Carthage Must Be Destroyed (72 page)

11
Crawford 1985, 62–4.

12
See Fronda 2007 for an in-depth discussion of Capua’s relationship with Hannibal. Quote = Fronda 2007, 104–5.

13
Livy 23.18.10–16.

14
Goldsworthy 2000, 222–6.

15
Livy 23.11.7–23.12.7.

16
Ibid. 23.12.13–17.

17
Ibid. 23.13.1–8.

18
Ibid. 24.4.1–9.

19
Polybius 7.2; Livy 24.5.7–8, 24.6.2–3.

20
Livy 24.21.1–24.27.5.

21
Ibid. 24.29.1–24.32.9.

22
Ibid. 24.33.1–24.34.16. For a good summary of events leading up to the siege see Eckstein 1987, 135–55.

23
Livy 24.35.3–24.39.13.

24
Sardinia = Livy 23.32.7–12, 23.34.10–17, 23.40.1–23.41.7.

25
Ibid. 23.26.1–3.

26
Ibid. 23.27.9–23.29.17.

27
Ibid. 23.49.5–14, 24.41.1–24.42.11.

28
Ibid. 25.32.1–5. For the Scipios’ campaigns in Spain between 218 and 211 see Eckstein 1987, 188–207.

29
Polybius 7.9; Bickerman 1944 (repr. 1985, 257–72).

30
Barré 1983, 38–64–
contra
Huss (1986, 228–30), who believes that in the front rank Zeus was identified with Baal Shamen and Hera with Astarte partly because the association between Baal Hammon and Tanit and child sacrifice was considered to be unacceptable by the ‘liberals’ in Carthage. In his interpretation Tanit is associated with Artemis and Baal Hammon with Cronus. However, I see no reason not to place Baal Hammon and Tanit in the front rank, as they were by this period the most prominent deities in Carthage and there is no evidence for a ‘liberal’ group there.

31
Barré 1983, 64–86. However, there is some controversy as to whether in fact Iolaos in the treaty text corresponded with the Punic god Sid rather than Eshmoun.

32
Ibid., 12–14, 100–101; Huss 1986, 238.

33
Contra
Bickerman 1985, 391–4.

34
Lancel 1999, 117.

35
Visonà 1998, 16–19.

36
Crawford 1985, 62.

37
Lancel 1999, 122–3.

38
Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus would be consul in 215 and 213 and Marcus Claudius Marcellus in 214, 210 and 208, while Quintus Fulvius Flaccus was elected in 212 and 209. Furthermore, all these men held proconsular office throughout this period, meaning that they retained their military commands (Goldsworthy 2000, 226–8).

39
Livy 22.57.5–6, 23.11.1–6.

40
Ibid. 22.57.6.

41
Bellen 1985, 13–23.

42
Polybius 8.37; Livy 25.23.8–25.24.7; Plutarch
Marc
. 19.1.

43
Livy 25.26.1–15.

44
Ibid. 25.27.1–13.

45
Ibid. 25.28.1–25.30.12. For accounts of the siege of Syracuse see Lancel 1999, 124–7; Goldsworthy 2000, 260–68.

46
Eckstein 1987, 177–83.

47
Crawford 1985, 109–10; Visonà 1998, 19.

48
Walbank 1957–79, II: 100–101. It is thought that, whereas Polybius had read Silenus, Livy had taken his account from Coelius Antipater, who had read the original account (Lancel 1999, 128).

49
Polybius 8.24.1–8.34.13; Livy 25.7.10–25.11.20.

50
Two important Italian cities, Metapontum and Thurii, fell to the Carthaginians soon after (Livy 25.15.6–7), and then two heavy military defeats were inflicted on the Roman army: one at the hands of the Lucanian tribes, who had now defected to the Carthaginians, and another at Herdonea in Apulia (ibid. 25.15.20–25.16.24, 25.21.1–10).

51
Polybius 8.34.12; Livy 25.15.4–5.

52
Livy 26.1.2–4, 26.4.1–10.

53
Ibid. 26.5.1–26.7.10; Polybius 9.3.1–9.4.5.

54
Livy 26.9.1–13; Polybius 9.4.6–9.5.3.

55
Polybius 9.6.1–2.

56
Livy 26.10.5–8.

57
Ibid. 26.9.7–8. For a similar description, Polybius 9.6.3.

58
Livy 26.10.1–2.

59
Ibid. 26.10.3.

60
Polybius 9.6.6–9.7.1.

61
Livy 26.11.1–7.

62
Ibid. 26.9.10.

63
Solinus 1.14–15.

64
Dionysius 1.43; Briquel 2000, 126.

65
However, there was some divergence over whether the king or Heracles was his father.

66
Briquel 2000, 126–7. The Gauls were the only people who had sacked Rome, under their king Brennus in 387. Some time earlier a Gallic army under Bellovesus had been the first since Heracles’ supposed crossing to traverse the Alps to attack Italy.

67
Livy 26.10.3.

68
Livy’s stories, with their emphasis on divine intervention on the side of the Romans and the ownership of land in Latium where Hannibal was camped, perhaps acted as a reaction to this Carthaginian propaganda.

69
Pliny
NH
34.40.

70
Livy 26.12.1–26.16.13.

71
See Cicero’s character assassination of Capua in his speech
On the Agrarian Law
(2.76–97).

72
Livy 27.1.3–15.

73
Ibid. 26.38.1–26.39.23, 27.12.1–27.16.9.

74
Plutarch
Fab
. 22.6.

75
Frier 1979, 268–79. For the structure of the work see ibid., 255–84.

76
Ibid., 266–7.

77
Ibid., 284.

78
This is disputed by Gruen (1992, 231), who views the
Annales
as being aimed exclusively at a Roman senatorial audience. Gruen argues that there is little evidence of its being read in Greece and little in the fragments that looks as if it was aimed at a Greek audience. These are strong statements to make when the fragments that we have are so limited. My own opinion is that it was also meant for a Greek audience, but one primarily in Italy and Sicily.

79
Frier 1979, 281; Badian 1958, 3.

80
Frier 1979, 236–46.

81
Polybius 1.14.1–3. On Fabius Pictor’s career see Frier 1979, 233–6.

82
Frier 1979, 284; Badian 1958, 6.

83
Gruen 1992, 32–3.

84
Fabius Pictor Fr. 1.

85
This is found in a short description of his and several other Hellenistic historians’ work found painted on a plastered wall of a gymnasium fittingly in Tauromenium, the home town of Timaeus (Manganaro 1974; Frier 1979, 230–31).

86
Livy 25.32.1–25.36.16.

87
Ibid. 26.17.1–26.19.9; Scullard 1970, 31.

88
I would argue more strongly than Walbank (1957–79, II: 135–6) does that Scipio encouraged these stories. It is, of course, impossible to ascertain whether he really believed them.

89
De Vir. Illust
. 49. Birth = Aulus Gellius 6.1.6; Livy 26.19.7–8; Dio 16.57.39; Valerius Maximus 1.2.1. The temple visit = Livy 26.19.5. For a study of the association between Scipio and Alexander the Great see Tise 2002, 45–64.

90
An idea briefly considered by Walbank 1957–79, II: 55. For later Roman comparisons between Scipio and Hercules, see Ennius in Lactantius
Div. Inst
. 1.18; Cicero
Rep
. Fr. 3, Horace
Ode
4.8.15. For a full discussion see Walbank 1957–79, II: 54–8.

91
Polybius 10.5.5.

92
Scullard 1970, 164–5.

93
Livy 26.19.8–9.

94
For a detailed discussion of this phenomenon see Scullard 1970, 53–7. For the theory that in fact the ebb was caused by the effects of localized wind see Walbank 1957–79, II: 65–6.

95
Livy 26.42.2–26.46.10; Polybius 10.8.1–10.15.11; Goldsworthy 2000, 271–7; Lazenby 1978, 134–40.

96
Polybius 10.2.12–13.

97
Ibid. 10.17.6–10.18.5. For the good relations that Scipio carefully developed with the Spanish tribal leadership see Eckstein 1987, 212–20.

98
Livy 26.47.1–10; Polybius 10.19.1–2.

99
Livy 27.17.1–27.19.1; Polybius 10.34.1–10.39.9; Goldsworthy 2000, 277–9.

100
Livy 27.19.3; Polybius 10.40.2–5.

101
Livy 27.19.4–5. See also Polybius 10.40.4–5.

102
Livy 27.19.1, 27.20.3–8.

103
Ibid. 28.12.13–28.15.16; Goldsworthy 2000, 279–85.

104
Polybius 11.20.1–11.24.11; Livy 28.16.10–13.

105
Livy 28.19.11–28.37.10; Polybius 11.25.1–11.33.7.

106
Livy 27.37.1–15.

107
For the development of Juno as an enemy of the Romans in early Roman epic see Feeney 1991, 116–17.

108
See Dumézil 1970, 680–82, for the Pyrgi inscription.

109
Huss 1985, 235–6.

110
Livy 27.26.7–27.27.14, 27.33.6–7.

111
Ibid. 27.28.1–13.

112
Ibid. 27.39.1–9; Polybius 11.2.1.

113
Livy 27.39.10–27.49.4; Polybius 11.1.1–11.2.2; Goldsworthy 2000, 238–43.

114
Livy 27.51.11–13.

115
Although he had minted currency for his army in Italy, now he had both the time and the necessity (there was little chance any more to acquire war booty) to produce considerable quantities of coinage for the general populace too–usually bearing the prancing horse and head of Tanit associated with Carthaginian coinage (Crawford 1985, 66–7).

116
Livy 28.38.1–11.

117
Ibid. 28.40.1–28.45.11.

118
Ibid. 28.45.13–28.46.1, 29.1.1–14.

119
Ibid. 28.46.7–13.

120
Polybius 15.1.10–11.

121
Livy 28.46.14.

122
Ibid. 28.5.1–28.8.14; Goldsworthy 2000, 253–60.

123
Livy 29.12.8–16.

124
Ibid. 28.45.12.

125
Ibid. 29.10.4–29.11.8, 29.14.5–14; Ovid
Fasti
4.247–348.

126
Gruen 1990, 6–7.

127
Ibid., 17–19.

1
Livy 28.17.10–28.18.12; Appian 7.9.55.

2
Livy 29.23.2–29.24.2.

3
Ibid. 29.24.10–29.27.15.

4
Ibid. 29.28.1–29.29.3, 29.34.1–29.35.15.

5
Ibid. 30.3.1–30.12.4.

6
Ibid. 30.16.1–15; Eckstein 1987, 246–9.

7
Livy 30.22.2–3.

8
Polybius 15.1–4; Livy 30.22.1–30.23.8.

9
Livy 30.20.1–4.

10
Ibid. 30.19.

11
Ibid. 30.20.5–9; Appian 7.9.59.

12
Polybius 3.33; Livy 28.46.16. For Livy’s treatment of Hannibal’s association with the sanctuary at Cape Lacinium see Jaeger 2006.

13
Campus 2003b.

14
Livy 24.3.3–7, 28.46.16.

15
Cicero
Div
. 1.24.48. Cicero stated that his source was Coelius Antipater, who later he states used Silenus for his information on Hannibal.

16
For Livy’s selectiveness in using Coelius and other sources so that the moral schema of his work remained unchallenged see Levene 1993, 68; Jaeger 2006, 408–9.

17
Wardle in Cicero,
Div
.
1
(2006), 229.

18
Servius
Aen
. 3.552.

19
Brizzi 1983, 246–51; Lancel 1999, 155–6.

20
Livy 42.3.4.

21
Crawford 1985, 66.

22
Livy 30.24.5–30.25.8, 30.29.1. A papyrus fragment from Egypt (P. Rylands III 491) dated to sometime before 130 BC appears to give a very different account of the diplomatic wrangling that went on at this time. In particular it makes no mention of the seizure of the Roman cargo ships or the attempted ambush, and has therefore led to the suspicion that these events may have been exaggerated or even completely falsified by Polybius and perhaps other pro-Roman writers (Hoffman 1942). Eckstein (1987, 253–4) has nevertheless convincingly argued that on balance Polybius’ account, although perhaps embellished to portray Scipio in as positive a light as possible, is probably to be trusted. See Hoyos 2001a for the suggestion that the papyrus fragment may in fact have been part of an epitome of the Roman historian Fabius Pictor.

23
Livy 30.29.1–4.

24
Ibid. 30.29.5–30.31.9.

25
Lazenby 1978, 221–7.

26
Livy 30.32.4–30.35.3.

27
Ibid. 30.35.4–30.37.6.

28
Ibid. 30.37.7–11, 30.42.11–30.43.9.

29
Cornelius Nepos
Hann
. 7.1–4; Aurelius Victor
De Caes
. 37.3.

30
Livy 33.46.1–33.47.5.

31
Lancel 1995, 404.

32
Livy 33.45.6–8. For general historical accounts of Rome’s wars with Antiochus see Grainger 2002; Errington 1971, 156–83.

33
Livy 33.48.9–33.49.8.

34
Ibid. 34.60.4–6. The plan to attack Italy was most probably designed to persuade Antiochus to buy into Hannibal’s grand strategy for a new war against Rome; see Grainger 2002, 143–5.

35
Grainger 2002, 143–5.

36
Livy 34.60.3–4.

37
See ibid. 36.7. The unrealistic nature of the proposals for attacking Italy has led some scholars to speculate that they were a later fabrication (Lancel 1999, 200; Grainger 2002, 223–4).

38
Grainger 2002, 270.

39
Livy 37.8.3, 37.23.7–37.24.13.

40
For Crete, see Cornelius Nepos
Hann
. 9.1; Justin 32.4.3–5. For Armenia see Strabo 11.14.6; Plutarch
Luc
. 31.4–5.