Table Of ContentNon his iuventus orta parentibus
infecit aequor sanguine Punico
Pyrrhumque et ingenlem cecidit
Antiochum Hannibalemque dirum,
sed rusticorum mascula mililum
proles, Sabellis docta ligonibus
versare glebas et severae
matris ad arbitrium recisas
portare fustes, sol ubi montium
mutaret umbras et iuga demeret
bobus fatigatis, amicum
tempus agens abeunte cumi.
Horace, Odes,
Book III, Ode 6, lines 33-44.
HANNIBAL’S LEGACY
THE HANNIBALIC WAR’S EFFECTS
ON ROMAN LIFE
BY
ARNOLD J. TOYNBEE
VOLUME I
ROME AND HER NEIGHBOURS
BEFORE HANNIBAL’S ENTRY
-rail’ eKaWpoir—‘PoJfioumff >cal KapxySoyiois—Trpo<rnnrrov-
rwv xat aupPatvorrcuP els ainjp airios teal fiia ciyy, At'y<°
Se tt}v 'Awiflov. (Polybius, Book IX, chap, 22)
'Everything that happened to either of the belligerents—
by which 1 mean, of course, Rome and Carthage—was
the work of one single man and one single personality;
and the personality to which I am referring is, of course,
Hannibal’s.’
LONDON
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
NEW YORK TORONTO
1965
Oxford University Press, Amen House, London E.C.4
ouuoow NEW YORK TORONTO MELBOURNE WELLINGTON
BOMBAY CALCUTTA MADRAS KARACHI LAHORE DACCA
CATE TOWN SALISBURY NAIROBI IBADAN ACCRA
KUALA LUMPUR HQNQ KONO
© Oxford University Press 1965
Printed in Great Britain
by R. & R. Clark, Ltd.,
Edinburgh
The origin of this book is a course of lectures that I gave in the University of
Oxford for the School of Literae Humaniores in 1913-14. My interest in the
subject had been awakened, when I was an undergraduate, by reading the sur
viving parts of Polybius’s and Livy’s histories and, among modern works, above
all Julius Beloch’s Der italische Bund unter Roms Hegemonie. After that, in the
autumn of 1911,1 had spent seven weeks walking and bicycling over the country
side round Rome as a student of the British Archaeological School there.
1 had meant to follow up my lectures, immediately after I had delivered
them, by writing this book; but from August 1914 to August 1957 I was pre
vented from doing this by other occupations. This delay has been fortunate for
me. Jf I had been able to write the book straight away, I should, no doubt, have
published it in time to see it put completely out of date by the publication of
Beloch’s Romische Geschichte in 1926. Of course, every work of scholarship,
whenever published, is always put out of date eventually by the subsequent work
of other scholars, and the present work will not be exempted, by mere delay in
its production, from suffering this normal and desirable fate. However, the last
half-century has seen the publication of some outstanding works in this book’s
field, and I have had the advantage of being able to read and digest these. Other
works, besides Beloch’s Romische Geschichte, from which I have profited par
ticularly are Adam Afzelius’s Die romische Eroberung Italiens (340-264 £.c.),
Lily Ross Taylor’s The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic, and a galaxy of
articles, published in Athenaeum and elsewhere, by Plinio Fraccaro and the
younger representatives of the school of Roman history which Fraccaro built
up at the University of Pavia: Aurelio Bernardi, Gianfranco Tibiletti, Giovanni
Fomi, Emilio Gabba.
One famous name appears only occasionally in my footnotes because it is
latent in every page of this book and of the works of other scholars that I have
consulted. Theodor Mommsen dealt with all the problems of Roman history
that I have discussed; and everything that he touched has borne, ever since, the
enduring marks of his masterly handling. Mommsen had the gift of setting
thoughts in motion; his work was bahnbrechend; and one measure of its, and
his, greatness is the speed with which it has been carried farther under the
stimulus that he has given to all later workers in the same field. On almost any
point of Roman history that one takes up, one may agree with Mommsen or
one may differ from him at one’s peril; but in either case his work will be the
foundation of one’s own; the point will be one that was first perceived and
formulated by him; and one will be aware that, if Mommsen had not been first
in the field, the question at issue might still today have been beyond one’s own
horizon.
While I have been able to profit from the researches of Mommsen’s successors,
vi PREFACE TO VOLUME ONE
including those made during these last fifty years, I have also had opportunities
of getting to know, at first hand, other Italian theatres of Roman history besides
the region round the City of Rome itself. For the purpose of the present work,
the most valuable of my visits to Italy has been a five weeks’ journey in the
Mezzogiomo in the spring of 1962. On this occasion I saw for the first time a
region, to the north-west of Naples, round Cales (Calvi), Teanum Sidicinum,
and Suessa Aurunca, that was the key to Rome’s conquest of Peninsular Italy
in competition with Samnium. I then travelled on through Puglia and through
both the ancient and the modem Calabria to Sicily. I was able to make this
journey under the happiest conditions thanks to the kindness and generosity of
a number of Italian friends: Professor Rossi-Doria and Professor Platzer of the
FacolD Agraria of the University of Naples at Portici; Dr. Johannowsky of the
National Museum at Naples; the officers of the Ente Riforma Agraria for Puglia,
Lucania, and the Matese and of the Opera per la Valorizzazione della Sila;
Professor Schifani of the Istituto Agrario of the University of Palermo; and
Professor Tusa, the Director of the Archaeological Service in the Palermo region.
Under these expert auspices I saw the country that was the theatre of the
Hannibalic War from the year 216 B.c. onwards, and in which that fearful war’s
revolutionary economic and social effects made themselves felt the most severely
in the sequel. The current history of the Mezzogiomo is of equal interest. Today,
the plains of Magna Graecia are being re-populated and re-cultivated after an
eclipse that began more than two thousand years ago and that was almost total
during the second of these last two millennia. Today, too, the Sila—an Alpine
tableland in the heart of the Mediterranean basin—is being made hospitable for
human life for the first time, perhaps, in its long history. This beneficent work
is inspiring. It is also instructive, and this not only for an understanding of con
temporary history. The agrarian reform in present-day Italy throws light on the
Gracchan reform in the second century b.c. Once again an attempt is being made
to change the face of the Mezzogiomo and to make life better for its people by
breaking up latifundia into small holdings. On the technical side the present
enterprise has the benefit of some notable advantages that were lacking to its
predecessors two thousand years ago. The application of modem science is now
increasing the land’s productivity, and the institution of co-operative societies
promises to combine the social benefits of peasant proprietorship with the eco
nomic benefits of large-scale operations. Yet, while techniques and institutions
change, human nature remains the same; and the human problems with which
the present-day Italian agrarian reform authorities are having to cope have
much in common with those that once confronted the Gracchan commissioners.
The present volume, which deals with the Roman Commonwealth in Italy
before Hannibal's entry, is followed by a second carrying on the story, after
Hannibal’s exit, down to the outbreak of the Roman Hundred Years’ Revolu
tion in 133 n.c. The theme of the book as a whole is Hannibal’s posthumous
victory over Rome. He Tailed to defeat her militarily. Even Hannibal’s military
genius could not prevail against the magnitude of Rome’s reserves of military
PREFACE TO VOLUME ONE vii
man-power and against the solidity of the structure of the Roman Common
wealth. Hannibal did, however, succeed in inflicting grievous wounds on the
Commonwealth’s body social and economic. They were so grievous that they
festered into the revolution that was precipitated by Tiberius Gracchus and that
did not cease till it was arrested by Augustus a hundred years later. As I see it,
this revolution was the nemesis of Rome’s superficially triumphant career of
military conquest. Nemesis is a potent goddess, and, in this episode of history,
she found in Hannibal a dedicated human agent of her own stature.
8 December, 1964 Arnold Toynbee
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND THANKS
This book was read in typescript by Dr. A. H. McDonald, and I am deeply
indebted to him for his criticisms and suggestions. Dr. McDonald is, of course,
one of the foremost living authorities on the subject of the book; and he was
kind enough to spend a great deal of time and trouble on giving me the benefit
of his knowledge, experience, and judgment. In particular, he made most valu
able proposals for lightening the book, expecially the first volume of it, by cut
ting out superfluous detail and by transferring the gist of unduly long footnotes
to the text and to appendices. Before going to press, I worked over and revised
the whole script in the light of Dr. McDonald’s comments. I am sure that, thanks
to him, I have improved it; but, if the reader still finds that it suffers from the
faults that Dr. McDonald pointed out to me in advance, I have only myself to
hlame for not having gone far enough in following his wise advice. The responsi
bility for the published version is entirely my own.
I am also most grateful to Dr. G. D. B. Jones for his kindness in giving me
illuminating information about his work on the centuriated areas, revealed in
air-photographs, of the Tavoliere di Puglia.
I have been fortunate, once again, in having my notes and amateur sketches
for the maps put into professional shape for me by Mrs. Phyllis Gomme. There
are many masters of the technical art of map-making, but not so many have, as
Mrs. Gomme has, the understanding and the imagination that are needed for
translating a writer’s thoughts and words into visual form.
I have also been fortunate in having a complicated manuscript typed for me
by Miss Norah Williams. This work would have been rather less laborious if the
revisions in the typescript that I eventually made in the light of Dr. McDonald’s
advice could have been made when the book was still in manuscript, before
coming into Miss Williams’ hands.
My wife once again, as so often before, has made for me an index that is not
just a catalogue of names but is a guide to topics.
I am also most grateful to the Oxford University Press, and to its representa
tives who have been concerned in the production of this book, for the personal
interest that they have taken in the book and for the personal help that they
have given me. This experience is not a new one, but, each time that I have it,
my gratitude increases.
A. J. T.
H.L. I—A 2
CONTENTS
P*Qt
PREFACE ................................................
V
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND THANKS . ix
1. THE HISTORICAL SETTING OF THE SECOND ROMANO-CARTHAGIN-
IAN WAR . . . . . . . . . 1
II. THE GREAT POWERS WEST OF INDIA IN 266 B.c. 20
1. Abortive Precursors of the Roman Commonwealth in Italy . 20
2. The Carthaginian Empire . . . . . . . 28
3. The Ptolemaic Monarchy . . . . . . . 39
4. The Seleucid Monarchy . . . . . . . 48
5. The Kingdom of Macedon . . . . . . 64
6. The Aetolian Confederation . . . . . . 71
7. The Achaean Confederation and the Principality of Pergamum 79
III. THE ROMAN COMMONWEALTH IN PENINSULAR ITALY IN 266 b.c. . 84
1. Peninsular Italy in the Mediterranean World 84
2. The Main Stages in the Extension of Rome’s Dominion down to the Com
pletion OF THE POLTTICAL UNIFICATION OF PENINSULAR ITALY . 115
(i) Rome's Expansion down to 327 (32514 or 324) b.c. 115
(ii) Rome's Expansion, 327 (325/4 or 324) b.c -266 b.c. 141
3. The Human Balance-Sheet of the Unification of Peninsular Italy by
Rome . . . . . . . . . 161
4. The Roman Tribal Districts . . . . . . 172
5. The Coloniae Civium Romanorum 178
6. The Municipia . . . - . . . . • 189
(i) The Roman Munia Shared by Municipia . . . . 189
(ii) The Local Autonomy Enjoyed by Municipia . . . . 209
7. The Praefecturae . . . . . . . . 238
8. The Nomen Latinum . . . . . . . 249
9. Rome’s Non-Latin Italian Allies . . . . . . 258
IV. CAUSES OF ROME’S SUCCESS IN UNITING PENINSULAR ITALY IN HER
COMMONWEALTH..................................................................................................... 267
V. WEAKNESSES OF THE ROMAN COMMONWEALTH IN 266 b.c. 281
1. Geographical Weaknesses . . . . . . . 281
2. Economic Weaknesses . . . . . . . 290
3. Administrative and Political Weaknesses . . . . 294
(i) The Administrative Consequences of the Roman State’s Territorial Ex-
pansion . . . . . . . . 294
(ii) The Domestic Political Consequences of the Roman Stare’s Territorial
Expansion . . . . . . . . 306
(iii) The Roman Oligarchy's Interest in the Roman Body Politic’s City-State
311
Structure . . . - • • ■ ■ >
^ CONTENTS
PAQE
(iv) The Frustration of Roman Democracy by the Formation of the Roman
‘Establishment’ . • 315
(v) The Raman 'Establishment’s’ Arcana Imperii: The 'Prosopographical'
Method of Investigating Them . . . . . 326
(vi) The Roman ‘Establishment’s’ Arcana Imperii: *Amicitia' and ‘Hos-
pitium' . . . . . . 330
(vii) The Roman ‘Establishment’s’ Arcana Imperii: 'Patronatus' and'CIien-
tela’ . . . . . . . . 341
(viii) The Precariousness of Rome's Domestic Balance of Power 344
Chapter HI. ANNEX I. The Etruscans . . . . . . 354
1. The Historical Importance of the Etruscans 354
2. The Origin of the Etruscans . . . . 356
3. The Etruscan Ascendancy at Rome 367
ANNEX II. The Incredibility of the Traditional Roman Account
of Roman History in the International Field during
the Thirty Years following Rome’s Gallic Disaster 372
ANNEX III. The Tribvs Quirina and Velina . . . . 377
ANNEX IV. The Status of Ostia . . . . 3S7
ANNEX V. Alleged Early Foundations of Non-Coastguard
Coloniae Civium Romanorum . . . . 391
ANNEX VI. Municdta Foederata . . . . . 397
ANNEX VII. Possible Datings of the Enfranchisement of the Cen
tral and Northern Sets of Roman Municipia sine
Suffragio . . . . . 403
ANNEX VIII. The History of Caere’s Relations with Rome . 410
ANNEX IX. The Formula Togatorum . . . . 424
ANNEX X. The Interpretation of the Extant Roman Census
Figures . . . . . . 438
ANNEX XL The Roman Commonwealth’s Military Man-Power in
225 b.c............................................................. 479
ANNEX XU. The Evolution of the Roman Legion 505
Chapter V, ANNEX. The Treaties Between Rome and Carthage 519
A NOTE ON ROMAN CHRONOLOGY FOR DATES EARLIER THAN 300 b.c. 557
BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR VOLUME I . . . . . 563
GLOSSARY........................................................................................................................... 579
NOTES ON MAP 2................................................................................................ 595
INDEX ........................................................................................................................... 599
INDEX TO MAPS 1 AND 2 ........................................................ 639
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE, 431-264 b.c.
MAPS
1. The Political Map of the Old-World Oikoument
In 266 so.
2. The Political Map of the Roman Commonwealth
■{in pocket at end)
In 241 t.a.
3. The Physical Map of Italy in the Quaternary
Age
4. 77t* Geological Map of Italy in the Quaternary
Age
The historical setting of the Second Romano
Carthaginian War
Since it takes at least two belligerents to make a war, most wars, other than
civil wars and world wars, need a double name like ‘Franco-Prussian’ or ‘Russo-
Japanese’. Belligerents, taking their own participation for granted, are apt to
label a war with the single name of their adversary in it. The Romans called their
wars with Carthage ‘the Phoenician Wars’ (Bella Pitnica), to distinguish them
from their innumerable wars with other victims of theirs; and, if we possessed
an account of these same wars written by a Carthaginian historian—or by a
Greek one writing, like Philinus, from the Carthaginian point of view—we
should probably find Rome’s ‘Phoenician Wars’ being called Carthage’s ‘Roman
Wars’, to distinguish them from her previous wars with Syracuse. A double name
for a war is the only kind that is fully descriptive and duly neutral. In a case, like
that of the Romano-Carthaginian Wars, in which the victor has succeeded in
monopolising the telling of the tale to posterity, it is particularly important for
an historian, and for his readers, not to adopt the victor’s one-sided nomen
clature, however successful the victor may have been in putting this into cur
rency. If the historian falls into the victor-narrator’s semantic trap, he may find
himself unintentionally seeing things with the victor’s eyes, instead of looking at
them from the historian’s own proper independent standpoint.
An historian who is concerned with the consequences of the Second Romano-
Carthaginian War has a double advantage over the belligerents. He is a spec
tator of the tragedy, not an actor in it (though he, too, may be emotionally in
volved in it to some extent);1 and he knows what the denouement was. Of course
the Carthaginians and Romans of the generation that lived through this war
and its immediate sequel were aware that the consequences of it were commen
surate with its scale; but perhaps few of them were able fully to recognise how
ironical these consequences were. It was evident that Carthage had been van
quished, and, at the time, it seemed equally evident that Rome was victorious.
It was not so evident that Rome’s truly decisive military victory had condemned
her to an irretrievable civil defeat on her home front. Thirteen years after Rome
had followed up her victory over Carthage by destroying her, Rome herself fell
into a domestic revolution which racked the Roman body politic and body
social for a century. This Roman Hundred Years’ Revolution made manifest the
effects of the Second Romano-Carthaginian War on Roman life.
It is not surprising that the consequences of the Second Romano-Cartha
ginian War should have been far-reaching and long-lasting. The effect of any
1 ‘Homo sum: humanum nihil a me alienum puto' (Terence, Heaulon rtmorumenos, line 77).
1
