of Rome, and that it was as «dediticii», and not
as allies, that Rome tried to protect them. This view is mentioned by
Professor F. W. Walbank in his recently published «Commentary on
Polybius» (2), but is dismissed with what appears to be insufficient
consideration. It therefore seems worthwhile to reconsider the
fundamental aspects of the problem once again from the beginning
in the light of the evidence provided by Polybius.
It seems clear that, by the time of Polybius, it was a fixed article
of faith with the Romans that they had been under a definite obligation
to protect Saguntum; and that, therefore, in declaring war on Carthage
asa result of Hannibal's capture of Saguntum, they had been undertaking
a 'iustum bellum'. It had always been a cardinal assumption of Roman
diplomacy that the Romans could never be in the wrong, and by the
middle of the 2nd century B. C. there can be little doubt that this belief
was in fact genuinely and sincerely held by the Romans, to such an
extent that Polybius, who perhaps never really understood the Roman
attitude of mind, came to accept it himself. As a result, although he
aims at impartiality, and is strongly critical of the Roman double-dealing
over Sardinia (3), he is unable to realize that, as regards Rome's
relationship with Saguntum, his authorities are contaminated at source.


The most striking feature of Polybius's account of the relationship
between Rome and Saguntum is the fact that, although he alleges, or as-
sumes, thai Rome and Saguntum had been allies, he is unable to produce
the faintest shred of positive evidence to support the existence of this
alliance. This is the most cogent reason for upholding the conclusion
that no such alliance existed, and that the Saguntines were never more
than 'dediticii' of Rome. In this connection there are two points of
particular significance. First, Polybius is able to quote in detail the
terms of six earlier treaties between Rome and Carthage (1), using
language that implies very strongly that he had personally inspected
the bronze tablets on which they were inscribed (2); and yet he is unable
to quote from the treaty alleged to have been made between Rome and
Saguntum at a more recent date. Secondly, Polybius is so far from
being able to produce any concrete evidence for the existence of the
treaty that he is driven to employing the "a priori' argument that some
years before the Saguntines had appealed to the Romans as arbitrators
to settle an internal political disturbance (3). All that this can prove
is that the Romans had had some sort of political contact with the
Saguntines, and not that they had entered into any obligations towards
them. It is important to note that, both here and in 01.15, Polybius
uses expressions about the Saguntines that would normally be applied
to 'dediticii' (4).
Thus the evidence points very strongly to the conclusion that
no formal treaty or alliance existed between Rome and Saguntum.
In that case it is highly probable that in the course of the successive
Saguntine embassies to Rome in the winter of 220/219 B.C. (5), the
Saguntines carried out a formal 'deditio' as the best means of ensuring
the protection of Rome. In this they would only have been following
the precedent set by Corcyra and other lllyrian cities only ten years
before ( I ).

This conclusion would resolve the difficulty arising from Hannibal's
answer to the Roman deputation warning him to keep his hands off
Saguntum. Hannibal, in his reply, accused the Romans of having,
when called in as arbitrators shortly before, wrongly put to death some
of the leading citizens of Saguntum. It is probable that there has been
some confusion over the term èmrçojtrf, and that the idea of 'arbitration'
was wrongly attached to it in this passage as a result of its use in that
sense in Polybius in.30.
It is more likely that what Hannibal really accused the Romans
of doing was putting to death the leaders of the anti-Roman faction
at Saguntum, a thing they may well have done as soon as they had
accepted the 'dedilio'(2). Polybius m.30 implies that Saguntum, like
many other cities of the ancient world, had long been torn between
two opposing political factions, each relying on foreign assistance in
its struggle for power. By the execution of his leading supporters.
Hannibal now realized that the city would never fall into his hands
except as a result of direct assault. Moreover, the narrative of Polybius
at this point implies, strangely enough, that the Saguntines started
to send embassies to Rome in spite of the fact that Hannibal was
deliberately refraining from any provocative action (3). One is tempted
to conclude that at this juncture the pro-Roman party was in power
at Saguntum. but the intrigues of the pro-Cathaginian party (fostered
and financed, no doubt by Hannibal) had gone so far that they fell
they would be unable to maintain their position without help from
Rome. The Roman mission, then, would be charged with the double
task of liquidating the pro-Carthaginian party and warning Hannibal
against further interference.
To turn now to the treaty with Hasdrubal, Polybius mentions
its contents on two occasions (4). On the first occasion, when he
(1) Polybius n. II.
(2) Polybius in. 15. The explanation of F. W. Heichelheim, «New Evidence
on the Ebro Treaty» (Historia 3, 1954. pp. 211-219), that the Semitic version of the
Ebro treaty was construed as forbidding any sort of political interference by Rome,
is rendered unnecessary by this point of view.
(3) Polybius in. 14. 9. Hannibal, no doubt, wanted to avoid the expense
and danger of a long siege.



Polybius describes how the Romans concluded it while under the threat of the
Gallic irruption, he states specifically that nothing was mentioned in
the treaty about the rest of Spain, but that the Carthaginians bound
themselves not to conduct military operations north of the river Ebro.
It is probable that the version of the treaty preserved at Rome contained
a record of the obligations that the Carthaginians had undertaken,
while the record of the obligations undertaken by the Romans, for
their part, was preserved at Carthage (1). In any case, the language
Polybius employs to describe its terms is significant by reason of the
positive statement that nothing was said about the rest of Spain. From
this statement two deductions can be drawn. First, that Polybius is,
by implication, deliberately denying the tradition found in JLivy and
Appian (2) and presumably well-established at the time when Polybius
wrote, that the treaty specifically gave protection to Saguntum or
recognized Saguntum as an ally of Rome (3). This tradition had
grown up because the Romans had been able to find no other way
of establishing Saguntum's rights to be protected as an ally of Rome,
and the very growth and existence of this tradition is strong evidence
that no alliance between Rome and Saguntum ever in truth existed.
Had such an alliance existed, the falsification of the Ebro treaty would
have been unnecessary. The fact that Polybius went out of his way
to state that nothing else was said in the treaty with Hasdrubal about
the rest of Spain indicates that he was attacking (though in a rather
tactful way) the nationalistic Roman tradition that he himself had
discovered to be false. The second deduction that can be drawn from
his statement is that, to prove this tradition false, he must have made
a personal examination of the record of the treaty. This is confirmed
by his second reference to the terms of the treaty, where he includes
it in a list of treaties that he implies that he had himself examined.
If this is so. the course of the debate described in Polybius in.21
seems at first sight to be rather surprising, in that the Carthaginians
are found denying the validity of a treaty that, on the view taken above,
would have given them an unimpeachable case. However, although
in his account of the treaty with Hasdrubal Polybius was able to find
concrete evidence with which he could correct the Roman nationalistic
tradition, in the rest of his account of the negotiations he had no such
evidence available. He had little faith in the historians who represented
the pro-Carthaginian sources, as can be judged by his sweeping
condemnation of Chaereas and Sosylus in m.20(l). Consequently,
he was impelled to accept the body of the Roman nationalistic tradition,
in spite of the inconsistencies in which it sometimes involved him (2).
If this view be accepted, then the only safe conclusion is that the
account of the Carthaginian case in Polybius in.21 was based on Roman
propaganda and must be regarded with grave suspicion. In fact, it
is likely that the only reliable part of this account was the bare fact
that the Carthaginians did not mention the treaty with Hasdrubal (3).
Why then did they not mention this treaty, which, on the arguments
set out above, would have given them an unanswerable case? The
most likely answer is that the treaty was not in fact a point at issue, that
is, that both sides were in agreement that, in so far as matters were
regulated by the treaty with Hasdrubal. the Romans had no right to
interfere south of the River Ebro. The Romans, therefore, were forced
to base their claim to protect Saguntum on the treaty of Lutalius, signed
in 241 B.C. at the conclusion of the 1st Punic War, which contained a
clause that neither side should attack the allies of the other (4). It was
in reply to his plea that the Carthaginians raised the objection that
the Saguntines were not covered by this treaty; this argument was used
as a weapon of defence, not attack, and it was used to rebut a claim
based not on the treaty with Hasdrubal but on the treaty of Lutatius.
(1) This condemnation is probably unjustified; cf. Walbank «Commentary
on Polybius» pp. 331-2 for a discussion of (his point. It seems to provide an inter-
esting example of an error of judgement on the part of Polybius in the handling
of his sources.
(2) For example, Polybius is led to portray Hannibal's attitude towards the
Romans in in. 15 as youthful hot-heidedness. He cannot understand why Han-
nibal refuses lo admit thai the Romans had any claim to warn him off Saguntum.
Both in in, 15. 5 and 30. 3 he quotes, without comment, the view that had become
enshrined in the Roman nationalistic tradition, that the attack on Saguntum and
the crossing of the Ebro were inextricably linked together.
(3) Polybius in. 21. I.
Tfiç pèv off noòç 'AaÒQvfiuv ófio/.oyíaç nagent'
(4) Polybius m. 27. 3.
rip> ào(páfo:uiv vnUQ'/Fiv TWO iy.aréooiv zoïç éx<tTÍQtov avfi(iá%0tç.

On this interpretation the picture becomes much clearer and the position
adopted by Carthage more easy to understand.
The view that Polybius was reproducing the Roman nationalistic
tradition is supported by in.29. where he puts forward, not the arguments
used by the Roman emissaries at Carthage, but the arguments which,
as he himself admits, were never officially stated but were generally
current at Rome. This citation of Roman public opinion (for that is
all that it is) extends into the following chapter, and the 'a priori'
argument put forward by Polybius. that Saguntum was "under the
protection of Rome' because they had once appealed to the Romans
as arbitrators, is clearly an uncritical quotation from his biased Roman
sources rather than an exercise of his own judgement. Polybius only
returns to the expression of his own personal view in in.30.3. with the
sentence beginning, 'òiáneç û fiév ttç...*(l). How much truth there
is in this story of Roman arbitration is uncertain, but it is probable
that in fact the Romans did act as arbitrators in some dispute between the
pro-Carthaginian and pro-Roman parties at Saguntum (at the request,
no doubt, of the latter): and if the story were traced back to its original
source it would probably be found that what the Carthaginians
admitted was the actual fact of a Roman arbitration (against which
they may have put on record some form of complaint), not the validity
of the deduction that the Romans later drew from it.
The conclusion that there was no formal treaty between Rome
and Saguntum has also been reached by E. Badian in his recently
published book «Foreign Clientelae» (2). Badian adopts the very
attractive theory that the relationship between the two cities was one
of 'fides', probably originating from lhe arbitration mentioned in
Polybius in.30.2. However, as Badian himself points out, the relation-
ship involved no legal, but only a moral, obligation, and in view of
the existence of the "Ebro Treaty' it is difficult to see how it could, of
itself, induce Rome to undertake a major war. In any case, the
statements in Polybius which arc taken to indicate that a 'fides' rela-
tionship existed do not constitute reliable evidence, but rather are
expressions of opinion based on inference. Polybius may have believed
that the relationship existed, but he could not say how it began. The
fact that Polybius, writing after the Punic War, held this opinion need
only mean that it was widely held at the time when he was writing.
Accordingly, it seems more likely lhat the Romans were impelled to
intervene by an act of 'dedilio' that took place in the winter of
220/219 B.C.

There has been some dispute about the date of this Roman mission
to Carthage. Polybius, who rejects quite unjustifiably the tradition
that there was a period of indecision at Rome after the news came
of the fall of Saguntum. seems to date it to the end of the year 219 B.C. (1).
Livy's chronology at this point is very confused, but his account of
the circumstances indicates that the mission was despatched after the
start of the consular year of 218 B.C. (2). It seems right, then, to
follow De Sanctis and place the declaration of war at some time after
March 15th in that year (3). It is very doubtful, however, whether
W. Hoffmann's theory, that the mission was not despatched until the
news reached Rome that Hannibal had crossed the Ebro, can be regarded
as satisfactory (4). If the existence of a valid treaty with Saguntum
can be maintained, then this theory is acceptable; if, however, it is felt
that no such treaty ever really existed, then Hoffmann's theory becomes
difficult to uphold; for then the Romans would have had perfectly
legitimate grounds for a 'iustum bcllum' in the bare fact that Hannibal
had led his army across the Ebro, and there would have been no need
to resort to lhe fiction of an alliance with Saguntum. As it is, the
fact that the Romans had to try and conflate a legitimate excuse for their
declaration of war out of two entirely different actions of Hannibal,
his capture of Saguntum and his crossing of the Ebro, gives rise to the
strong suspicion that they had no justifiable grounds for complaint in
respect to either of these actions.
Another argument against Hoffmann's theory is that it involves
the rejection of the plain statement of Polybius in in.34 that Hannibal
only started out from winter-quarters after the arrival of the news
that the Romans had declared war. Polybius's chronology at this
point is rejected by Walbank(l), but without sufficient reason, as
Polybius is here probably following a reliable Carthaginian source.
If the start of Hannibal's march is put as late as the end of May, he would
be crossing the Alps towards the end of October, and the notice of
time given by Polybius. the approach of the setting of the Pleiades,
need not be rejected (2). Hannibal had every reason to postpone
his departure until he knew that his hazardous enterprise would be
necessary; there would have been no need for him to undertake it if
the Romans decided against war. and their dilatory proceedings during
the last year gave grounds for hope that they would avoid a renewal
of hostilities with Carthage. At the same time, he wanted to assure
himself of the loyal support of the people in power at Carthage.
Why then did the Romans delay for a full year between their first
warning to Hannibal and their final declaration of war? The answer
must surely lie in the state of internal politics at Rome. It seems that
there was a bitter party struggle going on at Rome just before the outbreak
of the Second Punic War. in which the Claudian faction tried to break
the monopoly of power enjoyed for the past few years by the Aemilian-
-Scipionic group. There is some evidence that Minucius held a
dictatorship 'comitiorum habendorum causa' at about this time, but
was deposed for some technicality and replaced by Fabius Maximus(3):
there is also evidence that two Claudian candidates, Valerius Laevinus
and Mucius Scaevola, were elected consuls for 220 B.C., but were soon
deposed and replaced by two members of the Scipionic group, L. Veturius
Philo and C Lutatius Catulus (4). Then there is the undoubted fact
of the prosecution of Aemilius Paulus and Livius Salinator by Claudius
(1) Walbank, «Commentary on Polybius» p. 365. Livy xxi. 21. 1. makes
Hannibal hear of the 'indictio belli' at the beginning of winter, before sending his
Spanish troops home on leave. Polybius follows a different chronology; he makes
Hannibal send his Spanish troops on leave at the beginning of winter, and hear of
the declaration of war just before collecting his troops from winter quarters. As he
probably did not muster his army until he was ready to march, this would imply a
date at the end of April for the news of the declaration of war to reach Spain — a quite
satisfactory date.


Nero at the close of the lllyrian War(l). All this indicates a bitter
struggle, in which the Scipionic group would have urged war with
Carthage but have been unable to carry through this policy as a result
of the combination of the Fabian Group, which opposed war (2),
and the Claudii. Then finally, it seems, a compromise was arrived
at by which Sempronius Longus. one of the Claudian faction, was
elected consul as a colleague of P. Scipio, while the Claudii agreed
to support the Aemilian-Scipionic Group in their policy of war with
Carthage.

Dr. H. H. Seul lard, however, suggests that what induced the Romans
to present an ultimatum to Carthage was the news of Hannibal's military
preparations in the winter of 219/218. and in particular the news that
he had left New Carthage in the spring of 218, and was marching north
at the head of a large army (3). This is another possible solution, and
the two explanations are not necessarily mutually exclusive. However,
it is unlikely that Hannibal's military activities in Spain, even if they
were suspected of aiming at conquests north of the Ebro, would have
been regarded as a "casus belli' unless there had been a change in the
political climate at Rome (4).

Finally, the question arises as to whether the Carthaginian speech
that Polybius assigns to the debate at which war was declared should
not, as Taiibler suggests (5), be more correctly assigned to the pro-
ceedings in 220/219 B.C., when the Roman emissaries came to
Carthage after delivering a solemn warning to Hannibal. It is more
likely that the claims and counterclaims of the two sides were thoroughly
discussed then, and that the proceedings in the following year were
only a formal demand for satisfaction and, on its refusal, a formal
declaration of war. To this view the main objection is that it assumes
a serious inaccuracy on the part of Polybius (I), but the historiographical
tradition on which Polybius had to work was so confused and distorted
that he was unavoidably guilty of several inaccuracies of an even graver
nature than this.

[Hanti]

CatoTheYounger - thank you for your effort! Nice reading, good subject.

PS: Although I am a not fan of the Roman Republic nor Empire (I prefer Carthage instead), I can simply say the only justification of Roman actions was pure strenght.

You can find it here if you read carefully:
Ad haec Ariovistus respondit: ius esse belli ut qui vicissent iis quos vicissent quem ad modum vellent imperarent. Item populum Romanum victis non ad alterius praescriptum, sed ad suum arbitrium imperare consuesse. 2 Si ipse populo Romano non praescriberet quem ad modum suo iure uteretur, non oportere se a populo Romano in suo iure impediri.
It's from The Bello Gallico (Chapter 36) when Caesar quotes words of Ariovist, but Ariovist just descibes Roman modus operandi.

The right of war was, that they who had conquered should govern those whom they had been conquered, in what manner they pleased - in that way the Roman people were governed nations which they had conquered, not according to the dictation of any other, but according to their own will.

[neep]

Agreed, very interesting topic.

It does seem that Rome's philosophy of international relations was basically
We've fought in the past, so we're going to fight you again in the future - and when we do we'll obliterate your entire civilization.
They had both the will (and the ability to hold a grudge) and the resources to do this.

Carthage, and others, approach was more along the lines of using war as a method to establish better trade. Once the objectives have been achieved, peace is restored and trade with everybody resumes, no hard feelings.
For them, it was crazy to keep feeding tens of thousands of men into war because their base philosophy was very different from Rome's Total Domination approach.

At some point, anyone who get's large enough to have an impact on the region will have to go head to head with Rome.
Not because they want to but because Rome will come looking for a fight.
Since Rome is the crazy-eyed guy with the brass knuckles it didn't end well for most folks who got into a brawl with them.

Of course, nobody thinks of themselves as the bad guy, so there's the usual dance of justifying their actions - set up the situation with the intent of going to war later; create the specific excuse; send in the troops. Folks (and even politicians ) from two thousand years ago are no different than us today, the same motivations and behaviors.
From this, and your previous posting, it seems pretty clear that Polybius was providing the Roman interpretation of events that was most convenient. No surprise there.