Polybius, Histories

Translation

Book 2 - Chapter 13

<w lemma="%2A%29asdrou%2Fbas">Ἀσδρούβας</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="au%29tou%5Cs">αὐτοὺς</w> <w lemma="xro%2Fnous">χρόνους</w> — <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="ga%5Cr">γὰρ</w> <w lemma="tou%2Ftois">τούτοις</w> <w lemma="a%29peli%2Fpomen">ἀπελίπομεν</w> <w lemma="ta%5C">τὰ</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="%2A%29ibhri%2Fan">Ἰβηρίαν</w> — <w lemma="nounexw%3Ds">νουνεχῶς</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="pragmatikw%3Ds">πραγματικῶς</w> <w lemma="xeiri%2Fzwn">χειρίζων</w> <w lemma="ta%5C">τὰ</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="a%29rxh%5Cn">ἀρχὴν</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Fn">ἔν</w> <w lemma="te">τε</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="o%28%2Flois">ὅλοις</w> <w lemma="mega%2Flhn">μεγάλην</w> <w lemma="e%29poiei%3Dto">ἐποιεῖτο</w> <w lemma="prokoph%2Fn">προκοπήν</w>, <w lemma="th%2Fn">τήν</w> <w lemma="te">τε</w> <w lemma="para%5C">παρὰ</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="tisi%5C">τισὶ</w> <w lemma="%2Akarxhdo%2Fna">Καρχηδόνα</w>, <w lemma="para%5C">παρὰ</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="tisi%5C">τισὶ</w> <w lemma="%2Akainh%5Cn">Καινὴν</w> <w lemma="po%2Flin">πόλιν</w> <w lemma="prosagoreuome%2Fnhn">προσαγορευομένην</w> <w lemma="kataskeua%2Fsas">κατασκευάσας</w> <w lemma="ou%29">οὐ</w> <w lemma="mikra%2F">μικρά</w>, <w lemma="mega%2Fla">μεγάλα</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="suneba%2Flleto">συνεβάλλετο</w> <w lemma="%2Akarxhdoni%2Fois">Καρχηδονίοις</w> <w lemma="ei%29s">εἰς</w> <w lemma="pragma%2Ftwn">πραγμάτων</w> <w lemma="lo%2Fgon">λόγον</w>,

<w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="ma%2Flista">μάλιστα</w> <w lemma="dia%5C">διὰ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="eu%29kairi%2Fan">εὐκαιρίαν</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="to%2Fpou">τόπου</w> <w lemma="pro%2Fs">πρός</w> <w lemma="te">τε</w> <w lemma="ta%5C">τὰ</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="%2A%29ibhri%2Fan">Ἰβηρίαν</w> <w lemma="pra%2Fgmata">πράγματα</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="pro%5Cs">πρὸς</w> <w lemma="ta%5C">τὰ</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="%2Alibu%2Fhn">Λιβύην</w>, <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="h%28%3Ds">ἧς</w> <w lemma="h%28mei%3Ds">ἡμεῖς</w> <w lemma="eu%29fue%2Fsteron">εὐφυέστερον</w> <w lemma="kairo%5Cn">καιρὸν</w> <w lemma="labo%2Fntes">λαβόντες</w> <w lemma="u%28podei%2Fcomen">ὑποδείξομεν</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="qe%2Fsin">θέσιν</w> <w lemma="au%29th%3Ds">αὐτῆς</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="xrei%2Fan">χρείαν</w>, <w lemma="h%28%5Cn">ἣν</w> <w lemma="a%29mfote%2Frais">ἀμφοτέραις</w> <w lemma="du%2Fnatai">δύναται</w> <w lemma="pare%2Fxesqai">παρέχεσθαι</w> <w lemma="tai%3Ds">ταῖς</w> <w lemma="ei%29rhme%2Fnais">εἰρημέναις</w> <w lemma="xw%2Frais">χώραις</w>.

<w lemma="o%28%5Cn">ὃν</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="qewrou%3Dntes">θεωροῦντες</w> <w lemma="%2A%28rwmai%3Doi">Ῥωμαῖοι</w> <w lemma="mei%2Fzw">μείζω</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="foberwte%2Fran">φοβερωτέραν</w> <w lemma="h%29%2Fdh">ἤδη</w> <w lemma="sunista%2Fmenon">συνιστάμενον</w> <w lemma="dunastei%2Fan">δυναστείαν</w>, <w lemma="w%28%2Frmhsan">ὥρμησαν</w> <w lemma="e%29pi%5C">ἐπὶ</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="polupragmonei%3Dn">πολυπραγμονεῖν</w> <w lemma="ta%5C">τὰ</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="%2A%29ibhri%2Fan">Ἰβηρίαν</w>.

<w lemma="eu%28ro%2Fntes">εὑρόντες</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="sfa%3Ds">σφᾶς</w> <w lemma="e%29pikekoimhme%2Fnous">ἐπικεκοιμημένους</w> <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Fmprosqen">ἔμπροσθεν</w> <w lemma="xro%2Fnois">χρόνοις</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="proeime%2Fnous">προειμένους</w> <w lemma="ei%29s">εἰς</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="mega%2Flhn">μεγάλην</w> <w lemma="xei%3Dra">χεῖρα</w> <w lemma="kataskeua%2Fsasqai">κατασκευάσασθαι</w> <w lemma="%2Akarxhdoni%2Fous">Καρχηδονίους</w>, <w lemma="a%29natre%2Fxein">ἀνατρέχειν</w> <w lemma="e%29peirw%3Dnto">ἐπειρῶντο</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="du%2Fnamin">δύναμιν</w>.

<w lemma="au%29to%2Fqen">αὐτόθεν</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="ou%29%3Dn">οὖν</w> <w lemma="e%29pita%2Fttein">ἐπιτάττειν</w> <w lemma="h%29%5C">ἢ</w> <w lemma="polemei%3Dn">πολεμεῖν</w> <w lemma="ou%29">οὐ</w> <w lemma="kateto%2Flmwn">κατετόλμων</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="%2Akarxhdoni%2Fois">Καρχηδονίοις</w> <w lemma="dia%5C">διὰ</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="a%29po%5C">ἀπὸ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="%2Akeltw%3Dn">Κελτῶν</w> <w lemma="fo%2Fbon">φόβον</w> <w lemma="e%29pikre%2Fmasqai">ἐπικρέμασθαι</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="sfete%2Frois">σφετέροις</w> <w lemma="pra%2Fgmasin">πράγμασιν</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="mo%2Fnon">μόνον</w> <w lemma="ou%29">οὐ</w> <w lemma="kaq%27">καθ᾽</w> <w lemma="e%28ka%2Fsthn">ἑκάστην</w> <w lemma="h%28me%2Fran">ἡμέραν</w> <w lemma="prosdoka%3Dn">προσδοκᾶν</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Ffodon">ἔφοδον</w> <w lemma="au%29tw%3Dn">αὐτῶν</w>.

<w lemma="katayh%2Fsantes">καταψήσαντες</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="prau+%2Fnantes">πραΰναντες</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="%2A%29asdrou%2Fban">Ἀσδρούβαν</w>, <w lemma="ou%28%2Ftws">οὕτως</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Fkrinan">ἔκριναν</w> <w lemma="e%29gxeirei%3Dn">ἐγχειρεῖν</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="%2Akeltoi%3Ds">Κελτοῖς</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="diakinduneu%2Fein">διακινδυνεύειν</w> <w lemma="pro%5Cs">πρὸς</w> <w lemma="au%29tou%2Fs">αὐτούς</w>, <w lemma="ou%29de%2Fpot%27">οὐδέποτ᾽</w> <w lemma="a%29%5Cn">ἂν</w> <w lemma="u%28polamba%2Fnontes">ὑπολαμβάνοντες</w> <w lemma="ou%29x">οὐχ</w> <w lemma="oi%28%3Don">οἷον</w> <w lemma="dunasteu%3Dsai">δυναστεῦσαι</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="%2A%29itali%2Fan">Ἰταλίαν</w>, <w lemma="a%29ll%27">ἀλλ᾽</w> <w lemma="ou%29d%27">οὐδ᾽</w> <w lemma="a%29sfalw%3Ds">ἀσφαλῶς</w> <w lemma="oi%29kh%3Dsai">οἰκῆσαι</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="e%28autw%3Dn">ἑαυτῶν</w> <w lemma="patri%2Fda">πατρίδα</w>, <w lemma="tou%2Ftous">τούτους</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Fxontes">ἔχοντες</w> <w lemma="e%29fe%2Fdrous">ἐφέδρους</w> <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="a%29%2Fndras">ἄνδρας</w>.

<w lemma="dio%2Fper">διόπερ</w> <w lemma="a%28%2Fma">ἅμα</w> <w lemma="tw%3D%7C">τῷ</w> <w lemma="diapresbeusa%2Fmenoi">διαπρεσβευσάμενοι</w> <w lemma="pro%5Cs">πρὸς</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="%2A%29asdrou%2Fban">Ἀσδρούβαν</w> <w lemma="poih%2Fsasqai">ποιήσασθαι</w> <w lemma="sunqh%2Fkas">συνθήκας</w>, <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="ai%28%3Ds">αἷς</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="a%29%2Fllhn">ἄλλην</w> <w lemma="%2A%29ibhri%2Fan">Ἰβηρίαν</w> <w lemma="paresiw%2Fpwn">παρεσιώπων</w>, <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="kalou%2Fmenon">καλούμενον</w> <w lemma="%2A%29%2Fibhra">Ἴβηρα</w> <w lemma="potamo%5Cn">ποταμὸν</w> <w lemma="ou%29k">οὐκ</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Fdei">ἔδει</w> <w lemma="%2Akarxhdoni%2Fous">Καρχηδονίους</w> <w lemma="e%29pi%5C">ἐπὶ</w> <w lemma="pole%2Fmw%7C">πολέμῳ</w> <w lemma="diabai%2Fnein">διαβαίνειν</w>, <w lemma="eu%29qe%2Fws">εὐθέως</w> <w lemma="e%29ch%2Fnegkan">ἐξήνεγκαν</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="pro%5Cs">πρὸς</w> <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w>

We have said nothing of affairs in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Spain&groupId=983&placeId=1735">Spain</a> during these years. Hasdrubal had by his wise and practical administration made great general progress, and by the foundation of the city called by some <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a>, and by others the New Town, made a material contribution to the resources of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a>,

especially owing to its favourable position for action in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Spain&groupId=983&placeId=1735">Spain</a> or <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Libya&groupId=686&placeId=427">Libya</a>. On a more suitable occasion we will describe its position and point out the services it can render to both these countries.

The Romans, seeing that Hasdrubal was in a fair way to create a larger and more formidable empire than <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a> formerly possessed, resolved to begin to occupy themselves with Spanish affairs.

Finding that they had hitherto been asleep and had allowed <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a> to build up a powerful dominion, they tried, as far as possible, to make up for lost time.

For the present they did not venture to impose orders on <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a>, or to go to war with her, because the threat of a Celtic invasion was hanging over them, the attack being indeed expected from day to day.

They decided, then, to smooth down and conciliate Hasdrubal in the first place, and then to attack the Celts and decide the issue by arms, for they thought that as long as they had these Celts threatening their frontier, not only would they never be masters of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Italy&groupId=656&placeId=1199">Italy</a>, but they would not even be safe in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> itself.

Accordingly, after having sent envoys to Hasdrubal and made a treaty, in which no mention was made of the rest of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Spain&groupId=983&placeId=1735">Spain</a>, but the Carthaginians engaged not to cross the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ebro&groupId=549&placeId=1031">Ebro</a> in arms, they at once entered on the struggle against the Italian Celts.

Walbank Commentary

Overview

2.13.4 - 2.13.5

Roman policy. P. here implies that the Senate was resolved to act against the Punic empire in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Spain&groupId=983&placeId=1735">Spain</a>, but for reasons of expediency, connected with the Gallic danger, 'smoothed down Hasdrubal' (§ 6) and persuaded him to sign an agreement (§ 7); once free to act, the Romans would proceed against <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a> without scruple (§ 5, <w lang="el-GR">ἐπι- τάττειν ἢ πολεμεῖν)</w>; cf. 22. 9–11. In both passages Hasdrubal's empire is a threat to be countered as soon as circumstances allow. This probably makes Roman policy more clearly defined than it really was at this date.

2.13.7 - 2.13.7

The <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ebro&groupId=549&placeId=1031">Ebro</a> treaty: cf. 22. 11, iii. 15. 5, 21. 1, 27. 9, 29. 2–3, 30. 3. This agreement <w lang="el-GR">(συνθῆκαι</w> here and (by implication) in iii. 30. 3, elsewhere, more accurately, <w lang="el-GR">ὁμολογίαι, διομολογήσεις)</w> was made between Hasdrubal and representatives of the Senate, probably between autumn 226 and spring 225 (cf. 23. 6 n.), in view of the Gallic danger, which culminated in 225 (De Sanctis, iii. 1. 412 n. 62). Controversy surrounds both the content and the significance of the treaty, and also its role in the diplomatic exchanges which preceded the Hannibalic War. (a) Content. P. mentions only one clause, 'that the Carthaginians were not to cross the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ebro&groupId=549&placeId=1031">Ebro</a> in arms'. But it has been widely argued <milestone unit="page" n="168">[168]</milestone> (e.g. by Otto, Groag, Hallward, Treves) that a complementary clause limited the Romans in an identical fashion. Certainly it is hard to believe that the Romans were not bound by such a clause; though many of those historians who do not admit the existence of this (e.g. De Sanctis, Momigliano, Tubler, Schulten), assume that the treaty recognized a Carthaginian right to advance up to the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ebro&groupId=549&placeId=1031">Ebro</a> (Tubler (Vorgesch. 49–50) argues that this right was accorded in a separate, parallel document agreed by the Romans). Thus on either interpretation the treaty looks like a concession to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a>, recognizing what had been, or was on the point of being, achieved in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Spain&groupId=983&placeId=1735">Spain</a> south of the R. <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ebro&groupId=549&placeId=1031">Ebro</a>. It has frequently been argued (e.g. by De Sanctis, Tubler, Altheim) that the treaty does not demarcate spheres of influence, since this was not a Roman conception at this time; but it can hardly have left either side free to strike alliances or develop commercial contacts across the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ebro&groupId=549&placeId=1031">Ebro</a>, merely limiting military activity (so T. Frank; on this see Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 363 n. 2). To be effective an alliance must allow for the sending of military assistance, and against this the treaty established the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ebro&groupId=549&placeId=1031">Ebro</a> as a substantial barrier. Further, if (as has been plausibly suggested, e.g. by T. Frank and De Sanctis) the driving force behind <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> was <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Massilia&groupId=739&placeId=1351">Massilia</a>, with which <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> had long enjoyed friendly relations (Diod. xiv. 93. 5; Strabo, iv. 180; Iustin. xliii. 5) and had struck an alliance in the period since the First Punic War (Livy, xxi. 20. 8, socii; cf. Philipp, RE, 'Massalia', col. 2132), she would hardly view with equanimity Carthaginian penetration in the areas around her colonies of Rhode (Rosas) and Emporiae (Ampurias), which lay on the coast between the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ebro&groupId=549&placeId=1031">Ebro</a> and the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Pyrenees&groupId=921&placeId=1650">Pyrenees</a>. T. Frank (CAH, vii. 810) even suggests that <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Massilia&groupId=739&placeId=1351">Massilia</a> was a party to the pact, but of this there is no evidence; on the other hand, Schulten's objection (CAH, vii. 788), that the surrender of her colonies south of the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ebro&groupId=549&placeId=1031">Ebro</a> must have left <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Massilia&groupId=739&placeId=1351">Massilia</a> discontented, is not very substantial, since these had probably gone already (iii. 13. 2 n.). On balance, therefore, it seems probable that the Romans accepted a limiting clause like that restricting <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a>. (b) Form and validity. The treaty was apparently agreed between Hasdrubal and a senatorial commission. Presumably it was ratified in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> (contra Tubler, Vorgesch. 49), and from the Roman point of view counted as a valid treaty. But in reply to the alleged Carthaginian argument (see iii. 21. 1 n.) that it either was nonexistent, or else had never been ratified at <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a> and hence was not valid, the Romans, instead of contradicting the assertion, merely argued that ratification at <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a> was superfluous (cf. iii. 29. 3, <w lang="el-GR">αὐτοτελῶς ἐποιήσατο τὰς ὁμολογίας Ἀσδρούβας)</w>. This suggests that, although the Barcids were normally accompanied by Councillors from <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a> (cf. iii. 20. 8, <w lang="el-GR">τοὺς μετ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">αὐτοῦ συνέδρους</w>, 71. 5, vii. 9. 1, <milestone unit="page" n="169">[169]</milestone> <w lang="el-GR">γερουσιασταί</w>, signatories to the treaty between Hannibal and Philip V), the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ebro&groupId=549&placeId=1031">Ebro</a> treaty was not ratified at home; cf. Tubler, i. 95. Probably the Barcids had power to make local agreements of this nature (De Sanctis, iii. 1. 414 n. 66), a convenient arrangement, which would leave the Carthaginian senate free to repudiate them afterwards. On their side the Romans were playing for time, and, provided Hasdrubal observed the agreement until the Gauls had been defeated, preferred not to press for any formal ratification. Hence the treaty is to be regarded, at least on the Carthaginian side, as a purely local arrangement, and not as an additional clause to the treaty of 241. (c) Significance. For the Romans, the treaty removed the risk of a Carthaginian alliance with the Gauls, and enabled them to reserve the 'Spanish problem' to a later date; they could thus look forward to rounding off their Italian frontiers, and extending their interests to southern <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Gaul&groupId=598&placeId=1108">Gaul</a> and northern <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Spain&groupId=983&placeId=1735">Spain</a> without encountering the Carthaginians (22. 10–11). On Hasdrubal's side, the treaty recognized the Carthaginian right to advance to the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ebro&groupId=549&placeId=1031">Ebro</a>, though Punic arms had not yet penetrated so far; De Sanctis (iii. 1. 412) estimates that they had not yet reduced half the area south of the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ebro&groupId=549&placeId=1031">Ebro</a>. It must, therefore, be a largely subjective judgement to decide whether the agreement was a diplomatic triumph for <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> (Mommsen) or <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a> (Egelhaaf). (d) The <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ebro&groupId=549&placeId=1031">Ebro</a> treaty and <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Saguntum&groupId=938&placeId=1673">Saguntum</a>. Some years before Hannibal succeeded to the command (221) the Iberian city of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Saguntum&groupId=938&placeId=1673">Saguntum</a> had struck an alliance with the Romans (iii. 30. 1, <w lang="el-GR">πλείοσιν ἔτεσιν ἤδη πρότερον τῶν κατ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">Ἀννίβαν καιρῶν)</w>. The date of this alliance and its relation to the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ebro&groupId=549&placeId=1031">Ebro</a> treaty are both controversial. It is agreed that the alliance can hardly have been made at the time of the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ebro&groupId=549&placeId=1031">Ebro</a> treaty (226/5), or indeed so long as the Romans were afraid of the Gauls, since it could only arouse Hasdrubal's hostility. P. appears to regard the alliance as considerably prior to the Roman interference at <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Saguntum&groupId=938&placeId=1673">Saguntum</a> in 221 (contrast iii. 30. 1 (just quoted) with iii. 15. 7, which, referring to 220, dates this interference <w lang="el-GR">μικροῖς ἔμπροσθεν χρόνοις)</w>, which perhaps points to a date before 228; and indeed it has been suggested that the alliance was made by the embassy of 231 (13. 3 n.). But the evidence is very far short of being conclusive, and historians are divided in dating the alliance. It is placed before the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ebro&groupId=549&placeId=1031">Ebro</a> treaty by Egelhaaf, Hesselbarth, Frank (CAH, vii. 809), Tubler, De Sanctis, Hallward, Gelzer, Otto, Oertel, and Schnabel, after it by Ed. Meyer, Kromayer, Groag, Schulten, Holleaux, Frank (RI), Arnold, and Heichelheim (who adduces numismatic evidence from <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Saguntum&groupId=938&placeId=1673">Saguntum</a>). If the alliance was subsequent to the treaty, it seems clear that it violated it, since an alliance carried with it the implication of <milestone unit="page" n="170">[170]</milestone> armed assistance; if made earlier (e.g. in 231), it is less clear how it stood in relation to the treaty. Hallward has argued (CAH, viii. 28) that 'the alliance was not invalidated by the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ebro&groupId=549&placeId=1031">Ebro</a> treaty, which, however, carried with it the implied obligation on <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> not to use the town as an instrument to hinder Carthaginian expansion within the sphere recognized as open to her'. De Sanctis (Problemi, 168 ff.; cf. Hesselbarth, 85, 90) believes that the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ebro&groupId=549&placeId=1031">Ebro</a> treaty virtually sacrificed <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Saguntum&groupId=938&placeId=1673">Saguntum</a> to Hasdrubal. Probably the position was never clarified. But at bottom the Saguntine alliance and the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ebro&groupId=549&placeId=1031">Ebro</a> treaty were irreconcilable; and in the last resort the Romans had no legal redress against a Punic attack on the town, for which the implications of the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ebro&groupId=549&placeId=1031">Ebro</a> treaty were sufficient justification. W. Kolbe (S.-B. Heidelberg, 1933/4, 4, 21 ff.) has argued that the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ebro&groupId=549&placeId=1031">Ebro</a> treaty automatically included allies of both sides, and so gave <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Saguntum&groupId=938&placeId=1673">Saguntum</a> the protection accorded to the allies mentioned in the treaty of 241 (to which he regards the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ebro&groupId=549&placeId=1031">Ebro</a> treaty as a pendant). But the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ebro&groupId=549&placeId=1031">Ebro</a> treaty contained no such clause covering allies, as far as we know (Bikerman, Rev. phil., 1936, 284–8). Moreover, the allies in 241 were actually specified and a list was appended to the treaty (cf. iii. 21. 5; Tubler, Vorgesch. 63 ff.; Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 368). Hence there are no grounds for supposing that the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ebro&groupId=549&placeId=1031">Ebro</a> treaty sanctioned the Saguntine alliance. Recently Carcopino has argued (REA, 1953, 258–93) that there were two Ebros, and that Hasdrubal's treaty concerned the southern one, the R. Jucar (Sucro); his thesis implies an unbelievable lack of clarity in P., who is supposed to have been aware of the homonyms, and it is unlikely to win any adherents. (e) Later distortions. In the course of the second century violent discussions on the question of the responsibility for the Hannibalic War gave disproportionate attention to the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ebro&groupId=549&placeId=1031">Ebro</a> treaty; and it became part of the Roman case to prove that Hannibal's attack on <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Saguntum&groupId=938&placeId=1673">Saguntum</a> was, somehow, a breach of this treaty. This confusion sprang from the fact that the Roman declaration of war at <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a> (iii. 20–21, 33) gave to the attack on <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Saguntum&groupId=938&placeId=1673">Saguntum</a>, for reasons of policy, a prominence which really belonged to the crossing of the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ebro&groupId=549&placeId=1031">Ebro</a>, especially if this (despite iii. 40. 2; cf. iii. 20. 6 n.) really preceded the sending of the Roman embassy; and Cato's accusations against the Carthaginians as constant treaty-breakers (HRR, i. 81, fg. 84) may mean that he played a large part in shaping the Roman version (Gelzer, Phil., 1931, 266–9 = Vom römischen Staat (Leipzig, 1943), 86 ff.; Hermes, 1933, 160). To support this version the terms of the treaty were distorted, either by the insertion of a special clause excepting <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Saguntum&groupId=938&placeId=1673">Saguntum</a> from the treaty, or by locating <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Saguntum&groupId=938&placeId=1673">Saguntum</a> north of the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ebro&groupId=549&placeId=1031">Ebro</a>; and the words <w lang="el-GR">τὴν μὲν ἄλλην Ἰβηρίαν παρεσιώπων</w> (§ 7) (i.e. they omitted all reference to the rest of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Spain&groupId=983&placeId=1735">Spain</a>) perhaps represent Polybian polemic against the first of these distortions <milestone unit="page" n="171">[171]</milestone> (Otto, HZ, 145, 1932, 501). The second error is, however, to be found in P.'s own discussion (in iii. 15. 5, 30. 3, and perhaps iii. 61. 8 and iv. 28. 1). Examples of these distortions are App. Hisp. 7; Hann. 2; Lib. 6 (<a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Saguntum&groupId=938&placeId=1673">Saguntum</a> and 'other Greek [sic] towns in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Spain&groupId=983&placeId=1735">Spain</a>' appeal to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a>; the Senate sends envoys to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a> and makes an agreement which lays down the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ebro&groupId=549&placeId=1031">Ebro</a> as the frontier between the two empires, but guarantees that <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Saguntum&groupId=938&placeId=1673">Saguntum</a> and the Greek towns shall be free and autonomous. This version also puts <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Saguntum&groupId=938&placeId=1673">Saguntum</a> north of the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ebro&groupId=549&placeId=1031">Ebro</a>); Livy, xxi. 2. 7, '. . . Saguntinisque mediis inter imperia duorum populorum libertas seruaretur'; cf. 44. 6; Zon. viii. 21, <w lang="el-GR">ἐξαιρέτους ἐπεποιήκεσαν</w>. Though important as contributions to the arguments which began soon after the Hannibalic War and reached their climax shortly before 150 (iii. 29. 1 ff.), these versions are irrelevant to the treaty itself. The bearing of the treaty on the question of responsibility for the war is discussed below (iii. 21. 1 n.). (f) Bibliography. See the works quoted in CAH, viii. 724–5, and Scullard, Hist. 197 n. 1; add: G. De Sanctis, Riv. fil., 1932, 426–7; W. Kolbe, S.-B. Heidelberg, 1933/4, 4 (cf. E. Bikerman, Rev. phil., 1936, 284–8; P. Treves, REA, 1935, 136–7); C. J. C. Arnold, Oorzaak en Schuld van den Tweeden Punischen Oorlog (Amsterdam, 1939); G. Giannelli, Roma nell' et delle guerre puniche (Bologna, 1938) (cf. J. Vogt, Gnomon, 1940, 16–17); F. Altheim, Epochen, ii. 51 ff.; J. Carcopino, REA, 1953, 258–93; F. M. Heichelheim, Historia, 1954, 211–19. For discussion and bibliography on <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Saguntum&groupId=938&placeId=1673">Saguntum</a> and the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ebro&groupId=549&placeId=1031">Ebro</a> Treaty see now Cassola, 245–58. See Larsen, CP, 1958, 248, for the view that the relationship with <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Saguntum&groupId=938&placeId=1673">Saguntum</a> was more probably the type of deditio discussed in Piganiol, RIDA, 1950, 339–47 (cf. iii. 15. 5) than an alliance (cf. iii. 15. 8). 'It is hard to believe that <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> had entered into a formal alliance at so early a date with a city so distant.' He may well be right. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἐπὶ πολέμῳ</w>:</emph> stressed by Tubler (Vorgesch. 61 f.) as evidence that only military expeditions across the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ebro&groupId=549&placeId=1031">Ebro</a> were meant; but this thesis is not sufficient to reconcile the treaty with the Saguntine alliance (above (d)). The phrase <w lang="el-GR">ἐπὶ πολέμῳ</w> occurs frequently in treaties of this period; cf. Schulte, 72–73. On the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ebro&groupId=549&placeId=1031">Ebro</a> treaty see Schmitt, SV A, iii. no. 503. On p. 170, l. 2 of (d), for '219' read '221'. On the treaty see Eucken, 26–89, arguing that the Romans made it with Hasdrubal personally and were trying to renew it with Hannibal in 220/19. Errington, Latomus, 1970, 34–41, believes that it was provoked by Massalia, the Romans acquiescing through fear of the Gauls; he sees no evidence for Roman interest in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Spain&groupId=983&placeId=1735">Spain</a>. Eucken rejects Carcopino's identification of the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ebro&groupId=549&placeId=1031">Ebro</a> with the Jcar, and this is also convincingly refuted by P. Gauthier, Rev. phil. 1968, 91–100 (though his attempt to save <w lang="el-GR">ἑβδομαῖος</w> in x. 9. 7 rests on the erroneous view that the information assembled <w lang="el-GR">ἐν τῇ παραχειμασίᾳ</w> (x. 7. 3–8. 10) was gathered together after Scipio had crossed the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ebro&groupId=549&placeId=1031">Ebro</a>). Sumner, Harv. Stud. 1968, 222–7, also rejects Carcopino, but he is seduced by the notion of 'another <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ebro&groupId=549&placeId=1031">Ebro</a>', perhaps (ibid. 227–32) a small and insignificant stream.

2.13.0 - 2.35.0

<a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> and the Gauls The Gallic invasion of 225 gives P. occasion to outline the previous history of the Gauls in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Italy&groupId=656&placeId=1199">Italy</a>, prefixing a geographical survey of Cisalpine <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Gaul&groupId=598&placeId=1108">Gaul</a> (14–17). In i. 6. 8 the Celts were excepted from the peoples of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Italy&groupId=656&placeId=1199">Italy</a> mastered before the Roman crossing into <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Sicily&groupId=973&placeId=1724">Sicily</a>. Thus the present digression falls into place as part of the story of how the Romans amassed sufficient resources to justify their ambitions for world-dominion (i. 3. 10); in addition it is relevant to Hannibal's invasion (14. 2).

Specifics

2.13.1 - 2.13.1

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἐν . . . τούτοις ἀπελίπομεν τὰ κατὰ τὴν Ἰβηρίαν</w>:</emph> see 1. 9. Illyrian events have been brought down to the date of Hasdrubal's death (winter 229) and P. returns to the Spanish field. Paton's translation, 'we have said nothing of affairs in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Spain&groupId=983&placeId=1735">Spain</a> during these years' (231–228?), is plainly absurd. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">Καρχηδό?να . . . Καινὴν πόλιν</w>:</emph> P. uses both names, cf. iii. 13. 7, 15. 3, 17. 1, etc. <w lang="el-GR">(Καινὴ πόλις)</w>, x. 6. 8, 15. 11, etc. <w lang="el-GR">(Καρχηδών)</w>; an apparent exception is explicable as a gloss, iii. 39. 6 n. The former is a translation, the latter an adaptation of the Phoenician Qart-Chadasht 'New Town' (Ehrenberg, Karthago, 13). <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=New Carthage&groupId=791&placeId=1430">New Carthage</a> was founded (cf. Diod. xxv. 12; Zon. viii. 19) about 228 on the site of the older Phoenician settlement <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Mastia&groupId=741&placeId=1353">Mastia</a> (cf. iii. 24. 4 n.), which notably resembled that of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a> itself. 'This city . . . was better placed than Alicante to keep in touch with <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Africa&groupId=300&placeId=294">Africa</a>, because it was nearer and possessed a magnificent harbour, the best on the east coast of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Spain&groupId=983&placeId=1735">Spain</a>, indeed one of the best harbours in the world' (Schulten, CAH, vii. 788).

2.13.2 - 2.13.2

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὴν θέσιν . . . καὶ τὴν χρείαν</w>:</emph> cf. x. 9 ff. for the topography; in x. 11. 4 P. states that he writes <w lang="el-GR">αὐτόπται γεγονότες</w>. If he visited <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=New Carthage&groupId=791&placeId=1430">New Carthage</a> while in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Spain&groupId=983&placeId=1735">Spain</a> with Scipio in 151 (cf. iii. 4–5 n., § 3 (ii), 57–59 n.; De Sanctis, iii. 1. 212), that statement was probably in- serted in book x before publication (for composition, though not publication, had certainly progressed beyond book x by then). It would not, however, follow that the present passage is also a later insertion (Susemihl, ii. 110 n.), for P. can have intended writing an account of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=New Carthage&groupId=791&placeId=1430">New Carthage</a> before seeing it personally. If he also <milestone unit="page" n="167">[167]</milestone> discussed its advantages relative to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Spain&groupId=983&placeId=1735">Spain</a> and <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Africa&groupId=300&placeId=294">Africa</a>, his account has not survived.

2.13.3 - 2.13.3

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ὥρμησαν ἐπὶ τὸ πολυπραγμονεῖν τὰ κατὰ τὴν Ἰβηρίαν</w>:</emph> despite P.'s suggestion that the Senate <w lang="el-GR">(Ῥωμαῖοι)</w> had hitherto neglected Spanish affairs, Dio's account (fg. 48: probably based on Coelius Antipater; Tubler, Vorgesch. 82) of a Roman embassy to Hamilcar in 231, to question Punic activities in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Spain&groupId=983&placeId=1735">Spain</a>, is quite credible (De Sanctis, iii. 1. 411 n. 59; rejected by Holleaux, <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a>, 123 n. 4); Hamilcar justified them by the need to raise money to pay the Roman indemnity. The Romans may have entered into their alliance with <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Saguntum&groupId=938&placeId=1673">Saguntum</a> now; but this is far from certain (13. 7 n. (d), iii. 15. 1 n.). <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ὥρμησαν κτλ</w>.:</emph> against accepting Dio's account of the embassy to Hamilcar see Errington, Latomus, 1970, 32–34.

2.13.4 - 2.13.4

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">εἰς τὸ μεγάλην χεῖρα κατασκευάσασθαι</w>:</emph> 'to build up a powerful dominion' (Paton), 'the opportunity of consolidating their power' (Shuckburgh), 'creuisse opes Carthaginiensium' (Schweighaeuser), 'per costruirsi un impero' (Treves). But <w lang="el-GR">μεγάλη χείρ</w> is 'a large body of men' (cf. i. 44. 7; Herod. vii. 157, etc.; LSJ, s.v. <w lang="el-GR">χείρ</w>, v). P. is considering the danger to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> inherent in a large army recruited in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Spain&groupId=983&placeId=1735">Spain</a>, and hence interprets Roman action as defensive; cf. iii. 10. 6, the Carthaginians <w lang="el-GR">ταύταις . . . ταῖς χερσὶ πιστεύσαντες εὐθαρσῶς ἐνέβησαν εἰς τὸν . . . πόλεμον</w>. Translate, therefore, 'to build up and equip a large body of troops'.

2.13.6 - 2.13.6

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">καταψήσαντες . . . καὶ πραΰναντες τὸν Ἀσδρούβαν</w>:</emph> in contrast to their policy in 231 (13. 3 n.). P.'s expression does not imply pro- tracted negotiations (Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 341), but merely proposals which would seem acceptable to Hasdrubal.

Addenda & corrigenda

2.13.7 - 2.13.7

for discussion and bibliography on <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Saguntum&groupId=938&placeId=1673">Saguntum</a> and the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ebro&groupId=549&placeId=1031">Ebro</a> Treaty see now Cassola, 245–58. See Larsen, CP, 1958, 248, for the view that the relationship with <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Saguntum&groupId=938&placeId=1673">Saguntum</a> was more probably the type of deditio discussed in Piganiol, RIDA, 1950, 339–47 (cf. iii. 15. 5) than an alliance (cf. iii. 15. 8). 'It is hard to believe that <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> had entered into a formal alliance at so early a date with a city so distant.' He may well be right.

2.13.3 - 2.13.3

<emph rend="bold">13. 3. <w lang="el-GR">ὥρμησαν κτλ</w>.:</emph> against accepting Dio's account of the embassy to Hamilcar see Errington, Latomus, 1970, 32–34.

2.13.7 - 2.13.7

on the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ebro&groupId=549&placeId=1031">Ebro</a> treaty see Schmitt, SV A, iii. no. 503. On p. 170, l. 2 of (d), for '219' read '221'. On the treaty see Eucken, 26–89, arguing that the Romans made it with Hasdrubal personally and were trying to renew it with Hannibal in 220/19. Errington, Latomus, 1970, 34–41, believes that it was provoked by Massalia, the Romans acquiescing through fear of the Gauls; he sees no evidence for Roman interest in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Spain&groupId=983&placeId=1735">Spain</a>. Eucken rejects Carcopino's identification of the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ebro&groupId=549&placeId=1031">Ebro</a> with the Jcar, and this is also convincingly refuted by P. Gauthier, Rev. phil. 1968, 91–100 (though his attempt to save <w lang="el-GR">ἑβδομαῖος</w> in x. 9. 7 rests on the erroneous view that the information assembled <w lang="el-GR">ἐν τῇ παραχειμασίᾳ</w> (x. 7. 3–8. 10) was gathered together after Scipio had crossed the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ebro&groupId=549&placeId=1031">Ebro</a>). Sumner, Harv. Stud. 1968, 222–7, also rejects Carcopino, but he is seduced by the notion of 'another <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ebro&groupId=549&placeId=1031">Ebro</a>', perhaps (ibid. 227–32) a small and insignificant stream.

Polybius, Histories

Bibliography

Archaeology

Places

Walbank Commentary

Commentary