Scipio next captured Tunis, only fifteen miles from Carthage, where he could command the enemy’s land communications. The Carthaginians made a desperate counter-attack on his fleet at Utica, but he marched there just in time to thwart it. He did not, however, return to Tunis immediately. Meantime Laelius and Masinissa had pursued Syphax to his own country and defeated him near Cirta (Constantine), which they captured. Syphax was taken prisoner, but his wife Sophonisba took poison.9 The situation at Carthage was now desperate and Hannibal was at length recalled to defend his country. But the peace party of merchants and landowners prevailed and peace was sought. Scipio, who did not aim at the destruction of Carthage itself, offered terms: Carthage was to evacuate and renounce Italy, Gaul and Spain; surrender her navy, except 20 ships; pay an indemnity of 5,000 talents; and recognize the power of Masinissa in the west and the autonomy of the native tribes of Libya and Cyrenaica in the east. The terms were severe and would reduce Carthage to a purely African power, crippled in her trade, nominally independent, but in practice little more than a client state of Rome. But she accepted them, an armistice was made and the Senate after some delay ratified the treaty (winter 203–202). The delay was ominous for Scipio; it meant that rival noble families grudged him his success and were working against him. The war seemed at an end, but Hannibal was returning.
4. VICTORY AND PEACE
While terms were being discussed at Rome, Hannibal landed in Africa near Hadrumetum and was soon joined by Mago’s army from Italy. When a storm drove a Roman convoy ashore near Carthage, the populace of the overcrowded and ill-supplied city seized the supplies. Scipio sent envoys to complain of this violation of the armistice, but they were dismissed and treacherously ambushed on their return voyage. Thus the war party at Carthage, trusting in Hannibal, again prevailed, and renewed hostilities just when the peace had been ratified at Rome.10
Scipio in anger stormed up the Bagradas valley, cutting Carthage off from her economic base. He hastily summoned Masinissa, who was fighting in western Numidia, and advanced further and further inland to meet him, as he dared not face the enemy without the Numidian cavalry. Thereupon Hannibal advanced from Hadrumetum to Zama, the western town of this name, hoping to cut Scipio’s communications and to force him to fight without the cavalry. At Naraggara (Sidi Youssef) Scipio was joined by Masinissa and then advanced perhaps to the Ou.-et-Tine. After an ineffective interview between the two generals, the two armies faced one another for battle. Each side numbered between 35,000 and 40,000 men, the Carthaginians being slightly stronger in total, although weaker in cavalry; and each side was drawn up in three lines.11 Hannibal placed his foreign mercenaries in his first line with a screen of light troops and elephants in front; the weak native Libyans and Carthaginians formed the second line; the third line was some distance from the first two and consisted of the Old Guard, Hannibal’s veteran army from Italy; on the wings was the cavalry. The Romans were drawn up in their customary three lines, but the maniples of each line were stationed directly behind one another, not in echelon. The tactical aims of the two generals have not been fully recorded, but the following motives seem justified. Scipio counted on his superior cavalry to expose the enemy’s wings; he then hoped to apply the outflanking movement which he had used with increasing skill and success at Baecula, Ilipa and Campi Magni. Hannibal, realizing his weakness in cavalry, probably ordered it to simulate flight and so draw its opponents off the field. He would then throw all his infantry in successive waves against Scipio’s numerically inferior infantry, while he would thwart an outflanking movement by holding back his veterans as a reserve.
The battle opened with the charge of Hannibal’s elephants, which miscarried. Some turned back on their own lines, others ran down the passages which Scipio had skilfully left in his ranks, others were driven off to the flanks. The Roman cavalry then charged and drove both Carthaginian wings off the field. The infantry closed, while Scipio, seeing Hannibal’s third line remaining stationary, realized that an outflanking manoeuvre was impossible. The hastati drove back the first line of mercenaries, who were forced out to the wings by their second line which would not receive them; then, supported by the principes, they broke the Carthaginians of the second line. Scipio took the opportunity to break off the battle and both sides re-formed. Scipio lengthened his front by bringing up his two rear lines on the flanks of the hastati; Hannibal, whose front would thus be shorter than Scipio’s, probably placed the survivors of his first two lines on the flanks of his veterans. Hannibal would need longer to reorganize, while Scipio would give him as long as he needed, hoping for the return of his cavalry. When the ranks again joined, it was hotly contested until the returning Roman cavalry fell on the enemy’s rear. The cavalry had arrived in time to decide the course, not only of the battle, but of the world’s history.
Hannibal’s army was destroyed, although he himself escaped to Hadrumetum. Scipio received supplies at Castra Cornelia, and after making a demonstration at Carthage he received a peace deputation at Tunis, for Hannibal himself on his return to Carthage after thirty-six years was counselling peace, especially as news came that Syphax’ son had just been defeated. Further resistance was useless and might involve the destruction of the city. Scipio also was ready for peace, because the siege of Carthage would involve fresh effort when Italy most needed rest, and because he wished to disarm but not to destroy.
A three months’ armistice was concluded on condition that Carthage offered reparations for breaking the truce, gave hostages, and supplied corn and pay for the Roman troops during the armistice. According to the terms of the peace Carthage retained her autonomy, her territory within the ‘Phoenician Trenches’ (i.e. very roughly equivalent to modern Tunisia as far south as the Gulf of Gabes) and her control over trade-marts like Emporia. She was to restore to Masinissa all his land and ancestral property. She was reduced to the state of a dependent ally of Rome, being allowed to make war on no one outside Africa and only with Rome’s permission within Africa. This meant the end of her life as a great Mediterranean power and gave her no guarantee against future aggression in Africa. All her elephants and nearly her whole navy were to be surrendered, prisoners of war were to be given up and finally an indemnity of 10,000 talents was to be paid in fifty annual instalments, which would keep her weak and dependent on Rome for this long period. (In fact when in 191 BC Carthage tried to pay the balance of her indemnity as a lump sum she was refused.) In return the Romans would evacuate Africa in 150 days. And so the long war ended. The Senate ratified Scipio’s terms and he returned victorious to Rome, where he was surnamed after the land he had conquered – Africanus.
The importance of the Second Punic War can hardly be exaggerated. It was a turning-point in the history of the whole ancient world. Its effect on Rome and Italy, on the constitution, on economic and social life, on religion and thought was profound. After it no power arose which could endanger the existence of Rome. The Hellenistic monarchies of the east still flourished, but at Rome’s touch they fell like a house of cards. She was mistress of the fortunes of the civilized world and gradually introduced into that world a unity, unknown since the days of Alexander, which lasted some five hundred years. Further, the dramatic nature of the struggle has captivated the imagination of mankind. It was on this stage that one of the world’s most glorious failures rose and fell, that one man pitted his resources against those of a nation. Not that Hannibal bore on his shoulders alone the whole weight of a war of revenge, unsupported by his home government, as popular fancy likes to paint the heroic figure; it was circumstances, or rather Rome’s unceasing activity, that isolated Hannibal and forced him to fight unaided. And the causes of his failure were largely the causes of Rome’s success: Rome’s superiority at sea, her roads and fortresses, the unexpected loyalty of her Italian allies which morally justified her conquest of the Italian peninsula, the unshaken direction of the Senate, the loyal co-operation of the people and their ‘will to conquer’ which survived disaster after d
isaster, the wisdom of a strategy of exhaustion and the courage by which it was maintained while the countryside bled, the blocking of reinforcements from Carthage and Spain, the undermining of the enemy’s resources in the Spanish peninsula, and above all the superior quality of the vast manpower on which Rome could draw in her hour of need. Finally, what turned the hope of ultimate success against Hannibal into complete and devastating victory against Carthage was the production of a military genius by Rome, one who learning as a pupil from Hannibal himself forged out of the Roman army a weapon which could be turned against the master. Rome produced many generals of distinction but only one who dared face Hannibal in open battle after Cannae. Fabius was called the Shield of Rome and Marcellus her Sword, but Scipio’s very name meant a Staff, on which Rome could lean and with which she could thrash her foe. But the brilliance of a Scipio would have been useless without that unswerving loyalty and perseverance of the Senate and People of Rome. The unavailing gallantry of the great house of Barca at length succumbed to the solid moral qualities of the self-sacrifice of a nation at war. It was by moral forces that Rome survived her ordeal: forces which were soon to be blunted by ambition and avarice at home and by the contagious corruption of the eastern world into which she was next drawn. Never did the spirit of the Roman People shine forth brighter than in the dark hours of the Second Punic War.
Part III
ROME AND THE MEDITERRANEAN
XI
ROME AND GREECE
1. THE HELLENISTIC WORLD
Hardly had peace been signed with Carthage when the Roman people was asked by the Senate to declare war against Philip, King of Macedon. Doubtless the ordinary Roman citizen was somewhat surprised and wondered what Greek politics had to do with Rome, but he was soon to learn that Rome’s interests and obligations were no longer confined to Italy. The struggle with Carthage had broken down barriers which could not be raised up again, and Rome had become a world power. She had crushed one great power and must now align herself with the monarchies of the east. For the Greek world consisted of three great kingdoms, the remains of Alexander’s empire, together with a number of Greek leagues and states more or less free. Throughout there reigned a balance of powers whose equilibrium could easily be upset. It only needed a spark to set the whole Hellenistic world ablaze. But before seeing how this conflagration was started we must glance round the eastern Mediterranean.
In Greece, since the days when the city-state flourished, many communities who wished to preserve their independence but were too weak to do this alone had combined into federations or leagues. The two chief of these were the Aetolian League in the north and the Achaean in the south. The former was loose and flexible in form and somewhat primitive in outlook; its unity derived largely from common interests in war. The plundering raiders from Aetolia had been severely checked for crossing Philip’s path in 217. Smarting under this treatment they readily welcomed Roman intervention and fought with Rome against Macedon, only to be deserted by their ally and forced to patch up a peace with Philip (206). The Romans on their part also felt deserted by the Aetolians and so feelings had become very embittered. The Achaean League under the leadership of Aratus had become the predominant power in the Peloponnese, but had succeeded in defeating Sparta under Cleomenes only at the price of enlisting the help of Philip’s predecessor, Antigonus Doson of Macedon (222), to whom the League surrendered its control of Corinth. But though Macedon guided their foreign policy the Achaeans still retained more of the old Greek outlook than did the Aetolians; and turning a deaf ear to Philip’s call they maintained a policy of neutrality during the First Macedonian War.
In addition to these leagues, one of the old Greek city-states had shaken off the yoke of Macedon and regained its independence in 229: Athens. Though a shadow of her former self and little more than a university town with small military power, Athens still retained some influence, based partly on her glorious past; in politics she maintained a selfish neutrality. Of the other surviving Republics the most important was Rhodes, the Venice of the ancient world. This flourishing maritime state, whose control extended to the mainland of Asia Minor, had built up a prosperous trade. Her name was raised high among the nations by the good faith of her citizens and by her suppression of piracy; she consistently aimed at remaining on good terms with all men.
Of the three great powers which balanced their weight precariously against each other, Macedon had retained fitfully throughout the third century its old European dependencies and its control over the cities of Greece. On the accession of Philip V to the throne in 221 she held the three fortresses known as the ‘Fetters of Greece’, Demetrias, Chalcis and Corinth, and thus controlled Greek destinies without direct rule. As successor to the leadership of Antigonus Doson’s Hellenic Federation Philip had by 217 reduced the Aetolians, who were the chief disturbers of the peace in Greece. The pirate chief Demetrius, angered at Rome’s police raids in the Adriatic, had then involved Philip in a ten years’ war with Rome. But his ambition for empire did not lead to a happy conclusion.
The second great monarchy, Syria, was at this time ruled by Antiochus III, surnamed the Great (223–187). His predecessors, the Seleucid kings, had failed to retain a large part of the eastern conquests of Alexander and had been constantly fighting with Egypt for the possession of southern Syria; Antiochus himself was defeated in a similar attempt at Raphia in 217. He aimed at reconstituting the old Seleucid empire and undertook an Anabasis in the Far East (212–205). The report of this adventurous expedition filled the Greek world with admiration, and Antiochus appeared as a second Alexander. His thoughts then turned again to Egypt, and he hoped to reverse the result of Raphia, but so far Rome was beyond his horizon.
Egypt, the third great monarchy, with its enormous resources and wealth had flourished materially under the Ptolemies, while Alexandria led the Greek world in learning, art and commerce. Abroad Egypt had gained wide control in Asia Minor and the Aegean; she had made her influence felt in Greece and, alone of the Hellenistic states, had entered into friendly relations with Rome, as early as 273, with a view to extending her commerce. Her success at Raphia in the fourth of the series of wars against Syria was followed by a period of degeneration. Internal dissension was reflected abroad and several of Ptolemy’s foreign possessions slipped from his sluggish grasp.
Beside the three great monarchies there were other kingdoms. Bithynia, Pontus and Cappadocia paid only a nominal allegiance to Syria. Celtic tribes had set up the independent state of Galatia in the heart of Asia Minor. But the chief of these smaller kingdoms was Pergamum, where since 241 there had reigned a despot and merchant prince named Attalus, who differed much from the other rulers of the east. His sympathies with Greek culture and with the political aims of Athens and Rhodes drew him into the Greek world away from the great monarchs, who looked with jealous eye on the growing wealth and prosperity of the Pergamene kingdom.1
We must next trace how and why Rome was drawn into the vortex of eastern affairs and soon emerged riding the storm. Our sources record the facts clearly, but the motives of Roman policy are not so definitely stated. Hence it will be well to follow in some detail the incidents which led up to the war, because only so can we hope to lay bare Rome’s policy and compare the varying constructions placed upon it by modern historians. First, then, the events, and secondly the policy that dictated them.
2. THE OUTBREAK OF WAR
The balance of the three eastern powers was upset by the death of Ptolemy Philopator and by the accession of a child to the throne of Egypt. In the winter of 203–202 Philip of Macedon and Antiochus of Syria formed a disgraceful alliance to share between themselves Egypt’s possessions in Europe and Asia, although neither party probably intended to remain loyal to the terms of partition. As the lion’s share was to fall to Antiochus, he was probably the moving spirit.2 In the spring of 202 he invaded southern Syria, while Philip, at first avoiding a direct breach with Egypt, attacked with a newly built fleet some cities along th
e Bosphorus, some being free and independent while others were allied with or dependent on other communities: Lysimacheia, Chalcedon, and Cius were allies of Aetolia; Perinthus was a dependency of Byzantium; Thasos at this date was a free island. Philip’s capture of Cius with the help of Prusias of Bithynia angered the Aetolians, displeased Antiochus, and led the Rhodians to decide to oppose Philip; their ambassadors had appealed in vain for the town and were forced to see it sacked. Then in 201 Philip annexed the Cyclades and occupied Samos. The precise order of subsequent events is uncertain, but Philip probably first suffered considerable losses in an indecisive naval engagement off Chios, then attacked Pergamum by land and ravaged its territory, next defeated the Rhodian fleet at Lade (near Miletus) and finally operated in South Caria where he was forced to winter.3
Philip’s wanton atrocities against unoffending cities in peacetime had indeed stirred up a hornets’ nest. The violence of his actions, which made war inevitable, may have been due to a desire to settle his accounts while Rome was still engaged with Hannibal. In that case he miscalculated, for Zama was being fought and the Romans would soon be free. But he may have derived some encouragement from the fact that in 202 (autumn) they had coldly rebuffed an Aetolian embassy, which had come to appeal on behalf of their wronged allies; Rome had not forgiven Aetolia for making peace with Philip in 206.4 In the following autumn Attalus and the Rhodians also sent ambassadors to Rome to seek help. Rhodes’ relations with Rome were somewhat strained: while remaining neutral in the First Macedonian War she had denounced Rome’s interference. Attalus, however, was on good terms with Rome, but as he was not technically an ‘ally’ or perhaps even a ‘friend’, there was no legal ground for Rome to intervene. The Senate took no immediate open action but it suddenly reversed its earlier policy towards the eastern situation. One of the consuls elected for 200 was P. Sulpicius Galba, who had campaigned as proconsul in Macedon from 210 to 206; and when the new consuls entered office in March 200 Macedonia was allotted as a consular province to Sulpicius.
A History of the Roman World Page 33