Polybius, Histories

Translation

Book 10 - Chapter 9

<w lemma="e%29gi%2Fneto">ἐγίνετο</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="paraskeuh%5Cn">παρασκευὴν</w> <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="th%3D%7C">τῇ</w> <w lemma="paraxeimasi%2Fa%7C">παραχειμασίᾳ</w>. <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="tau%2Fthn">ταύτην</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Fxwn">ἔχων</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="e%29pibolh%5Cn">ἐπιβολὴν</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="h%28liki%2Fan">ἡλικίαν</w>, <w lemma="h%28%5Cn">ἣν</w> <w lemma="a%29rti%2Fws">ἀρτίως</w> <w lemma="ei%29%3Dpa">εἶπα</w>, <w lemma="pa%2Fntas">πάντας</w> <w lemma="a%29pekru%2Fyato">ἀπεκρύψατο</w> <w lemma="xwri%5Cs">χωρὶς</w> <w lemma="%2Agai+%2Fou">Γαΐου</w> <w lemma="%2Alaili%2Fou">Λαιλίου</w>, <w lemma="me%2Fxri">μέχρι</w> <w lemma="pa%2Flin">πάλιν</w> <w lemma="au%29to%5Cs">αὐτὸς</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Fkrine">ἔκρινε</w> <w lemma="fanero%5Cn">φανερὸν</w> <w lemma="poiei%3Dn">ποιεῖν</w>.

<w lemma=""></w> <w lemma="%2Atou%2Ftois">Τούτοις</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="e%29klogismoi%3Ds">ἐκλογισμοῖς</w> <w lemma="o%28mologou%3Dntes">ὁμολογοῦντες</w> <w lemma="oi%28">οἱ</w> <w lemma="suggrafei%3Ds">συγγραφεῖς</w>, <w lemma="o%28%2Ftan">ὅταν</w> <w lemma="e%29pi%5C">ἐπὶ</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="te%2Flos">τέλος</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Flqwsi">ἔλθωσι</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="pra%2Fcews">πράξεως</w>, <w lemma="ou%29k">οὐκ</w> <w lemma="oi%29%3Dd%27">οἶδ᾽</w> <w lemma="o%28%2Fpws">ὅπως</w> <w lemma="ou%29k">οὐκ</w> <w lemma="ei%29s">εἰς</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="a%29%2Fndra">ἄνδρα</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="tou%2Ftou">τούτου</w> <w lemma="pro%2Fnoian">πρόνοιαν</w>, <w lemma="ei%29s">εἰς</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="qeou%5Cs">θεοὺς</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="tu%2Fxhn">τύχην</w> <w lemma="a%29nafe%2Frousi">ἀναφέρουσι</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="gegono%5Cs">γεγονὸς</w> <w lemma="kato%2Frqwma">κατόρθωμα</w>,

<w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="tau%3Dta">ταῦτα</w> <w lemma="xwri%5Cs">χωρὶς</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="ei%29ko%2Ftwn">εἰκότων</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="sumbebiwko%2Ftwn">συμβεβιωκότων</w> <w lemma="marturi%2Fas">μαρτυρίας</w>, <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="dia%5C">διὰ</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="e%29pistolh%3Ds">ἐπιστολῆς</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="pro%5Cs">πρὸς</w> <w lemma="%2Afi%2Flippon">Φίλιππον</w> <w lemma="au%29tou%3D">αὐτοῦ</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="%2Apopli%2Fou">Ποπλίου</w> <w lemma="safw%3Ds">σαφῶς</w> <w lemma="e%29kteqeiko%2Ftos">ἐκτεθεικότος</w> <w lemma="o%28%2Fti">ὅτι</w> <w lemma="tou%2Ftois">τούτοις</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="e%29klogismoi%3Ds">ἐκλογισμοῖς</w> <w lemma="xrhsa%2Fmenos">χρησάμενος</w>, <w lemma="oi%28%3Ds">οἷς</w> <w lemma="h%28mei%3Ds">ἡμεῖς</w> <w lemma="a%29nw%2Fteron">ἀνώτερον</w> <w lemma="e%29celogisa%2Fmeqa">ἐξελογισάμεθα</w>, <w lemma="kaqo%2Flou">καθόλου</w> <w lemma="te">τε</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="%2A%29ibhri%2Fa%7C">Ἰβηρίᾳ</w> <w lemma="pra%2Fgmasin">πράγμασιν</w> <w lemma="e%29piba%2Floito">ἐπιβάλοιτο</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="me%2Fros">μέρος</w> <w lemma="th%3D%7C">τῇ</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="%2Akarxhdo%2Fnos">Καρχηδόνος</w> <w lemma="poliorki%2Fa%7C">πολιορκίᾳ</w>.

<w lemma=""></w> <w lemma="%2Aplh%5Cn">Πλὴν</w> <w lemma="to%2Fte">τότε</w> <w lemma="ge">γε</w> <w lemma="tw%3D%7C">τῷ</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="e%29pi%5C">ἐπὶ</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="sto%2Flou">στόλου</w> <w lemma="%2Agai+%2Fw%7C">Γαΐῳ</w> <w lemma="%2Alaili%2Fw%7C">Λαιλίῳ</w> <w lemma="di%27">δι᾽</w> <w lemma="a%29porrh%2Ftwn">ἀπορρήτων</w> <w lemma="e%29nteila%2Fmenos">ἐντειλάμενος</w> <w lemma="parh%2Fggeile">παρήγγειλε</w> <w lemma="plei%3Dn">πλεῖν</w> <w lemma="e%29pi%5C">ἐπὶ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="proeirhme%2Fnhn">προειρημένην</w> <w lemma="po%2Flin">πόλιν</w> —

<w lemma="mo%2Fnos">μόνος</w> <w lemma="ga%5Cr">γὰρ</w> <w lemma="ou%28%3Dtos">οὗτος</w> <w lemma="au%29tw%3D%7C">αὐτῷ</w> <w lemma="sunh%2F%7Cdei">συνῄδει</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="e%29pibolh%2Fn">ἐπιβολήν</w>, <w lemma="kaqa%2Fper">καθάπερ</w> <w lemma="a%29nw%2Fteron">ἀνώτερον</w> <w lemma="ei%29%3Dpon">εἶπον</w> —

<w lemma="au%29to%5Cs">αὐτὸς</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="ta%5Cs">τὰς</w> <w lemma="pezika%5Cs">πεζικὰς</w> <w lemma="duna%2Fmeis">δυνάμεις</w> <w lemma="a%29nalabw%5Cn">ἀναλαβὼν</w> <w lemma="e%29poiei%3Dto">ἐποιεῖτο</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="porei%2Fan">πορείαν</w> <w lemma="meta%5C">μετὰ</w> <w lemma="spoudh%3Ds">σπουδῆς</w>. <w lemma="ei%29%3Dxe">εἶχε</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="pezw%3Dn">πεζῶν</w> <w lemma="plh%3Dqos">πλῆθος</w> <w lemma="ei%29s">εἰς</w> <w lemma="dismuri%2Fous">δισμυρίους</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="pentakisxili%2Fous">πεντακισχιλίους</w>, <w lemma="i%28ppei%3Ds">ἱππεῖς</w> <w lemma="d%27">δ᾽</w> <w lemma="ei%29s">εἰς</w> <w lemma="disxili%2Fous">δισχιλίους</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="pentakosi%2Fous">πεντακοσίους</w>.

<w lemma="a%29fiko%2Fmenos">ἀφικόμενος</w> <w lemma="d%27">δ᾽</w> <w lemma="e%28bdomai%3Dos">ἑβδομαῖος</w> <w lemma="katestratope%2Fdeuse">κατεστρατοπέδευσε</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="pro%5Cs">πρὸς</w> <w lemma="a%29%2Frktous">ἄρκτους</w> <w lemma="me%2Fros">μέρος</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="po%2Flews">πόλεως</w>, <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="perieba%2Fleto">περιεβάλετο</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="e%29kto%5Cs">ἐκτὸς</w> <w lemma="e%29pifa%2Fneian">ἐπιφάνειαν</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="stratopedei%2Fas">στρατοπεδείας</w> <w lemma="ta%2Ffron">τάφρον</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="xa%2Fraka">χάρακα</w> <w lemma="diplou%3Dn">διπλοῦν</w> <w lemma="e%29k">ἐκ</w> <w lemma="qala%2Ftths">θαλάττης</w> <w lemma="ei%29s">εἰς</w> <w lemma="qa%2Flattan">θάλατταν</w>, <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="pro%5Cs">πρὸς</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="po%2Flin">πόλιν</w> <w lemma="a%28plw%3Ds">ἁπλῶς</w> <w lemma="ou%29de%2Fn">οὐδέν</w>. <w lemma="au%29th%5C">αὐτὴ</w> <w lemma="ga%5Cr">γὰρ</w> <w lemma="h%28">ἡ</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="to%2Fpou">τόπου</w> <w lemma="fu%2Fsis">φύσις</w> <w lemma="i%28kanh%5Cn">ἱκανὴν</w> <w lemma="a%29sfa%2Fleian">ἀσφάλειαν</w> <w lemma="au%29tw%3D%7C">αὐτῷ</w> <w lemma="pareskeu%2Faze">παρεσκεύαζε</w>.

<w lemma="me%2Fllontes">μέλλοντες</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="poliorki%2Fan">πολιορκίαν</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="a%28%2Flwsin">ἅλωσιν</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="po%2Flews">πόλεως</w> <w lemma="dhlou%3Dn">δηλοῦν</w>, <w lemma="a%29nagkai%3Don">ἀναγκαῖον</w> <w lemma="h%28gou%2Fmeq%27">ἡγούμεθ᾽</w> <w lemma="ei%29%3Dnai">εἶναι</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="parakeime%2Fnous">παρακειμένους</w> <w lemma="to%2Fpous">τόπους</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="qe%2Fsin">θέσιν</w> <w lemma="au%29th%3Ds">αὐτῆς</w> <w lemma="e%29pi%5C">ἐπὶ</w> <w lemma="poso%5Cn">ποσὸν</w> <w lemma="u%28podei%3Dcai">ὑποδεῖξαι</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="a%29kou%2Fousi">ἀκούουσι</w>.

and though he had formed such a great project and was only of the age I just stated he concealed the plan from everyone except Gaius Laelius, until the time when he judged it proper to make it public.

Although authors agree that he made these calculations, yet when they come to the accomplishment of his plan, they attribute for some unknown reason the success not to the man and his foresight, but to the gods and to chance,

and that in spite of all probability and in spite of the testimony of those who lived with him, and of the fact that Scipio himself in his letter to Philip explained clearly that it was after making the calculations with I have just recited that he undertook all his operations in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Spain&groupId=983&placeId=1735">Spain</a> and particularly the siege of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=New Carthage&groupId=791&placeId=1430">New Carthage</a>.

Be that as it may, he now gave secret orders the Gaius Laelius, who commanded the fleet, to sail to that city —

it was Laelius alone, as I above stated, who was aware of the project —

while he himself with his land forces marched rapidly against it. He had about twenty-five thousand infantry and two thousand five hundred horse.

Arriving on the seventh day he encamped to the north of the city, defending the outer side of his camp by a palisade and double trench reach from sea to sea, but erecting no defences at all on the side facing the town, where the nature of the ground sufficiently secured his position.

Now that I am about to narrate the siege and capture of the place, I think it behoves me to make my readers acquainted to some extent with its surroundings and actual position.

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.

10.9.6 - 10.9.6

Scipio's numbers: cf. Livy, xxvi. 42. 1, when he crossed the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ebro&groupId=549&placeId=1031">Ebro</a> Scipio's forces were 'uiginti quinque milia peditum, duo milia quingenti equites'. For discussion whether these included the 5,000 Spanish allies mentioned in Livy, xxvi. 41. 2, see Scullard, Scip. 66 n. 2.

10.9.8 - 10.10.13

Description of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=New Carthage&groupId=791&placeId=1430">New Carthage</a>. For similar insistence on geographical details see iii. 36–38, v. 21. 3–9; they are equally important for the general, cf. ix. 13. 8. In 11. 4, correcting the figure of 40 stades given as the perimeter of the city, P. says that he has seen it himself. If he accompanied Scipio to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Spain&groupId=983&placeId=1735">Spain</a> in 151 (cf. Vol. I, p. 4 n. 10) he may have visited it then; he certainly need not have waited until 133, when some scholars believe he was at the siege <milestone unit="page" n="205">[205]</milestone> <figure> <graphic url="10001.gif" scale="100%" /> </figure> 7. NEW CARTHAGE. (Based on Scullard, Scipio Africanus in the Second Punic War, 290) of Numantia (Vol. I, p. 6 n. 3; below, 11. 4 n.). But he probably composed his account of the capture of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=New Carthage&groupId=791&placeId=1430">New Carthage</a> before 151 (iii. 1–5 n., § 1), and it is not to be assumed that the whole description of the topography depends on P.'s autopsy. He does not claim that for more than the single point of the length of the walls; and it is relevant that his account of Hannibal's crossing of the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Alps&groupId=313&placeId=609">Alps</a> (iii. 49. 5–56. 4) depends on a literary source, despite a similar claim to have 'seen for himself' (iii. 48. 12). The false orientation first observed by Droysen (Rh. Mus. 1875, 62 ff.) may be due to P. or may go back to his source; for discussion of his suggested explanation see below, 10. 5 n. Without adequate maps errors of orientation are easily made; and despite his emphasis on directions (cf. v. 21. 8) P. goes wrong <milestone unit="page" n="206">[206]</milestone> elsewhere (cf. iii. 47. 2–5 n., on the Rhne). Modern scholars are not without fault here; cf. Vol. I, p. 530 for a map of Alipheira in which Leake's original orientation had to be corrected from Frazer. The particular topographical points are discussed in the relevant notes. For general discussion see Droysen, Rh. Mus. 1875, 62 ff.; StrachanDavidson, 629–41 (with map); Hbner, RE, 'Carthago nova', cols. 1621–4 (unconvincing); Cuntz, 8–20 (with map); Kahrstedt, AA, 1912, 225–35; Geschichte der Karthager, iii. 509 n. 2; Brewitz, 47–53; R. Laqueur, Hermes, 1921, 170–80 (based on his 'layers of composition' theory); M. F.-V. Canovas, Estudios geogrficos-histricos de Cartagena desde los tiempos prehistricos hasta la expulsin de los rabes (Cartagena, 1905; non vidi); Scullard, Scip. 289–99 (with map), probably the best account; S. Witkowski, Bull. Intern. Acad. Pol. Suppl. 5, 1947, 1–12; A. Beltran, Arch. esp. de arq. 1948, 191–224, 'Topografa di Carthago noua'.

Specifics

10.9.1 - 10.9.1

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὴν ἡλικίαν</w>:</emph> cf. 6. 10. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">μέχρι πάλιν</w>:</emph> cf. v. 27. 2 n. for Schweighaeuser's note on <w lang="el-GR">πάλιν</w> here. <milestone unit="page" n="203">[203]</milestone>

10.9.2 - 10.9.2

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">οἱ συγγραφεῖς</w>:</emph> perhaps Silenus, and perhaps too Fabius. Whether other historians of Hannibal touched on these events, as Silenus did (Livy, xxvi. 49. 3), is not known. For P.'s criticism cf. 5. 8.

10.9.3 - 10.9.3

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τῆς τῶν συμβεβιωκότων μαρτυρίας</w>:</emph> i.e. C. Laelius; cf. 3. 2. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τῆς ἐπιστολῆς τῆς πρὸς φίλιππον</w>:</emph> following on his personal acquaintance with Philip V in 190 (Livy, xxxvii. 7.15); cf. Schur, 84; Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 454. P. probably had access to a copy of this letter through Aemilianus; for had published versions circulated at <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a>, Cicero would surely have known of them, whereas he writes (off. iii. 4), 'nulla enim eius ingenii monumenta mandata litteris, nullum opus otii, nullum solitudinis munus exstat'. For the letter as a form of autobiography (in which Africanus was later followed by Scipio Nasica: xxix. 14. 3) see Jacoby on FGH, 232; he compares Julian's letter <w lang="el-GR">Ἀθηναίων τῇ βουλῇ καὶ τῷ δήμῳ</w>, p. 346 Hertl. Pdech, Mthode, 381, suggests that Scipio wrote his letter in 190 to impress Philip and lead him to grant the Romans passage through <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Macedonia&groupId=723&placeId=428">Macedonia</a> (cf. Livy, xxxvii. 7. 8–10); but it seems more likely that Scipio sent it after the two had struck up a friendship (Walbank, Philip, 211). It perhaps dealt with his Spanish campaign generally, and not just with the capture of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=New Carthage&groupId=791&placeId=1430">New Carthage</a>.

10.9.4 - 10.9.4

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τῷ μὲν ἐπὶ τοῦ στόλου</w>:</emph> cf. Livy, xxvi. 49. 4, 'plerique Laelium praefuisse classi, sunt qui M. Iunium Silanum dicant'. We do not know the source of this variant. Scullard (Scip. 87), commenting on the odd fact that it is Livy rather than P., despite the latter's use of C. Laelius as a source, who stresses the importance of the fleet, is disposed to consider favourably Laqueur's suggestion that perhaps Silanus was the commander and Laelius Scipio's right-hand man, assigned on this particular occasion to watch over the naval sector; but Livy (xxvi. 42. 1) has himself no doubt that M. Silanus was left with a covering force on the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ebro&groupId=549&placeId=1031">Ebro</a> (cf. 6. 7).

10.9.7 - 10.9.7

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἀφικόμενος δ᾿ ἑβδομαῖος</w>:</emph> P. implies that the starting-point is the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ebro&groupId=549&placeId=1031">Ebro</a> (cf. 6. 7) and this is explicitly stated in Livy, xxvi. 42. 6, 'septimo die ab Hibero Carthaginem uentum est simul terra marique'. From the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ebro&groupId=549&placeId=1031">Ebro</a> to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=New Carthage&groupId=791&placeId=1430">New Carthage</a> is 2,600 stades = 312 m.p. (iii. 39. 6 n.), and no army could march this distance with a battle at the end in seven days; and this is true even if there was a good road and bridges, and the fleet carried the heavy baggage. Two solutions are possible: either the figure is unreliable or the starting-point is not the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ebro&groupId=549&placeId=1031">Ebro</a>. Of scholars accepting the second solution, De Sanctis (iii. 2. 465 n. 35) suggests the ford of the Sucro; and Pdech (REG, <milestone unit="page" n="204">[204]</milestone> 1958, 442) points out that all falls into place if one accepts Carcopino's theory that the Sucro was also known as the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ebro&groupId=549&placeId=1031">Ebro</a> (see ii. 13. 7 n. = Vol. I, p. 171). Meyer (Kl. Schr. ii. 451) makes the starting-point the territory of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Saguntum&groupId=938&placeId=1673">Saguntum</a>, which he assumes to have remained Roman after the catastrophe of the Scipios (cf. Schur, 28). But, as Scullard (Scip. 68 n.) notes, Scipio is likely to have set off from a point well to the north, otherwise the danger would have been more apparent; hence it is probable that the figure is at fault. Kahrstedt (iii. 509 n. 1) suspected an error of 7 for 17 or sheer exaggeration; but De Sanctis (loc. cit.) points out that 〈<w lang="el-GR">δεκαταῖος καὶ</w>〉 <w lang="el-GR">ἑβδομαῖος</w> would be a barbarous expression. Hesselmeyer's 〈<w lang="el-GR">εἰκοστο</w>〉<w lang="el-GR">εβδομαίῳ</w> would allow too long for the march; and indeed any corruption of the text must have been very early since Livy has the seven days. Perhaps then the figure is simply excessively small, as Kahrstedt thought; but in that case the truth is irrecoverable. For discussion see Droysen, Rh. Mus. 1875, 67; Kahrstedt, iii. 509; De Sanctis, iii. 2. 465 n. 35; Scullard, Scip. 67–69. P. Gauthier, Rev. Phil. 1968, 93–95, defends <w lang="el-GR">ἑβδομαῖος</w> as reckoned from the region of the Jcar; he assumes Scipio to have crossed the <emph rend="bold" /> <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ebro&groupId=549&placeId=1031">Ebro</a> the previous autumn and wintered further south. Summer, Harv. Stud. 1968, 226–7, thinks the seven days relate to the movement of the fleet: 'the sources have wrongly assumed that because the army and the fleet arrived on the same day, they set out on the same day.' <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">κατὰ τὸ πρὸς ἄρκτους μέρος τῆς πόλεως</w>:</emph> cf. Livy, xxvi. 42. 6, 'castra ab regione urbis qua in septentrionem uersa est posita'. 11. 1–2 makes clear that Scipio's camp lay across the isthmus linking the city with the mainland, and had the lagoon at one side and the bay at the other. This isthmus lies to the east of the town, not the north; for P.'s orientation is inaccurate in all his references to the topography of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=New Carthage&groupId=791&placeId=1430">New Carthage</a>. For discussion see 9. 8–10. 13 n., 10. 5 n. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τάφρον καὶ χάρακα διπλοῦν</w>:</emph> 'a trench and double palisade'; Paton has 'a palisade and double trench' (cf. Scullard, Scip. 88) and Shuckburgh 'a double trench and rampart', both wrong. This feature lay on the east (P.'s north) side of the camp. 'From sea to sea' is really 'from lagoon to sea'; cf. 10. 5 f., 11. 1. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἡ τοῦ τόπου φύσις . . . ἀσφάλειαν . . . παρεσκεύαζε</w>:</emph> the hill now called Castillo de los Moros was to the west of Scipio's position. In 11. 2 P. explains the absence of artificial defences as designed to facilitate sorties and retirement from them, and this may have been a subsidiary motive; the two explanations do not necessarily exclude each other (cf. Scullard, Scip. 82 against Laqueur, Hermes, 1921, 173–4). But in 11. 2 (q.v.) P. implies a rather different position for Scipio's camp.

Addenda & corrigenda

10.9.7 - 10.9.7

P. Gauthier, Rev. Phil. 1968, 93–95, defends <w lang="el-GR">ἑβδομαῖος</w> as reckoned from the region of the Jcar; he assumes Scipio to have crossed the <milestone unit="page" n="779">[779]</milestone> <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ebro&groupId=549&placeId=1031">Ebro</a> the previous autumn and wintered further south. Summer, Harv. Stud. 1968, 226–7, thinks the seven days relate to the movement of the fleet: 'the sources have wrongly assumed that because the army and the fleet arrived on the same day, they set out on the same day.'

10.9.8 - 10.10.13

<emph rend="bold">:</emph> l. 4 of the note, for 'say' read 'says'.

Polybius, Histories

Bibliography

Archaeology

Places

Walbank Commentary

Commentary