The Histories
Book IX, Chapters 22-26:
Of all that befell the Romans and Carthaginians, good or bad, the cause was one man and
one mind---Hannibal. For it is notorious that he managed the Italian campaigns in person,
and the Spanish by the agency of the elder of his brothers, Hasdrubal, and subsequently by
that of Mago, the leaders who killed the two Roman generals in Spain about the same time.
Again, he conducted the Sicilian campaign first through Hippocrates and afterwards through
Myttonus the Libyan. So also in Greece and Illyria: and, by brandishing before their faces
the dangers arising from these latter places, he was enabled to distract the attention of
the Romans thanks to his understanding with King Philip [Philip V, King of Macedon]. So
great and wonderful is the influence of a Man, and a mind duly fitted by original
constitution for any undertaking within the reach of human powers.
But since the position of affairs has brought us to inquiry into the genius of
Hannibal, the occasion seems to me to demand that I should explain in regard to him the
peculiarities of his character which have been especially the subject of controversy. Some
regard him as having been extraordinarily cruel, some exceedingly grasping of money. But
to speak the truth of him, or of any person engaged in public affairs, is not easy. Some
maintain that men's natures are brought out by their circumstances, and that they are
detected when in office, or as some say when in misfortunes, though they have up to that
time completely maintained their secrecy. 1, on the contrary, do not regard this as a
sound dictum. For I think that men in these circumstances are compelled, not occasionally
but frequently, either by the suggestions of friends or the complexity of affairs, to
speak and act contrary to real principles.
And there are many proofs of this to be found in past history if any one will give the
necessary attention. Is it not universally stated by the historians that Agathocles,
tyrant of Sicily, after having the reputation of extreme cruelty in his original measures
for the establishment of his dynasty, when he had once become convinced that his power
over the Siceliots was firmly established, is considered to have become the most humane
and mild of rulers? Again, was not Cleomenes of Sparta a most excellent king, a most cruel
tyrant, and then again as a private individual most obliging and benevolent? And yet it is
not reasonable to suppose the most opposite dispositions to exist in the same nature. They
are compelled to change with the changes of circumstances: and so some rulers often
display to the world a disposition as opposite as possible to their true nature.
Therefore, the natures of men not only are not brought out by such things, but on the
contrary are rather obscured. The same effect is produced also not only in commanders,
despots, and kings, but in states also, by the suggestions of friends. For instance, you
will find the Athenians responsible for very few tyrannical acts, and of many kindly and
noble ones, while Aristeides and Pericles were at the head of the state: but quite the
reverse when Cleon and Chares were so. And when the Lacedaemonians were supreme in Greece,
all the measures taken by King Cleombrotus were conceived in the interests of their
allies, but those by Agesilaus not so. The characters of states therefore vary with the
variations of their leaders. King Philip again, when Taurion and Demetrius were acting
with him, was most impious in his conduct, but when Aratus or Chrysogonus, most humane.
The case of Hannibal seems to me to be on a par with these. His circumstances were so
extraordinary and shifting, his closest friends so widely different, that it is
exceedingly difficult to estimate his character from his proceedings in Italy. What those
circumstances suggested to him may easily be understood from what I have already said, and
what is immediately to follow; but it is not right to omit the suggestions made by his
friends either, especially as this matter may be rendered sufficiently clear by one
instance of the advice offered him. At the time that Hannibal was meditating the march
from Iberia to Italy with his army, he was confronted with the extreme difficulty of
providing food and securing provisions, both because the journey was thought to be of
insuperable length, and because the barbarians that lived in the intervening country were
numerous and savage. It appears that at that time the difficulty frequently came on for
discussion at the council; and that one of his friends, called Hannibal Monomachus, gave
it as his opinion that there was one and only one way by which it was possible to get as
far as Italy. Upon Hannibal bidding him speak out, he said that they must teach the army
to eat human flesh, and make them accustomed to it. Hannibal could say nothing against the
boldness and effectiveness of the idea, but was unable to persuade himself or his friends
to entertain it. It is this man's acts in Italy that they say were attributed to Hannibal,
to maintain the accusation of cruelty, as well as such as were the result of
circumstances.
Fond of money indeed he does seem to have been to a conspicuous degree, and to have had
a friend of the same character---Mago, who commanded in Bruttium. That account I got from
the Carthaginians themselves; for natives know best not only which way the wind lies, as
the proverb has it, but the characters also of their fellow-countrymen. But I heard a
still more detailed story from Massanissa, who maintained the charge of money-loving
against all Carthaginians generally, but especially against Hannibal and Mago called the
Samnite. Among other stories, he told me that these two men had arranged a most generous
subdivision of operations between each other from their earliest youth; and though they
had each taken a very large number of cities in Iberia and Italy by force or fraud, they
had never taken part in the same operation together; but had always schemed against each
other, more than against the enemy, in order to prevent the one being with the other at
the taking of a city: that they might neither quarrel in consequence of a thing of this
sort nor have to divide the profit on the ground of their equality of rank.
The influence of friends then, and still more that of circumstances, in doing violence
to and changing the natural character of Hannibal, is shown by what I have narrated and
will be shown by what I have to narrate. For as soon as Capua fell into the hands of the
Romans, the other cities naturally became restless, and began to look round for
opportunities and pretexts for revolting back again to Rome. It was then that Hannibal
seems to have been at his lowest point of distress and despair. For neither was he able to
keep a watch upon all the cities so widely removed from each other---while he remained
entrenched at one spot, and the enemy were maneuvering against him with several
armies---nor could he divide his force into many parts; for he would have put an easy
victory into the hands of the enemy by becoming inferior to them in numbers, and finding
it impossible to be personally present at all points. Wherefore he was obliged to
completely abandon some of the cities, and withdraw his garrisons from others: being
afraid lest, in the course of the revolutions which might occur, he should lose his own
soldiers as well. Some cities again he made up his mind to treat with treacherous
violence, removing their inhabitants to other cities, and giving their property up to
plunder; in consequence of which many were enraged with him, and accused him of impiety or
cruelty. For the fact was that these movements were accompanied by robberies of money,
murders, and violence, on various pretexts at the hands of the outgoing or incoming
soldiers in the cities, because they always supposed that the inhabitants that were left
behind were on the verge of turning over to the enemy. It is, therefore, very difficult to
express an opinion on the natural character of Hannibal, owing to the influence exercised
on it by the counsel of friends and the force of circumstances. The prevailing notion
about him, however, at Carthage was that he was greedy of money, at Rome that he was cruel
. . .
Source:
Polybius, The Histories of Polybius, 2 Vols., trans. Evelyn S. Shuckburgh
(London: Macmillan, 1889), I.582-586.
Scanned by: J. S. Arkenberg, Dept. of History, Cal. State Fullerton.
This text is part of the Internet
Ancient History Sourcebook. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and
copy-permitted texts related to ancient history. Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright.
Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational
purposes and personal use. No representation is made about texts which are linked
off-site, although in most cases these are also public domain. If you do reduplicate the
document, indicate the source. No permission is granted for commercial use.
© Paul Halsall, July 1998
