Problems of the Second Punic War

J. S. Reid

doi:10.2307/296224

Problems of the Second Punic War

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 September 2012

J. S. Reid

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

This conflict has for moderns a perennial interest, second only to that which is excited by the Peloponnesian war. The superior attractiveness of the struggle between the Greek cities, as felt by readers in general, is a supreme testimony to the genius of Thucydides; since in intrinsic importance for the world's history, his theme is far inferior to that which was handled by Polybius and by Livy. At the end of the Peloponnesian war few men can have foreseen the rise of the Macedonian kings, to which it contributed; when Second Punic war finished, it was obvious that the ultimate control by Rome of the whole area of ancient civilisation was assured. For those who care less for the form of historical records than for the value of events, the second and decisive long-drawn duel between Romans and Carthaginians must ever possess a fascination which belongs to few other periods in the history of mankind. There is a continual flow of publications dealing with its incidents and its manifold aspects.

Type: Research Article
Information: The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 3 , November 1913 , pp. 175 - 196

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/296224 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © J. S. Reid1913. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 176 note 1} Sitzungsherichte der könig. preuss, Akad. 17th July, 1913.

^{page 176 note 2} Since this was written, Dr. Mahaffy has expressed the same view in Hermathena.

^{page 177 note 1} ii, 13.

^{page 177 note 2} fragm. 48a.

^{page 177 note 3} Polyb. ii, 36.

^{page 177 note 4} Diodorus, xxv, II; cf. Liv. xxi, 2.

^{page 177 note 5} Polyb. ii, 13.

^{page 177 note 6} ibid.

^{page 177 note 7} Polyb. ii, 13; ii, 22; iii, 15; iii, 21; iii, 27; iii, 29; iii, 30.

^{page 178 note 1} ii, 13.

^{page 179 note 1} Plin. Nat. Hist. xvi, 216Google Scholar.

^{page 179 note 2} Another story was that Saguntum was a colony of Ardea. J. Zobel de Zangroniz, in the Commentationes in bonorem Mommseni, explains this from the name Arseses, assigned to a tribe in the neighbourhood. Livy combines the tale of Zacynthus with the tale of Ardea.

^{page 179 note 3} iii, 30.

^{page 179 note 4} iii, 15.

^{page 179 note 5} Polyb. iii, 30: ὲδεδώκεισαν αὑτοὺς εἰς τὴν ʻΡωμαίων πίστιν. See Latin parallels in Mommsen, Staatsrecht, iii³, p. 651, n.

^{page 180 note 1} iii, 15.

^{page 180 note 2} λαβόντες τὴν ἐπιτροπήν. The words “εἰѕ τòδιαλῦσαι” that follow in some manuscripts are rejected by Büttner-Wobst.

^{page 181 note 1} See xxxvi, 41, where the verbiage of deditio is copied.

^{page 181 note 2} XX, 9.

^{page 181 note 3} iii, 15.

^{page 181 note 4} iii, 15; cf. iii, 21.

^{page 181 note 5} xxi, 2, 19.

^{page 181 note 6} iii, 20.

^{page 182 note 1} iii, 15.

^{page 182 note 2} παρεσπονδημένους. The word conveys a hint once more that arbitration implies alliance.

^{page 182 note 3} Compare what a Roman ambassador said to Teuta: ‘Ρωμαίοις μὲν, ὣ Τεύτα, χάλλιστόν ἑστι τà κατ’ ὶδίαν ἀδικήματα κοινῇ μεταπορεύεσθαι καὶ βοηθείν τοῖς ἀδικουμένοις (Polyb. ii, 8).

^{page 183 note 1} Doubtless Polybius intends to include Corsica. The province which included the two islands was officially named Sardinia. Festus, p. 322b, refers to the Roman occupation of both islands as occurring at the same time.

^{page 183 note 2} iii, 15.

^{page 183 note 3} iii, 30.

^{page 183 note 4} iii, 6.

^{page 184 note 1} iii, 27.

^{page 184 note 2} Kromayer in the Historische Zeitschrift, 1909, p. 264, recurs to the baseless old view, and calls the Illyrian war “ein schwerer Krieg.”

^{page 184 note 3} iii, 20. Polybius has written no word of any deliberation in the Roman senate about the policy of this war.

^{page 185 note 1} ibid. Polybius never mentions his contemporary Silenus, who “diligentissime res Hannibalis persecutus est,” as Cicero says (de Div. i, 49). The fact that Coelius Antipater drew from him is important for several matters connected with the war.

^{page 185 note 2} Presumably his brothers were the most important of these.

^{page 185 note 3} iii, 21. It is curious that Polybius first declares that the Carthaginians “said nothing about” the Hasdrubal agreement (παρεσιώπων) and then immediately gives their view of it, as part of what was alleged at the conference.

^{page 185 note 4} iii, 33.

^{page 185 note 5} iii, 21.

^{page 186 note 1} iii, 29.

^{page 186 note 2} iii, 32, 33.

^{page 186 note 3} Paradoxical use of the inconsistencies has been made recently by Laqueur, who persuades himself that he can trace five different recensions in the work of Polybius.

^{page 187 note 1} xxi, 2; cf. xxxiv, 13.

^{page 187 note 2} Cic. Off. i, 38Google Scholar.

^{page 187 note 3} Nonius, p. 100.

^{page 187 note 4} See the discussion in xxi, 18 and cf. 19: Hasdrubalis foedere.

^{page 187 note 5} xxi, 6. This differs from Polyb. iii, 15, in introducing the term allies. Polybius has “ἐποψομένους ὑπὲρ τῶν προσπιπτόντων.”

^{page 187 note 6} Silius Italicus represents Fabius Cunctator as a supporter of this last proposal.

^{page 188 note 1} c. 19.

^{page 189 note 1} Hann. 3; Iber. 7.

^{page 189 note 2} The variations in the descriptions of Hannibal's letter by the three writers are curious.

^{page 190 note 1} x, 3.

^{page 191 note 1} iii, 36.

^{page 191 note 2} iii, 38.

^{page 192 note 1} όλοσχερεῖς διαΦοράς.

^{page 192 note 2} iii, 57.

^{page 192 note 3} περὶ τῶν ἁρμοξόντων τῇ πραϒματείą.

^{page 193 note 1} xxxiv, 2.

^{page 193 note 2} iii, 48, 59. In the latter passage he speaks of dangers incurred in wanderings about Libya and Iberia and Gaul.

^{page 193 note 3} βυβλιακὴ ἓξις, xii, 25h.

^{page 193 note 4} xii, 28a.

^{page 193 note 5} xii, 25h.

^{page 193 note 6} xii, 3.

^{page 194 note 1} iii, 59.

^{page 194 note 2} x, 10.

^{page 194 note 3} iii, 37. But Schulten is in error when he supposes that Polybius imagined the chain of the Pyrenees to run from north to south. Polybius says that it extended from the Mediterranean to the “outer sea.” He also says that the chain separates the Κελτοὶ (in Gaul) from the “Ιβηρες (in Spain).

^{page 194 note 4} xix, I.

^{page 194 note 5} Cato, m. 10.

^{page 194 note 6} Cic. Fam. v, 12Google Scholar. There is hyperbole about the companionship of Polybius and Scipio on war, in Arrian, Tact. p. 240, ed. Koechly, and it seems to have been a Greek fashion to attribute Scipio's successes to Polybius.

^{page 194 note 7} iii, 14.

^{page 194 note 8} iii,76; x, 7, 7; x; 35.

^{page 195 note 1} iii, 48.

^{page 195 note 2} xxxiv, 10.

^{page 195 note 3} iii, 60.

^{page 195 note 4} iii, 49.

^{page 195 note 5} iii, 47, 48.

^{page 195 note 1} iii, 54; διανύσας εἰς τὰς ὑπερβολάς.

^{page 196 note 1} τὴν τῆς Ίταλιάς ὲνάρϒειαν.

^{page 195 note 2} ἐνδεικνύμενος τὰ περὶ τὸν Πάδον πεδία.

^{page 195 note 3} iii, 40.

^{page 195 note 4} So iii, 69; τινάς τῶν Κελτῶν … μεταξὺ τοῦ Πάδου καὶ τοῦ Τρεβια, without any hint as whether these people were to the west or to east of the Trebia.

Article contents

Problems of the Second Punic War

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests