CHAP. III. SECOND PERIOD, B.C. posed in Rome that two legions, which were not sufficient in Sicily to keep the Carthaginians in check, could carry on the war effectually in Africa and overthrow the power of the Carthaginians in their own country. If Regulus 261-255 had confined himself to enterprises on a small scale, the success would have been adequate to the sacrifice. But elated, it seems, by his unexpected good fortune, he raised his hopes higher and aspired to the glory of terminating the war by a signal victory.1 demands of of peace. The battle at Ecnomus and the landing of the hostile Exorbitant army on their coast had entirely disconcerted the Cartha- Regulus as ginians. At first they were afraid of an attack on their conditions capital, and a portion of the fleet had sailed back from Sicily to protect it. There were clearly no great forces in Africa, as a hostile invasion was not apprehended. Now the Romans had effected a landing, thanks to their victory at Ecnomus; and the Carthaginians were not in a position to defend the open country against them. In their anxiety for the safety of the capital they at first concentrated their troops near it; and in this fact we find an explanation of the great successes of Regulus. He was enabled not only to march through the length and breadth of the country without danger, but to maintain his advantage when the Carthaginians ventured to attack him. He is said to have won a decided victory because the Carthaginians, out of fear, would not venture on the level ground, but kept on the heights, where their elephants and horse, their most powerful arms, were almost useless. Mention is also made of a revolt of Numidian allies or subjects, which caused to the Carthaginians a greater loss than that of signal defeat. They were therefore disposed to peace, and tried to negotiate with Regulus, who on his side wished to end the war before he was superseded in the command by a successor. But the conditions which he offered were such as could be accepted only after a complete overthrow. He insisted that they should resign 1 Polybius, i. 31, § 4. BOOK Defeat of Regulus. Sicily, pay a contribution of war, restore the prisoners and deserters, deliver up the fleet and content themselves with a single ship, and, finally, make their foreign policy dependent on the pleasure of Rome. The negotiations were therefore broken off, and the war was carried on with redoubled energy. In the meantime the year of the consulship of Regulus had expired. He remained, however, as proconsul in Africa, and his army seems to have been strengthened by Numidians and other Africans.' The Carthaginians also increased their forces. Among the Greek mercenaries whom they now got together was a Spartan officer of the name of Xanthippus, of whose antecedents we know nothing, but who, if all that is related of his exploits in the African war be true, must have been a man of great military ability. It is said that he directed the attention of the Carthaginians to the fact that their generals were worsted in the war with Regulus because they did not understand how to select a proper ground for their elephants and their powerful cavalry. By his advice, it is said, the Carthaginians now left the hills and challenged the Romans to fight on the level ground. Regulus, with too much boldness, had This is evident from the circumstance that in the next battle, so fatal to the Roman arms, Regulus had a force of 30,000 (according to Appian, viii. 3) or 32,000 men (according to Eutropius, ii. 21, and Orosius, iv. 9). 2 It seems very strange, as Mommsen justly remarks (Röm. Gesch. i. 529, Anm.; English translation, ii. 44), that the Carthaginian generals should have had to learn this from a stranger. Is it possible that the jealousy of the Roman historians grudged the Carthaginians the credit of having gained the victory by their own ingenuity and strength? Perhaps the chief merit of Xanthippus consisted in the proper use of the elephants. The employment of these animals in war originated in Asia, and had passed into the tactics of the Greeks by the successors of Alexander the Great. From them the Carthaginians had learnt it, either in their war with Pyrrhus, or even before, from Greek mercenaries. But they appear not to have been thorough masters of this new engine of war. In the battle of Agrigentum the elephants had been of no use and had even contributed to the defeat of the Carthaginians (see above, p. 47). But at Tunes, where Regulus was routed, they decided the victory. If, as is most likely, Xanthippus was an officer from the school of Alexander the Great, it was perhaps due to him that the elephants were this time handled properly. This conjecture receives an indirect confirmation by the issue of the battle of Panormus (see below, p. 77), where the Carthaginian army was defeated chiefly owing to the unskilfulness of Hasdrubal in the use of the elephants. CHAP. III. SECOND PERIOD, B.C. advanced from Clypea, the basis of his operations, and had penetrated into the neighbourhood of Carthage, where he had taken possession of Tunes. Here he could not possibly maintain himself. He was obliged to accept a battle 261-255 on the plain, and suffered a signal defeat, which, owing to the great superiority of the Carthaginian cavalry, ended in the almost complete annihilation of the Romans. Only about 2,000 escaped with difficulty to Clypea; 500 were taken prisoners, and among these Regulus himself. The Roman expedition to Africa, so boldly undertaken and at first so gloriously carried out, met with a more miserable fate than that of Agathokles, and seemed indisputably to confirm the opinion that the Carthaginians were invincible in their own country.' the the Her mæan pro montory. It was necessary now, if possible, to save the remainder Victory of of the Roman army, and to bring them uninjured back to Romans at Italy. A still larger Roman fleet than that which had conquered at Ecnomus was accordingly sent to Africa, and obtained over the Carthaginians at the Hermæan promontory a victory which, judging by the number of Carthaginian vessels taken, must have been more brilliant than the last. If the Romans had intended to continue the We cannot credit the reports according to which the Carthaginians treated Xanthippus with ingratitude and caused him to be murdered on his return to his own country, in order to expunge the humiliating memory of their great obligations to him (Valerius Maximus, ix. 6, 1; Zonaras, viii. 13; Appian, viii. 4). Polybius had heard of these or similar charges, but he rejected them, and related (i. 36, § 2) that Xanthippus left Carthage shortly after his victory, from the fear of exposing himself to jealousy and calumny. According to Polybius (i. 36, §11) not less than 114 Carthaginian vessels were taken with their crews. But the statements concerning this victory are very conflicting. Instead of 114 captured vessels, Diodorus (xxiii, fr. 14) mentions only 24, not to speak of the numbers given by Eutropius and Orosius. Haltaus (Gesch. der Römer, i. 308, Anm.) proposes to change the number ékaτdv δεκατέσσαρας of Polybius into εἴκοσι καὶ τέσσαρας, and thus to make the statements of Polybius and Diodorus agree with one another. This ingenious conjecture is highly commendable. If we adopt it, we shall no longer see anything strange in the narrative of Polybius, who tells us that the Romans drove back the Carthaginians with ease and at the first onset ( pódov kal þądíws трeyάμevoi), an expression which would hardly be appropriate, if 114 vessels had been taken. Such a number of captured vessels would make the victory near the Hermaan promontory a more brilliant one than that of Ecnomus; and it would, BOOK Destruction of the Roman coast of Sicily. war in Africa till they had utterly overthrown Carthage, they would have been able now to carry their plan into execution, though not under such favourable circumstances as before the defeat of Regulus. The fact, however, that they did not do this, and that they sent no new army to Africa,' strengthens the inference suggested by the withdrawal of half of the invading army after the landing of Regulus, viz., that the expedition to Africa was undertaken only for the sake of plundering and injuring the land, and for dividing the Carthaginian forces. The only use made of the victory at the Hermæan promontory was to take into their ships the remnant of the legions of Regulus and the spoils which had been collected in Clypea. now, The Roman fleet sailed back to Sicily heavily laden. But after so much well-merited success, a misfortune fleet off the overtook them on the southern coast of Sicily from which no bravery could protect them. A fearful hurricane destroyed the greater number of the ships, and strewed the entire shore, from Camarina to the promontory Pachynus, with wrecks and corpses. Only eighty vessels escaped destruction, a miserable remnant of the fleet which, after twice conquering the Carthaginians, seemed able from this time forward to exercise undisputed dominion over the sea. to say the least, be surprising that Polybius should dispose of it in three lines, whilst he devotes as many chapters to the battle of Ecnomus. Zonaras (riii. 14), in his description of the battle near the Hermæan promontory, differs widely from Polybius. Dion Cassius, whom Zonaras abridged, had evidently drawn his information from another source, possibly from Philinus. According to this account the battle was long doubtful, and was at last decided in favour of the Romans when those Roman vessels which had wintered in Clypea advanced and attacked the Carthaginians in the rear. This is another instance which shows that the detail of descriptions of battles deserves as yet little credit. A Polybius says nothing of a landing of Roman troops in Clypea, and of a battle with the Carthaginians, reported by Zonaras (viii. 14), in which (according to Orosius, iv. 9) 9,000 of them were killed. This alleged victory was probably gained only on paper by some patriotic Roman annalist, as a set-off against the defeat of Regulus. Third Period, 254-250. THE VICTORY AT PANORMUS. It was among such reverses as these that Rome showed her greatness. In three months a new fleet of 220 ships. joined the remnant of the disabled fleet in Messana, and sailed towards the western part of the island, to attack the fortresses of the Carthaginians, who, little expecting such a result, were fully engaged in Africa in subduing and punishing their revolted subjects. Thus it happened that the Romans made a signal and important conquest. Next to Lilybæum and Drepana, Panormus was the most considerable Carthaginian stronghold in Sicily. Its situation on the north coast, in connexion with the Punic stations on the Liparæan Islands, made it easy for an enemy to attack and ravage the Italian coast. The place, which, under Punic dominion, had reached a high state of prosperity, consisted in a strongly fortified old town and a suburb or new town, which had its own walls and towers. This new town was now attacked by the Romans with great force both by land and sea, and after a vigorous resistance it fell into their hands. The defenders took refuge in the old town, which was more strongly fortified; and here, after a long blockade, they were forced by hunger to surrender. They were allowed to buy themselves off each for two minæ. By this means. 10,000 of the inhabitants obtained their freedom. The remainder, 13,000 in number, who had not the means to pay the sum required, were sold as slaves. This brilliant success was gained by Cn. Cornelius Scipio, who six years before had been taken prisoner in Lipara, and had since then gained his freedom either by ransom or exchange. CHAP. III. THIRD PERIOD, 254-250 B.C. Capture of by Cn. Panormus Cornelius Scipio. The undisturbed blockade of the important town of Failure of Panormus, in the neighbourhood of Drepana and Lily bæum, the second The ransom must have been paid either by the Carthaginian state, or by friends or relatives of the captives, not living in Panormus, for according to the laws of war all the money and valuables contained in Panormus fell into the hands of the Romans. |