From Andrew.Gollan@eng.sun.com Thu Apr 1 06:57:00 1999 Received: from mxu3.u.washington.edu (mxu3.u.washington.edu [140.142.33.7]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW99.02/8.9.3+UW99.01) with ESMTP id GAA33264 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 06:57:00 -0800 Received: from mercury.Sun.COM (mercury.Sun.COM [192.9.25.1]) by mxu3.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW99.02/8.9.3+UW99.01) with ESMTP id GAA01359 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 06:56:59 -0800 Received: from sunmail1.Sun.COM ([129.145.1.2]) by mercury.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA06662 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 06:57:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from jurassic.eng.sun.com by sunmail1.Sun.COM (SMI-8.6/SMI-4.1) id GAA13681 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 06:56:53 -0800 Received: from platon (platon [192.9.204.42]) by jurassic.eng.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA27691 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 06:56:53 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199904011456.GAA27691@jurassic.eng.sun.com> Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 06:54:58 -0800 (PST) From: adjg Reply-To: adjg Subject: Re: Hannibal, King of Carthage?? To: classics@u.washington.edu X-Mailer: dtmail 1.3.0 CDE Version 1.3_6 SunOS 5.7 sun4m sparc Content-Type: text X-Sun-Text-Type: ascii I forward the following from Dexter Hoyos who doesn't follow this list. By all means include him directly in any replies. From: Dexter Hoyos Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 10:02:58 +1000 To: Andrew Gollan Subject: Hannibal Carthaginiensium rex? Message-ID: <36FEC32F.8154CA16@antiquity.usyd.edu.au> Organization: The University of Sydney Steven Zoraster inquired (26 iii 99), concerning the Barcid generals' domination of Carthaginian affairs after 237 as argued by DH in 'Unplanned Wars &c' : << In other words, those three men were given, or assumed, executive power over Carthage and its territory, and then exercised that power over a period of two decades while based in Spain, without even once returning to Carthage! So, assuming that Hoyos is correct, how did the Barca family get away with it? >> It's very true that this has not been accepted by many (most?) scholars, precisely on the political calculations Mr Zoraster mentions and because the early Roman historian, their contemporary Fabius Pictor, claimed that Hasdrubal and Hannibal ruled Spain as they chose, were at loggerheads with the leading men at Carthage and Hbal dragged them all unwilling into war in 218 (FP in Polybius 3.8). Some later writers, like Appian, also maintain that the magnates of Carthage were hostile to the Barcids, Hamilcar included though Fabius did not indict him along with his successors. Yet each general was elected to this position, which seems to have been open-ended in time, by the citizens at Carthage. The generalship covered both Africa and Spain, as is illustrated notably by Hbal's military arrangements over winter and spring 219-218. Also, in 219 the authorities at Carthage -- presumably the Punic senate, maybe also the citizen assembly -- followed Hbal's prompting and commissioned him to attack Saguntum (which he described as an ally of the Romans); in 218 they backed him to the hilt when the Romans served an ultimatum; for the next sixteen years they fought the war under his overall direction (Pol. 3.8, 9.22) and, when he returned to N Africa to face Scipio, he was clearly still in supreme command. Meanwhile Hbal's opponents at Carthage, led by Hanno 'the Great', are presented throughout as being in a small minority. Given this consistency of evidence, I found it reasonable to infer that from 237 on the Barcid generals did indeed dominate affairs of state at Carthage. The only way to make practical sense of this, in turn, is to infer that their kinsmen and friends were able to win high office at C. most of the time, funded considerably by the wealth garnered in Spain but also I daresay by successful exploitation of the revenues of Punic North Africa. On all this I discoursed at perhaps fatiguing length in a paper in 'Rheinisches Museum', vol. 137 (1994), which I hope others interested in the question may wish to consult. Salutationes ... Dexter H. .