Polybius, Histories

Translation

Book 10 - Chapter 11

<w lemma="%2Atoiau%2Fths">Τοιαύτης</w> <w lemma="d%27">δ᾽</w> <w lemma="u%28parxou%2Fshs">ὑπαρχούσης</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="diaqe%2Fsews">διαθέσεως</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="to%2Fpwn">τόπων</w>, <w lemma="a%29sfali%2Fzesqai">ἀσφαλίζεσθαι</w> <w lemma="sune%2Fbaine">συνέβαινε</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="%2A%28rwmai%2Fois">Ῥωμαίοις</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="stratopedei%2Fan">στρατοπεδείαν</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="e%29nto%5Cs">ἐντὸς</w> <w lemma="e%29pifa%2Fneian">ἐπιφάνειαν</w> <w lemma="a%29kataskeu%2Fws">ἀκατασκεύως</w> <w lemma="u%28po%2F">ὑπό</w> <w lemma="te">τε</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="li%2Fmnhs">λίμνης</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="e%29pi%5C">ἐπὶ</w> <w lemma="qa%2Ftera">θάτερα</w> <w lemma="qala%2Ftths">θαλάττης</w>.

<w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="metacu%5C">μεταξὺ</w> <w lemma="tou%2Ftwn">τούτων</w> <w lemma="dia%2Fsthma">διάστημα</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="suna%2Fpton">συνάπτον</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="po%2Flin">πόλιν</w> <w lemma="pro%5Cs">πρὸς</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="h%29%2Fpeiron">ἤπειρον</w> <w lemma="a%29xara%2Fkwton">ἀχαράκωτον</w> <w lemma="ei%29%2Fase">εἴασε</w>, <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="me%2Fshn">μέσην</w> <w lemma="u%28pa%2Frxon">ὑπάρχον</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="au%28tou%3D">αὑτοῦ</w> <w lemma="stratopedei%2Fan">στρατοπεδείαν</w>,

<w lemma="ei%29%2Fte">εἴτε</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="kataplh%2Fcews">καταπλήξεως</w> <w lemma="xa%2Frin">χάριν</w> <w lemma="ei%29%2Fte">εἴτε</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="pro%5Cs">πρὸς</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="e%29pibolh%5Cn">ἐπιβολὴν</w> <w lemma="a%28rmozo%2Fmenos">ἁρμοζόμενος</w>, <w lemma="o%28%2Fpws">ὅπως</w> <w lemma="a%29nempodi%2Fstous">ἀνεμποδίστους</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Fxh%7C">ἔχῃ</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="ta%5Cs">τὰς</w> <w lemma="e%29cagwga%5Cs">ἐξαγωγὰς</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="ta%5Cs">τὰς</w> <w lemma="a%29naxwrh%2Fseis">ἀναχωρήσεις</w> <w lemma="ei%29s">εἰς</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="parembolh%2Fn">παρεμβολήν</w>.

<w lemma="o%28">ὁ</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="peri%2Fbolos">περίβολος</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="po%2Flews">πόλεως</w> <w lemma="ou%29">οὐ</w> <w lemma="plei%3Don">πλεῖον</w> <w lemma="ei%29%2Fkosi">εἴκοσι</w> <w lemma="stadi%2Fwn">σταδίων</w> <w lemma="u%28ph%3Drxe">ὑπῆρχε</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="pro%2Fteron">πρότερον</w> — <w lemma="kai%2Ftoi">καίτοι</w> <w lemma="g%27">γ᾽</w> <w lemma="ou%29k">οὐκ</w> <w lemma="a%29gnow%3D">ἀγνοῶ</w> <w lemma="dio%2Fti">διότι</w> <w lemma="polloi%3Ds">πολλοῖς</w> <w lemma="ei%29%2Frhtai">εἴρηται</w> <w lemma="tettara%2Fkonta:">τετταράκοντα·</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="d%27">δ᾽</w> <w lemma="e%29sti%5C">ἐστὶ</w> <w lemma="yeu%3Ddos">ψεῦδος</w>. <w lemma="ou%29">οὐ</w> <w lemma="ga%5Cr">γὰρ</w> <w lemma="e%29c">ἐξ</w> <w lemma="a%29koh%3Ds">ἀκοῆς</w> <w lemma="h%28mei%3Ds">ἡμεῖς</w>, <w lemma="a%29ll%27">ἀλλ᾽</w> <w lemma="au%29to%2Fptai">αὐτόπται</w> <w lemma="gegono%2Ftes">γεγονότες</w> <w lemma="met%27">μετ᾽</w> <w lemma="e%29pista%2Fsews">ἐπιστάσεως</w> <w lemma="a%29pofaino%2Fmeqa">ἀποφαινόμεθα</w> — <w lemma="nu%3Dn">νῦν</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="ma%3Dllon">μᾶλλον</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Fti">ἔτι</w> <w lemma="sunh%2F%7Crhtai">συνῄρηται</w>. <w lemma="%2Aplh%5Cn">Πλὴν</w> <w lemma="o%28%2F">ὅ</w> <w lemma="ge">γε</w> <w lemma="%2Apo%2Fplios">Πόπλιος</w>,

<w lemma="suna%2Fyantos">συνάψαντος</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="sto%2Flou">στόλου</w> <w lemma="pro%5Cs">πρὸς</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="de%2Fonta">δέοντα</w> <w lemma="kairo%2Fn">καιρόν</w>, <w lemma="e%29peba%2Fleto">ἐπεβάλετο</w> <w lemma="sunaqroi%2Fsas">συναθροίσας</w> <w lemma="ta%5C">τὰ</w> <w lemma="plh%2Fqh">πλήθη</w> <w lemma="parakalei%3Dn">παρακαλεῖν</w>, <w lemma="ou%29x">οὐχ</w> <w lemma="e%28te%2Frois">ἑτέροις</w> <w lemma="tisi%5C">τισὶ</w> <w lemma="xrw%2Fmenos">χρώμενος</w> <w lemma="a%29pologismoi%3Ds">ἀπολογισμοῖς</w>, <w lemma="a%29ll%27">ἀλλ᾽</w> <w lemma="oi%28%3Ds">οἷς</w> <w lemma="e%29tu%2Fgxane">ἐτύγχανε</w> <w lemma="pepeikw%5Cs">πεπεικὼς</w> <w lemma="au%28to%2Fn">αὑτόν</w>, <w lemma="u%28pe%5Cr">ὑπὲρ</w> <w lemma="w%28%3Dn">ὧν</w> <w lemma="h%28mei%3Ds">ἡμεῖς</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="me%2Fros">μέρος</w> <w lemma="a%29%2Frti">ἄρτι</w> <w lemma="pepoih%2Fmeqa">πεποιήμεθα</w> <w lemma="lo%2Fgon">λόγον</w>. <w lemma="a%29podei%2Fcas">ἀποδείξας</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="dunath%5Cn">δυνατὴν</w> <w lemma="ou%29%3Dsan">οὖσαν</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="e%29pibolh%2Fn">ἐπιβολήν</w>,

<w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="sugkefalaiwsa%2Fmenos">συγκεφαλαιωσάμενος</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="e%29k">ἐκ</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="katorqw%2Fmatos">κατορθώματος</w> <w lemma="e%29la%2Fttwsin">ἐλάττωσιν</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="u%28penanti%2Fwn">ὑπεναντίων</w>, <w lemma="au%29%2Fchsin">αὔξησιν</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="sfete%2Frwn">σφετέρων</w> <w lemma="pragma%2Ftwn">πραγμάτων</w>, <w lemma="loipo%5Cn">λοιπὸν</w> <w lemma="xrusou%3Ds">χρυσοῦς</w> <w lemma="stefa%2Fnous">στεφάνους</w> <w lemma="e%29phggei%2Flato">ἐπηγγείλατο</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="prw%2Ftois">πρώτοις</w> <w lemma="e%29pi%5C">ἐπὶ</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="tei%3Dxos">τεῖχος</w> <w lemma="a%29naba%3Dsi">ἀναβᾶσι</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="ta%5Cs">τὰς</w> <w lemma="ei%29qisme%2Fnas">εἰθισμένας</w> <w lemma="dwrea%5Cs">δωρεὰς</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="e%29pifanw%3Ds">ἐπιφανῶς</w> <w lemma="a%29ndragaqh%2Fsasi:">ἀνδραγαθήσασι·</w>

<w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="teleutai%3Don">τελευταῖον</w> <w lemma="e%29c">ἐξ</w> <w lemma="a%29rxh%3Ds">ἀρχῆς</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Ffh">ἔφη</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="e%29pibolh%5Cn">ἐπιβολὴν</w> <w lemma="au%29tw%3D%7C">αὐτῷ</w> <w lemma="tau%2Fthn">ταύτην</w> <w lemma="u%28podedeixe%2Fnai">ὑποδεδειχέναι</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="%2Aposeidw%3Dna">Ποσειδῶνα</w> <w lemma="parasta%2Fnta">παραστάντα</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="u%28%2Fpnon">ὕπνον</w>, <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="fa%2Fnai">φάναι</w> <w lemma="sunergh%2Fsein">συνεργήσειν</w> <w lemma="e%29pifanw%3Ds">ἐπιφανῶς</w> <w lemma="kat%27">κατ᾽</w> <w lemma="au%29to%5Cn">αὐτὸν</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="pra%2Fcews">πράξεως</w> <w lemma="kairo%5Cn">καιρὸν</w> <w lemma="ou%28%2Ftws">οὕτως</w> <w lemma="w%28%2Fste">ὥστε</w> <w lemma="panti%5C">παντὶ</w> <w lemma="tw%3D%7C">τῷ</w> <w lemma="stratope%2Fdw%7C">στρατοπέδῳ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="e%29c">ἐξ</w> <w lemma="au%29tou%3D">αὐτοῦ</w> <w lemma="xrei%2Fan">χρείαν</w> <w lemma="e%29nargh%3D">ἐναργῆ</w> <w lemma="gene%2Fsqai">γενέσθαι</w>.

<w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="para%2Fklhsin">παράκλησιν</w> <w lemma="lo%2Fgwn">λόγων</w> <w lemma="a%28%2Fma">ἅμα</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="a%29pologismoi%3Ds">ἀπολογισμοῖς</w> <w lemma="a%29kribe%2Fsi">ἀκριβέσι</w> <w lemma="memigme%2Fnwn">μεμιγμένων</w>, <w lemma="a%28%2Fma">ἅμα</w> <w lemma="d%27">δ᾽</w> <w lemma="e%29paggeli%2Fais">ἐπαγγελίαις</w> <w lemma="xrusw%3Dn">χρυσῶν</w> <w lemma="stefa%2Fnwn">στεφάνων</w>, <w lemma="e%29pi%5C">ἐπὶ</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="pa%3Dsi">πᾶσι</w> <w lemma="tou%2Ftois">τούτοις</w> <w lemma="qeou%3D">θεοῦ</w> <w lemma="pronoi%2Fa%7C">προνοίᾳ</w>, <w lemma="tele%2Fws">τελέως</w> <w lemma="mega%2Flhn">μεγάλην</w> <w lemma="o%28rmh%5Cn">ὁρμὴν</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="proqumi%2Fan">προθυμίαν</w> <w lemma="pari%2Fstasqai">παρίστασθαι</w> <w lemma="sune%2Fbaine">συνέβαινε</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="neani%2Fskois">νεανίσκοις</w>.

Such being the situation of the place, the Roman camp was protected on its inner side without any fortification by the lagoon and by the outer sea.

The intervening space, which connects the city with the mainland and which lay in the middle of his camp, was also left unintrenched by Scipio,

either to intimidate the enemy or to adapt it to his own particular purpose, so that there should be no impediment to sorties from his camp and subsequent retirement into it.

The circumference of the city was formerly not more than twenty stades — I am quite aware that many state it to be forty, but this is not true, as I speak not from report but from my own careful observation — and at the present day it has still further shrunk.

Scipio, then, when the fleet arrived in due time, decided to call a meeting of his troops and address them, using no other arguments than those which had carried conviction to himself and which I have above stated in detail.

After proving to them that the project was feasible, and pointing out briefly what loss its success would entail on the enemy and what an advantage it would be to themselves, he went on to promise gold crowns to those who should be the first to mount the wall and the usual rewards to such as displayed conspicuous courage.

Finally he told them that it was Neptune who had first suggested this plan to him, appearing to him in his sleep, and promising that when the time for the action came he would render such conspicuous aid that his intervention would be manifest to the whole army.

The combination in this speech of accurate calculation, of the promise of gold crowns, and therewithal of confidence in the help of Providence created great enthusiasm and ardour among the lads.

Walbank Commentary

Overview

10.2.1 - 10.20.8

Scipio's character; the capture of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=New Carthage&groupId=791&placeId=1430">New Carthage</a> To succeed the two Scipios, killed in 211 (viii. 38 n., ix. 11), Publius' son, P. Cornelius P.f. L.n. Scipio (Africanus), was sent out with imperium pro consule by popular vote (Livy, xxvi. 18. 4–11, 19. 10–11); on the reasons for his appointment in place of Claudius Nero see Scullard, Pol. 66. Livy dates his arrival in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Spain&groupId=983&placeId=1735">Spain</a> to 211, and consequently <milestone unit="page" n="191">[191]</milestone> puts the fall of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=New Carthage&groupId=791&placeId=1430">New Carthage</a> in 210; but in fact he arrived in 210, and took the Punic base in 209 (see above, p. 14). On Scipio's preparations during winter 210–9 see Livy, xxvi. 19. 12–20. 6. The account of Scipio's character, introduced at the point at which he harangues his troops before crossing the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ebro&groupId=549&placeId=1031">Ebro</a> in spring 209 (cf. 6. 1 n.), does not aim at completeness (3. 1, where his beneficence and magnanimity are passed over as well known; cf. Bruns, 3). The digression is designed to counter popular views of how Scipio took <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=New Carthage&groupId=791&placeId=1430">New Carthage</a>, and is thus parallel to the polemic against the sensational historians who attributed Hannibal's crossing of the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Alps&groupId=313&placeId=609">Alps</a> to divine intervention (iii. 47. 6–48. 12); in both passages (11. 4, cf. iii. 48. 12) P. supports his version by the claim of autopsy. Consequently the origin and credibility of P.'s interpretation of Scipio's character cannot be disentangled from the question of the credibility of his account of the capture of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=New Carthage&groupId=791&placeId=1430">New Carthage</a>. According to P., Scipio learnt, while still in winter quarters, of the existence of a shallow lagoon on the inside of the city, and of a fall in its level each evening (8. 7); and on arriving there, the day before the attack was due to begin, he harangued his troops, promising them inter alia the manifest intervention of Neptune (11. 7–8) on their side. When at the proper time the ebb came and the wading party was sent across the lagoon, the army was struck with the thought that this was <w lang="el-GR">μετά τινος θεοῦ προνοίας</w> (14. 11). This illustrates P.'s thesis that Scipio did not owe his success to 'the gods and Tyche' (9.2), but to his own foresight (2. 13); but that he, like Lycurgus (2. 8–11), deliberately represented the fruit of calculation as the work of divine powers (2. 12). What is the truth about the ebb? Although the Mediterranean is in general tideless, tides occur at some points. But if this ebb is a tidal phenomenon P. must be wrong in saying that it occurred daily <w lang="el-GR">ἐπὶ δείλην ὀψίαν</w> (though he may, of course, have generalized what was true for the day for which Scipio planned the attack). Alternatively the ebb had some other cause such as wind action. Livy (xxvi. 45. 8) mentions a north wind which assisted the tide; and Scullard (Scip. 76–9) quotes several examples of similar phenomena due to wind, from the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Red Sea&groupId=223&placeId=474">Red Sea</a>, the Crimea, the Suez Canal, and Geneva. It is also attested that north or north-east winds can lower the level of the water by one to one and a half feet in the neighbourhood of Cartagena (Mediterranean Pilot <emph rend="superscript">6</emph> , i. 69; Scullard, Scip. 78–79 n. 3). Scullard also considers (Scip. 79) the possibility of volcanic phenomena, but rightly dismisses this as unlikely. Tide or wind, either explanation of the ebb presents difficulties. If it was tidal (and so predictable) why did Scipio launch a violent attack in the morning instead of waiting for the ebb later in the day? Having promised Neptune's help (11. 7), why did he embark on an <milestone unit="page" n="192">[192]</milestone> operation the success of which would have made that help superfluous? And why did Mago do nothing to guard against an obvious danger? If on the other hand the ebb was caused by wind action, clearly Scipio could not be quite sure it would occur; how then could he, the previous day, promise the god's intervention? These difficulties would be evaded if the whole story of the ebb were a legend. But the character of P.'s sources virtually excludes this hypothesis. For his account of the capture of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=New Carthage&groupId=791&placeId=1430">New Carthage</a> he used at least three, and possibly four, sources, apart from his own autopsy (11. 4 n.). He had the evidence of C. Laelius, Scipio's close friend (3. 2), probably oral (Laqueur, Hermes, 1921, 207–25, argues unconvincingly for a written account). He had also access to an account written by P. Scipio himself and sent (presumably after 190) to Philip V of Macedon (9. 3), in which he confirmed that his operations were based on the calculations expounded by P., including the information on the lagoon. Further, Silenus described the capture (Livy, xxvi. 49. 3), and P. may be assumed to have consulted him. The strong similarity between the accounts of P. and Livy points to a common tradition, but it is not easy to establish the relationship between the two versions. It has been argued that Livy used P., either directly or more probably via Coelius, and that the additional details which he gives (cf. Klotz, Appians Darstellung, 73) come from a secondary source like Silenus (added by Livy or again, more probably, by Coelius); cf. Kahrstedt, iii. 289 ff.; De Sanctis, iii. 2. 372. On this hypothesis, the Roman point of view in both P. and Livy derives from P.'s use of Scipio and Laelius. Klotz has argued, however, that Livy's additions form an integral part of the narrative and are only to be explained as coming from a source common to P. and to Livy (again, used probably via Coelius); cf. Klotz, Livius, 178 f.; Hermes, 1952, 334–43. On this view the Roman colouring must derive from this common original source, who will hardly be other than Fabius Pictor. P. will have made Fabius his main source, checking him from Laelius and Scipio's letter. To choose between these hypotheses is not easy. But it weighs against Klotz that in xxvi. 45. 9, 'hoc cura ac ratione compertum in prodigium ac deos uertens Scipio . . .', Livy echoes P.'s own attitude towards Scipio's exploitation of the gods; and though this phrase occurs in Livy's account of Scipio's speech just before the crossing of the lagoon, which has nothing corresponding in P. and owes a good deal to Livian rhetorical elaboration, nevertheless its ultimate origin in P. seems unquestionable. If, as Klotz argues, the additions in Livy read like an integral part of his narrative, this could merely be evidence of Livy's skill rather than an argument for the use of a common source from which P. omitted them. Further, at two points (9. 7 and 11. 1–3), where P. seems to have combined two sources with <milestone unit="page" n="193">[193]</milestone> less than his usual skill, Livy (xxvi. 42. 6, 42. 9) faithfully reproduces what he says. Klotz's theory is therefore to be rejected. P.'s source will be most likely Silenus, modified by information from Laelius and Scipio; but though conclusive evidence is lacking, he may well have made use of Fabius too, for a Roman source could have obtained information on Mago's dispositions (12. 2–3) from Mago himself when a prisoner at <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> (cf. 19. 8) perhaps more easily than Silenus in the camp of Hannibal. Livy's account will go back ultimately to P., probably through Coelius; but he gives information not in P. which is not always due to elaboration (e.g. xxvi. 42. 5, 43. 1, and 44. 10 on the part played by the fleet) and may have been added by Coelius from elsewhere. With all these sources to draw on P. will hardly have described a purely imaginary ebb. On the other hand, some of the difficulties which it creates and which have been mentioned above are perhaps less serious than they seem. If the ebb was due to wind action (and this is on the whole more likely, despite P.'s use of <w lang="el-GR">ἄμπωτις</w>, 14. 2 and 14. 7) the risk that it might not occur on the day in question could be very considerably reduced if Scipio had his local informants with him to confirm that weather conditions made its occurrence reasonably certain. Moreover, the morning attack was probably designed to exhaust the enemy (as P. indicates, 12. 7) rather than to capture the city by direct assault. As attacker Scipio had the initiative and could contrive the time-table of the operation; and if things went especially well, it was always possible to send the wading-party across the lagoon even before the ebb, since, as Scullard observes (Scip. 80–81), it was fordable without it (8. 7). Scipio was counting on using the ebb; but he was not wholly dependent on it for the success of his strategy. There is then no good reason to doubt P.'s assertion that an ebb took place at the critical moment and that its appearance was foreseen well in advance and counted on by Scipio as part of his plan; for in view of the fact that P. had access to Scipio's own account of the attack and that he assures his readers (9. 3) that this account confirms his own version of Scipio's calculations, the fall in the level of the water can scarcely be regarded as an act of Tyche on which he was not primarily relying. However, some difficulties still remain unexplained. In particular, P.'s statement that on the previous day Scipio promised his men Neptune's help has been regarded as hardly credible; and it has even been suggested that when Livy (xxvi. 45. 9) makes Scipio refer to Neptune's guidance in a speech delivered just as the attack is about tobe launched, this order of events is the right one, and P. has transposed Scipio's speech to the earlier position to support his picture of Scipio's unscrupulous rationalism (Scullard, Scip. 81–82). On this hypothesis what were originally mere words of <milestone unit="page" n="194">[194]</milestone> encouragement to the men about to cross the lagoon have been twisted into a prophetic claim to supernatural help. Such a view would carry serious implications for P.'s integrity as a historian. But if the speech was movedand one must accept the view that it is taken from P.'s original source, not invented (cf. Vol. I, pp. 13–14)then surely it is Livy (or his immediate source) who has moved it for rhetorical effect, along with the reference to the information given by Tarraconese fishermen, which now comes in awkwardly in this context (cf. Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 450 n.). Delivered at the very moment of the attack, the speech is more rhetorically effective than it would be delivered the previous day (as in P.); cf. Klotz, Appians Darstellung, 74: 'wenn Livius diese Tatsache in die sptere Erzhlung einfgt, so tut er dies aus knstlerischen Rcksichten' (though for 'er' read perhaps 'er selbst oder seine Quelle'). In fact, the reference to Poseidon the previous day is perfectly credible if the risk of the prophecy's not being fulfilled is only very slight; and this was so. For even if it proved necessary to send the men across the lagoon before the ebb occurred, this manoeuvre could without too much difficulty have been attributed to Neptune. In any case, in the moment of victory no one was going to ask too many questions about Scipio's promise; an epiphany could always be conveniently reported from some other part of the field, and in the last resort only the successful prophecies are remembered. By saying that Neptune would give his help, when he was in fact proposing to use the ebb water to cross the lagoon Scipio lies open to a charge of using religious terminology to deceive. Reluctance to believe this has been due to a reluctance to follow P. in his characterization of Scipio as a man who cynically exploited religion to gain his ends; and it has been pointed out that the other story recounted to support this thesis, viz. that of Scipio's election to the aedileship, must be rejected for the reasons given below (4. 1–5. 8 n.), and that there is little evidence from the rest of Scipio's career as P. describes it (Haywood, 33–34). The origins of P.'s interpretation have been much debated. Ed. Meyer argued that it went back to C. Laelius, whom he took to be a Stoic rationalist (Kl. Schr. ii. 423–57 = S.-B. Berlin, 1916, 1068–85); but, as Laqueur has shown (Hermes, 1921, 151 ff.), rationalism was no part of Stoic doctrine before Panaetius, and there in no evidence that Laelius was either a Stoic or a rationalist. Scullard (Scip. 12) therefore seems to be right when he claims P.'s rationalism as his own, not that of Laelius. P. approves Scipio's supposed policy of attributing his achievements to the gods in order to impress the masses, just as he expresses his willingness to allow false stories of miracles in order to instil piety into the populace (xvi. 12. 9). His picture of Scipio is his answer to the 'legend' which in some form must already have existed when he wrote and which <milestone unit="page" n="195">[195]</milestone> probably appeared in his main source, whether Silenus or not; for discussion of the development of the 'legend' see below, 2. 3 n. This does not however mean that Scipio's speech at <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=New Carthage&groupId=791&placeId=1430">New Carthage</a> is to be rejected as part of the 'legend'. Even if P. drew largely on Silenus, he had access to Scipio's letter (9. 3) and Laelius' recollections. It has been argued that Laelius did not fully understand P.'s questions (Haywood, 35–38) and indeed the two men may have made quite different assumptions about religious matters. But unless we are to dismiss Laelius as a dotard, we must surely assume that he confirmed Silenus' account that the men were promised Neptune's help and that in the ebb the next day this 'prophency' was fulfilled. However, Scipio was not necessarily the rationalist that P. describes. De Sanctis (Riv. fil. 1936, 192–3) argues that the existence of the 'legend' implies that Scipio believed in it. This is surely going much too far. On the other hand, Scipio may well have made the 'prophecy' attributed to him at <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=New Carthage&groupId=791&placeId=1430">New Carthage</a> and yet have believed sincerely in the gods; he may even have taken the existence of the ebb as a sign that Neptune was favouring his enterprise. Scullard (Scip. 19) regards the 'legend' as a proof of Scipio's genius: 'a pure rationalist or a smaller man would never have gained such a romantic halo'. Scipio was certainly a great man, and he can hardly have been a rationalist of the Polybian stamp. He was probably religious as Romans of that age understood religious orthodoxy; but, as Haywood (44) points out, even extreme piety is not identical with mysticism, and there seems to be no reliable evidence that Scipio believed himself to be divinely inspired or thought that he could count on divine help to a greater extent or more regularly than anyone else who observed true piety. See for discussion of the problems touched on above: Kahrstedt, iii. 502–11; Ed. Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 423–57; Laqueur, Hermes, 1921, 131–225; Scullard, Scip. 6–19, 56–99; R. M. Haywood, 9–44; De Sanctis, Riv. fil. 1936, 189–93; H. Bengtson, HZ, 168, 1943, 487–508; F. W. Walbank, Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc., 1966–7.

10.11.6 - 10.11.6

〈 <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τῶν ὑπεναντίων, αὔξηαιν</w></emph> 〉 <emph rend="bold">:</emph> add. Ursinus; it has been generally accepted; cf. Livy, xxvi. 43. 7, 'quae cum magna ipsi habebimus tum dempserimus hostibus multo maiora'. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">χρυσοῦς στεφάνους . . . τοῖς πρώτοις . . . ἀναβᾶσι</w>:</emph> Livy, xxvi. 48. 5 ff., mentions a single praecipuum muralis coronae decus claimed by Q. Trebellius, a centurion, and Sex. Digitius, a socius naualis, and tactfully assigned to both by Scipio when a riot was imminent (Livy, xxvi. 48. 13). <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὰς εἰθισμένας δωρεάς</w>:</emph> cf. Livy, xxvi. 48. 14, 'reliquos prout cuiusque meritum uirtusque erat donauit'.

Specifics

10.11.1 - 10.11.1

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἀσφαλίζεσθαι . . . κατὰ τὴν ἐντὸς ἐπιφάνειαν ὑπό τε τῆς . . . θαλάττης</w>:</emph> 9. 7 explains that the outer side, i.e. that facing away from the city, was artificially fortified, but there were no such defences on the town side because the nature of the ground gave sufficient protection. The present passage contradicts this in two ways: (a) it explains the absence of inner defences as due to tactical reasons, not natural strength; (b) it envisages the inner side of the Roman camp as divided into three parts, facing harbour, isthmus, and lagoon respectively. Laqueur (Hermes, 1921, 173–4) concludes that this passage is from P.'s original source, and 9. 7 a modification based on information gained from Laelius. The first point is certainly not decisive. The natural strength of the Castillo de los Moros, which probably lay on the western flank of Scipio's camp, and was included in its defences, would not exclude a decision to add no artificial defences there, so as to facilitate advance and retreat; as Scullard (Scip. 82) sees, the two reasons can be complementary. But the second objection is more serious. 9. 7 clearly assumes Scipio's camp to stretch across the whole width of the isthmus (which was only 400 yds. wide; 10. 6); hence the sea and lagoon could only wash its two sides. Here the inner side clearly extends beyond the isthmus at either end so as to face the sea and the lagoon, i.e. the camp is rather to the east of the isthmus and consequently does not enclose the Castillo de los Moros within its circuit. P. gives two reasons why the 'inner side' is not artificially defended: the two ends face the water and the centre is kept free for tactical reasons. This version cannot be reconciled with the topography if, as appears to be the case (above, p. 208), the lagoon extended well to the east of the modern city and the Castillo de los Moros (see Scullard's map). It might be argued that <w lang="el-GR">τὴν ἐντὸς ἐπιφάνειαν</w> includes the other three sides; and though this would be unbelievable if the camp was a regular square, the outer side may have been much longer than that facing the town, in which case the other two would incline and face west of north and west of south respectively, thus facilitating their inclusion in the <w lang="el-GR">ἐντὸς ἐπιφάνεια</w>. This is clearly a desperate hypothesis. The only plausible explanation is, as Laqueur says, a contradiction between 9. 7 and 11. 1–3, which imply different sites <milestone unit="page" n="211">[211]</milestone> for the camp, as explained above. Of these, the position described in 9. 7 is the more convincing; but it is risky to try to assign named sources to the two versions. Livy, xxvi. 42. 6, 'frons natura tuta erat'; 42. 9 'non obiecit uallum . . . seu fiduciam hosti superbe ostentans siue ut subeunti saepe ad moenia urbis recursus pateret', follows P.'s account faithfully.

10.11.2 - 10.11.2

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὸ δὲ μεταξὺ τούτων διάστημα</w>:</emph> the isthmus proper which, according to the source followed at this point, faces only part of the west side of Scipio's camp, and can therefore be described as <w lang="el-GR">κατὰ μέσην ὑπάρχον τὴν αὑτοῦ στρατοπεδείαν</w> (a meaningless phrase on the assumptions of 9. 7).

10.11.4 - 10.11.4

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ὁ . . . περίβολος τῆς πόλεως</w>:</emph> a circuit of 20 stades (3,700 m.) for the Punic town corresponds reasonably well with the limits determined by Strachan-Davidson (cf. Cuntz, 19). CIL, ii. 3426 (= ILS, 5333/4) mentions a Porta Popillia at <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=New Carthage&groupId=791&placeId=1430">New Carthage</a>, and Cuntz (17–18) argues that the building of this, presumably by M. Popillius Laenas, who went out to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Spain&groupId=983&placeId=1735">Spain</a> as consul in 139 and was proconsul of Citerior in 138 (cf. Volkmann, RE, 'Popillius (22)', cols. 60–61), was part of the reduction in size mentioned here. This would imply that P.'s visit to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=New Carthage&groupId=791&placeId=1430">New Carthage</a> fell after 138. But there were many occasions between Scipio's capture and the middle of the second century when minor modifications in the fortifications could have taken place; and there seems no cogent argument here for modifying the view that P. visited <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=New Carthage&groupId=791&placeId=1430">New Carthage</a> in 151–150. Which authors made the circuit 40 stades is unknown. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">οὐ . . . ἐξ ἀκοῆς . . . ἀλλ᾿? αὐτόπται</w>:</emph> Cuntz (16) and Klotz (Hermes, 1952, 336) argue that since P. visited <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=New Carthage&groupId=791&placeId=1430">New Carthage</a> in 134/3, his autopsy applies only to the point for which he quotes it, the length of the walls. The text is vague, perhaps intentionally so (for Bttner-Wobst's argument (Klio, 1905, 102), that in this case P. would have written <w lang="el-GR">τοῦτον ἀποφαινόμεθα</w>, carries no weight). If P. visited <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=New Carthage&groupId=791&placeId=1430">New Carthage</a> in 151/0, Cuntz's conclusion could still be possible; on the other hand, P. may have revised his account of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=New Carthage&groupId=791&placeId=1430">New Carthage</a> on his return from <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Spain&groupId=983&placeId=1735">Spain</a> before publication, and autopsy may have led him to modify his account of the city. But on the whole, the limited character of the context in which he mentions his visit, together with the error of orientation, favours the view that his account mainly follows a literary source (cf. 9. 8–10. 13 n.). Whatever the extent of the changes introduced after 151, P. had probably already written an account before then, in which the present passage (as a minimum) is a later insertion (cf. iii. 1–5 n., § 3 (c) (ii) in Vol. I, p. 296). <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">μετ᾿ ἐπιστάσεως</w>:</emph> with <w lang="el-GR">αὐτόπται γεγονότες</w>, 'from my own careful observation' (Paton), rather than with <w lang="el-GR">ἀποφαινόμεθα</w> (Mauersberger, s.v. <w lang="el-GR">ἀποφαίνω)</w>. See Schweighaeuser, ad loc., correcting his own text and translation. <milestone unit="page" n="212">[212]</milestone>

10.11.5 - 10.11.5

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">συνάψαντος . . . τοῦ στόλου</w>:</emph> according to Livy (xxvi. 43. 1) Scipio drew up the ships in the harbour to share the blockade, and uttered a special warning to keep careful watch during the night. This detail, though not from P., may be reliable. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ὑπὲρ ὧν . . . πεποιήμεθα λόγον</w>:</emph> cf. 7. 1–8. 9. Livy (xxvi. 43. 3–8, with a lacuna at the end) gives a version of this speech, but postpones the reference to Poseidon (Neptune) until immediately before the crossing of the lagoon (Livy, xxvi. 45. 9) for rhetorical effect.

10.11.7 - 10.11.7

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὸν Ποσειδῶνα παραστάντα κατὰ τὸν ὕπνον</w>:</emph> cf. Livy, xxvi. 45. 9 (the next day), 'Neptunum iubebat ducem itineris sequi'. Livy echoes P.'s attitude in the words 'hoc cura ac ratione compertum in prodigium ac deos uertens'; but having postponed the reference to Neptune to the next day he makes no mention of the alleged appearance in a dream. This 'prophecy' and its fulfilment hold a central place in P.'s account of the taking of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=New Carthage&groupId=791&placeId=1430">New Carthage</a> and probably play a large part in the creation of the Scipionic legend. On the credibility of P.'s version see 2. 1–20. 8 n., on p. 196. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">συνεργήσειν ἐπιφανῶς</w>:</emph> i.e. in the crossing of the lagoon; see above, 2. 1–20. 8 n.

10.11.8 - 10.11.8

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τῶν . . . κατὰ τὴν παράκλησιν λόγων</w>:</emph> 'his speech of exhortation'. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">θεοῦ προνοίᾳ</w>:</emph> cf. 14. 11, xxiii. 17. 10; neither passage affords evidence for P.'s belief in 'divine providence', since in the second the phrase occurs in a speech, while here and in 14. 11 P. is committed to the theory of fraud. See Hercod, 98. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τοῖς νεανίσκοις</w>:</emph> 'the soldiers'; cf. i. 36. 12 n.

Polybius, Histories

Bibliography

Archaeology

Places

Walbank Commentary

Commentary