Hannibal's Dynasty

by Dexter Hoyos

  bius’ wording (2.13.7 and elsewhere); Hoyos, 154. Bender (1997) 96–7, very

  oddly sees the accord, which was all about military movements by land, as

  intended to check a supposed (unattested) growth in Punic sea-power. Barceló

  (1996) 53–4, no less oddly, assumes it banned Roman trade south of the limit

  (which for him is the river Segura).

  20 Hasdrubal’s northern frontier: Appian, Iber. 6.24; Sumner (1967) 215–17; Hoyos

  (1998) 172. Silius Italicus too, for what he is worth, seems to view the Tagus

  valley as under Hasdrubal’s sway (1.151–5). Hasdrubal the diplomat: Pol. 2.36.2;

  Diod. 25.11; Livy 21.2.5 and 7; Appian, Iber. 6.23. Silius unsurprisingly prefers

  him to rule ‘furiis iniquis’, be ‘asper amore sanguinis’ and enjoy being feared by

  all, a typical Hellenistic tyrant in fact (1.144–54). Armies wintering in Lusitania in

  210–209: Pol. 10.7.5 with Walbank, 2.202; cf. Livy 22.20.12, 21.5 (army retiring to

  coastal Lusitania in 217). Gold in Lusitanian rivers: Strabo 3.3.4, C153; Mela, 3.8;

  Pliny, NH 4.115, 33.66; Silius 1.155; Schulten (1952) 203.

  21 On the communities of the central plateau cf. Alföldy (1987). Mons

  Idubeda/Cordillera Ibérica (or Sistema Ibérico): Strabo 3.4.10, C161; Schulten

  (1952) 242–3. Carpetani: Pol. 3.14.2–3, 10.7.5; Livy 21.23.4–6. Spanish troops in

  218: Pol. 3.33.9, cf. Walbank, 1.362–4; on the Ilergetes, Hoyos (1998) 183.

  Olcades: below, chapter VII note 4. Off-and-on Celtiberian support for the

  Romans, Lazenby (1978) 127, 130; hostility, 126, 130, 144, 152–4, 209–11.

  Celtiberian troops served professionally: Pol. 14.7.5; Livy 24.49.7, 30.7.10;

  Lazenby, 144. Emporitan coinage: Guadán (1969) 157–8. Indibilis and Mando-

  nius: Lazenby, 126, 130, 139–54.

  22 Saguntine messages: Pol. 3.15.1–2, implying messages over quite some time;

  Hoyos (1998) 182–5, 190–2. Before 220 Punic–Saguntine relations peaceful,

  Punic hegemony not at Ebro: 3.14.9–10. Saguntum’s neighbours: Hoyos,

  187–91; see Appendix §7. Seibert, Hann. 50, supposes that Hasdrubal did con-

  quer the coastlands up to the Ebro (Saguntum apart) because Hannibal in

  221–220 campaigned inland. But the inference does not follow and Polybius

  records the obedience of the territories up to the Ebro only from late 220

  (3.13.9).

  23 Territory: Punic North Africa (both the Carthaginians’ own territory and that of

  their Libyan subjects) on Picard’s estimate covered some 20,000–40,000 square

  miles, about 52,000–104,000 square kilometres: (1961) 60–1; cf. also chapter II

  note 10. Hannibal’s mining works and Baebelo mine: Pliny, NH 33.96–7; below,

  Appendix §3. Where Baebelo lay is unknown: the Sierra Morena (Schulten, FHA

  3. 45; Blázquez and García (1991) 34) and the New Carthage area (Scullard

  (1989b) 8.41) are guesses; so too Acci, modern Guadix east of Granada (based

  on a possible emendation— Accitani in place of Aquitani or aquatini—in Pliny’s text), but the Guadix area is not known for silver.

  24 Diod. 25.12; Livy 21.3.2–4.1 (Hanno’s sexual and monarchic allegations), cf.

  253

  N O T E S T O T H E T E X T

  Nepos, Hamil. 3.2; Nepos, Hann. 3.1 (cavalry command). Barceló (1998) 26 still

  believes that Hannibal may have returned to Carthage during the mid-220s, but

  this contradicts Polybius (15.19.3)—and Livy (30.38.9). Livy, in stating that Han-

  nibal when summoned to Spain served three years before succeeding Hasdrubal

  (21.4.10), allows the surmise that he was appointed cavalry commander in 224.

  25 Livy 21.4.3–8 (Hannibal’s prowess), adapted by Silius 1.239–67; Appian, Lib. 6.23

  (Loeb tr.); Pol. 9.25.5 (Hannibal and friend Mago). Silius on Hasdrubal: note 20

  above. Hasdrubal’s murder: Pol. 2.36.1; Diod. 25.12; Livy 21.2.6; Val. Max. 3.3

  ext. 7; Silius 1.165–8 (placing it in the palace); Appian, Iber. 8.28, Hann. 2.8; Justin 44.5.5. Polybius gives the murderer’s motive simply as ‘personal wrongs’: compatible enough (despite Walbank, 1.214) with the more circumstantial details in

  Livy et al. General for eight years: Diodorus gives him nine but Polybius and Livy

  (21.2.3) eight, Livy with a qualification (‘octo ferme annos’, nearly eight) that sug-

  gests he follows here a source more precise than Polybius; cf. Sumner (1967) 213

  note 27; Hoyos (1998) 139. Seibert, Hann. 51–2, sets the murder in summer, fol-

  lowed by Barceló (1998) 34. Hasdrubal’s age: note 1 above.

  V I I H A N N I B A L I N S PA I N

  1 Hannibal’s election: Pol. 3.13.3–4; Nepos, Hann. 3.1; Livy 21.3.1; Silius 1.182–89;

  Appian, Iber. 8.29, Hann. 3.8; Hoyos (1994) 249–50. Barceló’s notion that Has-

  drubal’s death left a power-vacuum at Carthage ((1996) 54, (1998) 30, 33)

  contradicts all evidence. Appian and Dio also have Hannibal elected supreme

  general in 203 ( Lib. 31.129; Zon. 9.13.10), probably a misunderstanding or inven-

  tion like much else in their narratives. Character portrait: Livy 21.4.1–8 (virtues)

  and 4.9 (vices); Pol. 9.25 (greed). Livy had probably not read that part of Poly-

  bius’ history when he composed his Book 21. Visit to Gades, Livy 21.21.9; made

  much of by Silius 3.4–61.

  2 Imilce: Livy 24.41.7 (home town); Silius 1.62–7, 97–107 (claiming for her a noble

  ancestry, ‘clarum genus’), 4.775, 806. Hanno the nephew: chapter II note 2.

  Mago the kinsman, captured by the enemy in Sardinia in 215 (Livy 23.41.1–2;

  chapter IV note 5), was not commander of the defeated Punic army though he

  was probably a senior officer in it. Maharbal’s father: chapter IV note 5. Mago the

  Samnite: Pol. 9.25.1–6 and chapter IV note 5. Hannibal Monomachus: only

  known from 9.24.5–8 where Polybius stresses his cruelty to enemies (unless he is

  also the Hannibal at 7.2.3–6; cf. below, chapter X note 6 ). Gisco: Plutarch, Fabius

  15 (’ισοτ´ιµου).

  3 On the ports of Carthage see chapter II note 5, and Appendix §2. Seibert’s

  dating to the interwar years ( FzH 111–13) is unpersuasive given that Punic naval

  forces in 218 were so skimpy (chapter VIII §II). Orders to Hasdrubal in 215: Livy

  23.27.9–10. Syracusan envoys: Pol. 7.2.1–4; Livy 24.6.7.

  4 Olcades campaign: Pol. 3.13.5–7; Livy 21.5.3–4; Hoyos (2002). Sumner (1967)

  216 suggests the area around Altea (Polybius names their stronghold Althia) and

  Alcoy: but Alcoy’s name is Arabic, it lies inland across mountains (which would

  have divided the tribe even more vulnerably), and it is a far stronger site than sea-

  side Altea. Olcades fugitives: Pol. 3.14.3. Alce: Livy 40.48.1, 49.2; Itin. Ant. 445

  ‘Alces’; probably Villacañas in Ciudad Real province (Miller (1916/1964) 173).

  The Carpetani stretched northwards from Toletum: Alföldy (1987) 60.

  5 Hannibal dominant up to Ebro by 220: Pol. 3.14.10. Ironworking in the

  Cordillera Ibérica: Fernández Castro (1995) 362–3.

  6 The Vaccaei and their resources: Domínguez-Monedero (1986) 244–55.

  254

  N O T E S T O T H E T E X T

  7Pol. 3.14.1; Livy 21.5.5–6 (booty, 5.8). Hannibal tricked: Plutarch, De Mulierum

  Virtutibus 10 (= Moralia 248e), and Polyaenus, Strat. 7.48, both plainly from the same source but with some variations; Walbank (1.317), Scullard ([1989a] 32),

  and Seibert ( Hann. 53–4) treat the stor
y more indulgently.

  8 Pallantia (mod. Palencia) and Intercatia versus Romans: e.g. Appian, Iber. 53.222,

  55.231–2, 82.354–7; Historia de España (1982) 91–2, 107–8, 302. Carpetani and

  ‘neighbouring peoples’ defeated, Pol. 3.14.3–8; Walbank, 1.318; H. M. Hine,

  Latomus 38 (1979) 891–901; Scullard (1989a) 32–3. Timoleon’s victory (341):

  Diod. 16.79–80; Plutarch, Timol. 25–8; N. G. L. Hammond, A History of Greece to

  322 BC (Oxford 1959) 578.

  9 ‘None of the peoples’, Pol. 3.14.9 (Loeb tr., modified). That Hannibal imposed

  effective rule over north-central Spain is sometimes supposed (e.g. Scullard

  (1989a) 33) but Polybius’ careful phrasing does not amount to this. Saguntine

  neighbours: Pol. 3.15.8; Livy 21.6.1, 12.5; Appian, Iber. 10.36; Hoyos (1998)

  187–91; Appendix §7. Romans kept informed: Pol. 3.15.1; Livy 21.6.2–3.

  Envoys: Pol. 3.15.2–5; cf. Livy 21.6.3–8, 9.3–11.2 (distorted version).

  10 This siege-embassy is already in Cicero, Philippics 5.10.27; on the later embellish-

  ments and their implausibility, Hoyos (1998) 202–4.

  11 Party strife and Roman arbitration at Saguntum: Hoyos (1998) 184–95. ‘What

  most Saguntines wanted’: that is, to judge by the extraordinary tenacity of the

  town throughout its lonely eight-month siege in 219. There is no basis to the

  fancy that it was Greek and Italian merchants living there who instigated Sagun-

  tum’s links with Rome (Barceló (1996) 54).

  12 Hannibal seemingly saw Saguntines as Roman allies: Pol. 3.15.8. Had avoided

  confronting them: 3.14.10. ‘Solemnly called on’ (3.15.5 διεµαρτ ´υροντο): cf. on this

  meaning Walbank, 1.321; Sumner (1972) 477; Hoyos (1998) 204–5, who notes

  ‘emphatically warned’ as another translation. The Loeb translation, ‘protested

  against [his attacking Saguntum]’ is wrong, and still worse the Penguin rendition

  of ‘trust’ or ‘good faith’ (π´ιστις) as ‘sphere of influence’.

  13 On the Romans’ attitude to defeated foes, cf. Hoyos (1998) 201–2.

  14 Roman envoys’ manners: a youthful Roman ambassador to the queen of the

  Illyrians in 230 had been so outspoken that he was assassinated (Pol. 2.8.9–12).

  Supposed Barcid war-plan, chapter V note 8; Romans knew it at least from 221,

  Pol. 2.36.4; interview confirmed it, 3.15.12, 16.1. Polybius judges revenge-war

  as justified: 3.10.4, 15.9–11, 28.1–3, 30.3–4; Hoyos (1998) 165–6. Hannibal’s

  anger, Pol. 3.15.9 (‘overall he was full of unreason (πλ´ηρης ’αλογ´ιας) and violent

  anger’), cf. Eckstein (1989); on his claim to Punic fides (15.7 ‘it was an ancestral

  principle of the Carthaginians (π´ατριον γ`αρ ε~’ιναι Καρχηδον´ιοις)’ etc.) see Hoyos,

  206.

  The idea that Polybius, or some earlier writer, invented the anger (e.g. Wal-

  bank, 1.322–3; Mantel (1991) 73) is unconvincing: if this was invented, why not

  invent a more ‘apposite’ set of complaints at the same time? Instead, Polybius

  has to upbraid Hannibal for not making apposite ones and then supply them

  himself. The interview was no doubt reported by Hannibal’s own author-

  companions Silenus and Sosylus, maybe too by Fabius Pictor who could have

  used the envoys’ later report or their reminiscences.

  15 Envoys go to Carthage, ‘seeing clearly that there must be war’: Pol. 3.15.12. Non-

  committal Punic answer: in Livy’s version, which falsely makes them go on their

  mission in 219 while Saguntum is under siege, they do at least get such an answer

  (21.9.3–10.1, 11.2). Hannibal asked for instructions: Pol. 3.15.8; cf. Appian, Iber.

  10.37, claiming numerous secret messages and padding out the story with envoys

  from the ‘Torboletae’; although some accept Appian’s extras (e.g. Walbank, 1.323;

  255

  N O T E S T O T H E T E X T

  Schwarte (1983) 64–5; Scardigli (1991) 277; Seibert, Hann. 58–60), these are

  implausible (Hoyos (1998) 210).

  16 Hannibal given a free hand: Appian ( Iber. 10.37) specifies this, but it was so obvi-

  ous that Polybius could leave it out. If the Roman envoys were still at Carthage

  and thus could take home this news before year’s end, it makes the Romans’ inac-

  tivity over Saguntum in 219 still more marked. Against suggestions (e.g. by Groag

  (1929) 66; Caven (1980) 92–3) that the Punic authorities tried to limit him in one

  way or another, see Hoyos (1998) 220. Pretended arbitration, Appian 10.38.

  V I I I T H E I N VA S I O N O F I T A L Y

  1 Eight months’ siege: Pol. 3.17.9; Livy 21.15.3; Zon. 8.21.10. The envoys to

  Carthage in 218 almost certainly included the consuls of the previous year, who

  laid down office on 15 March by the Roman calendar (Hoyos (1998) 234–5,

  citing earlier discussions). But how closely the Roman calendar in this era

  matched the solar year is much debated. On the problems with chronology: Wal-

  bank, 1.327–8; Sumner (1966); A. Astin, Latomus 26 (1967) 581–2; Rich (1976)

  28–40; Eckstein (1983); Huss (1985) 282; F. Walbank, Selected Papers: Studies in

  Greek and Roman History and Historiography (Cambridge 1985) 299–304; Seibert,

  FzH 137–41; Rich (1996) 29; Hoyos, 221, 234–6.

  2 Alexander’s seven-month siege of Tyre in 332: A. B. Bosworth, Conquest and

  Empire: The Reign of Alexander the Great (Cambridge 1988) 65–7. Site of Saguntum:

  Schulten (1935) 31, 35–6; Walbank, 1.329–30; K. Abel, Kl P 4.1500–1. ‘Hard-

  ships and anxiety’: Pol. 3.17.9. Hannibal wounded: Livy 21.7.10; Zon. 8.21.10.

  Oretani, Carpetani, Maharbal: Livy 21.11.13–12.2 (on this officer cf. chapter IV

  note 5).

  3 Second Illyrian War distracted the Senate, Pol. 3.16.4–5. His account of the war

  (3.16, 18–19) virtually ignores the rôle of one of the consuls, Livius. Cf. Wal-

  bank, 1.324, 327; Rich (1976) 41–3; Hoyos (1998) 222, 225–6. Debate in 219 over

  Saguntum: Livy 21.6.4–8, 7.1; Silius 1.609–94, with poetic flexibility stretching

  his into 218; Appian, Iber. 11.43, as usual adding various embellishments. Most

  scholars read this evidence as supporting Dio’s claim (frgs 55.1–10, 57.12; Zon.

  8.22.1–3) that there was debate only in 218 after Saguntum had fallen (and after

  Hannibal had begun his march). But see Groag (1929) 70–3; E. S. Staveley in

  CAH 2 7.2.451, 453; Hoyos, 226–32. On the leaders in debate see Hoyos, 228–30.

  4 Fabius Pictor in Pol. 3.8.1–8. Appian has the anti-interventionists resorting to

  absurdity—the Saguntines, though under siege, were still free as (supposedly)

  guaranteed in Hasdrubal’s accord, therefore did not need help ( Iber. 11.43). This

  looks like Appian’s own notion of rhetorical effectiveness.

  5 Booty from Saguntum: Pol. 3.17.10, cf. 17.7; Livy 21.15.1–2 (who contributes

  that the money was raised from selling plunder; this must be from another

  source). Its political use, Hoyos (1994) 271. Diodorus’ denial of booty (25.15) is

  not to be trusted.

  6 Appointment of Hasdrubal, troop transfers, ships: Pol. 3.33.5–18 (on the corps

  of ‘Thersitae’ see Appendix §7), followed by Livy 21.21.9–22.4. Polybius trans-

  mits the details given by Hannibal in an inscription at Cape Lacinium in southern

  Italy. Thirty-seven elephants: Pol. 3.42.11 and Appi
an, Hann. 4.13. Roman war-

  ships in 218: Pol. 3.41.2; Livy 21.17.3. If Hannibal appointed his brother

  trierarch, as Hamilcar had his son-in-law (chapter IV note 5), it is not mentioned,

  though Hasdrubal when commander in Spain did lead a fleet in 217, ingloriously.

  Huss (1985) 297–8 follows Groag (1929) 104 note 1, in simply guessing that the

  256

  N O T E S T O T H E T E X T

  Carthaginians had already elected Hasdrubal general for Libya, i.e. North Africa,

  but nothing supports this.

  7Hannibal’s agents, and his knowledge of north Italy: Pol. 3.34.1–6, 48.10–12; cf.

  Hoyos (1998) 248 note 25. Hannibal changed plans: W. Hoffmann, RhM 94

  (1951) 79–82; (1962) 44–6; Bender (1997) 104–5; against this view cf. Walbank,

  1.365. Troops in winter quarters and after: Pol. 3.33.5, 34.6 and 9; so too Livy

  21.21.2–8.

  8 Informants about Italy: de Sanctis, 3.1.407, supposes—presumably by analogy

  with Greek political exiles—that ‘Italian refugees’ must have betaken themselves

  to Hannibal’s camp; but no refugees are attested. Guest-friends: Q. Fabius the

  Delayer enjoyed hospitium with the family of one aristocrat, Carthalo, later com-

  mandant at Tarentum (Livy 27.16.5); other aristocrats’ connexions are attested in

  195 (33.45.6) and many must have been of long standing, for peace had returned

  only six years before; cf. Ameling (1993) 264. On Hannibal’s likely calculations,

  cf. de Sanctis, 3.1.406–8, 3.2.9–12; Groag (1929) 79–96; Picard (1967) 128,

  134–7; Picard and Picard, LDC (1968) 238–41; Hoffmann (1961/1974) 56–7;

  Lazenby (1978) 29–32; Nicolet (1978) 2.614–20; Caven (1980) 93–5, 98–9;

  Hampl (1983–4) 28–9; Huss (1985) 294, who unnecessarily supposes that the

  invasion-plan could not have occurred to anyone less than a genius; Briscoe

  (1989) 46; Seibert, Hann. 63–9, 541–3, cf. FzH 152–62. Hannibal expected re-

  inforcements: thus Hasdrubal in 215 was told to go (Livy 23.27.9), though he was

  prevented, and a force from Africa did make it then (23.13.7, 41.10).

  9 On Hannibal’s march-chronology cf. below, note 23. Hanno the commandant in

  north-east Spain: Pol. 3.35.4; Livy 21.23.3. Zonaras calls him Banno which Huss

  (1985) 299 note 42 thinks correct (cf. Seibert, Hann. 96 note 119), but this is