Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T23:11:37.710Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

I. ‘Delenda est Carthago’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2011

F. E. Adcock
Get access

Extract

The odious behaviour of the Romans in the events that led to the destruction of Carthage has earned the condemnation of historians who see in it, as they have a right to do, a moral issue. The unattractiveness of the Carthaginians, whose history has been written for us by their enemies, is no defence: the bad name does not justify this execution. But the problem remains why the Senate acted as it did, and the examination of it may throw light on Roman policy and the temper of the Roman mind in the middle years of the second century. We need not suppose that the Senate decided to destroy Carthage rather than listen any longer to Cato ending all his sententiae in the Curia with the words ‘ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam’. The motives that led Cato, who after Pydna had spoken up for the Rhodians and apparently had quoted with approval a plea of Scipio Africanus against the destruction of Carthage after Zama, to urge the destruction of Carthage axe part of the investigation. But the main question is why the Senate in the end adopted his policy, if policy it can be called.

Type
Research Article
Information
Cambridge Historical Journal , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , 1946 , pp. 117 - 128
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1946

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.)

References

1 Malcovati, , Frag. Orat. Rom. I, pp. 191 ffGoogle Scholar.

2 Appian, , Libyca, 65Google Scholar.

3 Hist, of Rome, Engl. transl. (1901), vol. III, p. 239Google Scholar.

4 Pliny, , N.H. XV, 75Google Scholar; Plutarch, , Cato Maior, 27, 1Google Scholar.

6 Gsell, S., Hist. anc. de I'Afrique du Nord, IV, p. 150.Google ScholarRostovtzeff, , Soc. and Econ. Hist, of the Roman Empire, p. 492Google Scholar.

7 Polybius XXXVI, 7; Appian, Libyca, 92.

7 Piganiol, A., La conquête romaine (2nd ed.), p. 263Google Scholar.

8 Broughton, T. R. S., The Romanization of Africa proconsularis, pp. 15–19Google Scholar.

9 Polybius XV, 18, 3.

10 Livy, , Per. XLVIIGoogle Scholar.

11 This is the better tradition, see Kahrstedt, U. in Meltzer, Geschichte der Karthager, III, p. 624Google Scholar.

12 Griffith, G. T., ‘An early motive of Roman Imperialism (201 B.C.)’, Camb. Hist. Journ. vol. V (1935), p. 11Google Scholar.

13 Kahrstedt, op. cit. III, pp. 615 ff.

14 XXXVI, 9.

15 Livy, , Epit. Oxyr. 119–20Google Scholar; Per. Appian, L., Libyca, 106Google Scholar.

16 ‘The Lex Calpurnia of 149 B.C.’, Journ. Rom. Stud. vol. xi (1921), pp. 88 ffGoogle Scholar.

17 Reid, J. S., A Companion to Latin Studies (1913), p. 265Google Scholar.

18 Mr G. T. Griffith, who kindly read this paper in typescript, has suggested that the Senate may have doubted the possibility of this in view of the ancient greatness of Carthage as a self-governing imperial State and the intractability of its inhabitants. If that view is adopted (and it cannot be plainly disproved), there is more raison d'fttat in the Senate's decision about the city than is argued above. Against it may be set the fact that the Senate seems to have counted on the present docility of the Carthaginians in expecting their final order to be obeyed (p. 124), and with the city disarmed its control should not have seemed difficult.

19 E.g. Bloch, G. and Carcopino, J., Hist. Gen.: Hist. Rom. vol. II, p. 59, n. 58Google Scholar.

20 Polybius I, 88.

21 See Taübler, E., Imperium Romanum, p. 197Google Scholar.

22 Diodorus XXXII, 3: ήδογμάτισε γάρ γινωσκειν τούς ‘Ρωμαίους δ δεί πράττειν αύτούς.

23 Polybius I, 83, II.

24 With this may be compared the modern doctrine of the effects of unconditional surrender by a State.

25 Francisci, P. de, Storia del diritto romano, vol. I, p. 291Google Scholar.

26 Heuss, A., ‘Die volkerrechtlichen Grundlagen der rom. Aussenpolitik in republik. Zeit’, Klio, Beiheft XXXI, p. 62Google Scholar, who cogently criticizes Saumagne, Ch., ‘Les prétextes juridiques de la IIIe guerre punique’, Rev. Hist. vol. 168 (1931), pp. 14 ffGoogle Scholar.

27 Polybius XXXVI, 4, 4; Diodorus XXXII, 6, 1.

28 E.g. Livy XXV, 29, 4; XXIX, 3, 1; Caesar, de Bello Gall, II, 32, 1.

29 Cf. Polybius XV, 18, 1-2, on the Roman terms in 201 B.C.

30 XXXVI, 9.

31 Livy XXXVII, 32, 12.

32 For a full discussion of the treatment of Epirus, see Scullard, H. H., ‘Charops and Roman policy in Epirus’, journ. Rom. Stud. vol. XXXV (1945), pp. 58 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar. It might be suggested that in the case of Epirus the Senate may have remembered Pyrrhus as in the case of Carthage they may have remembered Hannibal, but it may be doubted if in the Senate Pyrrhus was thought of as king of Epirus in particular rather than as a Hellenistic royal adventurer and a claimant to the throne of Macedon.

33 See on this, in particular, Saumagne, Ch., ‘Les pretextes…’, Rev. Hist. vol. 167 (1931), pp. 225 fGoogle Scholar.

34 Polybius XXXVI, II, 3: πάντως έτοιμοι δ’ είσίν αύτοίς πειθαρχείν.

35 xxxvi, 4.

36 Malcovati, loc. cit.

37 Malcovati, op. cit. 1, pp. 202 f.

38 There is a fragment of Cato's speech (frag. 184, Malcovati) which refers to the founding of Carthage, and it may be conjectured that the Senate had to hear a historical survey of the career of Rome's ancient enemy in which Hannibal would not pass unnoticed.

39 Gelzer, M., ‘Nasicas Widerspruch gegen die Zerstorung Karthagos’, Philologus, LXXXVI (1930-1931), p. 262Google Scholar.

40 Livy, , Per. XLVIIIGoogle Scholar.

41 It is possible that the envoys from Utica urged the destruction of Carthage, but it need not be supposed that the patres would pay much attention to people they must have despised.

42 Op. cit. pp. 273 ff.

43 Diodorus xxxiv, 33, 4.

44 Cicero, , de invent. I, 39, 72Google Scholar.

45 Zonaras IX, 28, 4.

46 Zonaras IX, 30, 7.

47 For the evidence see F. Münzer in P.W. s.v. Sempronius (53), col. 1408.

48 Cicero, , Brutus, 26, 98Google Scholar.

49 E.g. C. Fannius Strabo (cos. 161 B.C.), L. Anicius Gallus (cos. 160 B.C.).

50 Otto, W., ‘Zur Geschichte der Zeit des 6. Ptolemäers’, Abh. Bay. Akad. Wiss. N.F. II (1934). pp. 122 fGoogle Scholar.

51 XXXVI, 9, 3-4, 12-17.

52 XXXII, 2 an d 4; cf. 27 of Corinth: αύτη πρός κατάπληΖιν τών μεταγενεστέρων ύπό τών κρατούντων ήφανίσθη

53 Op. cit. pp. 290 f., rightly regarding the passages as au fond Polybian.

54 ‘Die Politik des P. Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus’, Wurtzburger Stud, zur Alt. vol. VI (1936), p. 31Google Scholar.

55 By the time of the treatise ad Herennium (IV, 27, 37) a fourth city had been added to the list, Fregellae: ‘populus Romanus Numantiam delevit, Karthaginem. sustulit, Corinthum disiecit, Fregellas evortit.’

56 Benecke, P. V. M., Camb. Anc. Hist. vol. VIII, p. 304Google Scholar.