Hannibal's Dynasty

by Dexter Hoyos

  (note ‘legem extemplo promulgavit pertulitque’); thus Groag’s more complicated

  interpretation does not persuade. On the Roman contio, cf. A. H. J. Greenidge,

  Roman Public Life (London 1901) 158–60; A. W. Lintott, OCD 3 385. Livy’s source

  if Greek would not have used the Roman term, but quite possibly reported the

  legislative meeting as coming afterwards.

  5 Tribunal’s functions had changed: chapter VI §III, with note 8. Sufetes by 193

  were hearing cases: chapter VI note 8.

  6 The Hundred and Four to be popularly elected: Livy uses the verb ‘legerentur’

  (‘were to be chosen’) which does not expressly confirm this, and Seibert accepts

  no changes save to the judges’ term of office ( Hann. 501–2, ‘Hannibal hatte . . .

  keine Kompetenzen entzogen, ebensowenig den Personenkreis, der für die Ein-

  hundertvier gewählt werden konnte, erweitert’). But politically that would have

  been suicide. The ‘electing’ verb creare was used only for magistrates while legere

  was the proper Latin verb for appointing judges (e.g. Lex Acilia of 123 ( Corpus

  Inscriptionum Latinarum 12.583) lines 12, 14, etc.; Cicero, Pro Milone 21), though at

  Rome the appointing was done by the relevant magistrate. Hannibal’s reform of

  only limited impact: Kotula (1983–4) 91–7; Seibert, ibid. On the other hand

  Groag (1929) 121 has no warrant for supposing that the reform was applied also

  to the inner ‘sacred’ council of Carthage (on which see chapter II §IV).

  7Groag (1929) 121, 126, too optimistically supposes that all of the 104, not to

  mention both new sufetes and most of the senate, were Barcid supporters in 195

  thanks to the reform; similarly Hoffmann (1962) 115.

  8 Livy 33.46.8–47.1; Nepos, Hann. 7.5 ‘novis vectigalibus’, garnering enough

  money not only to pay the indemnity but also ‘ut . . . superesset quae in aerario

  reponeretur’. Groag (1929) 121–2 has the new taxes affect only ‘die besitzende

  Klasse’ at Carthage. Seibert, Hann. 502, 543, considers Hannibal’s finance

  measures just as limited as the judicial—yet also (541) judges him to have tackled

  abuses in both areas ‘gründlich und mit dauernhaftem Erfolg’.

  278

  N O T E S T O T H E T E X T

  9 On Carthaginian state revenues see chapter II §III. ‘Outstanding funds’, etc.: Livy

  33.47.1–2 ‘omnibus residuis pecuniis exactis, tributo privatis remisso’; E. Sage’s

  Loeb translation of residuis pecuniis as ‘the revenues not otherwise used’ scarcely

  suits the context. All embezzled funds to be repaid: thus Gsell, HAAN 2.275–6;

  Picard (1967) 218 ‘une véritable révolution sociale’, and (1968) 276; Lancel,

  Hann. 291–2.

  10 ‘Vectigalia publica partim neglegentia dilabebantur, partim praedae ac divisui et

  principum quibusdam et magistratibus erant’, Livy 33.46.8.

  11 ‘Kept his promise’ (‘praestitit promissum’), 33.47.2. Carthaginian offers in 191,

  Livy 36.4.7–9 (the manuscript numerals for the wheat and barley are corrupt).

  Nepos: note 8 above. Shipbuilding skills: Scullard (1989a) 496–7; Lancel (1992)

  137–51. On the ports see chapter II §II and note 5.

  12 Byrsa development: Lancel et al. (1980); Picard and Picard (1983) 56–8; Rakob

  (1992) 33–5; and especially Lancel (1992) 172–92, 423, and Hann. 296–7 (backing

  ‘l’hypothèse qu’Hannibal, au cours de son suffétat, en ait été le concepteur et

  qu’il ait posé la première pierre’). Mago’s town in Minorca: Mela 2.124, ‘castel-

  lum’; Pliny, NH 3.77, a civitas; ILS 6958, ‘r(es) p(ublica) Mag(onensium)’; Huss (1985) 400 note 242. Early second-century shoreline mansions: Picard and

  Picard (1983) 56; Lancel (1992) 171–2 and Fig. 76.

  13 Groag (1929) 125–6 implausibly supposes a senate in 195 entirely pro-Barcid, cf.

  note 7 above; contrast Seibert, Hann. 505. Servilius: the consul of 203

  (P. Willems, Le Sénat de la République romaine (Louvain 1878–85, repr. Darmstadt

  1968) 1.311, 2.498; Broughton, MRR 1.341, 342 note 3), not politically friendly

  with Scipio (F. Càssola, I gruppi politici Romani nel III secolo a.C. (Trieste 1962, repr.

  Rome 1968) 415–16; Scullard, RP 78–83, 277–8). Justin 31.2.1 imagines he was

  the sole envoy. Punic senate’s reply, Livy 33.49.4; Hannibal proscribed, Nepos,

  Hann. 7.7.

  14 Aristo episode, Livy 34.61.1–62.1; Appian, Syr. 8.30–3; Justin 31.4.1–3; debate,

  Livy 34.61.12–13; varying attitudes (‘principibus . . . senatui, senatu . . . populo

  suspecto’) and Masinissa’s moves, 62.1–4.

  15 Allegations began after the finance-reforms, Livy 33.45.8 (‘recenti facto’); cf.

  Justin 31.1.7. Scipio ‘long’ impeded intervention, 33.47.4–5; cf. Val. Max. 4.1.6.

  Cato’s attitude: not recorded but neither are most of his doings as consul

  (A. Astin, Cato the Censor (Oxford 1978) 24). Hannibal fled Carthage in mid-

  summer (Livy 33.48.5) while Cato left Rome for Spain only then or later—just

  when is debated (Briscoe (1981) 65–6 puts it later than does Astin, 308–10; cf.

  Richardson (1986) 80, and Harris, CAH 2 8.123). Ill-will towards Scipio: Astin,

  12–16, 60–2, 70–3; Scullard, RP 114 and (1970) 188–9; and Ridley (1987) 159 all

  go rather too far in seeing the despatch of the embassy as really an attack on

  Scipio directed by Cato. Hannibal’s flight: Livy 33.47.10–48.8; Nepos, Hann.

  7.6–7; Justin 31.2.2–5 (where ‘rus urbanum’ probably imagines Hannibal’s prop-

  erty as being in the Megara district).

  16 Envoys might have demanded handover: so too Mommsen, HR 2.202; cf. Groag

  (1929) 125, who sees Hannibal as patriotically choosing self-exile to save

  Carthage from domestic strife and Roman attack; echoed by Warmington (1964)

  241; Görlitz (1970) 156. Demands for Hannibal’s handover: chapter VIII §IV (in

  218); Pol. 21.17.7, 43.11 (in 188); Nepos, Hann. 12.2; Livy 39.51.1–3; Appian, Syr.

  11.43; Plutarch, Flamininus 20; Pausanias 8.11.11; Justin 32.4.8 (in 183); Walbank,

  3.158–9; Seibert, Hann. 521, 523 note 9, 527. Accusations by the envoys, Livy

  33.49.1–2. Ships sent in pursuit, Nepos 7.7.

  1733.49.3 (E. Sage’s Loeb tr.).

  18 Penalties: Nepos 7.7. Groag (1929) 126–7 argues that they were not voted until

  279

  N O T E S T O T H E T E X T

  after the Aristo episode in 193, believing as he does that the senate in 195 was

  Barcid to a man and that in any case Carthage’s leading men would not so abase

  themselves at a nod from Rome; contrast Seibert, Hann. 505 note 44.

  19 Factions: Appian, Lib. 68.304–5 (ο‘ι δ`ε ’εδηµοκρ´ατιζον). Perhaps the Hanno the

  Great Appian mentions was yet another one (Picard and Picard, LDC 286; Huss

  (1985) 432) but we would need a more reliable source than Appian for us to see

  that as plausible. People’s vote to banish pro-Masinissa leaders, Lib. 70.316; cf.

  statements put forward by citizens ’ες τ`ο µ´εσον, ‘in public’, pretty clearly indicating

  at an assembly (94.443, 111.527). Senate directing foreign affairs: Lib. 91.429–31

  (Punic envoys in 149 report consuls’ ultimatum to senate first), 93.439 (senate

  decrees war; not the tribunal of Hundred and Four, as Goldsworthy (2000) 339

  assumes). Hannibal’s measures soon repealed: Gsell, HAAN 2.
279, and Groag

  (1929) 127 (tribunal reform); Picard (1967) 221–2 (ditto); Kotula (1983–4) 94

  (all).

  20 Cf. Caven’s comment on the tragedy of 146: ‘the Romans could well have

  afforded to leave her [Carthage] in peace on her peninsula, stripped of her terri-

  torial possessions’ ((1980) 293, cf. 271–2)—though going on to offer generalized

  censorious claims about the Carthaginians’ moral and cultural unattractiveness

  (293–4).

  21 Masinissa’s claim in 174: Livy 41.22.1–3.

  X V I I T H E E N D O F T H E B A R C I D S

  1 Hobnobbing with Roman envoys: Pol. 3.11.2–3; Livy 35.14.1–4, based on Poly-

  bius. A legend makes Scipio Africanus one of the envoys (Briscoe (1981) 165–6;

  Seibert, Hann. 511–12), and his supposed conversation with his old foe (Livy

  35.14.5–12; Appian, Syr. 9.34–10.42; other sources, Seibert, 511 note 28) may be

  another, unless Scipio made a separate, but poorly attested, visit to Ephesus that

  year (cf. Scullard (1970) 198, 285–6 note 163, citing earlier discussions based on

  Inscriptiones Graecae 11.4.712, an inscription at Delphi honouring Scipio, and Zon.

  9.18.12–13). Oath story: chapter IV §II.

  2 Comment to Antiochus on army, Gellius 5.5 (‘satis, plane satis credo esse Roma-

  nis, etiamsi avarissimi sunt’); the pun might come from Greek (e.g. ‘ικανο`ι ε’ισιν

  ‘Ρωµα´ιοις) and so need not automatically be due to a Latin writer, even if Gellius’

  own source was probably in Latin ( libri veterum memoriarum, 5.5.1). Phormio story

  (‘multos se deliros senes saepe vidisse, sed qui magis quam Phormio deliraret

  vidisse neminem’), Cicero, De Oratore 2.75–6.

  3 Hannibal’s proposal in 194–193: Livy 34.60.2–6 (‘somewhere in Italy’ 60.6, but

  cf. 36.7.16); Nepos, Hann. 8.1; Appian, Syr. 7.26–9; Justin 31.3.5–10; cf. Seibert,

  Hann. 508–9. Aristo episode: chapter XVI §IV.

  4 Nepos, Hann. 8.1–2, a tale believed by Lenschau, RE 7.2,348–9, and Seibert,

  Hann. 513–14; disbelief, Kahrstedt (1913) 590; but Hoffmann (1962) 121 is

  unsure while Picard (1967) 227–8 redates it to 190. More likely a confused blend

  of the abortive project reported by Livy (35.18.8, 42.2–43.1) and Hannibal’s

  putative Cyrene stopover in 195 en route to Tyre (note how the episode ends with

  a bald ‘Hannibal ad Antiochum pervenit’—rather than, say, rediit). Livy makes

  plain that the project envisaged only smaller, undecked ships (35.42.3; on naves

  apertae cf. 32.21.27, 37.22.4, and Cicero, II Verrines 5.104; Thiel (1946) 269;

  McDonald and Walbank (1969)), so Nepos’ ‘five’ may rightly report its intended

  strength even if he has garbled the rest. See also Appendix §15.

  5 Livy 36.7.1–8.1, very probably from Polybius and, as Seibert emphasizes ( Hann.

  508 note 13), not a copy of Hannibal’s previous advice; Appian, Syr. 13.53–14.58

  280

  N O T E S T O T H E T E X T

  and Justin 31.5.3–9 supply variously recast versions (cf. Briscoe (1981) 229).

  Seibert, 515, supposes that Hannibal at Demetrias proposed descending on

  Etruria, Liguria or Cisalpina, but see note 3. Lancel (1992) 319–20 sees the advice

  as fiction.

  6 Antiochus’ expeditionary fleet to Greece, Livy 35.43.3; Seleucid naval strength in

  192–189, Thiel (1946) 273–76. Hannibal’s invasion schemes: Groag (1929)

  135–41 judges them highly practicable; not so Hoffmann (1957/1974) 66–71;

  Hoyos (1983) 179; Seibert, Hann. 508, 516.

  7Battle of Side: Livy 37

  .23–4; Thiel (1946) 338–45; Seibert, Hann. 519–21. Hanni-

  bal’s last years: Seibert, Hann. 522–9, with full references. His travels are not in

  Livy, Appian or Dio, which indicates that the details in Nepos, Hann. , Justin et al.

  come from non-annalistic sources: a continuator of Silenus or Sosylus, or from

  Coelius? At Gortyn: Nepos, Hann. 9.1; Justin 32.4.3–5. Seibert, 522, perhaps

  rightly thinks the story of the treasure-deception a slander for a genuine offering

  to Artemis. Artaxata: Plutarch, Lucullus 31; Strabo 11.14.6, C528. Poison-snakes

  battle: Nepos, 10.3–11.7; Justin 32.4.6–7; Frontinus 4.7.10–11; but Seibert, 526,

  feels ‘erhebliche Zweifeln’. Prusa: Pliny, NH 5.148. On the various versions of

  Hannibal’s suicide, Seibert, Hann. 527–8. Date: Polybius gave it as Olympiad 149,

  2, i.e. mid-183 to mid-182 (Nepos, 13.1; Livy 39.52.1; Walbank, 3.235–9; Walsh

  [1994] 172); Livy opts for 183, the consulate of M. Claudius Marcellus and

  Q. Fabius Labeo. Since the Roman envoys left Rome in the second half of 183

  (Walbank, 3.221–2, 237; despite Seibert, 529), the suicide can be placed in winter

  183/182. Hannibal’s tomb: Pliny, NH 5.148; [Victor], De Vir. Ill. 42.6, claiming

  the simple epitaph ‘Here lies Hannibal’ still existed in the author’s day; Tzetzes,

  Chiliades 1 (cf. chapter V note 15), lines 804–5 on Severus’ construction;

  A. R. Birley, The African Emperor: Septimius Severus (London 1988) 148; Seibert, 529.

  8 Barcids, and Hannibal especially, as Hellenized and pro-diversity: Kromayer

  (1909/1974) 269–74; Groag (1929) 141–3 (Hannibal the ‘Vorkämpfer der Völk-

  erfreiheit’, in effect resisting ‘nicht allein den Untergang der hellenischen

  Freiheit, sondern auch die Vernichtung oder Zersetzung unermeßlicher Men-

  schheitswerte und Kulturgüter’); Picard (1967) 10, 103–14, 231–8 (Barcids were

  ‘les créateurs et les propagateurs d’une forme originelle de la civilisation hellénis-

  tique’, 231), and (1983–4) 75–81; Brizzi (1983), (1984) 101–18, and cf.

  ‘Hannibal—Punier und Hellenist’, Das Altertum 37 (1991) 201–10; Barceló

  (1998) 46–7, envisaging the hero as spokesman ( Sprachrohr) and defender, à la

  Picard, of ‘phönikisch-hellenische’ civilization against Rome (cf. ibid. , 14–15). A

  more nuanced view of the Barcids, as a virtually independent Potenz like the Hel-

  lenistic despots, allying with other Mediterranean states to defeat the Roman

  menace, in Hoffmann (1962) 129–35. Cf. the surveys of Christ (1974) 9–13, and

  Seibert, FzH 64–82. Carthaginian borrowings from Greece, chapter II §II;

  Greeks in Punic service, chapter V §VI. Hannibal’s Greek compositions: Nepos,

  Hann. 13.2. Reforms drew on Sosylus’ reports of Cleomenes III’s policies during

  the 220s at Sparta: Groag 119 note 4, followed by Picard and Picard, LDC 277

  and Kotula (1983–4) 100.

  9 Against Appian’s claim that Hasdrubal went over to Africa in about 214–213, see

  chapter XI note 10.

  10 Scipio’s supposed meeting with Hannibal at Ephesus: note 1 above. Cato on

  Hamilcar, Plutarch, Cato Maior 8.14; on the attack against Saguntum, Origines frg.

  84 Peter; cf. Hoyos (1998) 175, 221.

  11 Polybius’ views of the Barcids: 1.64.6 (very pro-Hamilcar), 2.13.1 (on his succes-

  sor Hasdrubal), 2.36.1–2 (Hasdrubal and Hannibal), 3.71.6 (Mago), 11.2

  (Hamilcar’s son Hasdrubal); on Hannibal’s virtues and vices, 9.22, 9.24–6, 11.19,

  281

  N O T E S T O T H E T E X T

  23.13. Hannibal in the right in 218: 3.30.3–4, cf. 3.15.10–11; Hoyos (1998) 164–5,

  278. Acted too soon: 11.19.6–7. Polybius’ expected readership: Walbank (1972)

  3–5, 27–8. Livy on Hannibal: 21.4.2�
��10 (portrait), 22.58.1–4, 28.12.1–9 (based

  on Polybius), 39.51.9–12 (last words). Dio’s character-portrayal, frg. 54; Brizzi

  (1984) 105 is more impressed by it (‘il migliore e più attendibile rittrato del Bar-

  cide trasmessoci dall’antichità’).

  12 Against the frequent view of Hanno the Great’s group as North African expan-

  sionists, Hoyos (1994) 264–6, 278. That the Carthaginians should have limited

  themselves to North Africa and thus avoided further clashes with the Romans is

  argued by de Sanctis, 3.1.390–3.

  X V I I I S O U R C E S

  1 Aristotle, Politics 2.11.1–9, 1272b–1273b; 4.7.11, 1293b; cf. chapter II §IV.

  2 Philinus is studied, with all the rigours of firm Quellenkritik, by V. La Bua,

  Filino–Polibio Diodoro–Sileno (Palermo 1966) who sees him as a better historian

  than Polybius and, just as unconvincingly, thinks he narrated the Mercenaries’

  War too; cf. E. Badian’s review, Rivista di Filologia e Istruzione Classica 96 (1968)

  203–11. On Fabius Pictor’s contemporary narrative: M. Gelzer, Kleine Schriften

  (Wiesbaden 1964) 3.51–92; B. W. Frier, Libri Annales Pontificum Maximorum: The

  Origins of the Annalistic Tradition (Rome 1979) 225–84, arguing for the early close;

  against this, Hoyos (2001a) 77–9. Philinus on the background and outbreak of

  the First Punic War: B. D. Hoyos, Classical Quarterly 35 (1985) 92–109, and (1998)

  7–11, 82–104. Fabius on Hasdrubal and Hannibal: chapter VI §III. Both writers’

  honest intent: Pol. 1.14.2. On P. Rylands 3.491: chapter XIV note 5.

  3 Hannibal’s inscription: chapter XIII note 11; ‘aram . . . cum ingenti rerum a se

  gestarum titulo’ (Livy 28.46.16). Polybius and its statistics: chapter VIII §IV.

  Treaty with Philip V: Pol. 7.9; chapter X §III. On a fictitious letter supposedly

  from Hannibal to the Athenians ( P. Hamburg. 129): Seibert, FzH 5–6; Brizzi

  (1984) 85–102.

  4 Silenus and Sosylus: chapter V note 16, chapter XVI note 1. Sosylus’ fragment:

  FGrH 176 F1; cf. Walbank, 1.430–1; Seibert, FzH 12; Zecchini (1997), who is

  enthusiastic but unconvincing. Hannibal’s dream: chapter VIII §V. Polybius on

  Sosylus, 3.20.5; on Hannibal’s supposed divine guides, 3.47.6–9. Silenus on booty

  from New Carthage: Livy 26.49.3, contrasting his figures for captured siege-