Hannibal's Dynasty
Page 43
Romans besiege Capua; Marcellus takes Syracuse
Successes of Scipio brothers in southern Spain;
Saguntum restored to its citizens
211
Hannibal’s march on Rome; Capua surrenders to the
Romans
234
T I M E - L I N E
211
Destruction of the Scipios in Spain
210
Second battle of Herdonea; battle of Numistro
209
Fabius captures Tarentum; P. Scipio the younger
captures New Carthage
208
Consul Marcellus killed; Scipio defeats Hasdrubal,
brother of Hannibal, at Baecula; Hasdrubal sets
out for Italy
207Hasdrubal’s arrival in Italy and destruction at the river
Metaurus
206
Hannibal stagnant in Bruttium; Scipio defeats
Hasdrubal son of Gisco at Ilipa
Hasdrubal son of Gisco wins over Syphax of
Numidia as Punic ally
205
Scipio as consul operates in south Italy; Mago brother
of Hannibal, in Liguria
Philip V makes peace with Romans
204
Scipio as proconsul invades Punic Africa
204/203 (winter)
Scipio destroys Punic and Numidian armies near
Utica in night attack
203
Hasdrubal son of Gisco and Syphax again defeated at
the Great Plains; Masinissa made king of all
Numidia
Carthaginians make peace with Scipio; Hannibal
recalled from Italy
202
War resumes; battle of Zama (October)
201
Peace treaty ends Second Punic War
200
Indemnity-money scandal
200–197Second Macedonian War and defeat of Philip V
199(?)
End of Hannibal’s generalship
196
Hannibal becomes sufete and enacts reforms
195
Roman embassy prompts Hannibal into self-exile;
joins Antiochus III at Ephesus
193
Aristo of Tyre visits Carthage
191
Hannibal as naval commodore for Antiochus in
eastern Aegean
190
Battle of Magnesia
189
Antiochus makes peace with Romans; Hannibal
forced to leave his kingdom
189–186(?)
Hannibal’s wanderings
186(?)–183
Hannibal in Bithynia including service as King
Prusias’ admiral
183
Roman embassy to Prusias; suicide of Hannibal
149–146
Third Punic War and destruction of Carthage by
P. Scipio Aemilianus
235
N O T E S T O T H E T E X T
I T H E H E I G H T S O F H E I R C T E A N D E RY X
1 Hamilcar at Heircte (or ‘Hercte’): Pol. 1.56–7. Properly speaking it was the fort in
the pass that had this name (Thiel (1954) 254 note 618) but the mountain’s
ancient name is not known. Earlier Roman attack on fort ‘Hercte’, supposedly
with 40,000 foot and 1,000 horse: Diod. 23.20 (in 252/251?). The First Punic
War’s eighteenth year began in midsummer 247: Walbank, 1.119–20.
2 For the theory that the Romans originally meant to fight not Carthage but Syra-
cuse see A. Heuss, Der erste punische Krieg und das Problem des römischen Imperialismus,
3rd edn (Darmstadt 1970); J. Molthagen, ‘Der Weg in den ersten punischen
Krieg’, Chiron 5 (1975) 89–127; more fully Hoyos (1998) 47–99.
3 Naval losses from 255 to 249: Pol. 1.37.1–2, 39.6, 51.11–12, 54.8; Diod. 24.1.7–9;
Thiel (1954) 236, 251, 279–89. Readable short accounts of the war are Caven
(1980) 18–66; Scullard (1989a) 537–69; a full history in Lazenby (1996); while the
naval side is thoroughly and interestingly studied by Thiel, 61–338. Census fig-
ures: Livy, Epit. 16 and 19 (292,200 and 241,700); Brunt (1971) chapter III.
4 Negotiations with Regulus: Lazenby (1996) 101–2; Hoyos (1998) 116–18.
5 Carthalo’s raid: Zon. 8.16 (Carthalo scared off by the praetor urbanus, who was
based in the City; note too the new citizen-colonies of Alsium and Fregenae
founded on the south Etruscan coast in 247). Economic strains: cf. Picard (1967)
57–9; Hoyos (1994) 265–6. Ptolemy declined to lend: Appian, Sic. 1.1–2. Fleet
neglected after 249, and overloaded, undermanned and poorly trained in 241:
Pol. 1.61.4–5; Zon. 8.17; Thiel (1954) 306–11; Lazenby (1996) 144–5, 150–5. Pri-
vateering Roman raids: Zon. 8.16; cf. Thiel, 299 note 768; Lazenby, 146–7.
6 Hecatompylus–Theveste–Tebessa: Pol. 1.73.1; Diod. 24.10.1–2, cf. 4.18.1; de
Sanctis, 3.1.176 note 79. On motives for expansion in the 240s cf. Hoffmann
(1962) 14–15. On the fertile Tebessa uplands see Fentress (1979) 32–3, un-
necessarily doubting that Hecatompylus was Theveste. ‘Thinking that they had
rational grounds’, Pol. 1.72.1; Hanno involved, ibid. 3.
7Zon. 8.16 (mutiny repressed, episode at Drepana); Pol. 1.56.2–3 (raid and move
to heights). Frontinus’ tale of a supposed ruse by ‘Barca’ to enter Lilybaeum
despite Roman warships ( Strat. 3.10.9) is not about him at all (despite de Sanctis,
3.1.238; L. Pareti, Storia di Roma 2 (Turin 1952) 166–7) but was performed by
another general, Hannibal son of Hamilcar, in 250 (Pol. 1.44; Thiel (1954)
266–9) and Frontinus or his source got confused.
8 See Hoyos (2001c).
9 Kromayer estimated Hamilcar’s army at 15,000–20,000 (in Kromayer and Veith,
AS 3.1.10), as do Walbank (1.121) and Scullard ((1989a) 564), but Thiel (1954)
299 note 766 rightly disbelieves this. Perhaps 30,000 at battle of Panormus in
250: Lazenby (1996) 121. Twenty thousand mercenaries from Sicily in 241: Pol.
237
N O T E S T O T H E T E X T
1.67.13. Lilybaeum was garrisoned by 7,700 in 250, soon reinforced to over
20,000 (Diod. 24.1.1–2; Pol. 1.44.2, 45.8; Thiel, 263–4). Hamilcar’s cavalry: 200
are mentioned at Eryx in 243 (below) but the Heircte heights had much more
room and resources. Roman force was ‘evenly matched’ with his: Pol. 1.57.6; de
Sanctis improbably supposes an entire consular army (3.1.179), meaning some
20,000 men. Kromayer, 23, places the Roman camp south of M. Castellaccio on
Cuzzo Gibelliforni, as good a guess as any (Hoyos (2001c) 494).
10 Operations from the Heircte heights: Pol. 1.56.9–57.8, cf. 1.74.9. Lancel (1992)
388 thinks raids on Italy continued from 247 through to 241. Italium: Diod. 24.6.
Like de Sanctis (3.1.178 note 83), Manni takes Longon to be an unknown river
near Catana ((1981) 114, 193). Lazenby (1996) 148 sees it as a raid into Catana’s
territory perhaps to put pressure on Hiero of Syracuse nearby. But Longane near
Mylae, attested on coins and an inscription (Manni, 197), is called ‘Longone’ by
Stephanus of Byzantium (s.v., citing the fourth-century Syracusan historian
Philistus), so ‘Longon’ is not an impossible variant; Κατ´ανης φρο´υριον could be a
copyist’s error for Μεσ´ηνης φ. (compare the probable error of Α’´ιγεστα replacing
’
Εχ´ετλαν at Diod. 23.3, and the definite one Λιγ´ατινος, meaning Λυτ´ατιος, at
&nbs
p; 24.11.1). Panormus–Agrigentum road: attested by a milestone probably of 252
or 248 set up by the consul C. Aurelius Cotta ( ILLRP 1,227; Verbrugghe (1976)
19–22).
11 Hamilcar’s family: chapter II. Seibert supposes winter visits to Carthage ( Hann. 9
note 14) but winter sailing was very dangerous. On brq/baraq see Gsell, HAAN
2.252 note 7 (noting that it might instead mean ‘[Ba’al] has blessed’, from the
verb brk—though he might have added that this seems less suitable for the mili-
tary Hamilcar); Picard (1967) 19; Sznycer (1978) 552–3. The claim that
Hamilcar’s family had come from Barce, a Greek city near Cyrene (R. G. Austin,
P. Vergili Maronis Aeneidos Liber IV (Oxford 1955) 43), is an unfounded guess.
Numidian prince’s admiration: Pol. 1.78.1–8 (Naravas).
12 Move to Eryx: Pol. 1.58.2; Diod. 24.8. Kromayer, in Kromayer and Veith, AS
3.1.32–5, with his Map 2; Thiel (1954) 301. Temple of Venus Erycina: de Sanctis,
3.1.173 note 73; Walbank, 1.118–19. Eryx townsfolk transferred to Drepana in
259: Diod. 23.9.4; Zon. 8.11. A surviving line from Naevius’ late third-century
epic poem on the war, ‘superbiter contemtim conterit legiones’ (‘haughtily,
scornfully he wears down the legions’) may refer to Hamilcar, on Eryx or earlier
at Heircte: cf. Warmington (1936) 64, frg. 38. Hamilcar, ‘Vodostor’ and Funda-
nius: Diod. 24.9. Circa 1 May for consuls entering office: Morgan (1977) 90–1.
The Gallic deserters: Pol. 1.77.4, 2.7.7–10.
13 New Roman fleet and battle of the Aegates islands: Pol. 1.59–61; Diod. 24.11;
Zon. 8.17 (with Hanno’s fate); Florus 1.18 [2.2] 33–6; Eutrop. 2.27.3, with the
date convincingly defended by Morgan (1977) 109–12; other sources at
Broughton, MRR 1.218; Thiel (1954) 302–16; Walbank, 1.124–6; Lazenby (1996)
150–7. Attack on Eryx, 2,000 Punic troops slain: Oros. 4.10.8. Peace-talks
and terms: Pol. 1.62.1–63.3; 3.27.1–6; Diod. 24.13 (mentions Gisco); Nepos,
Hamil. 1.5; Appian, Sic. 2.1–4 (a confused blend of first and final drafts); Zon.
8.17; de Sanctis, 3.1.184–9; Walbank, 1.126–7, 355; Schmitt, SVA 3.173–81;
Huss (1985) 249–51; Scardigli (1991) 205–43; Hoyos (1998) 118–23, 130–1. The
1,000 talent down-payment possibly represented about one year’s Punic state
revenues: chapter II §III. Hamilcar’s promises to the troops: Pol. 1.67.12; Appian,
Iber. 4.15.
14 Hamilcar’s final actions in Sicily: Pol. 1.66.1, 68.12; Zon. 8.17. Punic generalship
indefinite in duration: Gsell, HAAN 2.420–1; Huss (1985) 478. Official scrutiny:
Gsell, 2.188, 205–7; Picard and Picard, LDC 128, 142–6; Huss, 464, 478.
238
N O T E S T O T H E T E X T
15 Politics at Carthage in mid-century: chapter II. Hanno undermined war-effort in
Sicily: Thiel (1954) 294–7, 306; Picard (1967) 60–1; Picard and Picard, LDC 198;
Huss (1985) 246 note 232; Scullard (1989a) 563. Seibert severely criticizes Hamil-
car’s leadership at both Heircte and Eryx for stubbornness and failure to exploit
advantages like Punic naval superiority before 242 ( FzH 89–94; Hann. 8–11).
I I C A R T H AG E
1 Descent from Belus and Barca, Silius 1.71–6, 15.745–8. Ba’lu king of Tyre in
early seventh century: Nina Jidejian, Tyre through the Ages (Beirut (1969)) 46–9,
246; W. Röllig, Kl P 4.1028 s.v. ‘Tyros’. Tyre did have other kings with similar
names, for instance Ithobaal in the first half of the ninth century (Jidejian,
39–41, 246), Baal in the sixth ( ibid. 56, 246–7). Punic names: Sznycer (1978)
550–1—over 500 known from inscriptions. The two Hamilcars: see next note.
2 Hamilcar ‘admodum adulescentulus’, Nepos, Hamil. 1.1. Adulescentulus and
adulescens can be very elastic—for instance Cicero retrospectively terms himself
‘adulescens’ as consul aged 43 ( Philippics 2.46.118) and to Sallust a 37-year-old
Caesar is ‘adulescentulus’ ( Catilina 49.2; cf. Lewis and Short’s Latin Dictionary, s.v.
‘adulescens’). Hamilcar about 30 in 247: similarly Picard (1967) 64, puts his birth
around 280–75. T. Lenschau, RE 7.2302–3, wants him born by 285 so as to iden-
tify him as the Hamilcar prominent in the war from 260, but Nepos is emphatic:
Barca’s first command was in the ‘temporibus extremis’ of the war. See also Wal-
bank, 1.80; Huss (1985) 228 note 74. Hanno son of Bomilcar, Pol. 3.42.6;
Bomilcar called ‘the king’ (i.e. sufete?), Appian, Hann. 20.90; Huss (1983) 25–32,
(1991) 118–23.
Hannibal’s birth-year: in early 237 he was nine (Pol. 2.1.6 and 3.11.5; Livy
21.1.4), at the end of 202 ‘more than 45’ (Pol. 15.19.3; cf. Livy 30.37.9); see
Lenschau, RE 7.2323 s.v. ‘Hamilkar (7)’; Seibert, Hann. 7 note 2, 9 note 12. Mago
in 218, Pol. 3.71.8 (‘young’), etc.; born in 242, surmises Picard (1967) 65. On
Hamilcar’s daughters and other family questions, see Appendix §1.
3 Byzacium estates: Livy 33.48.1; the inference of wealth is Picard’s (1967) 20–1.
Birth and wealth required: Aristotle, Pol. 2.11.8–9, 1,273a, ‘they believe that mag-
istrates should be chosen on the basis not only of birth but also of wealth; for it
is impossible for a poor man to govern well and to have the time’. Bribery,
2.11.10–12; still prevalent and public in later times, Pol. 6.56.1–4. Ameling (1993)
171–5 seeks to temper these verdicts.
4 Hanno’s sobriquet: Appian, Iber. 4.16, Lib. 34.145, 49.213; Zon. 8.22; Huss (1979)
230 note 40, and (1985) 464, sees it as rendering Punic rb ( rab), ‘great one’ or
‘chief ’, and meaning not age or eminence but the head of the state finances (cf.
chapter XV §III). But that this office could be held by Hanno for decades during
the Barcid supremacy—and that only he, and a couple of other Hannos in other
eras, were remembered for it by having it as their sobriquet—is not convincing.
His alleged enmity towards Hamilcar during the 240s: cf. chapter I with note 15.
Not hereditary ( contra for instance Gsell, HAAN 2.253; Hoyos (1994) 270 tenta-
tively)—Livy limits it to Hamilcar and his sons (21.3.2, 10.11 ‘paternas
inimicitias’, 23.13.6 ‘simultas cum familia Barcina’) and Silius, writing about
Hanno’s ‘odiis gentilibus’ towards Hamilcar’s son ( Pun. 2.277), may have no more
than that in mind; in any case this is a poet who affirms that Regulus had been
crucified in public (2.343–4). Loreto similarly sees the decisive break between
Hanno and Hamilcar coming as late as 237 ((1995) 205, 207–8, cf. 138, 161).
5 The ports, especially the circular one, have been extensively studied as part of the
‘Save Carthage’ project: see for instance Picard (1983) 34–7; Huss (1985) 47–8;
239
N O T E S T O T H E T E X T
L. E. Stager and H. Hurst in Ennabli (1992) 75–8 and 79–94; Lancel (1992)
192–211 = English tr. 172–92). See Appendix §2.
6 On Carthaginian history and culture see, e.g., Lancel (1992); Huss (1985); Picard
(1968); Picard and Picard (1983); Warmington (1964). On the archaeological
remains, Ennabli (1992); Niemeyer et al. (1996). Timaeus on the foundation-date:
FrGH 566 F60. Extent of
city: Strabo 17.3.15, C833; Appian, Lib.
95.448–96.455, 117.555, 128.610–13; Gs
ell, HAAN 2, chapter I; Tlatli (1978)
chapters III–IV; Huss (1985) chapter IV; Scullard (1989a) 499–503; Lancel
(1992) chapter V. The Numidians: Gsell, 2.99–100, 306–8. On the Carthaginian
empire, Whittaker (1978). The Pyrgi tablets: e.g. J. Ferron, in Aufstieg und Nieder-
gang der Römischen Welt, 1.1, ed. H. Temporini (Berlin and New York 1972)
189–216; Tusa (1974) 88–9; Lancel (1992) 101–2. Treaties with Rome: Pol.
3.22–4; cf. Walbank, 1.339–49; Scardigli (1991) 47–127; Cornell (1996) 210–14,
388.
7King Hamilcar’s mother: Herodotus 7
.165. Hamilcar Barca and Naravas: Pol.
1.78. Later granddaughter’s royal marriages, and Sophoniba’s: chapter XIII note
2. Background of Punic agents Hippocrates and Epicydes: Livy 24.6.2. On inter-
marriage cf. Picard (1961) 82–3.
8 Carthaginians jealously guarding their western trade monopoly: Strabo 3.5.11,
175C, 17.1.19, 802C; but see Whittaker (1978) 61, 80–1. On Carthaginian Sicily
see especially Hans (1983). For the one, dubious clash between Carthaginians
and Massiliots, a supposed ‘battle of Artemisium’, see Sosylus, FrGH 176, F1,
with Jacoby’s commentary ( Kommentar vol. BD, 605); Huss (1985) 67. Punic adop-
tion of Greek usages: e.g. Picard (1964) 96–118, 194–5; Picard and Picard (1983)
55–9; Hahn (1974); Lancel (1992) 360–7. Coinage: Jenkins and Lewis (1963);
Huss (1983) 489–93.
9 Punic religion is well discussed by Huss (1985) chapter XXXVI; Lancel (1992)
chapter VI. On child sacrifice: L. E. Stager in Pedley (1980) 1–11; Lancel,
268–76; Fantar (1995) 74–7 is sceptical. The molk of 310: Diod. 20.14.4–7
(emphasizing that it was exceptional). Silius Italicus has a story about Hannibal
being ordered by the priests to hand over his son for sacrifice, and refusing
(4.763–829), but this is obviously a fancy (though Seibert, Hann. 20 note 60,
thinks there may be something to it and also (19–20) that a molk may have taken
place during the African revolt of 241–237, despite the lack of evidence. Neither
idea persuades, cf. Appendix §1).
10 ‘Lepcis’ on the ‘ora minoris Syrtis’: Livy 34.62.3 ( Leptis in some MSS). The
Emporia region stretched from the Lesser to the Greater Syrtes (gulf of Gabès
to gulf of Sirte): Gsell, HAAN 2.127–8; Lancel (1992) 111, 278, 430; cf. Mat-
tingly (1994) xiii, 1, 50–2, 218. The daily talent is disbelieved by Kahrstedt (1913)
134–5, and Walbank, 3.491; but Gsell, 2.319, and de Sanctis, 3.1.32 note 88, judge