Roman view on Hannibal

[eugene]

How did Romans explained Hannibal s final unsuccess in Italy and, generally, Carthaginian defeat in the second Punic war?

[ScipioAsina]

I recently translated the entirety of Cornelius Nepos' Life of Hannibal; though it is by no means an accurate account of Hannibal's life, it reveals what (some) Romans in the 1st century BC thought of him.

1. Hannibal, son of Hamilcar, was a Carthaginian. If it is true, and no one doubts it, that the Romans have surpassed all peoples in terms of virtue, there is also no denying that Hannibal exceeded all other commanders in ability, just as Rome is greater than all nations in strength. [2] For every time he fought with them in Italy, he always came out on top. Had he not been compromised by the jealousy of his fellow citizens, it seems he would have overcome the Romans. But the disparagement of the many subdued the valor of one man. (1.1-2)

[4] It would be tedious to enumerate every battle he fought. Therefore, it should be sufficient to add this one remark, from which it can be understood how great he was: as long as he was in Italy, no one could resist him in combat, and after the Battle of Cannae no one set up camp against him while in the field.

6. Undefeated, Hannibal was subsequently recalled to defend his homeland against Publius Scipio, the son of the Scipio he had first put to flight near the Rhone, a second time near the Po, and a third at the Trebia. (5.4-6.1)

So according to Nepos (remember he's a biographer, not a historian), Hannibal was "undefeated" in Italy. It was the Punic government that prevented his final victory.

I'm a little busy at the moment, but I'm sure some the other members can explain what Polybius and Livy have to say.

If you don't like my translation, there's a much older one available here. I based my translation off the Latin edition available on Perseus.

[Vindex]

John Lazenby's book on Hannibal is a good resource...

[Paullus Scipio]

Yes, I heartily recommend anything Lazenby wrote. When it comes to "Hannibal's War", he is the 'ne plus ultra'. In there you will discover that Nepos was rather exaggerating when he said:

and after the Battle of Cannae no one set up camp against him while in the field.

In fact, the famous Fabian strategy was just the opposite.......'dog' Hannibal's footsteps and camp close enough to limit the depredations of Hannibal's foragers, while the camps provided security. It was pitched battle that was avoided, although again that is a simplification....some battles did take place.

[eugene]

But how Roman tradition explained hannibal s and generally Punic defeat in the second Punic war?
I

[Jona Lendering]

But how Roman tradition explained hannibal s and generally Punic defeat in the second Punic war?
I

The matter has been dealt with by Miles, in the last chapter of his Carthage Must Be Destroyed (2010). The Romans believed that they had won because they had superior virtues, virtues that were the opposite of the Carthaginian vices. The Carthaginian became the anti-Roman, which meant that the image of Carthage had to change with Rome’s self-presentation. When Rome got involved in civil wars, when it became a monarchy, when the provinces became equal to their capital: every time, the image of Carthage changed.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

Is there any respect for Hannibal or the Carthaginians found in Roman written history ?

I ask because i have read Livius on Hannibal and it did not seem he was so respectful towards Carthaginians let alone Hamilcar and Hannibal Barca.

M.VIB.M.

[Jona Lendering]

Is there any respect for Hannibal or the Carthaginians found in Roman written history ?

At least one prince, fourth century, was called Hannibalianus.

[Robert Vermaat]

Is there any respect for Hannibal or the Carthaginians found in Roman written history ?

At least one prince, fourth century, was called Hannibalianus.

Flavius Hannibalianus minor (315-337) was the son of Dalmatius the Censor, the brother of Dalmatius Caesar, and the nephew of Constantine I. His end was as sticky as that of his namesake. Named Rex Regum et Ponticarum Gentium by Constantine, after the latter died he was murdered in a bloody purge.

The fact that he was called 'minor' would mean that he had a older relative also named Hannibalianus.

[Jona Lendering]

Recognition may have come a century before Constantine's family rose to power: according to Tzetzes, Septimius Severus dedicated a monument to Hannibal in Libyssa.

[Ghostmojo]

I suppose most Romans would probably much rather forget him - apart from using him as a bogeyman to frighten young children.

The business of nation-building, expansion, domination and empire creation doesn't leave much room for expressions of any kind (other than 'we won') regarding defeated adversaries. That would be amplifed to some considerable degree concerning Hannibal Barca, and of course as a youngster, Hannibal had sworn inveterate hatred and opposition to Rome. I guess it was the close proximity that Rome came to utter defeat and possibly annihilation by a Carthaginian, that led many leading Romans to become obsessed with completely obliterating Carthage and removing it from the map (see Cato the Elder / 3rd Punic War etc.).

It is very sad that they eventually (as with so many other things) got their way ...

[M. Demetrius]

It is very sad that they eventually (as with so many other things) got their way ...

There are nations today that say the same thing of others, and the world is nonplussed about it. Some things don't change, I suppose.

[Paullus Scipio]

Ghostmojo wrote:

...and of course as a youngster, Hannibal had sworn inveterate hatred and opposition to Rome.

I'm afraid this is not strictly true! There are two slight variations on the story, which in any event may be apocryphal.......
In the main one Hamilcar has the nine year-old Hannibal swear "...never to be a friend of Rome."

"Friend of Rome" had a particular meaning in those days, in that it denoted a particular status. To be "a friend of Rome" meant acceptance of the patron/client relationship, and thus a position of acknowledging Rome's superior 'patron' status, and one's own inferior 'client' status with all that implied.....

Hamilcar was in effect asking his son never to accept 'inferior' status to Rome, rather than swearing eternal hatred/enmity.....

A subtle difference perhaps, but an important one. It is clear from our sources that Hannibal in fact never sought the total destruction of Rome, or Scipio Africanus the destruction of Carthage, unlike those vengeful implacable men such as Cato the Elder, of whom the phrase "inveterate hatred" truly belongs and who would gladly embrace the phrase.....

[Ghostmojo]

Ghostmojo wrote:

...and of course as a youngster, Hannibal had sworn inveterate hatred and opposition to Rome.

... Hamilcar was in effect asking his son never to accept 'inferior' status to Rome, rather than swearing eternal hatred/enmity ...

I stand (or rather sit at my PC) corrected! wink:

What isn't accurately recorded, however, is the earlier part of the conversation which was started by the young Hannibal asking his father "what have the Romans ever done for us?" :lol: