Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 May 2015
Ancient historians offered various explanations for the war that broke out in 264 B.C. For Polybius a century later it was the Roman’s first step outside Italy in a drive to world hegemony; also a properly defensive counter to a looming Carthaginian threat to Italy. Much of later Roman historical tradition lauded it as due to pious fides towards a hapless ally, the ex-Italian Mamertines of Messana, under siege by Punic and Syracusan foes. That, it seems, was already the Roman line in 264 itself. At all events we find King Hiero of Syracuse chiding them then for ‘chattering about fides’ even as they allied themselves with the faithless brigands of Messana. For pro-Roman writers, the sanctity of alliances and the right of self-defence made a satisfying pair of historical justifications.
1 Polybius 1.3.9–10, 12.7, 63.9; 3.2.6;Walbank, F.W., Historical Commentary on Polybius 1 (Oxford 1957) 43–44Google Scholar (world hegemony). Punic threat: 1.10.5–9; see also Zonaras 8.8.1 (cf. note 4 below). Mamertines as socii: Livy 30.31.4, cf. 31.7.3, and Periocha 16 (fides); Florus 1.18 [2.2].3; Zon. 8.8.4; cf. Diodorus 23.1.2 and(Hiero's chiding) 4; Orosius 4.7.1 (recalling the language of Livy’s Per.).
2 1.18 [2.2].2–4 in E.S. Forster’s Loeb tr. (slightly modified).
3 Liber Memorialis 46.2. Cf. Ineditum. Vaticanum (FGrH no. 839) 4, 
… 
. For the Tarentum incident: Livy, Per. 14; Zon. 8.6.12–13; Oros. 4.3.1–2; cf. B.D. Hoyos, Historia 33 (1984) 434–37, but Zonaras’ (= Dio’s) version is not there given its full weight.
4 Dio, frg. 43.1–4, and Zon. 8.8.1. in E. Cary’s Loeb tr., slightly adapted: ‘with suspicion’ (Cary ‘with jealousy’), 
. ‘Desire of continually acquiring more’: 
.
5 ‘Rome’s 
with Hiero: Zon. 8.6.15; Dio, frg. 43.1 = Zon. 8.8.3. The 
Thucydides 1.23.6. For the later idea that Sardinia was annexed by Rome in the peace of 241: e.g. Eutropius 3.2.2; Auctor de Viris Illustribus 41.2; Oros. 4.11.1; cf. already Livy 21.40.5, 22.54.11 (careless rhetoric).
6 On traditions of early Roman virtue see (e.g.) Pöschl, V., Grundwerte römischer Staatsgesinnung in den Geschichtswerken des Sallust (Berlin 1940, repr. 1967)Google Scholar, esp. 12–27,53–58;Walsh, P.G., Livy: his Historical Aims and Methods (Cambridge 1963) 64–81;Google ScholarEarl, D.C., The Political Thought of Sallust (Amsterdam 1966) 18–27,Google Scholar and The Moral and Political Tradition of Rome (London 1967) 17–36; Luce, T.J., Livy: the Composition of his History (Princeton 1977) 230–49, 277–80.Google Scholar The golden age and then degeneration: Flor. 1.47.2–13, cf. 1.34 [2.19]. 1–3. Note the pained comment on the sack of Corinth in 146, ‘facinus indignum’ (1.32.1), and a sharp and firm one on the wars against the Numantines — ‘non temere, si fateri licet, ullius belli causa iniustior’ (1.34.3; cf. 34.1–6 and 12–17 on the noble nature of the Numantines; see P.Jal’s Bude edn., Florus: Oeuvres 1 [Paris 1967] cxi).den Boer, W., Some Minor Roman Historians (Leiden 1972) 7,Google Scholar sees Florus expressing himself’in the strongest possible terms’ not only on Corinth and Numantia but also about Roman behaviour in the last Macedonian War and the Third Punic: but in these two cases (1.30, 31) non liquet—nor is his comment on Corinth all that strong.
7 Mamertine appeals in Zon.: 8.8.4 and 6. Compare and contrast Pol. 1.10.1–2, 11.9, and Diod. 23.1.2–4, on the order of events (though Diod. as extant has nothing about appeals). For C. Claudius cf. note 24 below. Ensuing events: Dio, frg. 43.11–12; Zon. 8.9.5–7; Diod. 23.3; Flor. 1.18.5–6; de Vir. Ill. 37 (full of howlers).
8 For a keenly quellenkritisch approach seeLa Bua, V., Filino-Polibio Sileno-Diodoro (Palermo 1966) 23–174, 253–54Google Scholar and indeed passim, breaking down the narratives of Diodorus and especially Polybius to determine which original source is being followed at any point. He discovers qualities of impartiality and ‘prammaticita’ in Philinus as a result, far superior to Polybius’ (esp. 255–75); cf. also La Bua, in Lidia Gasperini (ed), Scritti sul Mondo Antico in onore diFulvio Grosso (Roma 1981) 241–71;Google Scholar but see Badian, E., Riv. Istr. eFilol. Class. 96 (1968) 203–11,Google Scholar and Walbank, F.W., CQ 17 (1967) 299–302.Google Scholar Again, Pol.’s varying terms for the ex-Campanian Mamertines at 1.10.3 ff. — here ‘the barbarians’, there ‘the Mamertines’ — have been used to source the former passages or sentences to the Greek Philinus and the latter to the Roman Fabius (R. Laqueur, RE 19 [1938] 2181–82; Giovannade Sensi Sestito, Gerone : un monarca ellenistico in Sicilia [Palermo 1977] 210–11). E Ruschenbusch, TAΛANTA 12–13 (1980–81) 55–76, argues that Polybius, Diodorus and Zonaras all narrate the same version of events in 264, merely with differences in emphasis and selection; and (RhM 127 [1984] 263–65) that Pol. 1.10.5–9 on the Punic peril, in echoing Thuc. 6.90.2 ff. on the Athenian peril to Sicily, reveals that Timaeus — the presumed source for Fabius whom Polybius in turn copied — was responsible for the echo. With other arguments Rizzo, F.P., in ΦIΛIAΣ XAPIN:: Miscellanea di Studi Classici in onore di Eugenio Manni (Roma 1980) 6. 1899–1920Google Scholar, holds that Timaeus and not Philinus was Diod.’s source for events to 263.
9 On Livy’s use of sources: Luce (note 6), 205–29. On Diodorus’, E. Badian (note 8), 207–8,210 — despite Horablower, Jane, Hieronymus of Cardia (Oxford 1981) 18–39, 263–81.Google Scholar On Philinus see, e.g., Laqueur, R., RE 19.2180–98 (idiosyncratic);Google Scholar Walbank, CQ 39 (1945) 1–18 = Selected Papers (Cambridge 1985) 77–98; La Bua(1966: note 8), esp. 253–75.
10 Pol. 1.10.3–12.4: see, e.g.,Walbank, , Comm., 1.57–63, and note 8 above. The siege positions: Pol. 1.11.6–8, Diod. 23.1.3. Philinus the source here: so Walbank, 1.62; La Bua (1966) 27–28; de Sensi, Gerone II, 210–11.Google Scholar
11 Polybius, or Fabius Pictor via Pol., as Dio’s source: e.g.Hoffmann, W., Historia 18 (1969) 160;Google ScholarPetzold, K.-E., Studien zur Methode des Polybios u. ihre historische Auswertung (München 1969) 173–74;Google ScholarHampl, F., in Aufst. u. Nied d. röm. Welt 1.1 (Berlin-N.Y. 1972) 415.Google Scholar — For Philinus as Dio’s ultimate source, or one of them: de Sanctis, G., Storia dei Romani 3.12 (Firenze 1967) 229–33 (Philinus via ‘un annalista non antichissimo’); La Bua (1981: note 8) 247–70 (Phil. via the early annalist L. Cincius Alimentus, fl. 200);Google Scholarde Sensi Sestito, G., Archivio per la Stor. della Sic. Orientate 70 (1974) 29–34,Google Scholar echoing de Sanctis; in Gerone II (note 8) 212–20 she argues for Phil., Fabius and annalists as Dio’s sources. Phil. as source is also held by Meister, K., Historische Kritik bei Polybios (Wiesbaden 1975) 133 n.23,Google Scholar and Eckstein, A.M., Senate and General … 264–194 B.C. (Berkeley 1987) 333.Google Scholar On Timaeus see Rizzo (note 8).
Florus on events of 264:1.18.5–6; Philinus’ and Fabius’ passion for their respective cities: Pol. 1.14.2; the ‘Philinus treaty’: 3.26.6, on which see Hoyos, B.D., CQ 35 (1985) 92–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Huss, W., Geschichte der Karthager (München 1985) 204–6.Google Scholar Diodorus’ chapter with Hiero’s comment on fides is generally seen as from Phil., as by P. Pédech, Rev. Et. Anc. 54 (1952) 248,250; LaBua(1966) 23–25,185–86; Walbank, 1.65; Meister (note 10), 139–42; de Sensi, Gerone II, 211–12. Laqueur’s romantic idea that Philinus later lost his bias, gave the Romans proper credit for their achievements, and even visited them, rests on no evidence (RE 19.2191–93).
12 Polybius on the Roman oi 
in 264: 1.11.2; and see Hoyos, B.D., Liverpool Class. Mthly. 9 (1984) 88–93Google Scholar against recent efforts to interpret the term as ‘the majority [of the Senate]’ — e.g. by Eckstein, A.M., GRBS 21 (1980) 175–90,Google Scholar and again in Senate and General (note 11 above) 81–83, 335–40. The Roman decision to expel the Carthaginians from Sicily: Pol. 1.20.2 — and even this does not necessarily mean the same as planning to exploit the island for themselves. The Romans largely neglected Sicily for a decade and a half after they did acquire it in 241.
13 Livy 30.31.4 for Mamertines as socii and for ‘pia ac iusta arma’; cf. Per. 16; 21.10.8 and Per. 14 for the Tarentum incident.
14 Arruntius’ career: Velleius 2.77.3, 85.2; Plutarch, Antony 66.3; ILS 5050, line 151; Syme, R., The Roman Revolution (Oxford 1939) 227, 282, 297, etc.,Google Scholar and cf. his Sallust (Berkeley 1964) 291–92. The Historiae belli Punici: Seneca, Epist. 114.17–19. Phrases quoted from the first book (§ 19) include ‘ingentes esse famas de Regulo’ which probably refers to him becoming suffect consul in 256. That the surrender of Panormus (§ 17 ‘quae audita Panhormitanos dedere se Romanis fecere’) was likewise in that book seems implied by the immediately following remark on such Sallustianisms, ‘totus his contexitur liber’ (§ 18), and the fact that the two quotations just before — including ‘Hiero rex Syracusanorum bellum fecit’ — seem to be from Book One as well. (Hiero was at peace with the world after 263.)
15 Seneca, § 17; Velleius 2.86.2.
16 Quintilian 10.3.8 ‘sane manifestos ex opere ipso labor’.
17 Sallust’s views of pre-146 Rome: compare Cat. 6.1–10.1 withHist. 1.11–13 M. ‘Metus hostilis’: Jug. 41.3; re-emphasised at Hist. 1.11 (cause of harmony 218 to 146 was ‘non amor iustitiae, sed stante Carthagine metus pacis infidae’) and 12 (‘remoto metu Punico simultates exercere vacuum fait’). Ambitio even in early times: see Hist. 1.7 M, though the word itself is not used. On luxus and avaritia and their effects, Hist. 1.16 (‘maiorum mores non paulatim ut antea, sed torrentis modo praecipitati’), 17–18 M; see Earl (1966: note 6) 104–5; Lintott, A.W., Historia 21 (1972) 626–38;Google ScholarTiffou, E., Essai sur la pensée morale de Salluste à la lumiére de ses prologues (Paris 1974) 285–351.Google Scholar Earl, 41–42, 106, plays down the contrast between the earlier works and the Historiae, but not Tiffou.
18 On the availability of Philinus in the first century B.C. see Hoyos (1985: note 11) 99–101. Polybius was known though not widely read (Luce [note 6] 188 n.5).
19 On the late-Roman rediscovery and fame of Trogus see R. Syme, Historia 37 (1988) 358–71. On Florus’ sources, including one as recent as Lucan: Jal (note 6) xxix-xxx; G. Brizzi, Latomus 43 (1984) 424–31 explores traces of Cato the Censor. Dio’s research: 72.23.5 andfrg. 1.2.
20 The ‘ages’ of the Roman People: Flor. 1, praef. 4–8, etc.
21 The third age: 1.18 [2.1]. 1. ‘Calatino dictatore’: 1.18 [2.2]. 12; literary sources always misspell the true cognomen. Calpurnius Flamma: Livy, Per. 17; MRR 1.206–7.
22 Dio, frg. 43.8 = Zon. 8.9.1.
23 Mamertines as Roman socii when they appealed: Livy 30.31.4, Per. 16; Oros. 4.7.1; der Vir. Ill. 37.2. ‘Foederata civitas’: Flor. 1.18 [2.2].3. Aid voted during siege: Diod. 23.1.4, probably from Philinus (note 11). On Per. 16 see Hoyos (1984: note 12); on Orosius’ use of Livy, Lippold, A., RhM 97 (1954) 254–86;Google Scholar on the First Punic War in de Vir. Ill, de Sanctis, Stor. 3.12.236–38, arguing for Livy as main source. The timing of the Mamertines’ appeal is clarified by Hoyos, B.D., Antichthon 19 (1985) 42–43, 53–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar (directly after Hiero’s crushing victory at the Longanus, and notwithstanding their rescue by the Carthaginians). Roman agreement (
) with Mamertines in 270: Zon. 8.6.14. Dio also reported an alliance, 
, with Hiero then (Zon.8.6.15)— termed 
at 8.8.3 = Dio, frg. 43.1 — but a formal alliance with him is as unlikely as one with the Mamertines at that date. Dio has the Mamertines in 264 appeal to the Romans as being fellow-Italians (Zon.8.8.4), as does Polybius (1.10.3).
24 Dio, frg. 43.5–10; Zon. 8.8.7–9.3; Diod. 23.2; Ined. Vat. (note 3) 3. C. Claudius’ exploits are accepted by (e.g.) F. Münzer, RE 3.2669; de Sanctis, Stor. 3.12.101,102 n.22; MRR 1.203; de Sensi, Gerone II, 80–87; Ruschenbusch (note 8) 64–70; Huss (note 11) 221–22; Eckstein (note 11) 337–40.
25 Possible Roman presence at Messana after the exit of the Punic garrison: Pol. 1.11.4, cf. 11.9 (arrival of Ap. Claudius at Rhegium); Diod. 23.1.2. Polybius does make Appius cross over seemingly as soon as he arrives — no naval skirmish etc. On the other hand these doings do not occur earlier in his narrative either. He is after all striving for concision.
26 Bravourstück’: A. Heuss, Der Erste Punische Krieg und das Problem des römischen Imperialisms 3 (Darmstadt 1970) 42–44.
27 Bold reconstructions of events, based on seeming hints or giveaway phrases in sources, can turn up in modem scholarship too. La Bua (Filino-Polibio, 178–84) has the Punic garrison in Messana supported by a main army of 40,000 outside the city, and the Carthaginians’ execution of the expelled commander (Pol. 1.11.5) he takes to be a lynching by the enraged army whipped up by the lieutenant who must have been left in charge. But the correct numeral in Diod. 22.13.7 is probably 900 and refers to the garrison (Hoyos, Antichthon 19 [1985] 54 n.80), and the rest is fancy. De Sensi, noting Polybius’ remark that after Hiero’s victory the Mamertines were 
(‘totally collapsed in their own affairs’: 1.10.1), infers civil strife at Messana and some of the supposed pro-Carthaginian minority taking refuge with the Punic garrison in the citadel, while the pro-Roman majority sends an embassy to Rome — for Polybius writes that ‘some’ Mamertines 
to the Carthaginians while ‘others’ 
to the Romans (ibid. 1–2: Gerone II, 63–70). Against all this see Hoyos, art cit. 42 n.38. — The Mamertines’ unwillingness ‘to submit to the Romans’, Zon. 8.8.8; Appius’ stratagem, Frontinus, Strat. 1.4.1 l.Zon. 8.9.5.
28 That Philinus mixed up C. and Ap. Claudius is held by Münzer (note 24); de Sensi (1974: note 11) 36–38 and Gerone II, 83, 91–92. LaBua(Filino-Polibio 30–33,187) also held to a mixup by Phil.— ‘un piccolo scusabile errore’ —but did not think that C. laudius was involved in expelling the Punic garrison. More recently ([1981: note 8] 253–70) he has suggested that Phil. knew who was who but termed both simply όΚλαύδιος —and it was Polybius that fell into confusion, as a result, over who actually fought the ensuing battles outside Messana. Eckstein, Senate and General, 339 n. 15 blames Polybius for one inferred confusion, and does accept C. Claudius as the expeller (338–40) though suspecting that this may not have been the emissary’s name.
28 Cassius Dio, senator and twice consul, and author of an annalistic history of Rome, counts as a Roman writer in this formulation. It is worth stressing how even authors with a known, or strongly suspected, bias cannot be trusted to show it at every opportunity. Polybius was surely pro-Roman on the whole; yet now and then criticises even the Romans of the earlier age (notably over the rape of Sardinia in 237,3.28.1–3; Walbank, 1.356 gives other examples). In the one substantial fragment of the history of Hannibal by Sosylus of Sparta that has been found, that leader’s tutor and loyal follower(Nepos, Hann. 13.5) pays tribute to the naval skill of the Massiliote seamen who helped the Romans rout a Carthaginian fleet (FGrH no.176; cf. Walbank, 1.430–31).
I should like to express my appreciation and thanks to the editors and the assessor of this paper for their very constructive criticisms.
