A History of the Roman World (43 page)

The terms imposed on Carthage after Zama had put an end to her independent political life, but within the prescribed limits she could still develop her territory and foster her commerce. She was hampered less by external circumstances than by internal moral weakness. Her oligarchical government was selfish and corrupt. Though she paid her annual indemnity to Rome, notwithstanding the loss of her Spanish mines, it was the lower classes that bore the burden. The exploitation by a vicious oligarchy of a state whose treasury was nearly empty could not continue indefinitely: at last the people called on Hannibal to cleanse the administration. Elected Sufete in 196,
¹⁵
he at once struck at the power of the oligarchs. He skilfully manoeuvred an official appeal to the people by getting at variance with the Senate. In the popular assembly he vigorously attacked the Council of One Hundred and Four
Judges and passed a law which made membership subject to annual election by the people, with the proviso that no judge should hold office for two consecutive years. At one blow the tyrannical control of the oligarchs was undermined. Hannibal followed up this triumph by a masterly reorganization of the public revenues and by encouraging commerce and agriculture. So happy were his reforms that by 191 Carthage could offer to pay off the rest of her war indemnity in a lump sum, whereas the instalment of 199 had been paid in such poor silver that the Roman quaestors had rejected it.

But Hannibal’s very success caused his downfall. Though supported by the people, he could hope for little mercy from the disgruntled oligarchs, who setting party before state appealed to Rome on the pretext that Hannibal was intriguing with Antiochus. A stir was caused in political circles. Cato had just entered office (195) and the anti-Barcid faction had unwittingly provided him with powder and shot to attack his enemy, Scipio Africanus. It would be argued that Scipio’s generous peace terms had enabled Hannibal to overthrow the nobility of Carthage and to seize the helm himself: with the east so unsettled, what might this not mean? Scipio himself maintained that it was beneath the dignity of the Roman people to meddle with the party politics of Carthage or to treat as a common criminal the man whom they had defeated in open war. This was the wiser, as well as the more generous, policy, for there is no evidence, beyond the accusations of his political opponents, that Hannibal had any far-reaching designs. As it was, Scipio’s rivals won the day and succeeded in driving Hannibal into the arms of Antiochus, thereby creating the very situation they were trying to avoid. They sent three commissioners to Carthage, nominally to arrange a frontier question between Masinissa and Carthage, but actually to complain to the Carthaginian Senate that Hannibal was intriguing with Antiochus. Hannibal perceived their real purpose and fled by night from the city, ultimately reaching the court of Antiochus; that he sought asylum beyond the reach of Rome does not prove that he had previously been intriguing with the king. The Punic government then humbled itself and formally exiled its greatest citizen.

After sacrificing Hannibal to Punic jealousy and Roman revenge, the Carthaginian government would long keep the anti-Roman party under its heel; indeed Hannibal himself had aimed at avoiding giving any cause of complaint to Rome. He received no encouragement from Carthage when plotting with Antiochus. With continued humility Carthage sent large quantities of corn to support the Roman armies in Greece and Asia, and as Rome’s ally, promptly gave military and naval assistance when required. True, in 174 and 171
BC
Masinissa accused Carthage of plotting with Perseus, but the suspicions were unfounded. During the first half of the second century Rome and Carthage lived, if not in harmony, at least in unbroken peace. Roman policy was non-aggressive, while trade and the coming and going of
embassies taught the two peoples to know each other better. The final breakdown was caused not by Carthage, but by the ambitious Masinissa.

Masinissa, who was thirty-seven years old at Zama, preserved his vigour into a ripe old age: at eighty-eight he still commanded his army in battle, mounting his horse unaided and riding barebacked. But he had other outstanding qualities besides physical vigour. Fearless and unscrupulous, diplomatic and masterful, he conceived the tremendous ideal of welding the native tribes of North Africa into a nation. He successfully developed agriculture and commerce, and encouraged the spread of Punic civilization. His fame soon exceeded the confines of Africa; he cultivated relations with the Greek world, and at Delos at least three statues were erected in his honour. Throughout he remained the faithful ally of Rome, aiding her with supplies and troops in her eastern and Spanish wars. But his territorial aggressions soon caused friction with Carthage.
¹⁶
After Zama he had been rewarded with the Numidian empire of the defeated Syphax and with any territory which either he or his ancestors had held. With this exception Carthage had retained her possessions inside the Phoenician Trenches and her control of Emporia.
¹⁷
Obviously difficulties would arise in interpreting Masinissa’s claim within the Trenches, and these would be increased by the fact that Carthage was forbidden to wage war on any ally of Rome in Africa. Masinissa gradually but systematically proceeded to occupy Emporia, other maritime colonies of Carthage, and much territory within the Trenches. Whenever he rattled the sabre, Carthage always declined the challenge and merely appealed to the Romans, who sent out boundary commissions, but these always decided in the king’s favour or else left the question unsettled (e.g. in 193, 182, 174 and 172
BC
). Finally Carthage became restive, and after a series of razzias Masinissa occupied a district in the Great Plains called Tusca (perhaps the modern Dougga). Again Carthage appealed to the Roman Senate, with the usual result that a commission headed by Cato left the question undecided (probably in 153). But not all the Senate was willing to follow the revengeful advice of Cato, who now urged the destruction of Carthage. The next year another commission was despatched under Scipio Nasica who forced Masinissa to withdraw a little way.

In Carthage party strife was rife and the popular party succeeded in exiling the leaders of the faction which desired to come to an agreement with Masinissa (151–150). When the king tried to insist on the reinstatement of these exiles, the patience of the Carthaginians broke down and they declared war, unmindful of the restrictions of the Zama treaty. A fierce engagement gave a slight victory to the Numidians, so that the Carthaginians were ready to negotiate for terms through the good offices of Scipio Aemilianus, who had just arrived from Spain in order to obtain some elephants. Negotiations, however, broke down, and Masinissa managed to cut off his enemy’s supplies.
Starvation and disease at length forced the Carthaginians to capitulate; they agreed to cede the debated territory and to pay 5,000 talents in fifty years. But as the survivors marched out they were treacherously attacked by the king’s son, Gulussa; few escaped to Carthage. The attempt to check Masinissa’s advance had thus proved abortive; it had merely established the king in more territory and had roused the anger of Rome.

The African question had long evoked much thought at Rome, until out of ugly suspicions and rumours of war there gradually crystallized two opposing policies. As is well known, whenever Cato was asked his opinion in the Senate he used with untiring importunity to add: ‘I am also of the opinion that Carthage should cease to exist.’ He is also said to have emphasized the dangerous proximity of Carthage by dramatically displaying in the House a ripe fig which he declared had been gathered at Carthage only three days before. But while the old man, obsessed with this one idea, was inciting the warmongers, P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica, a noble of considerable weight who had twice been consul, supported the Carthaginian cause, traditionally on the ground that fear of a strong political rival was a salutary discipline for Rome; but his motives are more likely to be found in a different political outlook combined with a more generous spirit. Neither party immediately gathered enough strength to win a political victory, and the scales remained balanced: in 152 Cato could arbitrate against Carthaginian interests, while the next year Nasica forced Masinissa to draw in his horns. But suddenly the Carthaginians threw themselves into the scales – on the wrong side. By attacking Masinissa they had given their foes in Rome the pretext they were seeking. And amid the cries of ‘
Punica fides
’ which rang so pleasantly in Cato’s ears, the more generous voice of Nasica was drowned.

The cause of the Third Punic War was, as Appian rightly states, the infringement of the Zama treaty by Carthage when she attacked Masinissa. Livy, following the patriotic efforts of Roman annalists to justify their city, declares that Carthage had prepared for war against Rome since 154 and that the Senate was very long-suffering. But if Roman ambassadors or spies saw hoards of munitions in Carthage, these were being prepared to settle accounts with Masinissa, not with Rome. There were, however, causes more deep seated than the juridical case which Rome used as a mere pretext. Some have supposed that economic factors were at work; but the view that commercial jealousy affected Rome’s policy and that the Senate was influenced by vested interests has not met with favour. Political motives, however, were more potent. During his visit to Africa, Cato had been deeply impressed by the apparent prosperity of Carthage; he feared a possible revival of Rome’s old
enemy, especially when by paying the last instalment of the war indemnity in 151 the Carthaginians were seemingly less dependent on their conqueror. But the need for precautions against a Punic
revanche
were reinforced by misgivings about the growing strength of Masinissa, who having encircled Carthage might next covet the city itself. Suppose that the new Numidian kingdom, which had already upset the balance of power in Africa, should absorb Carthage, and that Masinissa, no longer content to play the role of watch-dog, should begin to growl at his master. Fear and hatred increased at Rome and men only awaited the opportunity.
¹⁸

Nor had this been long delayed. By attacking Masinissa the Carthaginians gave the war party in Rome a pretext, a
justa causa
. Learning that troops were being levied in Italy they hastily condemned their military leaders to death, and then sent to Rome to complain of Masinissa and to shift the blame on to the shoulders of the condemned leaders. At this a Senator bluntly asked why they had not condemned the officers at the beginning of the war. On asking how they could atone, the Carthaginians were told that they must satisfy the Roman people, but the nature of this satisfaction was not defined, so that while Carthage debated Rome completed her preparations. Early in 149 Utica deserted Carthage and surrendered unconditionally to Rome. War was declared on Carthage, and a force of perhaps 80,000 men crossed to Utica: M’. Manilius, a well-known orator, commanded the land forces, while his philosophically-minded colleague, L. Marcius Censorinus, was in charge of the fleet. Among the military tribunes was P. Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus, who three years later destroyed Carthage. Meanwhile, when five deputies arrived in Rome to announce that the Carthaginians had decided that their only hope of safety lay in unconditional surrender, they found that war had been declared and that the consuls had already sailed.

By this formal act of surrender (
deditio
) Carthage had atoned for her breach of the Zama treaty and thus deprived the war party in Rome of any excuse for prosecuting hostilities. But at the same time she had put herself completely at the mercy of the Romans: she had given them a blank cheque, and if they cared to insert ‘
delenda est Carthago
’ she could hardly complain. But it was the calculating and almost diabolic manner in which the Roman diplomats played their cards that roused the passion of the Carthaginians and the disgust of a large part of the civilized world. For in the Senate the Punic ambassadors were told that they would be allowed to retain their freedom, laws, territory and other property, both public and private, provided that they surrendered three hundred noble hostages and obeyed ‘such commands as should be imposed on them by the consuls’. It was significant, as a certain Mago pointed out at Carthage, that no reference was made to the city, but it was too late to retract, and the hostages were duly handed over. Still keeping their real mission secret the consuls demanded the surrender of all arms and weapons;
200,000 panoplies and about 2,000 catapults were obediently given up, though the Carthaginians ventured to point out that they could not protect themselves against their erstwhile general Hasdrubal who had escaped execution and had collected 20,000 troops. The grim reply was that Rome would provide. Next, thirty leading citizens were ordered to go to Rome to hear the Senate’s final orders. At long last the consuls announced the Senate’s decision: the inhabitants must evacuate Carthage, which would be destroyed; the could settle where they liked provided that it was ten miles from the sea.

The Romans had skilfully attained their object, whether Carthage submitted or not. For if she refused she would thereby break the agreement made at the moment of her
deditio
and thus give them the legitimate excuse to proceed by force of arms. That Rome was technically correct is probable; she had skilfully used two pretexts, the infringement of the Zama treaty and of the act of
deditio
, to enforce her will. True, there might be room for more than one interpretation, the Romans regarding the act of
deditio
as a unilateral agreement, the Carthaginians as a bilateral. But nothing except the plea of expediency can excuse the deceit with which Rome first obtained hostages, then disarmed the city and only finally announced her real intentions. The shrewd historian Polybius, who was indirectly involved, shows clearly by his conduct that he regarded the surrender of Carthage as the end of the war; but he misjudged either the intention of the Senate or the fury of the Semite.