by Dexter Hoyos
Max. 3.8 ext. 1; Appian, Hann. 45.191–47.205. Importance of Castra Claudiana
(Monte Cancello above Maddaloni): de Sanctis, 3.2.243, cf. his Map IV; Connolly
(1981) 190.
21 For operations in Italy in the first five years after Cannae see (e.g.) de Sanctis, 3.2
chapter VII; Hallward (1930) 72–82; Lazenby (1978) chapter IV; Connolly (1981)
188–95; Briscoe (1989) 52–6; Seibert, Hann. 198–220, 230–46, 254–62, 287–96,
301–14.
265
N O T E S T O T H E T E X T
X I I N D E C I S I V E WA R
1 On the brothers Scipio in Spain see Hoyos (2001b); cf. note 7 below. Philip V’s
defeat, Livy 24.40; de Sanctis, 3.2.398; Lazenby (1978) 160; Seibert, Hann. 267–8.
The war in Sicily: Hallward (1930) 63–9; Lazenby, 102–8, 115–19; Eckstein
(1987) chapters V–VI; Seibert, Hann. 262–5, 278–83, 296–9, 314–18, 335–7.
2 Desertions from Hannibal’s army: Livy 23.46.6–7, 24.47.8, 27.12.5–6.
3 Significance of Tarentum et al. defecting: Kukofka (1990) 68–9. On supply-areas
note Bruttium as a (diminishing) source of food for Hannibal, Livy 28.12.7. First
battle of Herdonea: sceptics include de Sanctis, 3.2.445 and note 28; Hallward
(1930) 81; Huss (1985) 366 note 246; Briscoe (1989) 54; Kukofka, 87–91. By
contrast it is accepted by F. G. Moore, Livy Books XXVI–XXVII (Loeb edn
(1943)) 206 note 1; Broughton, MRR 1.271 note 2; Lazenby (1978) 114; Caven
(1980) 169, 189; Seibert, FzH 237, Hann. 295. Roman irregulars beaten in 213:
Livy 24.20.1–2, 25.1.3–4 (more detailed report), 25.3.9. A force under M. Cente-
nius Paenula crushed in 212, 25.19.9–17; see also Appendix §11. Tarentines
defeat Roman naval squadron, 26.39.1–19.
4 Roman armies and commanders: see the tables in de Sanctis, 3.2.614–17, 619, cf.
306–16; Hallward (1930) 104–5 insert. Twenty-five legions in 212: Brunt (1971)
418; naval strength, 421–2.
5 On campaigning in Italy and Sicily from 212 to 208 see for instance Lazenby
(1978) 110–24, 158–81; Marino (1988) 70–83; Seibert, Hann. 290–9, 302–18,
330–7, 344–50, 363–7. Hannibal’s famous march on Rome in 211 is widely dis-
cussed, notably by Lazenby, 121–3; Scullard (1974) 163–4; Walbank, 2.118–33;
G. Leidl, ‘Appians “Annibaike”’, in Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt, 34.1,
ed. H. Temporini et al. (Berlin and New York 1993) 456–7; Seibert, FzH 238–41,
Hann. 304–11.
6 ‘Hannibal ad portas’ (proverbial): Cicero, De Finibus 4.22, Philippics 1.11. Roman
recapture of Tarentum: Broughton, MRR 1.285; Lazenby (1978) 175–6. Death
of Fulvius Centumalus: Broughton, 1.280; Lazenby, 170–1.
7The sources for the Spanish campaigns are printed and discussed by Schulten
(1935) 23–166. See also Lazenby (1978) chapter V; Historia de España, chapter I;
Richardson (1986) chapter III; and Seibert, Hann. , has a Spanish section for each
year in his annalistic account of the war. Hasdrubal appointed by Hannibal,
chapter VIII §II; and see Pol. 11.2.1–4, 9–11 (praise, cf. Diod. 26.24); 9.11.1–4;
10.7.3, 37.2 (quarrels with Mago and Hasdrubal son of Gisco), cf. Livy 26.41.20;
Walbank, 2.136. Gauls at battle of the Metaurus: Pol. 11.3.1; Livy 27.48.17–18.
Hanno commandant beyond the Ebro, chapter VIII note 15; Scipio’s strength in
218 (about 25,000): Lazenby, 125; Richardson, 35–6.
8 Battle of the Ebro: Pol. 3.95–6; Livy 22.19.1–20.3. Seibert, Hann. 178–9, plays
down the extent of the Roman success; but that makes Hasdrubal’s further inac-
tivity still more peculiar. Reinforcements to Hasdrubal: note 9. Land battle near
the Ebro, 23.29 (usually called the ‘battle of Hibera’ but in fact near a different,
unnamed town, cf. 23.28.11–12); cf. de Sanctis, 3.2.235 note 71; Hoyos (2001b)
74. Seibert, Hann. 220–3, thinks the defeat less serious than Roman tradition and
many moderns suppose, and does not believe Livy (23.27.9–12) that Hasdrubal
had been ordered to Italy.
9 Hostile Celtiberi (217), Livy 22.21.7–8; Tartessian revolt (216), 23.26.4–27.8,
24.41.1; rebels in 214 (or 212, cf. notes 12 and 13 below), 24.41.1–2. Reinforce-
ments to Hasdrubal in 216–215: Livy 23.26.2, 28.2, 32.5–6, 32.11. Celtiberians
hired by Scipios: Pol. 10.6.2, 7.1; Livy 24.49.7–8, 25.32.11. Hasdrubal versus Car-
petani (209), Pol. 10.7.5; Carpetani and others released from Hannibal’s army
266
N O T E S T O T H E T E X T
(218), chapter VIII note 15. Spaniards disliked serving abroad, Livy 23.29.8.
Indibilis’ and Mandonius’ defection: Pol. 9.11.3–4, 10.35.6–8; Livy 27.17.3.
10 Barcid Hasdrubal recalled against Syphax, Appian, Iber. 15.59–60; believed by
Lenschau, RE 2471; de Sanctis, 3.2.237, 431 note 2; Hallward (1930) 70; Historia
de España, 21; Lazenby (1978) 129; Huss (1985) 357; Briscoe (1989) 57; Seibert,
Hann. 283 note 77, 284 note 84. But Appian also claims Scipionic victories in
Hasdrubal’s absence and has him, Mago and Hasdrubal son of Gisco all sent
from Africa to Spain together afterwards, around 212: in reality Mago was in
Spain from 215, Livy has no such Roman victories, and his account of the war
with Syphax (24.48.13–49.6) does not mention Hasdrubal the Barcid.
11 Roman coastal raiding, Livy 22.20.3–10, cf. Thiel (1946) 51–2. Supposed advance
to the saltus Castulonensis (the Sierra Morena), 22.20.11–12; but cf. Pol. 3.97.5;
Hoyos (2001b) 71–2.
12 Battle of Hibera: note 8. Recovery of hostages from Saguntum: Pol. 3.97.2–99.9;
Livy 22.22.3–21; Zon. 9.1.2–3; believed by Walbank, 1.432, Lazenby (1978) 128,
and Eckstein (1987) 200; rejected by de Sanctis, 3.2.233 note 65; Seibert, Hann.
180–1. Campaign of ‘214’—really 212—with Castrum Altum, Mons Victoriae
and Castulo: Livy 24.41–2, cf. chapter IV note 20. Sceptics include de Sanctis,
3.2.237 note 76; Lazenby, 129; Seibert, Hann. 266–7; and Richardson (1986) 40
thinks some details misplaced from 211. But a misdating of the campaign from
212 (note restoration of Saguntines, 24.42.9–11) is likelier: cf. Appian, Iber.
16.60–1, with the Scipios wintering at Castulo and ‘Orson’—probably his ulti-
mate source meant not Urso near modern Seville but, like Castulo, a town of the
Orissi/Oretani (chapter V note 17; see Hoyos (2001b) 79). Scipios’ catastrophe
was in 211: de Sanctis, 3.2.431–2; Seibert, FzH 255–6.
13 Saguntines restored, Livy 24.42.9–10 (but the punishment of their noxious
neighbours ( ibid. 11) may be a mistaken anticipation, cf. 28.39.11–12); correct
date 212 and not Livy’s 214, cf. Schulten (1935) 85; Lazenby (1978) 129; Hoyos
(2001b) 77–9. Seibert, FzH 256–8, disbelieves the episode. Destruction of the
Scipio brothers (211), retreat of surviving troops to safety: Pol. 10.6.2, 7.1; Livy
25.32–9; Appian, Iber. 16.61–3; other sources listed by Broughton, MRR 1.274–5.
See Hoyos (2001b) 83–90.
X I I T H E D E F E A T O F H A S D R U B A L
1 Punic raid on Sardinia in 210, Livy 27.6.13–14. Roman military effort in 211: cf.
Brunt (1971) 418–22. Bomilcar’s fleets in 212: Livy 25.25.11–13, 27.2–12.
Roman raids on North Africa: Livy 22.31.1–5 (in 217), 23.21.2 (216), 23.41.8–9
(215), 25.31.12–15 (211), 27.5.1 and 5.8–13 (210). There were to be more raids, in
208, 207 and 205: Lazenby (1978) 196–7; cf. Rankov (1996) 55–6.
2 Eminence of Hasdrubal son of Gisco: Livy 28.12.13, 29.28.7; Silius 17.175 (‘qui
rerum agitarit habenas’); cf. Appian, Lib. 10.37; Lenschau, RE 7.2,474–5; de
Sanctis, 3.2.519–20 (‘dei Barcidi era stato socio, se pur rivale’, and equally belli-
cose). Groag (1929) 104 note 1, sums him up as a ‘professional battle-loser’
(‘berufsmässige Schlachtenverlierer’)—harsh but not all that unfair. Perhaps
brother of the Hamilcar son of Gisco who surrendered Malta to the Romans in
218 (Livy 21.51.2). Supposedly anti-Barcid: Kahrstedt (1913) 559; Groag (1929)
105 note 1; Hoffmann (1962) 92–3, 101–3, 141–2; Picard (1967) 202; Picard and
Picard, LDC 260, 264 (contrast 273); Caven (1980) 183. Livy does once report
him disagreeing, about Spanish loyalties, with Hasdrubal and Mago (27.20.4–5),
but the brothers in 211–208 were themselves at odds (chapter XI note 7).
Hanno son of Hamilcar, in 204: Livy 29.34.1–15 (cf. 35.2); Appian, Lib.
267
N O T E S T O T H E T E X T
14.57–60, and Zon. 9.12.3–5, give a rather different account (and Zonaras terms
his father Hasdrubal son of Gisco!); cf. Lenschau, RE 7.2,359. T. A. Dorey and
C. W. F. Lydall, Livy XXIX (Havant 1968) 109, think his father was Hamilcar son
of Gisco (Livy 21.51.2) but that is a guess. Sophoniba: Livy 30.12.11–22, 15.6–8;
Diod. 27.7; Appian, Lib. 10.37–8, 27.111–28.120 (romanticized account). Bar-
cids’ political position: Picard too thinks that Hannibal lost popularity in the later
war-years ((1967) 202); cf. Hoffmann (1962) 91–2, 141–2. Hasdrubal and the
Barcid faction rallied the Carthaginians in 203: Livy 30.7.7. His operations in later
203: Appian, Lib. 24.97–8, 29.122–30.127, 36.151; sound scepticism in Gsell,
HAAN 2.269. Hannibal still the ultimate supreme commander: chapter XIV §I.
3 Ordo iudicum, Livy 33.46.1; above, chapter VI §III. Huss (1985) 369 note 266, won-
ders if the year 212 saw ‘die beginnende Formierung einer antibarqidischen
Opposition’ (cf. Hoffmann (1962) 91–2); but Hanno the Great and his friends
had been there all along (Livy 30.42.12–21, 44.5).
4 Fall of Tarentum: Livy 27.15.9–16.11; cf. chapter XI §II. Scipio’s first actions in
Spain: sources in Broughton, MRR 1.280, 287; Liddell Hart (1926) chapters
II–III; Scullard (1970) chapter II; Lazenby (1978) 132–40; Seibert, Hann. 350–7.
Livy’s notion (26.20.5) that the Punic generals from the start were strangely afraid
of him is patriotic imagination.
5 Punic generals mutually antagonistic: chapter XI note 7. Campaign of Baecula:
Pol. 10.34–40; Livy 27.17–20; Liddell Hart (1926) chapter IV; Walbank,
2.245–55; Scullard (1970) chapter III; Seibert, Hann. 371–3. Why Scipio did not
pursue Hasdrubal: Pol. 10.39.9; Livy 27.20.2.
6 Hasdrubal’s Italian design (208): Pol. 10.37.3–5. First mooted in 215: chapter XI
note 8.
7Roman force mauled, Livy 27
.26.4–6; cf. chapter XI note 3. Marcellus and his
colleague Crispinus: Broughton, MRR 1.289–90; Lazenby (1978) 178–80; cf.
Baker’s remarks (1929) 229–30. Failure to take Salapia, Livy 27.28.4–12; relief of
Locri, ibid. 13–17. Commandant at Locri was ‘The Samnite’: de Sanctis, 3.2.462
note 55; Huss (1985) 387 note 102. Comment after loss of Tarentum: Plutarch,
Fabius 23.
8 Elections and military dispositions for 207: Livy 27.33.9–35.14, 36.10–14; cf.
Lippold (1963) 193–6; Lazenby (1978) 180–2; Briscoe (1989) 72; Seibert, Hann.
379–81. Though Livius at first refused Fabius’ urging, he and Nero did finally
agree to be reconciled (27.35.6–9), which scarcely justifies the widespread view
of them being anti-Fabius.
9 On Hasdrubal’s route: Lehmann (1905) 193–203; de Sanctis, 3.2.547–8; Lazenby
(1978) 182. Siege of Placentia, Livy 27.39.10–14.
10 Seibert, Hann. 385, infers that as soon as he reached Italy Hasdrubal had got a
message through to Hannibal, but this does not really follow from Livy
27.39.10–14.
11 Livy 27.40.1–42.17; Hasdrubal’s unlucky messengers, 43.1–5. Deserters: Has-
drubal had gathered over 3,000 Roman captives before his defeat (49.7; cf. Zon.
9.9.11; Oros. 4.18.14) and it is unlikely that no deserters at all had joined him.
12 Hannibal’s movements as reported by Livy (27.40.10–42.17) are discussed by de
Sanctis, 3.2.553–4; Lazenby (1978) 184–6; Hoyos (1983) 178–9; Huss (1985)
392–3; Kukofka (1989) 121–4; Seibert, Hann. 382–3. On some debated aspects
of the campaigning in 207 see Appendix §12. The alleged Punic losses in the
Apulian battles total a most improbable 17,000 (Livy 27.40.11, 42.7, 42.15).
13 Canusium as Hannibal’s intended junction-point: Seibert, Hann. 382–4; see
Appendix §12. Hasdrubal’s despatch perhaps meant to mislead the Romans:
Lazenby (1978) 183–4. Garrisons in the south: Locri was not captured until 205
268
N O T E S T O T H E T E X T
(Livy 29.6–9), Clampetia and other strongpoints in Bruttium not till 204 (29.38.1).
Latin colonies refuse troops (209), 27.9.1–6; not dealt with until 204, 29.15.2–15;
those in the Umbria–Etruria region were Nepet, Sutrium and Narnia.
14 Etruscans restive (209–207): Livy 27.21.6–7, 24.1–9, 38.7; 28.10.4–5. Discontent
still in 204, 29.36.10–12; Harris (1971) 136–43. Etruscan epitaph for a 106-year-
old, Larth Felsnas, who in youth served ‘with Hannibal’s people ( hanipaluscle)’:
A. J. Pfiffig, Studi Etruschi 35 (1967) 659–63.
15 Metaurus campaign and battle: Pol. 11.1–3 (battle only); Livy 27.43.1–49.9; later
sources, adding little, listed in Broughton, MRR 1.294. Date: note 12 above. Sur-
viving Punic forces, Livy 27.48.16, 49.8–9 (‘uno agmine’); cf. Appian, Hann.
53.224. On Hasdrubal’s original strength and losses: de Sanctis, 3.2.556–8, and
Walbank, 2.273–4 (30,000–35,000); Lazenby (1978) 190 (20,000–30,000); Seib-
ert, Hann. 388 note 58 (20,000–25,000). Pol. 11.3.2–3 records 10,000 killed, Livy
27.49.6 has 5,400 prisoners—not necessarily an underestimate. Hasdrubal’s head:
Livy 27.51.11–13; Silius 15.813–21; Frontinus 2.9.2; Zon. 9.9.12. See also
Appendix §12.
16 Hasdrubal’s death admired: Pol. 11.2.1–10; Livy 27.49.3–4; Silius 15.740–805.
That Hasdrubal’s virtual suicide was ill-timed was also held by Thomas Arnold,
The Second Punic War (1842; ed. W. T. Arnold (London 1886) 289–90). Resistance
in Cisalpine Gaul after 201: W. V. Harris in CAH 2 8.107–13. The Punic officer
Hamilcar: Livy 31.10.2, etc.; Lenschau, RE 7.2,308–9; Briscoe (1973) 82–4, 115,
293.
17 Honour to fallen consuls: Livy 22.7.5 and 52.6, 27.28.1; Cicero, De Senectute 75
(Marcellus); other sources in Broughton, MRR 1.247, 290. Three proconsuls: the
brothers Scipio and, at Herdonea in 210, Cn. Fulvius Centumalus.
18 ‘The fortune of Carthage’: Livy 27.51.12; cf. Horace, Odes 4.5.69–72. On Nero’s
speed of march, and efforts to defend Hannibal’s inactivity, see Appendix §12.
X I I I A F R I C A I N VA
D E D
1 Roman raids on Africa: chapter XII note 1. New army and general to Spain, and
Silanus’ victory: Livy 28.1.1–2.12. Punic strength at Ilipa: Pol. 11.20.2, plausibly
defended by Lazenby (1978) 145; Livy 28.12.13–14 gives 50,000 foot and 4,500
horse while mentioning the larger figure. Mago’s resistance after Ilipa: Livy
28.36.1–37.2. His reputed town-foundation (modern Mahón) on the isle of
Menorca: chapter XVI note 15.
2 Scipio and Hasdrubal visit Syphax: Livy 28.17.4–18.12 (wrongly claiming Scipio
made a treaty with the king); Appian, Iber. 29.115–30.119, with the usual
improbable embroideries; Seibert, Hann. 404–5. Huss (1985) 398 doubts the
story, unnecessarily (cf. Seibert, 405 note 24). Barcid niece’s royal Numidian
marriages, Livy 29.29.12–13; dissensions in royal family and Syphax’s takeover,
29.29.4–33.10; cf. Thompson (1981); Eckstein (1987) 234–40. Masinissa’s con-
tacts with the Romans: 28.16.11–12 (in Spain), 29.3.14 (‘aperta defectione’ known
at Rome by 205), cf. 29.4.7–9 (interview with Laelius during African raid); Walsh
(1965) 150.
3 Mago’s expeditionary force, Livy 28.46.7; reinforced, 29.4.6 (note ‘magna pecu-
nia ad conducenda auxilia’), 5.2. On his uselessness in Liguria cf. Hoyos (1983)
175. Roman fleet in Sicily reduced: Livy 28.10.16 (cf. 27.22.9); Thiel (1946)
139–40.
4 Punic fleets: e.g. 83 ships fought Laevinus’ 100 in 208 (27.29.7–8; he captured
18); 30 and then 25 joined Mago in 205 (28.46.7, 29.4.6). Laevinus’ alleged vic-
tory in 207 over a 70-strong fleet, capturing 17 (28.4.5–7), is probably a doublet
269
N O T E S T O T H E T E X T
of the previous year’s (de Sanctis, 3.2.461 note 52), though both are accepted by
Thiel (1946) 130–2; Lazenby (1978) 197; and Siebert, Hann. 377 note 82, 398.
Punic fleet burned in 202, Livy 30.43.11–12 (some of his sources reported 500
craft of all sizes); Thiel, 182.
5 Pol. 9.22.1–6; cf. Hoyos (1994) 254–5. Hanno son of Bomilcar: Appian, Lib.
24.98, 29.122–30.126 (an involved and implausible story of treachery to Has-
drubal son of Gisco), 31.133. Hannibal’s nephew: de Sanctis, 3.2.678, in Index;
Picard and Picard, LDC 264; Caven (1980) 243. Hannibal saves Hasdrubal: note
