.
While Polybius may have intended on proving historical causation, he does the exact opposite by misapplying the theory and using a different idea altogether to explain events and their subsequent consequences. In a few cases, he does this by attempting to piece together a cause and effect that do not interlock. In a more obvious case, he explicitly attributes those events that do not fit causality to Fortune inherently contradicting and disproving himself. In fact, he refers to Fortune repeatedly in Book I, and does not mention causality until Book III. Perhaps he intended for Fortune to apply to only the first two books, and for historical causation to apply to the third book. This explanation does not explain the appearance of Fortune, yet again, in Book XXXVI Chapter 17. Fortune maintains a steady character in Polybius' ideas.
One manner is which Polybius does not prove his idea of historical causation is his direct application to events taking place within the 53 years about which he writes. He attempts to apply his version of historical causation to the beginning of the Second Punic War. However, giving a cause, beginning, and a pretext to the start of the war provides some fallacies in Polybius' logic. The beginning of the war is the most obvious to define. The invasion of Saguntum in what is now called Spain by Carthage was a provocation to the Romans. Under agreement from the First Punic War, Saguntum was technically under Roman allied territory. The cause and the pretext, however, provide a more challenging explanation. In his explanation, Polybius goes into detail about the famed general Hannibal and his father, Hamilcar Barca. According to Polybius, Carthage, at this time, was enjoying the success of invading Spain, and so wanted to conquer more territory and expand its empire. This becomes defined as the cause of the Second Punic War. However, Polybius also writes about Hamilcar's hatred for the Romans and implies it is a pretext for the invasion of Roman allied lands.
