Hannibal: A Hellenistic Life (15 page)

Hamilcar had been a ‘young man’ (Cornelius Nepos,
Ham.
1.1) when he took up his command in Sicily in the First Punic War (247
BCE
) and at his death he could have been anywhere between his mid-forties to mid-fifties.
³²
He is described as ‘the general who must be acknowledged as the greatest on either side, both in daring and in genius …’ and even in defeat Hamilcar was the undisputed star of the First Punic War (Polyb. 1.64.6). A Punic di-shekel minted with silver from the Iberian mines conquered by Hamilcar shows a stern, bearded face, with sharp features and a heavy brow (Plate 5).
³³
The figure is certainly meant to represent the Carthaginian god Melqart in the guise of Herakles but this bearded portrait of a mature version of the god may also show attributes similar to those of Hamilcar. Whilst this is a precarious assumption, there is every reason to believe that his sons wanted him to be remembered as the embodiment of the legendary hero.

Hamilcar was one of the most dynamic characters and successful military commanders of the mid-third century. In the life of his eldest son, Hamilcar was a towering influence and heroic figure. Hannibal would have learned at his side, fighting with him, watching and understanding the politics and strategic approach as he set out to subdue Iberia. It was truly an apprenticeship in the realities of the life that Hannibal and his younger brothers, Hasdrubal and Mago, were brought up to live. This would have been especially poignant to the two elders boys when their heroic father was killed before their eyes on campaign.
³⁴

After Hamilcar’s death, the assembly at Carthage ‘handed over command of the army to Hasdrubal his son-in-law and chief naval officer (
trierarch
)’ (Polyb. 2.1.9). Hasdrubal, known as ‘the fair’, was a man who evoked a great deal of hostile comment from many of our ancient sources without any substantial detail provided. The connection between Hamilcar and Hasdrubal
went back at least as far as 241
BCE
. Appian’s chronologically confused account of the events at the end of the First Punic War tells us that Hamilcar ‘was brought to trial … by his enemies for the handling of events in the war’, and he was able to avoid punishment because he ‘secured the favour of the chief men of the state’. Among the chief men of the state who backed Hamilcar was Hasdrubal, ‘who had married Barca’s daughter’ (Appian,
Ib.
4).
³⁵
Hamilcar had three daughters that we know of and the girls, whose names are not known, were all married to form strategic alliances (see Family Tree). Hamilcar had linked himself through the marriage of his daughters with leading Carthaginian politicians and to Prince Naravas who belonged to powerful Numidian royalty.
³⁶
Hasdrubal, his successor, was both an important political ally and a member of the Barcid family through marriage. He was a natural successor to Hamilcar in Iberia. Hannibal, at only eighteen years old, was considered too young to succeed his father.

The Roman historians have left us with an interesting but opaque view of Hasdrubal’s character. He seems to have been a kind of fixer and is accused of purchasing much of his political power at Carthage through bribes and influence in the popular assembly (Cornelius Nepos,
Ham.
3.3). Politically he relied on the support of the assembly at Carthage, and Livy claims that Hasdrubal was made leader in Iberia against ‘the wishes of the Carthaginian establishment’ (21.2.4). Livy then goes even further and undermines Hasdrubal’s character by suggesting that he and Hamilcar had more than just a familial relationship. ‘Hasdrubal had initially attracted Hamilcar’s interest,
they say
, by his youthful good looks,’ claims Livy with heavy innuendo. The implication that Hasdrubal was a passive recipient of Hamilcar’s attentions was intended to undermine his masculinity and therefore his character and integrity.
³⁷
We do know that Hasdrubal had been back and forth between Carthage and Iberia during Hamilcar’s tenure and was his trusted lieutenant and son-in-law. He had been sent by Hamilcar to put down a rebellion in Numidia with troops from Iberia and his role was perhaps as the face of Barcid political power in Carthage itself (Diodorus Sic. 25.10.3). This political role and his willingness to force pro-Barcid decisions through the assembly at Carthage might explain his negative reputation in the sources.

At eighteen, Hannibal now took on a more active role as lieutenant to Hasdrubal, commanding a unit of cavalry. When he first appears in Livy he is a brave captain serving as an apprentice to his brother-in-law. ‘The older soldiers thought that a young Hamilcar had been brought back to them; they saw that same dynamism in his expression, the same forcefulness in his eyes, the same facial expression and features …’ In Livy’s picture Hannibal recalled
his father and stirred the loyalty of his soldiers. Livy continues, ‘there was no one whom Hasdrubal preferred to put in command when a gallant or enterprising feat was called for, while there was no other officer under whom the rank and file had more confidence and enterprise’ (Livy 21.4.2–5).

Hannibal was leading forays for his brother-in-law deep into the territory of the Celtiberians. Despite being the son of the great Hamilcar he behaved just like one of the soldiers and this engendered deep loyalty among those who fought with him. ‘Only the time which he had left from discharging his duties was given to sleep, and it was not brought on by a soft bed or silence – many often observed him lying on the ground, amidst the sentry-posts and pickets, wrapped in a soldier’s cloak.’ Enormously skilled and brave, whether ‘on horse or foot he was by far the best soldier; the first to enter battle, he was the last to leave once battle was joined’ (Livy 21.4.2–10). Apart from Livy’s description of the enthusiastic campaigner, there is little specific information about this important time in Hannibal’s life. We know that it was a significant period for the Carthaginians in Iberia. It is entertaining to imagine the young, dynamic Hannibal, now the head of his family upon the death of his father, riding into battle and in turn teaching his younger brothers the arts of war.

The Iberians under Carthaginian rule gave Hasdrubal the title of ‘general with unlimited power’ after he married the daughter of an Iberian prince (Diodorus Sic. 25.12). Hasdrubal was, of course, already married to Hannibal’s sister but we have no knowledge of her whereabouts or even if she was still alive.
³⁸
He had inherited a great deal of autonomous power in Iberia and used this to consolidate the Carthaginian position. But Polybius, quoting the Roman senator and contemporary of Hannibal, Fabius Pictor, describes Hasdrubal as a megalomaniac intent on overthrowing the government at Carthage. ‘Fabius tells us how, having acquired a great dominion in Iberia, Hasdrubal arrived in Africa and attempted to abolish the constitution of Carthage and change the form of government to monarchy.’ Carthage’s leading statesmen rebuffed Hasdrubal’s challenge thus he returned and ‘governed Iberia as he chose, without paying any attention to the Carthaginian Senate’ (Polyb. 3.8. 1–5). Even if we dismiss the allegations of autocratic rule and take into account Fabius Pictor’s hostility to the Barcids, the criticisms of Hasdrubal shine a dim light on underlying political conflict and friction at Carthage about the succession to power in Iberia after Hamilcar’s death.
³⁹

Hasdrubal acted immediately to bring revenge down upon those responsible for Hamilcar’s death with an army of 50,000, 6,000 cavalry and 200 elephants. As a result the Orissi (Oretani) tribe and ‘their twelve cities … fell into his hands’ (Diodorus Sic. 25.12). Overall Hasdrubal’s policies continued
the consolidation of territorial gain and expansion in Iberia through a mix of military intervention and soft power. He used his marriage to the daughter of an Iberian chieftain to seal an alliance and build his support (Diodorus Sic. 25.12).
⁴⁰
In this same period Hannibal may also have been betrothed and subsequently married to an Iberian princess named Imilce. She was the daughter of a powerful chieftain from the strategic city of Castulo, capital of the Oretani people.
⁴¹
Castulo sat on the banks of the Guadalimar river, a tributary of the important (Baetis) Guadalquivir that formed a key artery in Carthaginian territory with links to the resource-rich mines of the region (
Map 2
). The marriage of Hannibal was used to bind the loyalty of the people of Castulo. The personal bonds between the extended Barcid family and the Iberian people are illustrative of their power base. Personal loyalty was key to the allies in Iberia and family ties sealed the links with Carthage.
⁴²

One of the enduring contributions of the Barcid dynasty to modern Spain is the city of New Carthage (Cartagena) on the south-eastern coast in the region of Murcia. Diodorus wrote that Hasdrubal ‘thereupon founded a city on the sea coast and called it Carthago Nova’ (25.12).
⁴³
New Carthage was established at some point between 229
BCE
and 228
BCE
(even as late as 225
BCE
– the sources do not agree) as the capital of Carthaginian Iberia on the location of a pre-existing Iberian town. New Carthage was a showcase city, known for its excellent location and easy sail across the Mediterranean to Carthage. The harbours at New Carthage are still some of the best ports in the western Mediterranean, with two deep natural harbours surrounded by imposing hills. The modern Cartagena now hosts the Spanish navy and has been one of the most important naval ports in Spain since the sixteenth century
CE
.

When Polybius visited New Carthage in the mid-second century
BCE
he described its terrain less than a century after its foundation.
⁴⁴
The impression is of an imposing city lying ‘… halfway down the coast of Iberia in a gulf that faces south-west and is about twenty stades long (
c
. 3.6km) and ten stades (
c
. 1.8km) broad at the entrance’. The essence of the gulf remains the same today and the topography provided a safe and protected harbour. ‘At its mouth lies an island which leaves only a narrow passage on either side, and this breaks the waves of the sea, the whole gulf is perfectly calm.’ The city stood ‘in the innermost nook of the gulf on a hill in the form of a peninsula’ (Polyb. 10.10.1–5). The hills behind protected the city from the land and the deep harbours protected it from the sea.

Parts of the impressive Carthaginian defensive wall at New Carthage have been excavated and these give an idea of the grand size of the city at its very
conception. The fortification that surrounded the land-side of the city is made up of two parallel walls with space in between and is built of large sandstone blocks. The walls stand up to three metres high in places today and are estimated to have been ten metres tall when first constructed. If the walls of New Carthage can be used as evidence for the rest of the city, it was built to the most advanced concepts in defensive architecture of the third century.
⁴⁵
The city was the capital of the Carthaginian Empire in Iberia until its fall (Polyb. 3.15.3). Hannibal was based here from its foundation through to his departure for Italy and it was the perfect capital of the Barcid province. It was in a ‘favourable position for action in Iberia’ and located for easy access to North Africa as well as being close to the rivers that linked up with the mining towns of the region (Polyb. 2.13.1–2). The location connected the newly acquired Iberian territories to the city of Carthage.

The construction of this new, prestigious city under Hasdrubal enhanced Barcid power in Iberia and at Carthage. The city was a statement of Carthaginian authority and prosperity. New Carthage included a temple to the god Eshmun on its most prominent hill, and in its topography the city mirrored the landscape of Carthage itself where Eshmun was worshipped on the Byrsa hill.
⁴⁶
On the second-largest hill sat a ‘magnificent’ building called the palace of Hasdrubal (10.10.9–10). These two important buildings dominated the cityscape. How large the urban population was in the Carthaginian period is open to question. New Carthage must have been a substantial centre for the Iberian peninsula and possibly comparable to Massalia further up the coast.
⁴⁷

The newly established harbour city was built to be ‘the chief ornament’ of Carthaginian and Barcid power in Iberia (Polyb. 3.15.3).
⁴⁸
As the Carthaginian leader in Iberia Hasdrubal had a dual role: that of local hegemon and autocrat among the Iberians at the same time as representative of Carthage. These two roles could coexist. It was in his role as representative of Carthage that Hasdrubal received a delegation from the Roman Senate in the year 226
BCE
. The meeting occurred during the late summer or perhaps autumn and resulted in a new formal agreement between the two sides that is referred to as the Ebro Treaty. The terms stated that the Carthaginians agreed not to venture north of the Ebro river in arms (Polyb. 2.13.7) (
Map 2
). The Roman motivation behind the treaty was clearly to contain Carthaginian power inside the Iberian peninsula during a period when Rome was involved in the conquest and settlement of northern Italy and faced a threat from the Gauls beyond the Alps. This implies that the Romans (or their allies from Massalia along the coast) continued to worry about growing Carthaginian influence much farther to the north than the area they controlled in Iberia at the time. The Romans
‘for the present … did not venture to impose orders on Carthage or to go to war with her, because the threat of a Celtic invasion was hanging over them …’ reasoned Polybius (2.13.3–5). Polybius suggests that Rome intended to go to war with Carthage sooner or later but it was in the Roman interest to seek an agreement with Carthaginian Iberia during these years.
⁴⁹

More difficult to ascertain is the Carthaginian motivation for signing the Ebro agreement. Polybius chose to leave out the Carthaginian incentives for signing such a document and many questions remain. Can we assume that when the ‘Carthaginians engaged not to cross the Ebro in arms’ (Polyb. 2.13.7) they acknowledged the Ebro as a natural border for their power in the Iberian peninsula? Or did they, like the Romans, consider the treaty a holding measure, while they consolidated their hegemonic control over the Iberian peninsula? Did the Carthaginians in turn impose terms upon the Romans? Perhaps they legitimately expected the Romans not to interfere in their territory south of the Ebro. The Carthaginians seemed to take the treaty of 226
BCE
as a Roman acknowledgement of their hegemony south of the river and equally seemed to acknowledge Roman (or Roman allied) influence north of it. It seems possible that Hasdrubal was willing to accept that Carthaginian power need not extend further than the Ebro and pursue a policy of shared division of territory between the two states. What is difficult to discern is how much of Polybius’ account is contrived to suit the Roman justification for the start of the subsequent war. For the Ebro agreement rests at the heart of future Roman accusations against Carthage for breaking the treaty. The two sides may have had very similar reasons for concluding the treaty but ensuing events mean that the details have been argued over for centuries.
⁵⁰