Rome, Carthage, and Numidia: Diplomatic Favouritism before the Third Punic War
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This article examines Rome’s diplomatic relations with Carthage and Numidia in the period between the Second and Third Punic Wars. Polybius’ suggestion that Rome consistently decided against Carthage in territorial disputes with Numidia in the aftermath of the Second Punic War (Polyb. 31.21.5-6) has often been taken up in explanations of the origins of the Third Punic War. Many ancient and modern accounts accept the implication of a policy of hostility against Carthage, assuming that Rome permitted and even encouraged Masinissa to infringe upon and seize Carthaginian territory. This paper, however, argues that the results of Roman arbitration between Carthage and Numidia do not show a consistent policy intended to undermine Carthage. Rather, Rome sought to maintain the territorial division which was imposed at the end of the Second Punic War throughout the inter-war period; several of its decisions were actually in favour of Carthage. The Third Punic War should not be seen as a culmination of a half-century of Roman hostility towards Carthage.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".