Hannibal: A Hellenistic Life (54 page)

26.
Hoyos, 2005, 64 for the arguments for and against the location. Lancel, 1995, 36 calls it the ‘White Headland’, and the foundation is dated to either 235 or 231. Lack of evidence typifies the difficulty in piecing together Hamilcar’s time in Iberia. Barceló, 2004a, 70–82 argues for a location inland. See Sala Sellés, 2010, who provides a clear overview of the changing ideas behind the identification of the Punic and Iberian sites in this part of Spain.

27.
See Gruen, 1986, 359ff. on ‘Rome, Macedon and Illyria’ for the background on Rome and Illyria.

28.
Eckstein, 1984, 56–57 makes a good argument for believing Cassius Dio’s addition to the chronology contra Hoyos, 2005, 61; see also Rich, 1996, 19, who analyses the historicity of the claims – all provide analysis of the debate.

29.
Miles, 2010, 222. This is one possible scenario in a very poorly documented sequence of events but it makes a plausible reconstruction.

30.
A king of the Orissi, who are often identified with the Oretani mentioned by Strabo in his
Geography
(3.1.6, 3.3.2, 3.4.2): see
Map 2
.

31.
Lancel, 1999, 37 takes Diodorus Siculus as the main source for Hamilcar’s death; see also Hoyos, 2005, 71; and Barceló 2004a, 79–80. For the Vettones see Strabo 3.1.6, 3.3.1–3, 3.4.12, 3.4.16. Only Appian gives Hamilcar a relatively ungallant end when he has him fall for a ruse and die in the confusion of his troops.

32.
The evidence for Hamilcar’s age has been closely analysed by Hoyos, 2005, 239 n. 2. Hoyos discusses the fact that ‘young’ can mean a very wide range of ages in the ancient (and modern) world. Realistically, Hamilcar could have been as young as 45 or as old as 60 when he died, although early fifties seems about right.

33.
These coins, minted on the Phoenician shekel standard, bearing the image of Melqart and reflecting the coinage of the wider Hellenistic world and of Phoenician cities, have been much discussed in terms of their significance and implications of Barcid power – Carthaginian Iberia in this period called a ‘protectorate’ in Miles, 2010, 222. For the coins see Jenkins, 1987 and Visona, 1998. The development of coinage at Carthage has always been linked to military pay but given the importance of image and the quality of the representation it is likely that these were carefully constructed, as noted by Miles, 2010, 220–222.

34.
Hannibal’s ‘apprenticeship’ is a term used in Seibert, 1993a, 40 for the period from 229/228 to 221 but the term can be extended to include the period before Hamilcar’s death as well.

35.
For Hasdrubal’s tenure see Barceló, 2004a, 70–82, Hoyos, 2005, 73–86 and Lancel, 1999, 37–43. As discussed above (chapter 3, page 57), Appian’s account claims the prosecution took place after the Mercenary War; however, this seems somewhat unlikely given Hamilcar’s notable absence for the first few months of the war.

36.
See the Barcid family tree above p. xiii. Hamilcar was as astute politically as he was militarily.

37.
Livy emphasizes that the ‘people’ chose him, which is an allusion to the popular assembly, populist politics and loose morality that went together in Livy’s experience. For more on the Roman attitudes towards sexual preferences see Williams, 1995.

38.
See Hoyos, 2005, 74–75 for Hasdrubal’s role and titles and their meaning. Hoyos notes that
hegemon
was also a title given to Alexander the Great by the League of Corinth. Diodorus claims that Hasdrubal’s title was given ‘by the whole of the Iberian people’, which seems unlikely at this point and it more likely implies all Iberians under Carthaginian control. There is a sense of unification, however. See Picard, G.-C. 1983–84 on Hasdrubal’s Hellenistic role and Miles, 2010, 222–224, who notes the Syracusan influence on the title. Hellenistic monarchs of the period were often polygamous and it is possible that Hasdrubal had more than one wife, although this was not a traditional Carthaginian custom: see Carney, 2000, 228–233 on Hellenistic royal polygamy.

39.
Erdkamp, 2009 provides an interesting look at Polybius’ motivations. The use of the popular assembly in political factionalism at Carthage is implied by the ancient authors but is also a reflection of what occurred in Rome in the late Republic and we should be wary of these parallels whilst accepting them as probable, as they are by no means certain.

40.
The fact that Hasdrubal was already married to Hannibal’s sister does raise an interesting question about polygamy, a Hellenistic practice among kings in the East. This is purely speculative.

41.
Silius Italicus,
Punica
3.97 and 4.775 is the only source to name a wife for Hannibal and he may have made up her name for poetic reasons. It is certain that intermarriage was used to seal the political base of Carthaginian power in Iberia and there is no reason to doubt that Hannibal was used as a tool in these alliances. Women, however, have little place in Hannibal’s story.

42.
Hasdrubal in Iberia: see Diodorus Siculus 25.11.1, 12; Appian,
Ib.
6; Zonaras 8.19. For Castulo’s location see Strabo’s
Geography
3.2.3, 3.2.10, 3.2.11, 3.3.2.

43.
In Phoenician, Carthage meant ‘New City’, implying a New Tyre. A New Carthage thus means ‘New New City’. Polybius refers to the places both as Carthage and as the New City, i.e. at 10.9.3 it is the siege of Carthage (
Καρχηδονοσ
), but in 3.15.3 Hannibal winters ‘at the New City’
(Καινην πολιν
). For the city and complete ancient references and description in Strabo see entry in the edition,
Geografía di Iberia
, with useful glossary, 347–350.

44.
Polybius 10.9.8–10.10.13; see the description of New Carthage in Livy 26.43–48. There is an excellent topographical map in Ramallo Asensio, 2003, 327.

45.
On the Punic casemate walls of New Carthage see Ramallo Asensio, 2003, 331–338 and for the points of interest from recent archaeological research see Keay, 2013, 311–312, who includes a bibliography of relevant archaeological reports and map. Twenty stades fits the size of the original walls relatively well.

46.
This temple at New Carthage also became the temple of Asclepius in Roman times, mirroring the temple on the Byrsa hill at Carthage.

47.
When the younger Scipio took the city in 209, he imprisoned no more than ‘ten thousand’ (Polyb. 10.17.6). When compared to the number of captives taken at the fall of Agrigentum in the First Punic War and Carthage itself in 146 (both about 50,000) the comparison would make it a rather small centre. Although the nice round numbers make them suspect, they are all we have to go on. The relative size is noted by Lazenby, 1998, 125.

48.
See Miles, 2010, 218–226; G-C. Picard, 1983–84; Hoyos, 1994 and 2005, 73–86; Lancel, 1995, 40; Seibert, 1993a, 40–50. Hasdrubal’s foundation was in line with Carthaginian practice and if he really fancied himself a Hellenistic monarch in waiting he would have been much more likely to name the city after himself – as Alexandria, Antioch or Seleucis – than New Carthage.

49.
Disagreement among modern scholars is more about the degree of threat posed by the Gauls at this point than the motivation for signing a treaty; see, most recently, Eckstein, 2012; also arguments in Erdkamp, 2009; Lancel, 1995, 41–42; Hoyos, 1998, 150–173 and 2005, 81–83; Rich, 1996, 14–24; Eckstein, 1984. A full up-to-date bibliography on this much-debated topic can be found in Eckstein, 2012. The fact that we do not know the exact date of the treaty allows for a great range of potential reasons for its creation, depending on the situation at Rome from year to year.

50.
See also Lancel, 1999, 42–43, who discusses the Greek cities of the region, Massalia Empurias, etc. and their potential influence on Roman diplomacy with the Carthaginians at this point.

51.
See Barceló, 2004a, 22; and ‘apprenticeship’ is the term used in Seibert, 1993a, 40.

52.
Hannibal may not have married until he came to power (see Hoyos, 2005, 74–75), but given that Hamilcar’s daughters were used to seal alliances while he commanded it is also possible that the sons were too during Hasdrubal’s rule: betrothed perhaps at first and then married at a later date. Silius Italicus in
Punica
3. 97 refers to Imilce; this is a Punic name, however, not Greek as Silius appears to believe; Livy only mentions that she came from Castulo. The scene in Silius Italicus imagines representatives from Carthage led by Hanno, the opponent of the Barcids, deciding to take Hannibal’s ‘first born and only son’ to sacrifice to the gods. For Hannibal, Silius Italicus and his son see Stocks, 2014, 96–102.

53.
Walbank, vol. 1, 317–319 names the town as Salamanca (also called Helmantica).

54.
Rawlings, 1996 outlines the Iberian, Gaulish, Numidian and Libyan troops in Hannibal’s army.

55.
For Hannibal and elephants see chapter 5, pp. 91–94 on the Rhône crossing.

56.
The interior of the Iberian peninsula was no easy conquest and it would take the Romans until the late first century
BCE
to subdue it. This period of Hannibal’s conquest has a resonance in some of the battles that Caesar and the later Romans fought in their conquest of Gaul and Britain in the 50s
BCE
and 40s
CE
. Iberians and Celtiberians (ethnically mixed Celts and the Iberians) who fought the Carthaginians and then the Romans were deeply divided and only came together sporadically to fight the superior armies of these more sophisticated military powers, even though this was their only hope of staving off conquest. Polybius’ numbers here are certainly exaggerated. See Lancel, 1999 45–46, Walbank, vol. 1, 317–319; Hoyos, 2005, 90–92; and Seibert, 1993a, 51–62 on the ‘young general’.

57.
There is a large bibliography that reflects the interest and debate over the start of the Second Punic War. See Rich, 1996, 1, note 1 for a selective list of the important articles up to that date. Add to that discussion by Lazenby, 1998, 22–28; Hoyos, 1998, 174–195 and 2005, 87–102; Barceló, 2004a, 96–118 on Hannibal’s command and the origins of the war; Sibert, 1993a, 51–74; Eckstein, 2012; Miles, 2010, 228–229; Beck, 2011.

58.
Livy’s passage on this embassy is chronologically flawed and placed during the siege at Saguntum but it must have occurred before the siege to have had any effect, see Lancel, 1995, 46–51; Rich, 1996; Hoyos, 1998, 196–218 and 2005, 92–93 where the important stature of the ambassadors is also noted.

59.
They had previous ties to Iberia, it seems. For Baebius’ post-war connections to New Carthage see Palmer, 1997, 132–139.

60.
When this happened is a matter of some conjecture. It could have occurred just weeks before, according to Hoyos, 2005, 92–93, which might explain Hannibal’s reaction, or up to a few years before if we follow Eckstein, 1984, 62–63. It is not specified by Polybius.

61.
Eckstein, 1989 discusses this exact passage in detail and how it fits into Polybius’ larger narrative.

62.
Full discussion of the inconsistencies and problems with the chronology is given in Rich, 1996, 26–33; and in Seibert, 1993a, 63–74. Livy has the embassy come a year later, when Saguntum was already under attack, but this is usually considered inaccurate.

63.
Polybius’ account of these events is crucial, if we are to understand them at all, and Hannibal’s emotional and angry response to the Romans was a critical error of judgement in his view. Anger, in Polybius’ narrative, led to bad decisions, and the emotional response to a critical problem was the least valid one. So Hannibal behaved like a young man ‘filled with a passion for war, and spurred on by his hatred of the Romans’ (3.15.6).

64.
If the relationship formed before
c.
226 then the city would have been included in the Ebro treaty or previously, in the Peace of Lutatius, see Polybius (3.30.3). If the friendship was formed after the treaty was signed this implies that the Romans were reneging on the terms of the treaty by forming friendships with Saguntum, unless of course a third party like Marseilles formed the original friendship and then Rome, as an ally of Marseilles, became a friend of Saguntum.

65.
Livy claims the Turdetani in 21.6.1 but this is most likely an error as the Turdetani were people from the region of Gades, and is one of many examples of Livy’s confusion around the Saguntum issue. The accurate name may be the Torboletae: see Eckstein, 1984, n. 43 following Walbank, vol. 1, 323.

66.
Following Rich, 1996, 25, who makes a good argument for this date; Eckstein, 1984 argues that the friendship between Rome and Saguntum may even have existed in the time of Hamilcar’s premiership in Iberia
c.
231.

67.
Excellent discussions on the sources and the issue of
amicitia
can be found in Ridley, 2000 and Rich, 1996, Hoyos, 1998, 174–195; Seibert, 1993a, 63–74; and Eckstein, 1984, who argues for Rome’s long-standing
amicitia
with Saguntum. Eckstein, 2006, 170–173 provides a good overview of the situation and points out that this was a natural event, two sides in dispute calling in larger allies.

68.
See Rich, 1996, 28–33.

69.
Appian,
Ib.
43 reports some in the Senate arguing that ‘they [Saguntum] were not allies according to the treaty …’. This reported inactivity also suggests a deeply confused
chronology in our sources and that there has been some ‘fudging’ to fit the narrative of blame. The gaps in our knowledge of the sequence of events make it difficult to understand the extent of Roman intentions towards the Iberian peninsula at this point, see Hoyos, 1998, 219–232.