A History of the Roman World (71 page)

17
P
EACE NEGOTIATIONS
. These are a matter of dispute. The main possibilities are that Cineas went to Rome (a) in 280, (b) in 279 after the battle of Asculum, (c) twice, in 280 and 279 (cf. W. Judeich,
Klio
, 1926, 1 ff.), (d) once only in 280, but that peace negotiations were conducted in Campania early in 278 (G. N. Cross,
Epirus
(1932), 115 ff.). See further, A. Passerini,
Athenaeum
, 1943, 92 ff.; P. Levêque,
Pyrrhos
(1957), 341 ff., 404 ff.; M. R. Lefkowitz,
Harvard St. Cl. Ph.
, 1959, 147 ff.

18
T
HE ROMANO-CARTHAGINIAN TREATY
. Polybius, iii, 25. See Walbank,
Polybius
, i, 349 ff.; P. Levêque,
Pyrrhos
(1957), 409 ff. The treaty is usually dated 279/8. E. Will (
Histoire politique du monde hellénistique
(1966), i, 106 ff.), however, argues for 280, while Nenci,
Historia
, 1958, 261 ff., believes in two agreements, in 280 and 278 (but see Lefkowitz,
Harvard St. Cl. Ph.
, 1959, 170). According to R. E. Mitchell (
Historia
, 1971, 646 ff.) the essence of the negotiations of 279/8 was to reaffirm the Philinus treaty and to arrange conditions under which any possible joint action might be taken against Pyrrhus (not with him, as often assumed). This interpretation of Polybius (iii, 25) is also reached by K. Meister,
Riv. Fil
, 1970, 408 ff. and in
Historische Kritik bei Polybios
(Wiesbaden, 1975).
    If the Romans received any financial help from Carthage, they may have used some to mint their first silver coinage, just as earlier they may have used some of the vast amount of bronze that they received in 290 at the end of the Third Samnite War for producing their heavy cast
aes grave
.

19 P
YRRHUS’ NAVAL DEFEAT
. This battle was interpreted by Beloch (
Griechische Gesch.
, IV, i, 556) and Cross (
Epirus
, 120) as an attempt by the Carthaginians in pursuance of their treaty of 278 to relieve Rhegium, which they suppose was being blockaded by Pyrrhus immediately after the king had landed in Italy.

20
B
ENEVENTUM
. The battle was traditionally fought at Beneventum. Beloch (
Gr. Gesch.
, IV, ii, 476 and
Röm. Gesch.
, 466 ff.), however, questions this and argues in favour of a site near Paestum, the Campi Arusini (cf. Orosius, iv, 2, 3). The idea that the Romans faced Pyrrhus so far north scarcely squares with the traditional account of their recent victories in the south.

21
L
OCRI
. Twenty-seven bronze tablets, recently discovered, record annual loans made by the temple of Zeus to the city; they include expenses to meet the demands during Pyrrhus’ occupation: see A. de Franciscis,
Klearchos
, 1961, 17 ff.; 1962, 66 ff.; 1964, 73 ff.; 1965, 21 ff.;
Atti d. Congr. intern, di Numismatica, 1961
(1965), 21 ff. Locri celebrated her return to Rome by issuing coins which depicted Rome crowned by Pistis (= Fides, Loyalty).

22
T
HE CAMPANIANS AT RHEGIUM
. The date, nature and number of this garrison are uncertain. They were sent by Rome perhaps in 282 and rebelled in 280. Polybius (i, 7, 7) gives 4,000, but other authors differ (confusion may have arisen from the 500 men sent in 278). They were Campanians, under a Campanian commander. The story is told from the Roman point of view (deriving from Fabius Pictor), but some have suspected that Rome was not so innocent or the Campanians so guilty as suggested. Thus F. Cassola (
I gruppi politici romani
, 171 ff.) even argues that Rome, suspecting disloyalty in Rhegium, carried out a preventative massacre. Cf. also A. Toynbee,
Hannibal’s Legacy
(1965), i, 101 f. For discussion of sources see Walbank,
Polybius
, i, 52 f.

23
V
OLSINII
. A recently found inscription, from S. Omobono in Rome, commemorates the dedication of the booty captured in 264 at Volsinii by M. Fulvius Flaccus:
M. FOLV (IO. Q. F. COS) OL. D. VOLS (NIO). CAP (TO)
. See
L’ Année Epigraph.
, 1964, 72; J. Reynolds,
JRS
, 1971, 138. Cf. Pliny,
NH
, xxxiv, 34.

24
T
WELVE LATIN COLONIES
. In future Latin colonies the
ius migrandi
was probably limited by the proviso that any Latin settling in Rome and claiming citizenship must leave a son behind him; this measure would check any decline in Latin manpower and thus strengthen the Confederacy. A group of twelve Latin colonies is sometimes referred to as having
ius Arimini
or the
ius duodecim coloniarum
(Cicero,
pro Caecina
, 102). See Sherwin-White,
Rom. Cit., edn. 2
, 102 ff.; E. T. Salmon,
Roman Colonization
(1969), 92 ff.; and A. Bernardi,
Studia Ghisleriana
, Ser. I, 1948, 237 ff. who suggests that the twelve colonies with
ius Arimini
were the Latin colonies founded in and after 268, Ariminum to Aquileia, which preserved some of the prerogatives of Roman citizenship as
ius conubii
and
commercii
(and with no restriction on
ius migrandi
).

25
M
UNICIPIA
. So A. N. Sherwin-White,
Rom. Cit.
, edn 2, 59 ff.
contra
H. Rudolf,
Stadt and Staat in röm. Italien
(1935). On the word
municipium
, J. Pinsent,
Cl. Qu.
, 1954, 158 ff. On the municipal organization of Italy see also A. J. Toynbee,
Hannibal’s Legacy
, i, 189 ff., 397 ff.

26
M
ILITARY SERVICE
. Allied troops were called up in accordance with a roll (
e formula togatorum
) kept at Rome. This was either a list of the maximum number of troops that the Romans might levy from each ally (so Toynbee,
Hannibal’s Legacy
, i, 424 ff.) or a sliding scale, which Rome could vary, indicating that each ally must supply a fixed number of men for each legion that Rome raised for any given year (so P. A. Brunt,
Manpower
, 545 ff., who also discusses the varying proportion of allies to Romans, 677 ff. Cf. also V. Ilari,
Gli Italici nelle strutture militari romane
(1974)).

27
P
OPULATION
. On these figures, which were naturally only general calculations, see Beloch,
Griech. Gesch.
, IV, i, 662 and
Bevölkerung d. Gr.-Röm. Welt
(1886), esp. 367: De
Sanctis,
SR
, ii, 425 and 462 ff., III, i, 331; T. Frank,
CAH
, vii, 811 and
Econ. Survey
, i, 56 ff. In addition there were the slaves whose numbers even at this early period cannot have been inconsiderable (p. 358). A. Afzelius,
Die römische Eroberung Italiens, 340–264 v. Chr.
, (1942), has examined the population of Italy and attributes Rome’s successful conquest of Italy mainly to her growing superiority in manpower and to her political skill in applying this to the best advantage. See too P. A. Brunt,
Italian Manpower, 225
BC AD
14
(1971), which though concerned with later periods is especially relevant to this book for the years 225–146
BC
.

1
C
ARTHAGE
. On Carthage and Carthaginian civilization see S. Gsell,
Histoire ancienne de l’Afrique du Nord
, 8 vols (1914–28); O. Meltzer,
Geschichte der Karthager
, i–ii (1879– 96), iii (by U. Kahrstedt, 1913); B. H. Warmington,
Carthage
, edn 2, (1969); G. and C. Charles-Picard,
Daily Life in Carthage
(1961) and
The Life and Death of Carthage
(1968); G. Picard,
Carthage
(1964).
    The date of its foundation is still uncertain. The earliest deposit of proto-Corinthian pottery found in the sanctuary of Tanit belongs to
c.
725
BC
, while some Punic pottery is probably slightly older. This comes within sight of the traditional date of 814, and of course earlier tombs may still await discovery. See also p. 518 n. 19.

2
T
ARTESSUS
. A description of the Spanish coast and Tartessus is given in Avienus’
Ora Maritima
which embodies the
Periplus
(sailing directions) of a sailor from Massilia about 520
BC
. A flourishing trade was carried on with Brittany, the British Isles and the northern coasts in tin and amber, while a high degree of culture was attained. Tartessus was probably the biblical Tarshish. See A. Schulten,
Tartessos
(1922) and
CAH
, vii, ch. xxiv; J. M. Blasquez,
Tartessos
(1968); A. Arribas,
The Iberians
. On Phoenician influence in this area see above, p. 442 n. 19. The destruction carried out by the Carthaginians
c.
500
BC
was so effective that later writers confused Tartessus and Maenace with Gades and Malaca. Archaeological evidence attests Punic influence through Andalusia as far north as the Sierra Morena from
c.
500
BC
. Whether this involved political domination (as Schulten believed on the strength of Polybius’ remark (ii, l) that Hamilcar ‘recovered’ (
anektato
) the district in 237) or merely commercial domination is uncertain. Any direct control would probably be confisned to coastal areas and would weaken inland.

3
T
HE EARLY TREATIES BETWEEN ROME AND CARTHAGE
. The contents of the treaties between Rome and Carthage before the First Punic War have been briefly summarized in the text above (p. 160), but their date and number is a matter of great dispute. Polybius (iii, 22 ff.) quotes three and declares that there were only three: these may be called P1, P2 and P3. P1 is dated 508–507, P2 is undated, P3 belongs to the Pyrrhic War in 279–278. Polybius also rejects as false the statement of the pro-Carthaginian Sicilian historian Philinus that there was another treaty which forbade the Romans to enter Sicily and the Carthaginians Italy. Diodorus (xvi, 69) gives only one treaty before that of 279; this he said was the first treaty. According to his chronological system it is placed in 344–343, although this may perhaps be corrected to 348. Livy records a treaty in 348, the fact of a Punic embassy at Rome in 343, another treaty in 306 and again in 279.
    The first main problem is the date of P1. The Polybian date of 508 is defended concisely by H. Last (
CAH
, vii, 859 ff.). The conditions implied by the treaty and their considerable difference from those of P2, as well as the archaic language of the treaty (Polybius says that Roman scholars found it difficult to decipher), point to the
sixth-century date. If this is accepted, P2 may be dated in 348 in accordance with Livy’s first treaty.
    Many scholars, however, reject the early date and place P1 in 348. In that case P2 is placed either in 343 (on the assumption that the Carthaginian ambassadors received a treaty in return for their complimentary gift of a golden crown weighing 25 lb) or in 306 (on the assumption that conditions had not altered sufficiently between 348 and 343 to justify a fresh treaty). However, the situation in Italy after 310 militates against placing P2 in the last decade of the fourth century. The date of P3 is not disputed.
    The second main problem is whether Polybius’ statement that there were only three treaties must be accepted and whether his denial of the treaty recorded by Philinus is valid. Both these points, together with the condition of the Roman state archives, their accessibility, completeness and reliability, are discussed by M. Cary (‘A Forgotten Treaty between Rome and Carthage’,
JRS
, 1919, 67–77) who makes out a very strong case for accepting the Philinus treaty and placing it in 306; (P1 is then assigned to 348 and P2 to 343). It is argued that Polybius probably had no first-hand acquaintance with the Roman archives which would hardly contain a complete collection of Rome’s past treaties. The Philinus treaty is also indicated by Servius (
Ad Aen.
, iv, 628) who probably follows a tradition independent of Philinus. Further, the treaty of 279 implies that certain barriers existed which precluded the Carthaginians from landing in Italy and the Romans from crossing to Sicily; it thus confirms the existence of an earlier treaty which put these territories out of bounds. Polybius denied its existence, but then his pro-Roman sources had good reason to overlook it. The ban may have been military and political rather than commercial: compare the Ebro treaty which forbade the Carthaginians to cross the Ebro, but only
ἐπὶ πολέμω
(Pol., iii, 30, 3). Cary, however, later became more sceptical about the Philinus treaty (
A History of Rome
(1954), ch. xii, n. 8) and was inclined to follow F. Schachermeyr (
Rheinisches Museum
, 1930, 350 ff.), who believes it is a misunderstanding of the pact of 279 which he assumes to have been a ‘gentlemen’s agreement’: the Carthaginians received an informal assurance of a free hand in Sicily. Walbank (
Polybius
, i, 354) thinks it may have been an unpublished agreement toward the end of the war with Pyrrhus.
    It is impossible here to enter into details or to refer to all modern theories, e.g. the elaborate suggestion of A. Piganiol, (
Musée belge
, 1923, 177) that Polybius has inverted the order of the first two treaties and that P2 belongs to 348 and P1 to
c.
327. The present writer is inclined to accept the Philinus treaty of 306, but to place P2 in 348 and P1 in 508. Once it is admitted that the number of treaties has not been irrevocably fixed by Polybius’
ex cathedra
statement, it is impossible to determine the precise number. It is probable that Carthage had treaties with Etruscan Rome and would seek to maintain relations with the new Republic. If it is thought that the phrase ‘quarto renovatum’ which Livy applies to 279 means literally ‘
renewed
a fourth time’, then a treaty may well be placed in 343, making five in all: in 508, 348, 343, 306 and 279. But more important than the precise number is the fact that the early treaties were commercial, and the last two political.
    Amid a great number of recent discussions see Walbank,
Polybius
, i, 337 ff.; ii, 635; iii (1979), 766 f.; and A. J. Toynbee,
Hannibal’s Legacy
(1965), 519 ff. For a recent reaffirmation that the Fair Promontory was west and not east of Carthage see R. Werner,
Chiron
, 1975, 5, 21 ff. On the identification hangs the area forbidden to Roman shipping: it was probably west of Carthage and included the northern shore of Africa from Tunisia to Morocco rather than east (which would have interdicted the Syrtes).
    For a full discussion of the evidence and modern theories see Walbank,
Polybius
i (1957), 337 ff. and Toynbee,
Hannibal’s Legacy
(1965), i, 579 ff. The latter is able to take
account of some views (e.g. of R. Werner,
Der Beginn der römischen Republik
(1963)) published later than Walbank’s discussion. See also on the first two treaties K. E. Petzold,
Aufstieg NRW
, I, i, 364 ff., and on the last two K. Meister,
Riv. Fil.
, 1970, 408 ff. and
Historische Kritik bei Polybios
(1975) and R. E. Mitchell,
Historia
, 1971, 633 ff. Mitchell, like Toynbee, accepts the Philinus treaty (and incidentally that of the early Republic); he also sees the treaties of 306 and 279/8 as proofs of Rome’s growing strength rather than of weakness or disinterest, a strength which provoked Punic suspicions.