Carthage Must Be Destroyed (68 page)

18
Jenkins & Lewis 1963, Group III.

19
Moscati 1986, 47–8.

20
Van Dommelen 1988, 151–6.

21
Positioned underneath the god was often a lotus flower, the traditional Phoenician symbol of life and renaissance (Bonnet 1986, 182–6).

22
For instance a ritual razor has been discovered at Utica which shows Heracles fighting against the giant bull. This motif is heavily influenced by the coinage produced by the Greek Sicilian cities of Selinus and Solus (ibid., 195). Several perfume bottles have also been discovered showing Heracles, and in one case Heracles with Achilles.

23
Lancel 1995, 207.

24
Athenaeus 392d.

25
Bonnet 1986, 220–22.

26
Green 1990, 187.

27
Cf. Diodorus 19.2.1–19.9.7 for the early career and rise to autocratic power of Agathocles.

28
Cf. ibid. 17.23.2–3; Zambon 2006 for the association between Agathocles and Alexander.

29
Zambon 2006, 82–3.

30
Plautus
Mostellaria
775–7.

31
Hoyos 1994, 255–6.

32
Isocrates
Nicocles
24.

33
Until the third century BC, generals were selected from the political elite and had usually held the suffeture (Drews 1979, 55). Popular Assembly = Aristotle
Pol
. 2.8.9; Diodorus 25.8.

34
Diodorus 20.10.2–4.

35
Pearson 1987, 41.

36
Justin 22.2.

37
Diodorus 19.71.6–7.

38
Ibid. 19.72.1–2.

39
Justin 22.3; Diodorus 19.72.2.

40
Diodorus 19.106.1–4.

41
Ibid. 19.106.5–19.110.5.

42
Ibid. 19.106.5, 20.3.1–3.

43
Ibid. 20.3.3.

44
Ibid. 20.4.1–8.

45
Ibid. 20.5.1–20.7.5.

46
Ibid.

47
Justin 22.5.

48
Diodorus 20.8.1–7, 20.9.2–5.

49
Ibid. 20.10.1–2.

50
Ibid. 20.10.5–20.13.2.

51
Ibid. 20.14.1–7; Lactantius
Div. Inst
. 1.21.

52
CIS
i.3914.

53
Diodorus 20.31.1–2.

54
Ibid. 20.29.2–20.30.2, 20.33.1–2.

55
Zambon 2006, 82–3.

56
Diodorus 20.33.2–8.

57
Ibid. 20.33.2–20.34.7.

58
Ibid. 20.40.1–20.42.5.

59
Ibid. 20.44.1–6.

60
Ibid. 20.54.1–20.55.5.

61
Ibid. 20.59.1–20.61.4.

62
Ibid. 20.64.1–20.69.3.

63
Justin 22.8.

64
Diodorus 20.69.3–5.

65
Mildenberg 1989, 10–12; Visonà 1998, 7.

66
Visonà 1992, 15; 1998, 9–11.

67
Jenkins 1978, 5–19. For a period these coins had been produced simultaneously at two different mints, before the
mhsbm
issues took over completely.

68
This change has been recognized as significant by a number of scholars. Manfredi (1999, 72) prefers to see it as ‘the outcome of the progressive normalization of Punic administration in Sicily which no longer needed any special legitimation’.

69
Jenkins & Lewis 1963, Groups IV to VII. Mildenberg 1989, 10, for these coins being produced from the end of the fourth century.

70
See Zambon 2006, 80–82, for the changes in the coinage of Agathocles, which reflect his new royal status; Diodorus 20.54.1.

71
Diodorus 21.16.4 attributes the disease to poison that was applied through a quill which Agathocles used to clean his teeth.

72
Ibid. 21.16.5. This was said to have been a divine punishment for seizing sacred offerings to the fire god Hephaestus some years previously (Ibid. 20. 101.1–3).

73
Plutarch
Pyrrh
. 14.5.

1
Eckstein 2006, 131–8.

2
Ibid., 138–47.

3
Harris 1979.

4
Eckstein 2006, 177. More generally, ibid., 118–80.

5
Dench 2003, 307; Lomas 2004, 207–13.

6
Eckstein 2006, 245–57.

7
Cornell 1995, 293–326, 345–68; Harris 1979, 58–67; Crawford 1993, 31–42; Lomas 2004, 201–6.

8
Livy 7.38.2.

9
Polybius 3.24; Livy 7.27.2; Diodorus 16.69.1.

10
Palmer 1997, 15–45.

11
Varro
Lat
. 5.145–59.

12
Palmer 1997, 73–9.

13
Ibid., 118–19.

14
Varro
Lat
. 5.146–7.

15
Palmer 1997, 115.

16
Di Mario 2005.

17
Bechtold 2007.

18
Diodorus 15.24.1.

19
For the strong cultural links between Sicily and Latium see Galinsky 1969, 63–140.

20
Diodorus 15.24.1.

21
Plutarch
Pyrrh
. 13.2–6.

22
Franke 1989, 456–61; Plutarch
Pyrrh
. 2.1–13.1.

23
Plutarch
Pyrrh
. 15.1–17.5.

24
Justin 18.2.1–3; Valerius Maximus 3.7.10.

25
Plutarch
Pyrrh
. 18.1–21.10.

26
Ibid. 22.1–6.

27
Polybius 3.25.1–5.

28
Plutarch
Pyrrh
. 22.4–6.

29
Ibid. 22.1–23.6.

30
Diodorus 22.7.5. Hoyos (1998, 14) argues that there were no Roman participants in this raid. However, the hypothesis put forward by Huss (1985, 212) that Romans were part of the expedition is more convincing, as it appears unlikely that the Romans would have been happy to let such an operation take place on the Italian mainland without their involvement.

31
Plutarch
Pyrrh
. 24.1.

32
Ibid. 25.1–26.1.

33
Zonaras 8.6; Plutarch
Pyrrh
. 34.2–4.

34
Diodorus 22.3; Dionysius 20.4–5.

35
Livy
Epitome
14; Zonaras 8.8; Lazenby 1996, 34–5; Hoyos 1998, 15–16. One much later Christian writer, Orosius (4.3.1–2), actually described a sea battle between the Carthaginian and Roman fleets that is almost certainly fictitious, although his claim that the Romans sent an embassy to Carthage to complain may be true.

36
Harris 1979, 183–4.

37
Lancel 1995, 365. See Hoyos 1998, 20–21, for a critique of a possible Campanian conspiracy.

38
Bechtold 2007.

39
Livy
Epitome
14; 21.10.8, Dio Fr. 43.1; Hoyos 1998, 15–16; Lazenby 1996, 38–9.

40
Hellanicus of Lesbos Frs. 31, 83,
FGH
, I: 115, 129 (Dionysius 1.72.13). For scepticism in regard to whether Hellanicus was the source of these claims see Gruen 1992, 17–18. However, see Solmsen’s (1986) convincing reiteration of Hellanicus’ authorship, which is backed up by Malkin (1998, 199–202). In fact the idea that some non-Greek peoples owed their existence to Greek heroes was not a new one. The claim that the Etruscan and Latin peoples had been ruled over by the sons of Odysseus had been circulating in Greek literary circles since at least the mid sixth century BC, and perhaps earlier. The Etruscans were themselves quite receptive to the idea that their origins were linked to the legendary Homeric wanderer (Malkin 1998 & 2002). These Greek-authored ethnographical studies also acted as powerful exclusionary devices, because, while underlining the ‘Greekness’ of some peoples, they also highlighted the alien nature of others. These ideas would soon have a significant impact in Italy, where they were enthusiastically adopted and adapted by non-Greek ethnic groups in order to define their superiority over their equally non-Greek neighbours (Dench 2003, 300).

41
Cornell 1995, 63–8. The story of Aeneas, although enormously embellished later, had its roots in
Greek
Homeric epic, and the first references to the Trojan prince travelling to the West are found in a Greek author, the sixth-century-BC Sicilian Greek Stesichorus (Gruen 1992, 13–14). The story of Aeneas in the West was also known in Etruria by the sixth century BC, as seen on decoration on imported Greek pottery and on locally made ware (Galinsky 1969, 105). However, Gruen (1992, 21–6) has convincingly argued that it was Latium that remained the centre of interest in Aeneas.

42
Gruen 1990, 33; 1992, 31.

43
Gruen 1992, 15–16. The Sicilian Greek writer Callias (Fr. 5A (Dionysius 1.72.5)) argued that Rome had been founded by the twins Romulus and Remus and an unnamed third brother, the offspring of Latinus (king of the Latin people) and Roma (a Trojan woman who had come to Italy with Aeneas, although she was not related to him). Alcimus, another Syracusan historian, produced a slightly different version of this story, which named Romus, son of Romulus and grandson of Aeneas, as the founder of the city (Vattoune 2002, 220). Indeed, such was Rome’s increasing profile that, by the fourth century, a number of Greek writers, from both the Aristotelian and Platonic schools, argued that the city was a purely Hellenic foundation (Dionysius 1.72.3–5; Plutarch
Cam
. 22.2). Vattuone (2002, 220) sees the insistence by many fourth- and third-century Syracusan writers that Rome was a Latin and/or Trojan rather than a Greek foundation as a sign that Rome, because of its alliance with the Carthaginians, was seen as an enemy of the western Greeks. However, the fact is that the Greek view of the Trojans was already more nuanced than that, and Timaeus, who clearly viewed Rome in a positive light, also insisted on Rome being a Trojan foundation.

44
The real power of these Greek ethnographical theories lay not only in the ideas themselves, but also in the authoritative rhetoric of scientific investigation in which they were couched. Bickerman 1952a; Momigliano 1975, 14–15; Cornell 1995, 60–63.

45
Strabo 5.3.5.

46
Ovid
Fasti
2.237.

47
Certainly it has been argued that the Greek Arcadian king Evander, a key figure in the story, was introduced into the Roman mythological past only in that period (Bayet 1926; Cornell 1995, 68–9).

48
Fabre 1981, 287.

49
Franke 1989, 463–6.

50
Pausanias 1.12.1; Gruen 1990, 12.

51
Zonaras 8.9; Gruen 1990, 12–13; Galinsky 1969, 173.

52
Momigliano 1977, 53–8; Walbank 2002, 172–7. For the major influence that Timaeus’ views had on Roman perceptions of Carthage see Feeney 2007, 52–7.

53
Dionysius 1.74.1. For Timaeus and his use of synchronisms see Feeney 2007, 43–52.

54
Timaeus explained that the Festival of the October Horse at Rome, during which a horse was sacrificed, was related to the Greek capture of Troy (Polybius 12.4b.1–12.4c.1). He also stated that the
Penates
, sacred objects supposedly taken by Aeneas from Troy, were kept in the Latin town of Lavinium (Dionysius 1.67.3–4). For evidence of Timaeus’ research techniques see Festus Rufus Avienus 190 L. However, Timaeus’ claim to accuracy and emphasis on visiting places and interviewing its inhabitants were met with great scepticism and derision by Polybius (12.4d.1–2).

55
Vattuone 2002, 221–2. Pearson 1987, 255–9, for the paucity of surviving Timaean references to Pyrrhus.

56
Diodorus 4.21.6–7, 4.22.1–2; Pearson 1975, 188–92.

57
Ritter 1995, 27–9. The emblems also had personal connections for the victorious Roman generals, one of whom was a member of the Fabii. Both Gaius Fabius and the other consul, Quintus Ogulnius, could boast family associations with the image of Romulus and Remus too. The Fabii were supposedly descended from the group of shepherds who had been supporters of Remus (Ovid
Fasti
2.361, 2.375). For Ogulnius, the wolf with the twins was an aide-memoire of one of his finest moments, when, nearly thirty years previously, he had successfully brought to trial several detested loansharks. A proportion of the fines had then been used to commission a group of statues, representing Romulus and Remus as infants being suckled by the she-wolf (Livy 10.23).

58
Polybius 1.10.1–2; Zonaras 8.6, 8.8; Diodorus 22.13.5–7; Lazenby 1996, 35–7.

59
Polybius 1.10.7–9.

60
Eckstein 1987, 76–7.

61
Polybius 1.10.3–1.11.4; Lazenby 1996, 37–41.

62
Polybius 1.11.4–5; Diodorus 23.1.3–4.; Zonaras 8.8–9; Lazenby 1996, 43–6.

63
Diodorus 23.1.2; Polybius 1.11.7.

64
Diodorus 23.1.4.

65
Zonaras 8.9; Frontinus
Strat
. 1.4.11; Lazenby 1996, 49.

66
Polybius 1.11.9, 1.20.15.

67
Lazenby 1996, 49–51.

68
Polybius 1.16; Diodorus 23.4; Lazenby 1996, 52–3.

69
Zonaras 8.8.2–3.

70
On Roman acquisitiveness as a cause of the First Punic War, Polybius 1.11.12; Florus 1.18.

71
Hoyos 1998, 51–7.

72
Harris 1979, 9–53. However, Rich (1993, 38–68) highlights the dangers of overplaying Roman bellicosity as the major motivation for Rome’s involvement in a significant number of wars during this period. Eckstein (2006, 181–243) questions how much more militarized, warlike and diplomatically aggressive Rome was compared with its rivals.

73
Eckstein 1987, 92.

74
Although the Roman historian Livy (
Epitome
14; 21.10.8) alluded to such a treaty, as did the Vergilian scholar Servius (
Aen
. 4.628), Polybius (3.26) vehemently denied its existence. For arguments for there being no 306 treaty, see Lazenby 1996, 33; Eckstein 1987, 77–8. For arguments in favour of the Philinus treaty, see Huss 1985, 204–6; Lancel 1995, 362; Barceló 1988, 140–41; Serrati 2006, 120–29.