| Sumario: | Numerous ancient texts suggest Numidia's rulers owed their political existence to the Romans. While Roman decision-making power in Numidian political life does imply some level of dependence, extant accounts do not stand up to scrutiny. The historiographical narrative needs significant nuancing, not least because it reflects the convictions of the populares as preserved in the works of Sallust and Livy. This article shows that the system of Roman amicitia ultimately did play a decisive role in the process that led to the kingdom's demise, but that it is important for scholars to avoid an overly hierarchical view, contrasting, on the one hand, the 'dominant' Romans, who orchestrated events and exploited the Numidians to strengthen their hegemonic policy in the Mediterranean, and, on the other, the Numidian sovereigns, who were supposedly trapped by this policy, dependent or even submissive. Strengthening royal authority was an integral part of their policy, and they did this at times through interaction with Rome. Numidia's kings should be seen as entirely capable of using diplomacy and fully self-aware in their actions, as understood through the concept of agency.
|
|---|