BOOK spoiled all that by their experience and their skill as veteran soldiers they might have accomplished. IV. The Car We know little of the Carthaginian generals. But thaginian it is clear that on the whole they were superior to the generals. Roman consuls. Among the latter, not one appears to be distinguished for military genius. They could lead their troops against the enemy and then fight bravely; but they could do nothing more. Metellus, who gained the great victory at Panormus, was perhaps the only exception; but even he owed his victory more to the faults of his opponent and his want of skill in managing the elephants than by the display of any military talent on his own part; and when he commanded the second time as consul, he accomplished nothing. On the other hand, it cannot be denied that Hannibal, the defender of Agrigentum, Himilco, who had the command for nine years in Lilybæum, Adherbal, the victor at Drepana, and Carthalo, who attacked the Roman fleet at Camarina and caused its destruction, and above all Hamilcar Barcas, were great generals, who understood not only the art of fighting, but also the conduct of a war, and by their personal superiority over their opponents outweighed the disadvantages involved in the quality of their troops. Among the Carthaginian generals some, of course, were incapable; as, for instance, those who lost the battles of Panormus and the Ægatian Islands. If the Carthaginians punished these men severely, we may perhaps be entitled to accuse them of harshness, but not of injustice; for we find that other unfortunate generals, Hannibal, for instance, after his defeat at Mylæ, retained the confidence of the Carthaginian government; and thus they punished, it would seem, not the misfortune of the generals, but some special fault or offence. Carthaginian at sea. The defeats of the Carthaginians at sea are most surinferiority prising. The Roman boarding-bridges cannot be regarded as the single, or even as the chief, cause of this. The only explanation which we can offer has been already given that the Roman fleet was probably for the most part 1 CHAP. III. FIFTH PERIOD, B.C. built and manned by Greeks; and even then it is still astonishing that the Carthaginians were only once decidedly victorious at sea in the course of the whole war. Nor can we understand why they did not fit out larger 248-241 and more numerous fleets, to shut out the Romans from the sea altogether at the very beginning, as England did with regard to France in the revolutionary war. That they sent no second fleet after the defeat of Ecnomus to oppose the Romans, and to prevent their landing in Africa, and that after their last defeat they broke down all at once, must, from our imperfect acquaintance with the internal affairs of Carthage, remain incomprehensible. Perhaps the financial resources of this state were not so inexhaustible as we are accustomed to believe. on the The peace which handed over Sicily to the Romans Effect of affected the power of Carthage but little. Her possessions the peace in Sicily had never been secure, and could scarcely have power of Carthage. yielded a profit equal to the cost of their defence. The value of these possessions lay chiefly in the commerce with Sicily; and this commerce could be carried on with equal ease under Roman rule. Spain offered a rich and complete compensation for Sicily, and in Spain Carthage had a much fairer prospect of being able to found a lasting dominion, as there she had not to encounter the obstinate resistance of the Greeks, and as Spain was so distant from Italy that the Roman interests were not immediately concerned by what took place in that country. 1 In saying this we of course do not pretend to affirm that no Romans and other Italians were employed on board the fleet. On the contrary, we know not only that the socii navales were numerous, but that the naval service was utterly detested by the Italian allies, and drove them to mutiny and desertion in large numbers (Livy, xxiv. 23, 10). But as the Romans required thousands of sailors for their transports, it is probable that they first employed the untrained landsmen in this department of the service, and thus gradually trained them to be fit for manning war vessels. As for practising rowing on land, it may be as feasible as learning to swim without going into the water. BOOK Revolt of the Carthaginian allies. Cause of CHAPTER IV. THE WAR OF THE MERCENARIES, 241-238 B.C. As sometimes the strongest men, when they have strained every nerve and have kept up bravely in fighting against some threatening danger, succumb suddenly at last when calm and quiet are re-established, and seem doomed to perish from some internal suffering, so Carthage at the end of the long war with Rome was threatened by a much more serious evil than that which she had just gone through. The bad humours in the body of the state, no longer absorbed by exertion and activity, attacked the inner parts, and threatened sudden death. A mutiny of the mercenaries of Carthage, in connection with a revolt of all the allies and subjects, followed close on the Sicilian war. For more than three years there raged a fearful strife, accompanied by horrors which show that man can sink lower than the beasts. The cause of this war was the great weakness of the Carthaginian state, which, as we have seen, consisted in the want of a uniform population animated by the same sentiments. The mixture of races, over which Carthage ruled, felt only the increased burdens of the war with Rome, and not the patriotic enthusiasm which lightens every sacrifice. A decisive victory on the side of Carthage might have inspired her subjects with the respect and fear which with them had to take the place of devoted attachment. But Carthage was conquered. She had, in the eyes of her subjects, lost the right to govern. It required but a slight cause to make the whole proud edifice of Carthaginian power totter to its foundation. This cause was the exhaustion of the Carthaginian IV. 241-238 B.C. finances. When the mercenaries returned from Sicily, CHAP. and vainly looked for their overdue pay and the presents which had been promised to them, discontent and defiance arose among them, and they made higher and more ex- the travagant demands when they saw that Carthage was mutiny. not in a position to oppose them by force. It was now as difficult to pacify them as to bring them back to obedience. Open rebellion broke out, the mutineers and the allies' made common cause together, and in a short time all the towns of Libya were in revolt. Utica and Hippo Zaritas alone remained faithful. Tunes was in the hands of the mutineers, who were commanded by the Libyan Matho, by the Campanian Spendius, and by the Gaul Autaritus. The general Hanno, who as their favourite had been selected by the mercenaries as umpire to decide the quarrel, was taken prisoner and detained as hostage. Carthage was surrounded by her numerous enemies, and seemed hopelessly lost. But the spirit of the Carthaginian population now rose. An army was formed from the citizens and those mercenaries who had remained faithful, and Hamilcar Barcas took the command. The superiority of a true general over such chiefs as Matho and Spendius soon became apparent. The mutineers, although reinforced, according to report, by 70,000 Libyans and Numidians, were surprised and defeated again and again. Hamilcar tried clemency. He only demanded a promise from the prisoners not to make war upon Carthage, and then set them free. But the leaders of the mutineers, fearing a universal rebellion among their accomplices, decided on rendering peace with Carthage impossible by It is not at all likely that the towns subject to Carthage were in an enviable position. It was the general practice in antiquity, and even in modern times down to a recent period, for a governing country to treat dependencies and colonies as inferiors, and to aim chiefly at deriving from them the largest possible profit. If the Carthaginians, as is reported (Appian, v. 3), caused 3,000 of their subjects, who had joined Regulus, to be crucified, it seems natural that the Libyans should now make common cause with the mutinous soldiers. There seems to be, however, no sufficient ground for charging the Carthaginians with unusual and exceptional cruelty (Mommsen, Röm. Gesch., i. 547). BOOK Suppression of the mutiny. Conduct of an act of barbarous treachery. They caused the imprisoned Hanno and seven hundred Carthaginians to die a cruel death, and even refused to give up the bodies for burial. The war had now assumed its real character,' and only the complete overthrow of the one or of the other party could put an end to it. Carthage was indebted for its deliverance out of all this trouble to Hamilcar Barcas. Inspired by his personal qualities and the renown of his name, a Numidian chief called Naravas, with some thousands of horsemen, went over to his side. The enemy was beaten many times, thousands of prisoners were thrown under the elephants and trodden to death; and their leaders, Spendius and Autaritus, were nailed to the cross. Although the war was not uniformly successful; although Hippo, and even Utica, the oldest and most faithful ally of Carthage, revolted; although a fleet with provisions was destroyed by a storm, while on the way from the coast of the Emporia to Carthage; although, in consequence of a dispute between Hamilcar and Hanno the second in command, the enemies recovered themselves, and in a sally from Tunes defeated Hannibal, a lieutenant of Hamilcar, took him prisoner, and nailed him to the same cross on which Spendius had ended his life; yet the whole rebellion gradually collapsed, and after a reconciliation had taken place between Hamilcar and Hanno at the instance of the senate, Carthage soon gained the ascendancy, and stifled all further revolt in the blood of the mutineers. The Libyan towns submitted again, and Carthage was perhaps wise enough' not to punish the misguided masses for the crimes of the ringleaders. Even Hippo and Utica, which had marked their revolt by the massacre of the Carthaginian garrison, seem to have received mild conditions. Carthage was once again ruler in Africa. The conduct of the Romans in this war is one of the It became, in the terms of Polybius (i. 65, § 6), a wóλeμos koñovdos. |