Polybius, Histories
Layout
Translation

Bibliography

(0)
No bibliography content available

Archaeology

Places

Book 23 - Chapter 13

1
<w lemma="%2A%28%2Foti">Ὅτι</w> <w lemma="qaumasto%2Fn">θαυμαστόν</w> <w lemma="e%29sti">ἐστι</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="me%2Fgiston">μέγιστον</w> <w lemma="shmei%3Don">σημεῖον</w> <w lemma="gegone%2Fnai">γεγονέναι</w> <w lemma="th%3D%7C">τῇ</w> <w lemma="fu%2Fsei">φύσει</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="a%29%2Fndra">ἄνδρα</w> <w lemma="tou%3Dton">τοῦτον</w> <w lemma="h%28gemoniko%5Cn">ἡγεμονικὸν</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="polu%2F">πολύ</w> <w lemma="ti">τι</w> <w lemma="diafe%2Fronta">διαφέροντα</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="a%29%2Fllwn">ἄλλων</w> <w lemma="pro%5Cs">πρὸς</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="pragmatiko%5Cn">πραγματικὸν</w> <w lemma="tro%2Fpon:">τρόπον·</w>
2
<w lemma="e%28ptakai%2Fdeka">ἑπτακαίδεκα</w> <w lemma="ga%5Cr">γὰρ</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Fth">ἔτη</w> <w lemma="mei%2Fnas">μείνας</w> <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="u%28pai%2Fqrois">ὑπαίθροις</w> <w lemma="plei%3Dsta%2F">πλεῖστά</w> <w lemma="t%27">τ᾽</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Fqnh">ἔθνη</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="ba%2Frbara">βάρβαρα</w> <w lemma="diecelqw%5Cn">διεξελθὼν</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="plei%2Fstois">πλείστοις</w> <w lemma="a%29ndra%2Fsin">ἀνδράσιν</w> <w lemma="a%29llofu%2Flois">ἀλλοφύλοις</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="e%28teroglw%2Fttois">ἑτερογλώττοις</w> <w lemma="xrhsa%2Fmenos">χρησάμενος</w> <w lemma="sunergoi%3Ds">συνεργοῖς</w> <w lemma="pro%5Cs">πρὸς</w> <w lemma="a%29phlpisme%2Fnas">ἀπηλπισμένας</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="parado%2Fcous">παραδόξους</w> <w lemma="e%29pibola%2Fs">ἐπιβολάς</w>, <w lemma="u%28p%27">ὑπ᾽</w> <w lemma="ou%29qeno%5Cs">οὐθενὸς</w> <w lemma="ou%29%2Ft%27">οὔτ᾽</w> <w lemma="e%29pebouleu%2Fqh">ἐπεβουλεύθη</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="para%2Fpan">παράπαν</w> <w lemma="ou%29%2Ft%27">οὔτ᾽</w> <w lemma="e%29gkatelei%2Ffqh">ἐγκατελείφθη</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="a%28%2Fpac">ἅπαξ</w> <w lemma="au%29tw%3D%7C">αὐτῷ</w> <w lemma="koinwnhsa%2Fntwn">κοινωνησάντων</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="do%2Fntwn">δόντων</w> <w lemma="e%28autou%5Cs">ἑαυτοὺς</w> <w lemma="ei%29s">εἰς</w> <w lemma="xei%3Dras">χεῖρας</w>. —
<head>Character of Hannibal</head>An admirable feature in Hannibal's<note anchored="yes" place="marg" id="note33">Character of Hannibal, who poisoned himself at the court of Prusias, B.C. 183. See<bibl n="Liv. 39.1" default="NO" valid="yes">Livy, 39, 1</bibl>.</note>character, and the strongest proof of his having been a born ruler of men, and having possessed statesmanlike qualities of an unusual kind, is that, though he was for seventeen years engaged in actual warfare, and though he had to make his way through numerous barbaric tribes, and to employ innumerable men of different nationalities in what appeared desperate and hazardous enterprises, he was never made the object of a conspiracy by any of them, nor deserted by any of those who had joined him and put themselves under his command. . . .

Walbank Commentary

Overview
23.12.1 - 23.14.12
<p rend="Plain Text">Death of Philopoemen: the characters of Philopoemen, Hannibal, and Scipio Africanus</p> <p rend="Plain Text"> This section, a combination of extracts from de uirt. et uit., de sent., and Suidas, belongs to res Graeciae of Ol. 149, 2 = 183/2, and was the basis of Livy, xxxix. 49–50 (see p. 15). That Philopoemen, Hannibal, <milestone unit="page" n="235">[235]</milestone> and Scipio died in the same year is a fact widely recorded (cf. Livy, xxxix. 50. 10; Iustin. xxxii. 4. 9; Diod. xxix. 18–21, by implication); that Livy and Diodorus mention the deaths in the same order as does P. shows that they drew on him. Clearly P. mentioned the Carthaginian and the Roman in the context of Philopoemen's death. The position of the fragments of P. shows the year in question to be Ol. 149, 2 (183/2), despite Livy, xxxix. 49–50, who puts Philopoemen's death in A.U.C. 571=183. It has been argued (cf. Niese, iii. 52 n. 4; Hoffmann, Hermes, 1938, 246; Fraccaro, Opuscula, i. 389 n. 438) that this date must take precedence over that deduced from the order of the Polybian fragments, which could be out of place. But this argument ignores a decisive fact (cf. Aymard, tudes, 36), that here the order is confirmed by the coincidence of two separate selections. In the exc. de uirt. et uit. 10. 1–15 (on Philip's crimes and disasters) is followed by 12. 3–7 and 12. 8–9 (on Philopoemen) and by 13. 2 (on Hannibal) and 14. 1–4 (on Scipio), and in the exc. de sent. 10. 3 (on Philip's conscience), 10. 15–16 (on his treatment of his enemies' children), and 11. 1–8 (his address to his sons) are followed by 12. 3–6 (on Philopoemen) and 14. 5–12 (on Scipio). Thus a displacement of fragments is excluded, and there can be no doubt that P. described the three deaths under Ol. 149, 2 (183/2). Consequently it must be Livy who has brought forward the account of Philopoemen's death; and indeed in xxxix. 48. 6 Livy explains that he proposes to neglect causas et ordinem of the Messenian war as irrelevant to Roman affairs: but one euentus memorabilis, Philopoemen's death, is given in chs. 49–50 because of its dramatic interest (cf. Aymard, tudes, 22). </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> At the end of the section Livy found it recorded in P. that Hannibal and Scipio, as well as Philopoemen, died eo anno (Livy, xxxix. 50. 10), and this probably led him to consult Claudius (Nissen, KU, 340), for it was no doubt from him that he drew the information that P. Rutilius Rufusthe consul of 105, whom he nowhere else quotes (Fraccaro, Opuscula, i. 387)had the same date for Scipio's death as had P. (Livy, xxxix. 52. 1). Such is the implication of the statement (Livy, xxxix. 50. 10) that 'ab scriptoribus rerum Graecis Latinisque tantum huic uiro (sc. Philopoemeni) tribuitur ut a quibusdam eorum uelut ad insignem notam huius anni memoriae mandatum sit tres claros imperatores eo anno decessisse, Philopoemenem, Hannibalem, P. Scipionem'; cf. Livy, xxxix. 52. 1, 'Scipionem et Polybius et Rutilius hoc anno mortuum scribunt.' Clearly the scriptores Latini are Rutilius; and Livy seems to imply, not only that, like P., he mentioned the deaths as occurring in the one year, but also (to judge from the following phrase: Livy, xxxix. 50. 11, 'adeo in aequo eum [sc. Philopoemenem] duarum potentissimarum gentium summis imperatoribus posuerunt') that he related this to Philopoemen's death. To what consulship Rutilius assigned this we <milestone unit="page" n="236">[236]</milestone> do not know, for Livy's repeated references to 'this year' apply of course to the year in which he has put Philopoemen's death, viz. A.U.C. 571 = 183; but it is very likely that Rutilius was following P. (cf. Fraccaro, Opuscula, i. 391–2, against Mommsen, Röm. Forsch. ii. 484, who regarded Rutilius' datehe assumes it to be 183as important independent evidence for that year). </p> <p rend="Plain Text">Livy was, however, aware that the synchronism raised problems, which is no doubt why he consulted Claudius. For earlier, following Valerius Antias (Livy, xxxviii. 50. 5) he had put Scipio's death in 187 (Livy, xxxviii. 53. 8), and added (Livy, xxxviii. 56. 1–2): 'non de accusatore conuenit . . . non de tempore quo dicta dies sit, non de anno, quo mortuus sit, non ubi mortuus aut elatus sit.' He could therefore be convicted of inconsistency if he followed P. in putting Scipio's death in the year of Philopoemen's without comment. Hannibal's death raised no problem; and Livy, xxxix. 51 probably follows P. (cf. Nissen, KU, 227 ff.) in his account of Flamininus' embassy to Prusias' court. P. had related the early stages of this embassy in connection with Deinocrates (5. 14 n.), but he seems to have related its later stages in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Bithynia&groupId=402&placeId=748">Bithynia</a> in connection with Philopoemen's death instead of in its normal place in res Asiae; this fits the attested displacement of Hannibal's and Scipio's deaths from res Asiae and res Italiae to that position. (Livy does not commit himself on the question whether Flamininus or the Senate had decided to hunt Hannibal down; if the attribution of responsibility to Flamininus (cf. Plut. Flam. 20. 2–3; App. Syr. 11; Paus. viii. 11. 11) was in P. (so De Sanctis, iv. 1. 259 n. 44; cf. Habicht, RE, 'Prusias (2)', col. 1103), he could have altered this.) Flamininus left <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> late in 183, reaching <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Achaea&groupId=272&placeId=533">Achaea</a> either just before or after Philopoemen entered on his generalship in autumn 183 (5. 15 n.); hence his arrival in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Bithynia&groupId=402&placeId=748">Bithynia</a> was at the earliest well into autumn 183, and Hannibal's death, whether then or in 182, would fall under Ol. 149, 2 = 183/2. Nepos, Hann. 13. 1 records that 'quibus consulibus interierit, non conuenit'; for Atticus put his death under M. Claudius Marcellus and Q. Fabius Labeo (183), P. under L. Aemilius Paullus and Cn. Baebius Tamphilus (182) and an unknown Sulpicius Blitho under P. Cornelius Cethegus and M. Baebius Tamphilus (181). The last is clearly wrong; but although it is unlikely that P. specifically assigned Hannibal's death to a consulship, 182 would be the normal equivalent of Ol. 149, 2 = 183/2.</p> <p rend="Plain Text"> With Scipio Livy had more difficulties; and he therefore gave reasons for rejecting the dates of both P. (and Rutilius) and Valerius Antias (despite his earlier acceptance of his date in Livy, xxxviii. 53. 8). Valerius' date of 187 was ruled out because Scipio's accuser was M. Naevius, tribune in 184 (Livy, xxxix. 52. 3), 'aduersus quem oratio inscripta P. Africani est'. Against P. and Rutilius was the fact <milestone unit="page" n="237">[237]</milestone> that the censors M. Porcius Cato and L. Valerius Flaccus, who entered office in 184 after the consuls of that year had left for their provinces (Livy, xxxix. 41. 5), and so about April, recorded L. Valerius as princeps senatus, though in the previous two lustra P. Scipio had held the position. Only a nota of disgrace could have caused P. Scipio's removal during his lifetime; and as none is recorded, there was none. Hence P. Scipio must have died before the censors took office. That a princeps senatus normally held that rank until he died, unless disgraced, has been confirmed by Willems, i. 245; cf. Fraccaro, Opuscula, i. 387. But Mommsen, Röm. Forsch. ii. 488–9, points out that, although the senatorial list was normally made up at the beginning of a censorship, revision could continue until its end, and in the case of a death, would do so; thus Scipio could have been princeps senatus in early 184 and having died before the 18 months' censorship was over have been replaced in the final official list by L. Valerius. This enables his death to have taken place at any time between April 184 and October 183. Scullard, Pol. 152 n. 1, assumes that it was in 183, and if he in fact died after August 183, his death would fall under Ol. 149, 2 = 183/2, which would fit P.'s synchronism. </p> <p rend="Plain Text">A difficulty arises because of Cicero, de sen. 19, which contains some precise but confused chronological statements (almost certainly drawn from Atticus' Liber annalis; cf. Mnzer, Hermes, 1905, 61 f.; Fraccaro, Opuscula, i. 142–3). The dramatic date of the dialogue is 150, and Cato is made to say that Scipio 'cuius a morte tertius hic et tricesimus annus est . . . anno ante me censorem (184/3) mortuus est, nouem annis post meum consulatum (195)'. The thirtythird year before 150 is 183, the year before 184 is 185, and nine years after 195 bring one to 186. Cicero cannot have written such a jumble of nonsense, and it looks as if some of the figures have suffered textual corruption (so Fraccaro, Opuscula, i. 388), though the manuscripts reveal no trace. The first date, 183, would fit Nepos' statement that Atticus put Hannibal's death in 183; but the only phrase in which corruption would be unlikely to occur is the statement that Scipio died anno ante me censorem (so Fraccaro, loc. cit.), which supports 185 or early 184 for his death: which brings us back into Ol. 148, 4 = 185/4. The discrepancy supports Livy's statement that there were discordant views current about the date of Scipio's death, but it does not invalidate the conclusion reached concerning the date assigned to this by P. For Cicero (or Atticus) could well have reached his date by some such argument as that set out in Livy, xxxix. 52. 1–2 (L. Valerius princeps senatus), and that, as we have seen, is indecisive.</p> <p rend="Plain Text"> Summing up, it has been argued that P.'s synchronism referred to Ol. 149, 2 = 183/2, and that this is met by dating Scipio's death <milestone unit="page" n="238">[238]</milestone> before Oct. 183, Hannibal's late in 183 or early in 182, and Philopoemen's in May or June 182 (cf. Paus. iv. 29. 11, <w lang="el-GR">περὶ ἀκμὴν σίτου)</w>; that Livy in his references to 'this year' means the year of Philopoemen's death, which however, through his displacement of the chapters describing it, is A.U.C. 571 = 183 to him; but that in Livy xxxix. 52. 1–2 an attempt is made to substitute 185 for Scipio's death. Both Mommsen (Röm. Forsch. ii. 391) and Hoffmann (Hermes, 1938, 246) argue that by 'a year' P. may mean 'a period of twelve months', and Errington, 245, envisages this. It is more likely that the year is the olympiad year in which Philopoemen died; but Fraccaro (Opuscula, i. 391–2) rightly observes that P.'s purpose in this synchronism is to raise Philopoemen's glory to a level comparable with that of Hannibal and Scipio, and that he is unlikely to have been over-scrupulous, if he needed to stretch his year a month or two especially as his 'olympiad year' was in practice a somewhat flexible period. It is then at least possible that Scipio's death fell a little, though hardly much, before August, 183. </p> <p rend="Plain Text">See Mommsen, Röm. Forsch. ii. 482–7; Fraccaro, Opuscula, i. 385–92; Aymard, tudes, 22, 35–39; Hoffmann, Hermes, 1938, 244–8; Scullard, Pol. 152 n. 1; Scipio Soldier, 240 n. 179; Errington, 241–5.</p>
Specifics
23.13.1 - 23.13.1
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὸν ἄνδρα τοῦτον</w>:</emph> Hannibal. P. had probably recounted Flamininus' visit to Prusias (cf. 5. 1) and Hannibal's death (cf. Livy, xxxix. 51. 1–12; Plut. Flam. 20. 1–11; Nep. Hann. 12; Iustin. xxxii. 4. 8; App. Syr. 11; Zon. ix. 21. 7) immediately after the death of Philopoemen. But only this character sketch survives from P.'s text, and comparison with Diod. xxix. 19 shows this to be much compressed. On Hannibal's generalship see xi. 19. </p>
23.13.2 - 23.13.2
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἑπτακαίδεκα . . . ἔτη . . . ἐν τοῖς ὑπαί?θροις</w>:</emph> probably calculated from his attack on <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Saguntum&groupId=938&placeId=1673">Saguntum</a> in spring 219, which would give 17 campaigning seasons down to his departure from <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Italy&groupId=656&placeId=1199">Italy</a> in autumn 203; cf. xi. 19. 3 n. (in that passage P. says that he fought for 16 years). That P. is not reckoning to Zama is clear from Diod. xxix. 19 where, following P., Hannibal is said to have ravaged <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Italy&groupId=656&placeId=1199">Italy</a> for 17 years (a slight inaccuracy). </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">πλεῖστά τ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">ἔθνη καὶ βάρβαρα διεξελθών</w>:</emph> especially in his march from <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Spain&groupId=983&placeId=1735">Spain</a> to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Italy&groupId=656&placeId=1199">Italy</a> (cf. iii. 34. 1–56. 4). </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἀνδράσιν ἀλλοφύλοις καὶ ἑτερογλώττοις</w>:</emph> cf. xi. 19. 3–5, elaborating this point. </p>

Commentary