A History of the Roman World (29 page)

While Rome was engaged in Cisalpine Gaul and across the Adriatic, Carthage was fully occupied in the western Mediterranean. The friendly relations of
Rome and Carthage during the war with the mercenaries were rudely shattered by Rome’s seizure of Sardinia, and at Carthage the party which stood for hostility towards Rome again climbed into the saddle. If Carthage ever again intended to cross swords with Rome, clearly she must train and keep a standing army like other nations. Hanno’s policy was to encourage expansion in Africa; and Numidia and Mauretania would have afforded good material. But there was better elsewhere. By reconquest and extended conquest Hamilcar proposed to make good the decline of Carthaginian influence in Spain, and thus to offset the loss of Sicily and Sardinia. In Spain Carthage could train and support an army with less fear of Roman intervention. It is unlikely that Hamilcar and the advocates of this policy of re-establishing Punic domination in the western Mediterranean aimed directly and deliberately at revenge. But certainly after Rome’s handling of the Sardinian question those who saw the future of Carthage in Africa had to give place to an expansionist group. The tradition that Hamilcar conquered Spain against the wishes of his government is absurd. He was in alliance with Hasdrubal, the leader of the democratic party, and when money and booty began to pour in from the Peninsula Hanno’s faction would become less vocal. The main part of the Punic government was behind the Barcids.

The cause, date and degree of the diminution of Punic influence in Spain is uncertain; but the application of the question
cui bono
would point to the implication of the Greek cities – especially Massilia. But Gades, at any rate, remained in Punic hands and thither Hamilcar Barca sailed in 237 with his nine-year-old son Hannibal whom he had just forced to swear that he would never be Rome’s friend; this anecdote, which seems authentic, shows something of the mind of the father. Based at Gades, he proceeded to reconquer southern and eastern Spain. Andalusia soon fell to his sword and he advanced the Punic frontier to Cape Nao, building a dominating fortress at Akra Leuke (White Rock; probably modern Alicante). In 231 an embassy came to him from Rome, whose ally, Massilia, could ill afford to see the Punic frontier creeping so far north. The Romans themselves probably cared little what happened in southern Spain and were contented with Hamilcar’s neat reply: that he was fighting the Iberians to get money with which to pay off the Roman war indemnity. But they had shown that they were keeping an eye on Carthaginian expansion and at some point they entered into friendly relations with the native city of Saguntum. Shortly afterwards Hamilcar, who was withdrawing from the siege of Helice (modern Elche) at the approach of the Orissi, met his death by drowning, but only after he had secured the safety of his son Hannibal and the officers with him (229–228). So fell a gallant soldier, of whom his country might justly be proud.

Hamilcar was succeeded by the leader of the popular party, his son-in-law Hasdrubal, who was chosen by the troops and afterwards received confirmation
of his appointment from the people of Carthage. He avenged his predecessor’s death by an expedition against the Orissi, and thus reached the Upper Guadiana. Though his army was reckoned at 50,000 infantry, 6,000 cavalry and 200 elephants, he achieved more by diplomacy than force. He married an Iberian princess and changed the Punic headquarters from Alicante to the site of Mastia, where he founded the city of New Carthage (Cartagena) on a peninsula which commanded one of the best harbours in the world; there were rich silver mines in the vicinity and the passage to Africa was easy. From this base he advanced up the east coast in the direction of the Ebro. In 226 he was met by ambassadors from the Romans, who feared that he might join hands with the rebellious Ligurians and Gallic tribes. A treaty was arranged by which Hasdrubal agreed not to cross the Ebro with an armed force and perhaps undertook not to help the Gauls; as a
quid pro quo
he possibly received the assurance that Rome would not interfere with his conquests south of the river. The attitude of Rome’s ally Massilia to this arrangement is uncertain; though doubtless it was she who had warned Rome of Hasdrubal’s encroachments. By the Ebro treaty she definitely lost her three colonies which the Carthaginians had taken: Hemeroscopium, Alonis and Alicante. But her two colonies north of the Ebro, Emporiae and Rhode, were saved from Hasdrubal’s grasp.
¹³

In 221 Hasdrubal was assassinated by a Celt and his place was filled by Hamilcar’s twenty-five-year-old son, Hannibal, who was soon to enter the lists against Rome in one of the most epic struggles known to history. The new general reverted to his father’s warlike policy, though, like Hasdrubal, he married a Spanish princess from Castulo. He at once attacked the Olcades who dwelt near the Upper Guadiana, and after wintering at New Carthage he stormed the highland tribes of the central plateau. Advancing along the westerly route to Salmantica (Salamanca) he defeated the Vaccaei and on his return the Carpetani, thus advancing the standards of Carthage beyond the Tagus (220). Though many of the more distant tribes south of the Ebro (e.g. the Celtiberians of the Upper Tagus and Douro, and the Lusitanians) were still unconquered, and though some of the nearer tribes (e.g. the Vaccaei and Carpetani) were only prevented from revolting through the hostages they had surrendered, nevertheless the Barcid generals had won a great empire from which Carthage could draw immense supplies of manpower and mineral wealth: ‘an inexhaustible treasure-store for empire.’

But one city south of the Ebro still withstood Hannibal: the friend of Rome, Iberian Saguntum perched on its rocky plateau. When it became known that Hannibal intended to demand its surrender in the spring, Roman ambassadors ordered him to respect their ally. Receiving no satisfaction from the general, they proceeded to Carthage where they fared no better. The juridical aspect of their demand will be discussed later, when it will be seen that technically Rome was at fault and that Hannibal was under no obligation to
respect their request. Further, he had been provoked by Rome. A quarrel of the Saguntines with the Torboletae, a neighbouring tribe, subject to Carthage, had led to political disturbances in Saguntum, and one party appealed to Rome to arbitrate (
c.
221). The Romans, not unnaturally, decided in favour of the appellant party, which was put into power with some loss of life among the Punic faction. Disregarding Rome’s representations, Hannibal advanced against Saguntum and championed the cause of his subjects, the Torboletae (spring 219). Relying on help from Rome the Saguntines refused to surrender; but Rome was busy in Illyria, and Saguntum was left to face Hannibal’s assault unaided. For eight months the blockade continued without thought of surrender, though Hannibal was ready to offer comparatively lenient terms. Finally, after a desperate and heroic resistance, the town fell by assault from the least inaccessible side, the west.
¹⁴

Hannibal had thrown down the gauntlet. The fall of Saguntum fanned the sparks of rivalry into a blaze and made war inevitable. During the siege the Senate was probably unable to decide what ought to be done, especially as both consuls were absent on the Illyrian campaign – a preoccupation which the wily Hannibal did not overlook. It was only the fall of Saguntum that made action imperative. Had it held out through the winter, as the Romans hoped, the Hannibalic War might have been fought out in Spain (Pol., iii, 15). As it was, they temporized till late in March 218 or even longer, when an ultimatum was sent to Carthage demanding the surrender of Hannibal and his staff; this was virtually a declaration of war.
¹⁵
After some discussion the leading Roman envoy, the old
princeps senatus
, M. Fabius Buteo, held up two folds of his toga and cried: ‘Here I bring peace and war; choose you which you will.’ The Carthaginians bade him give them which he pleased; and Fabius dropping the fold of his toga replied: ‘Then I give you war.’ And the deadly gift was accepted.

The immediate cause of the Second Punic War was the Saguntine affair, which Polybius prefers to regard as the first incident in, rather than a cause of, the war. The question at issue was whether by attacking Saguntum Hannibal violated any treaty with Rome.
¹⁶
Patriotic Roman annalists (e.g. Livy, xxi, 2, 7; Appian,
Iber.
, 7) hastened to invent fictions to show that he had: for instance, they said that he broke the Ebro treaty by crossing the river to attack Saguntum, whereas the town lies a hundred miles south of the Ebro; or they suggest that a special clause was inserted in the Ebro treaty to the effect that Rome and Carthage should respect the neutrality of Saguntum. But it is not by such means that the blame can be assigned to Carthage.

There were two treaties which Hannibal’s action might have infringed: that of Lutatius in 241 and the Ebro convention of 226. Rome’s alliance with
Saguntum was later than the treaty of Lutatius, so that the town was not included in the list of Rome’s allies whom the Carthaginians had promised to respect. The latter, therefore, were quite correct in insisting that Hannibal had not violated this treaty. But what of the Ebro agreement? Unfortunately, it cannot be related chronologically to Rome’s alliance with Saguntum with any degree of certainty; nor are its terms altogether clear. Even its validity has been questioned. It was a convention between Hasdrubal and delegates of the Roman Senate. It was probably ratified in Rome, and the Romans regarded it as legally binding on both parties, since the Carthaginians did not disavow their general who made it or his successor who, according to the Roman claim, transgressed it. The Carthaginians, however, denied that it had been ratified by their government. By its terms Hasdrubal renounced all hostile action north of the Ebro; his
quid pro quo
is not stated. Some suggest that he received little, others much. For instance, some allege that the treaty was unilateral and that as a member of a conquered nation Hasdrubal had to acquiesce in Rome’s wish; or on the other hand, others hold that the Ebro treaty defined the spheres of influence of the two nations and that it imposed on the Romans, either explicitly or implicitly, the obligation not to interfere south of the river. Probably, however, the concession made by Rome in face of the Gallic peril was to leave Hasdrubal free to extend his Spanish empire up to the river. How this affected Rome’s Saguntine alliance depends on the date assigned to the latter, which Polybius places ‘several years before the time of Hannibal’. If, as seems more probable, the alliance was prior to the treaty, it was then virtually annulled by the spirit of the new covenant, and could not in fairness be used by the Romans as a handle to check Punic expansion in the south. If Rome accepted the alliance after 226, she was deliberately interfering in an area where she had in effect recognized Carthaginian control. Whichever date, then, is correct, Rome had no legal ground to restrain Hannibal from attacking Saguntum; indeed she made no military attempt to do this. However unwise the Carthaginian general may have been, he was within his legal rights and was no treaty-breaker.
¹⁷

But if Hannibal’s conscience was clear on the legal score, if he was merely returning the compliment for Rome’s interference with the Torboletae, he could not turn a blind eye to the political aspect. He was attacking a town which was under the declared protection of Rome, and he had been warned that its capture would be regarded as a
casus belli
. Yet he persisted – and from no military necessity. The frontier quarrel between the Saguntines and Torboletae need not involve hostilities, unless Hannibal wished. True, the acquisition of Saguntum would remove an awkward thorn from his side in the event of war with Rome; but its military value was not sufficient to warrant the risk of war. Nor had the Romans thrown a protective garrison into the town, as they had into Messana in 264; such an act would have
violated treaty rights, which they were unwilling to disregard till the fall of the town made action imperative. Hannibal therefore persisted for other reasons; because he judged war with Rome was inevitable and because by manoeuvring the Romans into a false position he had forced on them the onus of declaring war, so that he could expect the continued support of his home government. (The view of Fabius Pictor, refuted by Polybius (iii, 8) that Hannibal did not have the backing of the Carthaginian government either at this time or during the war, should be rejected.) His capture of Saguntum may not have been the cause of war, but it undoubtedly caused the outbreak of war at that moment.

The immediate cause of war was thus the action of Hannibal and his government, but what were the underlying causes? Polybius finds three. First, the hatred of Hamilcar towards Rome; after his forced surrender in Sicily he lived for revenge and his spirit survived him. Secondly, the bitterness felt at Carthage when Rome seized Sardinia and renewed the threat of war. Thirdly, resulting from this, Hamilcar’s activity and the Carthaginian success in Spain.
¹⁸
Did the Second Punic War then owe its origin to the hatred of the house of Barca; was it a war of revenge? The answer must depend on the interpretation given to the motives of the Barcids in Spain. Were they building up resources and an army with which to hurl themselves against Rome or were they merely trying to compensate their country for its loss of Sicily and Sardinia; was the object of their empire-building offensive or defensive?

Hamilcar had gone to Spain immediately after his country had been humiliated by Rome in 237; he cannot have forgotten his enforced capitulation in Sicily; and he made his son swear never to be friends with Rome. These facts establish beyond doubt his hatred of Rome, but they do not prove that he contemplated revenge or that he went to Spain to plan it. Rather, he went with the intention of re-establishing his country’s lost empire. He must have foreseen the possibility of renewed rivalry and he wanted to equip Carthage for the future, whatever that might hold. The fact that he did not rebuild a large Punic navy need not signify his pacific intentions (and anyway it would have been an unnecessary annoyance to Rome); it probably meant that in the event of war he planned to fight by land as Hannibal did when the day came. He wished to be prepared rather than to reopen the question. His successor Hasdrubal pursued still more clearly a defensive policy. When Rome was seriously engaged with the Gauls, so far from joining the attack on their side, he deliberately concluded a treaty with Rome which confined his activity to Spain. Hannibal, however, had to face somewhat different circumstances, for the Romans began to interfere in Saguntum. It is not likely that they acted with the desire of bringing a hornets’ nest about their ears. But when they were freed from the Gallic peril, they began to look askance at the growing Punic power in Spain which they themselves had sanctioned; doubtless
Massilia brought the situation to their notice. Their action at Saguntum was little more than a gentle hint to Hannibal to walk warily, but it was enough to fan his smouldering wrath to a blaze. He determined to make it a test case to see whether Rome would abide by her treaty; but he must have foreseen the result. The Barcids had remained true to a defensive policy till they feared, whether with good cause or not, a repetition of the Sardinian question. And this time the Carthaginians refused to bow their necks.

Hannibal had cleverly precipitated a crisis in which the Romans were technically at fault, but from which they could not retreat without loss of prestige. He was thus immediately responsible for a war which neither Rome nor Carthage had deliberately engineered. Yet it was improbable that the two Republics could have lived at peace indefinitely. A balance of powers, such as existed in the Hellenistic east, might have been maintained for a time, yet causes of friction would inevitably occur now that Rome had been forced to become a world power. But throughout the years between the first two Punic wars Rome had not followed a deliberately aggressive policy. It has been suggested that there was strong disagreement in the state between an agrarian party under Flaminius, which limited its outlook to Italy, and a capitalistic party which favoured a
Weltpolitik
. While admitting a real clash of interests, it is unlikely that the latter party formed any deliberate imperialistic policy. The Senate rather met practical difficulties with practical solutions than followed a consistent and carefully conceived scheme.
¹⁹
The seizure of Sardinia, which was the aggressive act of a nervous bully, represented a passing mood. The Gallic wars were defensive in spirit, though they caused Rome to safeguard her northern frontier. Her early action in Spain was due more to the apprehension of her ally, Massilia, than to a studied western policy. The intervention in Illyria was a necessary piece of police work. True, all these acts involved future responsibility. Once she had set her hand to the plough there could be no turning back. But Rome could hardly be expected to anticipate the ultimate result of each action. She dealt with each situation as it arose and if Hannibal chose to challenge her interference in Spain, she was willing to face the consequences and to determine the lordship of the western Mediterranean.