Hannibal's Dynasty

by Dexter Hoyos

  likelier that his already-won dominance brought him the appointment. On

  Picard’s view that Hamilcar now carried through a ‘révolution démocratique’

  244

  N O T E S T O T H E T E X T

  (Picard (1967) 75–7, 216–17, (1968) passim) cf. Hoyos, 262–70. The idea that

  Hanno was initially re-elected general, only to be dismissed later at Hamilcar’s

  instigation (Loreto, 201, 205–8), reads too much into Appian, Iber. 5.17, and also

  depends on dating the operations in Numidia after the Sardinia crisis (against

  which, chapter III note 15). The command effectively open-ended: Diodorus

  terms it explicitly so (ε’ις χρ´ονον ’α´οριστον) but this may be a rationalization, since

  in practice a war in so distant a theatre, against an indefinite range of enemies,

  would be over only when the commander declared it over. On the Sardinia crisis,

  Loreto, 198–9; Hoyos (1998) chapter IX, both with detailed citations of earlier

  scholarship; also Carey (1996), who holds to the view that the Romans treated

  the island as terra nullius.

  3 Carthaginians ‘at first sought to come to an agreement’: Pol. 3.10.1. Embassy of

  ten: Oros. 4.12.3; Hoyos (1998) 137. Allegations about traders: 3.28.3–4; Appian,

  Iber. 4.15, Lib. 5.19; Zon. 8.18 (Appian and Zonaras take them seriously).

  Ancient and modern explanations for the crisis: Hoyos, 140–3; Goldsworthy

  (2000) 136 is undecided but, implausibly, thinks the change of consuls influ-

  enced the policy switch. The 1,200 talents payable as a lump sum: Pol. 3.27.8 (the

  terms do not mention instalments); Hoyos, 141. Finances confiscated: Picard

  (1967) 76, seeing the aim as to undermine Carthage’s economy; Loreto (1995)

  199 (to prevent a war of revanche); Hoyos, 141–2. The 1,200 talents, incidentally,

  may represent what the Romans judged to be a year’s total revenue of the Punic

  state: chapter II §III.

  4 A third embassy, accepting the terms, may have been sent: Orosius seems to have

  five—two pairs (doublets?) and a final one; Hoyos (1998) 137–8. The Romans

  may not have sent their own forces to Sardinia until 235: Hoyos, 139–40.

  5 Hasdrubal as trierarch, Pol. 2.1.9; on the position cf. Walbank 1.109, 153; below,

  chapter X note 6. Hannibal’s relative Mago in 215, Livy 23.41.1–2: perhaps a son

  of brother-in-law Hasdrubal, suggests L.-M. Günther (in Die Neue Pauly 5 (1998)

  171 and 7 (1999) 701, citing K. Geus, Prosopographie der literarisch bezeugten Karthager

  (Leiden 1994: Studia Phoenicia 13)). But Livy’s ‘ex gente Barcina’ hardly points to

  so close a link—contrast 29.29.12 for a niece—and a militarily active nephew was

  more likely to serve with his uncle, as Hanno son of Bomilcar did. This Mago

  could be a cousin, for Hamilcar need not have been an only child. Mago the Sam-

  nite, Pol. 9.25.1–6. Bomilcar the ‘king’: chapter II note 2 and, on the ancient

  kingship, ibid. note 12; Loreto (1995) 208 sees him as a Punicised Numidian king,

  but though Punic–Numidian marriages were common enough (note 2 above),

  no other known Numidian lord of this era had a Punic name. Picard sees Bomil-

  car as crucial to Barcid political fortunes in and after the Mercenaries’ War:

  (1967) 68–75, 149, (1968) 118; Picard and Picard, LDC 207–8; cf. Lancel, Hann.

  25, who thinks he was also the admiral in the Hannibalic War (24). On Hasdrubal

  going to Spain cf. Hoyos (1994) 260–1. Himilco in 216, Livy 23.12.6; cf. Mahar-

  bal’s father’s name, 21.12.1. Incidentally Plutarch, Fabius 17, names as ‘Barca’ the

  officer—Maharbal in Livy (22.51.1–4)—who advised Hannibal after Cannae to

  march on Rome, which just possibly might go back to some source misunder-

  standing a Barcid kinship of Maharbal’s. Gestar (an invented name?) in 218,

  Silius 2.390. Hanno versus Hasdrubal in 218, Zon. 8.22; Huss (1985) 294 note 4

  guesses Hasdrubal son of Gisco, cf. Seibert, Hann. 59 note 48. Loreto, 208–10,

  speculates about Hamilcar’s various sources of political support around 237.

  Muttines of Hippou Acra: Livy 25.40.5. Punic senators as Barcid councillors:

  Pol. 3.20.8 (Romans in 218 demanded handover of Hannibal ‘and the senators

  [?—συν´εδρους] with him’), 7.9.1 (γερουσιαστα´ι, mentioned in treaty with Philip V

  of Macedon in 215), 10.18.1 (members of the senate and its inner council

  245

  N O T E S T O T H E T E X T

  captured at New Carthage in 209); Chroust (1954) 67 note 34, 77–8; Walbank,

  1.334–5, 2.44–5; Seibert, Hann. 242 note 86.

  6 Hamilcar’s Spanish expedition unauthorized by élite: Appian, Hann. 2.4; Zon.

  8.17; cf. Oros. 4.13.1. Against this claim, Hoyos (1994) 258–9 with earlier refer-

  ences; Lancel, Hann. 47 thinks it originated with Fabius Pictor. Pictor’s criticisms

  of Hasdrubal and Hannibal: Pol. 3.8.1–8. Barcid Spain virtually independent:

  notably Schwarte (1983); Blázquez and García (1991) 38–40; more hesitantly

  Goldsworthy (2000) 137–8, 152; against, Hoyos (1994) citing earlier discussions.

  ‘Enriched Africa’: Nepos, Hamil. 4.2. Largesse: Appian, Iber. 5.18, 6.22, and

  Hann. 2.4. On Barcid political dominance after 237 cf. Hoyos, 270–4. On the

  later Barcid connexions with Numidian royalty: chapter XII §I.

  7Hannibal’s oath: Pol. 3.11.5–9 (µηδ´εποτε ‘Ρωµα´ιοις ε’υνο´ησειν, often rendered

  ‘never to be a friend to the Romans’, as Nepos and Livy do); Livy 21.1.4 (later

  Roman version), 35.19.3–6 (Polybius’ version); Nepos, Hann. 2.4 (like Polybius’);

  Silius 1.70–119; Appian, Hann. 3.10; still other versions, following the Roman

  tradition as do Silius and Appian, are listed by Walbank, 1.314. Ba’al Hammon or

  B. Shamim: Polybius writes ‘Zeus’, Nepos ‘Jupiter best and greatest’; of course

  no source supplies the Punic name. B. Hammon was the chief deity in the Punic

  pantheon in this era (chapter II with note 9); B. Shamim it seems was the god

  whom Greeks usually identified as Zeus. Picard (1967) 27–9 prefers Shamim;

  Barré (1983) 12–13, 40–57, stresses that fixed identifications are unlikely and sees

  ‘Zeus’ in Hannibal’s treaty of 215 with Philip V of Macedon as Hammon.

  8 Oath-story reminiscent of ‘einer hellenistichen Geschichtsnovelle’, Groag (1929)

  20 note 1. Invented by Hannibal or others: Hoffmann (1962) 37–8; Errington

  (1970) 29. Hamilcar not leaving Hannibal behind: Seibert, Hann. 27–8. Very

  probably the story was not publicly known before 193 (cf. Sumner (1972) 472),

  so it is no surprise if Fabius Pictor—writing around 200—did not have it (Badian

  (1966) 3–4; Errington, 25–30; Seibert, 28 note 13). Hannibal’s loyalty to Hamil-

  car’s guidance: e.g. Pol. 3.12.3–4, 14.10; Livy 21.4.2, 43.15; Zon. 8.21.

  V H A M I L C A R I N S PA I N

  1 Justin (44.5.4) calls Hamilcar’s army a ‘large force’ (‘cum magna manu’), which is

  not of much use. Hannibal’s forces in North Africa in 218, Pol. 3.33.9–12; Punic

  field army by late 238, chapter IV note 1; forces in Spain in 228, Diod. 25.12 (ele-

  phants, 25.10.3). Görlitz (1970) 31 arbitrarily guesses a 30,000-strong army in

  237. Hamilcar sailed to Spain: Diod. 25.10.1; Nepos, Hamil. 4.1; accepted by de

  Sanctis, 3.1.394, and Sculla
rd (1989b) 23. Other sources merely mention him

  crossing the straits of Gibraltar (Pol. 2.1.6; Silius 1.141; Appian, Iber. 5.17, Hann.

  2.4) which does not amount to having him march there—although Gsell,

  HAAN 3.124–5 (admitting it would be ‘une marche longue et pénible’) thinks it

  does; so too Huss (1985) 270 note 9; Seibert, Hann. 28; Lancel, Hann. 55; and

  Barceló (1998) 20. Walbank, 1.151–2, is undecided.

  2 Spain before 237: Harrison (1988); S. J. Keay, Roman Spain (London 1988) 8–24;

  Fernández Castro (1995); Richardson (1996) 9–16. Tartessus: K. Abel in Kl P 5.

  531; Harrison, 51–9, 69–73; T. Júdice Gamito, Social Complexity in Southwest Iberia

  800–300 BC: The Case of Tartessos (Oxford 1988: BAR International Series 439);

  Fernández Castro, chapters 12 and 14. The early Magonid expedition to rescue

  Gades (chapter II note 16) may have helped in Tartessus’ collapse (cf. Picard and

  Picard, LDC 66; Huss (1985) 68). On third-century Spanish soldiery and

  246

  N O T E S T O T H E T E X T

  soldiering, Connolly (1981) 150–2. Aspects of the Barcids’ rule in Spain are dis-

  cussed by Barceló (1989), Hoyos (1994), Lancel, Hann. chapter II.

  3 Hamilcar’s first campaign: Diod. 25.9 (boastful Celts), 25.10.1 (where the Loeb

  version, ‘the Iberians and Tartessians, together with the Celts, led by Istolatius

  and his brother’, does not translate what Diodorus writes). Diodorus’ accuracy

  about ‘Tartessians’ is urged too by Eucken (1968) 81–3. On Turdetani and Tur-

  duli see A. Schulten in RE 7A.1378–80; Knapp (1980); Fernández Castro (1995)

  chapter 17. Ancient geographers, not to mention non-geographical writers, are

  loose and contradictory about the extent and content of Turdetania; Strabo even

  includes the Phoenician settlements (3.2.13). Celtici in south-west Spain: Pol.

  34.9.3 (= Strabo 3.2.15, C151); Strabo 3.1.6, 3.3.5 (C139, C153); Pliny, NH 3.1.13,

  4.22.116. Hamilcar campaigned eastwards: Gsell, HAAN 3.130; Walbank, 1.152

  (inferring Turdetanians and ‘east coast Iberians’); Vollmer (1990) 119–20; Lancel,

  Hann. 64. Picard and Picard reinterpret Diodorus—the ‘Turdetani’ subjugated

  first, then a Celtiberian incursion under Istolatius and Indortes in 235: LDC

  216–17. Iberian and Celtiberian mercenaries in Punic armies (outside Spain at

  that): e.g. Pol. 1.17.4, 1.67.7, 3.56.4, 14.7.5; Livy 30.7.10. Celtiberians in Tur-

  detanian service in 195: Livy 34.19.1. Gades’ new coinage: Robinson (1956/1978)

  10–11; Lancel, Hann. 65.

  4 On the Baetis valley and surrounding lands: Fernández Castro (1995) chapter 17;

  Ruiz Rodríguez (1997). The land, topography and cultural heritage of Andalusia

  are evocatively treated by Jacobs (1990); geographical analysis in Lautensach

  (1964) 443–51, 572–609. Indortes ‘routed’ (τραπε´ις), Diod. 25.10.2. Treatment of

  Gisco and other captives: Pol. 1.80.13. To Huss ((1985) 272) the savage treatment

  of Indortes suggests he had made an agreement after his initial defeat and then

  broken it, so was seen as a renegade—but there had been no defeat and the infer-

  ence from Diodorus’ wording is implausible.

  5 Chronology from coins difficult: Robinson (1956/1978) 10 estimates that

  Gades’ first Barcid series lasted a few years before the finer new issues began

  around 235, but no certainty is possible. ‘Many cities throughout Iberia’: Diod.

  25.10.3. Wealth accrued: Nepos, Hamil. 4.1; Strabo 3.2.14, C151. On the Sierra

  Nevada and Las Alpujarras: Jacobs (1990) 37–40. On the south-eastern ranges

  (Sierras de Cazorla, Segura, etc.) and the wilderness lands they embrace: Lauten-

  sach (1964) 593–4, 609–15, 625; Jacobs, 25–6, 40–2.

  6 Naravas’ family: Appendix §5. ‘Mostly loyal’: Livy 40.17.2 mentions that Masin-

  issa’s father Gaia, who died around 210, had once taken territory from the

  Carthaginians who later received it back from Syphax. This would suggest a

  Punic–Massylian clash (cf. Walsh (1965) 150) but no details are given and it may

  not be correctly reported. Surviving Numidians ‘were made slaves and liable to

  tribute’, Diod. 25.10.3: with ’εδουλ ´ωθησαν φ´ορους τελ´εσοντες (Dindorf ’s Teubner

  edn) an emendation preferable to ’ε. φ. τελ´εσαντες (Walton’s Loeb), ‘were made

  slaves having paid tribute’, for no earlier tribute is known; the manuscript’s

  τελ´εσαντες has to be emended one way or the other. Massyli and Masaesyli:

  Gsell, HAAN 3.174–8 (who sees no Punic rôle in the formation of the two

  kingdoms); J. Desanges, in Nicolet (1978) 2.645–9; Fentress (1979) 43–4. Their

  auxiliaries in 218: Pol. 3.33.15. Syphax attacked by Massyli and Carthaginians,

  around 212: Livy 24.48–9.

  7By locating Acra Leuce in the upper Baetis valley Sumner (1967

  ) 211 rejects that

  Hamilcar reached the east coast; but see below. Foundation date: Lancel, Hann. 66

  surmises around 235, which is surely too early. On the imaginary Punic–Roman

  confrontations in the 230s: Hoyos, AHB (1990) 31–6, and (1998) chapter X.

  Alleged embassy to Hamilcar: Dio, frg. 48; Hoyos (1998) 147–9 (listing earlier

  247

  N O T E S T O T H E T E X T

  discussions; sceptical); Lancel, Hann. 65 (‘probablement apocryphe’), 73 (accept-

  ing it, as does Barceló (1998) 23); Richardson (1996) 19 is dubious.

  8 Cato placed Hamilcar on a par with Pericles, Curius Dentatus and other classic

  heroes, above any king: Plutarch, Cato Maior 8.14; cf. Hans (1991). Alleged anger

  and war-plan: Pol. 2.36.4; 3.9.6–8, 10.4–5, 12.7–13.2, 14.10, 15.9–11 (etc.);

  Nepos, Hamil. 1.4, 3.1, 4.3; Livy 21.1.5–2.2; Val. Max. 9.3 ext. 2–3; Silius 1.60–3,

  77–80, 106–19, 140–3; 2.296–8; 13.732–51; Florus 1.22 [2.6] 2; [Victor], De Vir.

  Ill. 42.1; Oros. 4.13.1, 14.3; Zon. 8.17, 21; cf. Appian, Iber. 9.34, Hann. 3.10 (oath-story, but he offers a different tradition as well—see below). No such report in

  Diodorus, despite many character descriptions of Hamilcar, Hannibal and his

  brother Hasdrubal (23.22, 24.5, 25.8, 26.2, 26.24, 29.19). For modern views pro

  and con see Hoyos (1998) 152 notes 6–7; add Loreto (1995) 83–4, 200–2 (belief

  that war-plan existed from 241); Lancel, Hann. 55–7, 64–6 (disbelief in war-

  plan); Cornell (1996) 14–18, and Goldsworthy (2000) 146–50 (conditional

  acceptance).

  9 Fabius Pictor: Pol. 3.8.1–8. Appian blames the Second Punic War on Hannibal

  alone: Iber. 9.35, Hann. 3.9–10. This view hardly sits comfortably beside the one

  that Hamilcar made him swear eternal enmity against the Romans, but Appian

  carefully separates the two. This might suggest that the Hannibal-alone view was

  the older, and therefore existed before the 190s. Just as likely, though, a later

  independent-minded historian (which incidentally rules out Appian in the Hanni-

  balica and Iberica) might have come up with it. Cato the Censor, in the history written in his old age, blamed the Carthaginians for six treaty-breaches down to

  219, and these probably included several alleged ones in Barcid times ( Origines,

  frg. 84P). This might reflect criticisms uttered then (cf. B. D. Hoyos, AHB 1 (1987)

  112–21, and 4 (1990) 31–6; (1998) 146–7), but equally could be Cato’s hind
sight

  three-quarters of a century later.

  10 Punic quinqueremes in 218: Pol. 3.33.14 (50 in Spain, but 18 of them

  unequipped); Livy 21.49.2–4 (55 sent against Sicily and Italy); Thiel (1946) 35–8.

  Roman fleet in 229: Pol. 2.11.1. Fleet and army in 219 (no figures): 3.16.7,

  18.3–19.13; cf. Walbank, 1.327. Once the Second Punic War began, the

  Carthaginians did again build substantial naval forces: 70 quinqueremes could be

  sent against Italy and Sardinia as early as 217 (Pol. 3.96.8), for instance. Son-in-

  law Hasdrubal was Hamilcar’s trierarchos: chapter IV note 5.

  11 Improvements to upper Baetis towns: Fernández Castro (1995) 272–3.

  12 Acra Leuce (Diod. 25.10.3) = Lucentum/Alicante: de Sanctis, 3.1.396; Gsell,

  HAAN 3.131; Schulten (1935) 11, 84; Bosch Gimpera (1955) 30; Richardson

  (1996) 17. Massiliot colonies: Strabo 3.4.6, C159; cf. Appendix §6. Already a

  Greek colony: Rhys Carpenter, The Greeks in Spain (Bryn Mawr 1925, repr. 1971)

  56; A. García y Bellido, Hispania Graeca (1948) 2.59–60, cited by Barceló (1989)

  170 note 9; Schulten (1952) 231; Richardson, 17; Fernández Castro (1995) 234.

  Site of Alicante: Lautensach (1964) 617. On Hippo ‘Zarytos’: Huss (1985) 36

  note 145.

  13 Problems with Acra Leuce being at Alicante: Beltrán (1964) 89–90; Sumner

  (1967) 208–10, 211 note 22, who places it near Castulo, noting (210 note 20)

  Urgao which in Roman times bore the epithet ‘Alba’; Blázquez and García (1991)

  45–56, and Barceló (1996) 47, (1998) 23 echo this. Picard and Picard, LDC 218

  places it on the coast at La Albufereta, and Rouillard (1982) 427 there or at Tossal

  de Manises (both lie just north of Alicante). Barceló once preferred Villaricos or

  Baria well to the south-west ((1988) 119–21, cf. (1989) 170–1); Vollmer (1990)

  119–22 has it in the mountain lands south of the river Segura. Undecided:

  Scullard (1989a) 23–4, and Lancel, Hann. 66. For the argument that, if Acra Leuce

  248

  N O T E S T O T H E T E X T

  was at Alicante, Hasdrubal’s New Carthage would have required abandoning it:

  Barceló (1988) 120–1, (1989) 171. Mastia and Mastiani: Pol. 3.24.4, 33.9; Avienus,

  Ora Maritima 449–52 (‘urbs Massiena’ in a sheltered gulf); St. Byz. s.v. Μαστιανο´ι;

  Walbank, 1.347; Huss (1985) 152; Barceló (1988) 134–5 (but sceptical of Mastia