CHAP. III. THIRD PERIOD, B.C. of his fellow-soldiers to captivity. Now when the Carthaginians decided, after their defeat at Panormus, to make an exchange of prisoners, and, if possible, to conclude peace with Rome, they sent Regulus with the embassy, for they 254-250 considered him a fit person to advocate their proposals. But in this expectation they were signally disappointed. Regulus gave his advice not only against the peace, but also against the exchange of prisoners, because he thought it would result only in the advantage of Carthage. He resisted all the entreaties of his own family and friends, who wished him to stay in Rome; and when they urged him, and the senate seemed disposed to make the exchange, he declared that he could no longer be of any service to his country, and that, moreover, he was doomed to an early death, the Carthaginians having given him a slow poison. He refused even to go into the town to see his wife and children, and, true to his oath, returned to Carthage, although he knew that a cruel punishment awaited him. The Carthaginians, exasperated at this disappointment of their hopes, invented the most horrible tortures to kill him by slow degrees. They shut him up with an elephant, to keep him in constant fear; they prevented his sleeping, caused him to feel the pangs of hunger, cut off his eyelids and exposed him to the burning rays of the sun, against which he was no longer able to close his eyes. At last they shut him up in a box stuck all over with nails, and thus killed him outright. When this became known in Rome, the senate delivered up two noble Carthaginian prisoners, Bostar and Hamilcar, to the widow and the sons of Regulus. These unhappy creatures were then shut up in a narrow cage which pressed their limbs together, and they were kept for many days without food. When Bostar died of hunger, the cruel Roman matron left the putrefying corpse in the narrow cage by the side of his surviving companion, whose life she prolonged by spare and meagre diet in order to lengthen out his sufferings. At last this horrible treatment became known,' and the This treatment was the more atrocious as the captive Hamilcar had BOOK IV. The silence of Poly bius. Probable origin of the story. heartless torturers, escaping with difficulty the severest punishment, were compelled to bury the body of Bostar, and to treat Hamilcar with humanity. 4 This is the story as it is found related by a host of Greek and Roman authors. Among these, however, the most important is wanting. Polybius mentions neither the embassy of the Carthaginians, nor the tortures of Regulus, nor those of Bostar and Hamilcar; and he observes, as we have seen, the same significant silence with regard to the alleged ingratitude and treachery of the Carthaginians towards Xanthippus. Moreover, Zonaras, who copied Dion Cassius, refers to the martyrdom of Regulus as a rumour.3 Besides, there are contradictions in the various reports. According to Seneca and Florus the unhappy Regulus was crucified; according to Zonaras, Regulus only pretended he had taken poison, whilst other authorities say that the Carthaginians really gave it him. Apart from these contradictions the facts reported are in themselves suspicious. That the Romans should not have agreed willingly to an exchange of prisoners is hardly credible; they did it two years later, and it is highly probable that Cn. Scipio was thus released from his captivity. And can we imagine that the Carthaginians tortured Regulus in so useless and foolish a manner, at the same time challenging the Romans to retaliation? Were they really such monsters as the Roman historians liked to picture them? 5 Such questions and considerations have for a long time been called forth by the traditional story of the Carthaginian embassy and the death of Regulus. The account of befriended Regulus in Carthage, as appears to be intimated by Diodorus (xxiv. fr. 90, Tauchn.) 1 Cicero, Livy, Valerius Maximus, Gellius, Seneca, Florus, Eutropius, Aurelius Victor, Dion Cassius, Appiar, Diodorus, Zonaras. 2 See above, p. 71, note 1. 3 Zonaras, viii. 15. Hence poison, hunger, deprivation of sleep, and other tortures were not sufficient to put an end to the life of Regulus; he must also undergo the ignominious punishment of slaves. the martyrdom of Regulus has been almost universally regarded as a malicious invention, and the suspicion has arisen that it originated within the family of Regulus itself. This view is recommended by its internal credibility. The noble Carthaginian prisoners were given up probably to the family of the Atilii, as a security for the exchange of Regulus. But Regulus died in imprisonment before the exchange could be made. Thinking that cruel treatment had hastened his death, the widow of Regulus took her revenge in the horrible tortures of the two Carthaginians, and, to justify this, the story of the martyrdom of Regulus was invented. But the government and the Roman people as such took no part in the tortures of innocent captives; on the contrary they put an end to the private revenge as soon as the fact became known. The senate was not capable of defiling the Roman name by unheard-of cruelties towards prisoners, and of thus giving the Carthaginians an excuse for retaliation. Only to the revengeful passion of a woman, not to the whole Roman people, may be attributed such utter contempt of all human and divine law as is represented in the cruelties practised towards the Carthaginian prisoners. If we take this view of the story we shall find it improbable that Regulus took a part in the embassy of the Carthaginians,3 whatever we may think of the authenticity of the embassy itself. Fourth Period, 250-249 B.C. LILYBÆUM AND DREPANA. CHAP. III. THIRD PERIOD, 254-250 B.C. Effects of the victory of Panor The brilliant victory at Panormus had inspired the Romans with new hopes, and had perhaps raised their demands. They determined to complete the conquest of mus. Sicily, and to attack the last and greatest strongholds of This was surmised as early as the sixteenth century by Palmer (Exercit. in Auctor. Græc. p. 151). See Niebuhr, Röm. Gesch. iii. 705; English 2 Diodorus, xxiv. p. 91 (Tauchn.) translation, iii. 599. BOOK Attack on Romans. the Carthaginians in that island, namely Lilybæum and Drepana. Two sides Lilybæum (the modern Marsala), situated on a small Lilybæum strip of land, terminated by the promontory of the same by the name, was founded after the destruction of the island town of Motye, and had been since that event the chief fortress of the Carthaginians. Besieged by Dionysius in the year 368 B.C., and by Pyrrhus in 276 B.C., it had proved its strength, and had remained unconquered. Nature and art had joined hands in making this fortress invincible, if defended with Punic fanaticism. of the town were washed by the sea, and were protected, not only by strong walls, but more especially by shallows and sunken rocks, which made it impossible for any but the most skilful pilots or the most daring sailors to reach the harbour. On the land side the town was covered by strong walls and towers, and a moat one hundred and twenty feet deep and eighty feet broad. The harbour was on the north side, and was inclosed with the town in one line of fortifications.3 The garrison consisted of the citizens and 10,000 infantry, mostly mercenaries, not to be relied on, and a strong division of horse.1 It was impossible to take such a maritime fortress without the cooperation of a fleet. The Romans were obliged to make up their minds to build a new fleet, in spite of their See above, p. 26, note 1. 2 See Schubring on Motye-Lilybæum' in the Philologus of 1866. The site of the ancient Lilybæum is partially covered by the modern Marsala. This port is now silted up and useless, and where the Carthaginian galleys rode there are now saltworks. But during the whole of antiquity the port of Lilybæum was highly esteemed. It was here that in the first year of the Hannibalian war, the consul Sempronius collected a fleet for his intended expedition to Africa; from this port Scipio sailed, and in later times it was a station for part of the Roman fleet. The Arabs called it Mars Alla, the haven of God, whence the modern name of Marsala. The total destruction of the port was probably effected by Don Juan of Austria, who wished to make it useless for the Barbaresk pirates. The modern port of Marsala is on the south side of the town, and formed by an artificial mole. According to Diodorus (xxiv. fr. 1) the cavalry amounted to 7,000, and the infantry, including the inhabitants capable of bearing arms, to 60,000 men. Both statements seem vastly exaggerated. III. FOURTH PERIOD, 250-249 resolution three years before. The two consuls of the year CHAP. 250, C. Atilius Regulus and L. Manlius Vulso, of whom one was a kinsman, the other the colleague, of M. Regulus of the year 256, sailed towards Sicily with two hundred ships, and anchored before the harbour of Lilybæum, partly to cut off the town from supplies, and partly also to prevent the Carthaginian fleet from interrupting the landing of necessaries for the large besieging army.2 The Roman land army consisted of four legions, which, with the Italian allies, made together about 40,000 men. In addition to these, there were the Sicilian allies, and the crews of the fleet, so that the report of Diodorus does not seem improbable, that the besieging army amounted altogether to about 110,000 men. To supply such an immense number of men with provisions, at the furthest corner of Sicily, and to bring together all the implements and materials for the siege, was no small labour; and as the task extended over many months, this undertaking alone was calculated to strain the resources of the republic to the very utmost. B.C. Number of the besieging force. of the The siege of Lilybæum lasted almost as long as the Duration fabulous siege of Troy, and the hardly less fabulous one siege. of Veii, with this difference only, that Lilybæum resisted successfully to the end of the war, and was delivered up to the Romans only in accordance with the terms of peace. We have no detailed account of this protracted struggle, but it is on the whole pretty clearly narrated in the masterly sketch of Polybius, which possesses a greater interest for us than any part of the military history of 1 Polybius, i. 39. It is not probable, nor attested by any ancient writer, that, as Mommsen supposes (Röm. Gesch. i. 533; English translation, ii. 49) the Roman fleet sailed right into the harbour of Lilybæum. On this supposition it would be unintelligible why the Romans three times endeavoured to block up the entrance to the harbour. Probably the anchoring-ground in the harbour was so near to the walls that ships stationed there were exposed to be attacked or even fired from the walls. Again in the last year of the war, when the Roman ships occupied the harbour of Drepana, they did not venture into that of Lilybæum (Polybius, i. 59, § 9), but remained in the neighbouring bays and roadsteads. |