Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-4jdj6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-25T23:37:56.300Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Maharbal's bon mot: authenticity and survival

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Dexter Hoyos
Dexter Hoyos*
Affiliation:
University of Sydney dexter.hoyos@antiquity.usyd.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Did the Carthaginian cavalry general Maharbal really urge Hannibal to march on Rome after Cannae, and then comment bitterly Vincere sets, Hannibal; victoria uti nescis, when his leader refused? There are two main objections: Maharbal may not have been there, and anyway Cannae was too far away to justify such a march. The whole story has been seen as one of those well-known Roman historiographical inventions. But there may well be more to the story than that, illuminating both Hannibalic history and some Roman historiographical techniques.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 50 , Issue 2 , December 2000 , pp. 610 - 614
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 Livy 22.51.2–3 (as amended by Gronovius from a remarkably corrupt MSS tradition). Later versions: Valerius Maximus 9.5 ext. 3; Plutarch, Fabius 17; Silius Italicus 10.375–86; Florus 1.22.19–20; Dio in Zonaras 9.1.16; Ammianus 18.5.6. Disbelieved by Huss, W., Geschichte der Karthager (München, 1985), 332 Google Scholar, n. 281; Seibert, J., Hannibal (Darmstadt, 1993), 198–9Google Scholar, cf. Forschungen zu Hannibal (Darmstadt, 1993), 232; Lazenby, J., in Cornell, T., Rankov, B., and P, Sabin (edd.), The Second Punic War. A Reappraisal (London, 1996), 39.Google Scholar Suspicion avowed by De Sanctis, G., Storia dei Romani, 3.2 (Firenze, 1968), 202–3Google Scholar; cf. Lazenby, J., Hannibal's War A Military History of the Second Punic War (Warminster, 1978), 290 Google Scholar, n. 47.

2 Wing commanders, left and right, at Cannae: Polybius 3.114.7 (Hasdrubal and Hanno); Livy 22.46.7 (Hasdrubal and Maharbal); Appian, Hannibalica 20.90 (Mago, Hannibal's brother, and Hanno who is termed Hannibal's nephew); Silius 9.220–34 (Nealces and Mago). Maharbal at Cannae, Appian, Hann. 20.91, 21.95; accepted by V. Ehrenberg, RE 14.523 s.v. ‘Maharbal (2)‘ at Casilinum, Livy 23.18.4. On Appian's Hannibalica, see Leidl, C.G. in Aufstieg u. Niedergang d Rōm. Welt, part II, 34.1 (Berlin/New York, 1993), 428–62Google Scholar; Hoyos, B. D., Unplanned Wars: The Origins of the First and Second Punic Wars (Berlin/New York, 1998), 292–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Seibert, Hannibal (n. 1), 199, n. 78, ‘einen karthagischen Feldherrn konnte das [= mit Jupiter zu speisen] kaum verlockern.’

4 Cato, fr. 86 Peter = Gellius 10.24.7 (avoidance of personal names in narrating wars: Nepos, Cato 3.4; Pliny, N.H. 8.11); Coelius Antipater, fr. 25P (= Gellius, ibid.). On Livy's use of Coelius, cf. Walsh, P. G., Livy: His Historical Aims and Methods (Cambridge, 1963), 124–8Google Scholar, 130–2; Luce, T. J., Livy: The Composition of his History (Princeton, 1977), 178–9.Google Scholar Silenus and Sosylus: Nepos, Hann. 13.4. Sosylus is mentioned by Polybius (3.20.5, along with an unknown Chaereas); his fragmentary account of a sea-battle, F. Jacoby, Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker, no. 176 Fl. cf. Walbank, F. W., A Historical Commentary on Polybius 1 (Oxford, 1957), 333 Google Scholar; Meister, K., Historische Kritik bei Polybios (Wiesbaden, 1975), 167–71Google Scholar; on the pro-Carthaginian writers of the time, Seibert, Forschungen (n. 1), 11–14. Cincius Alimentus is cited by Livy (21.38.3) on Hannibal's army strength in 218; cf. Seibert, ibid., 16–17.

5 Hannibal's convivium on his first afternoon at Capua: Livy 23.8.4–6.

6 Maharbal's exploits after Trasimene: Pol. 3.84.14, 86.4–5; Livy 22.6.11, 8.1–4; other sources cited in Walbank (n. 4), 420–1.

7 Roman army's marching-speed: Vegetius, Epit. Rei Mil. 1.9; Proctor, D., Hannibal's March in History (Oxford, 1971), 31–2Google Scholar; though Goldsworthy, A. K., The Roman Army at War (Oxford, 1996), 109–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar, stresses that such rates were under optimum conditions only. Rest-days: Proctor, ibid. Hannibal's 800 stadia in ten days from ‘The Island’: Pol. 3.50.1. Walbank (n. 4), 388–9, and Huss (n. 1), 304, n. 70, are sceptical of the 10 days; Lazenby (n. 1), 35, 275, accepts them.

8 Hannibal's march on Rome in 211: Pol. 9.5–7; Livy 26.7–11 (Coelius cited on the route, 26.11.10–12); Appian, Ham. 38.163–39.169; route much debated, for example by de Sanctis (n. 1), 3.22, 324–9; Walbank, Hist. Comm. on Pol. 2 (Oxford, 1967), 118–27, with map on 122; Lazenby (n. 1), 121–3; Seibert, Forschungen (n. 1), 238–41, and Hannibal (n. 1), 304–11. News of Hannibal's approach, Pol. 9.5.8–6.1; Livy 26.8.1, 9.6. For comparison, in winter 1805 a 6000-strong French division marched 140 kilometres, from Vienna to the army near Austerlitz, in fifty hours (thirty-five actually on the road): Chandler, D. A., The Campaigns of Napoleon (London, 1965, repr. 1993), 149 Google Scholar, 420–1.

9 Hannibal decided against moving on Rome κάΤ Τ πάρν, Pol. 3.86.3; cf. Livy 22.9.1–3. Punic fleet off Pisae, Pol. 3.96.8–11; cf. Livy 22.11.6–7; on its date cf. de Sanctis (n. 1), 3.22, 232, n. 61; surmised purpose, Seibert, Hannibal (n. 1), 156, n. 91.

10 On Coelius and his work cf. Badian, E. in Dorey, T. A. (ed.), Latin Historians (London, 1966), 15–17 Google Scholar; Herrmann, W., Die Historien des L. Coelius Antipater (Meisenheim-Glan, 1979)Google Scholar; Fornara, C. W., The Nature of History in Ancient Greece and Rome (Berkeley/Los Angeles/London, 1983), 55 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 59; Frederiksen, M. W. in Purcell, N. (ed.), Campania (Rome, 1984), 255 Google Scholar; Seibert, Forschungen (n. 1), 29–30,184–5, 188–90, 238–40. Cannae anecdotes: Plutarch, Fabius 15 (Gisco); Livy 22.49.3 (Roman cavalry—quam mallem, vinctos mihi traderet) and Plutarch, ibid., 16.

11 Cato, fr. 87P = Gell. 2.19.9. The order of Livy's points is (i) you shall banquet, (ii) ‘you follow’, (iii) cavalry to go first—that is the proposed actions in reverse order, no doubt for vividness. On the soundness of a march on Rome, at any rate after Cannae, cf. Hoyos, B. D., G&R 30 (1983), 177–8Google Scholar; Seibert, Hannibal (n. 1), 200–1. The author greatly appreciates the constructive comments of the reader and the Editor.