Cornelius Nepos & Hannibal

Hi everyone,

I decided to post the entries from Brill's New Pauly (a classics encyclopedia) about Nepos and Hannibal so that you can get an idea.

[2] Cornelius N. Biographer and historian, 1st cent. BC

(c. 100-24 BC) represents the dynamic of intellectual culture in Rome during the 1st cent. BC. He hailed from theTranspadana region and was an equestrian. N. was a friend of Cicero (Gell. 15,28,1; they exchanged letters which have since been lost: Suet. Iul. 55,1) as well as of T. Pomponius Atticus. Catullus dedicated a libellus to him (Catull. 1,1,3-7). N. apparently had no opportunity to be active in political life, and became prominent only through his literary works. These included erotic poems that are now lost (Plin. Epist. 5,3,1). In addition N. was the author of the 3-volumeChronica, of which only fragments remain, in which he expanded the Chroniká of Apollodorus [7] of Athens (2nd cent. BC) and brought them into his own time. Like Apollodurus, N. dealt with political events as well as events in literary history, and he was apparently a model for Latin chroniclers up to Hieronymus. Both works were written before 54 BC. After 44 BC he wrote the 5-volume Exempla (Gell. 6,18,11), a collection of Greco-Roman anecdotes. N.'s primary work, De viris illustribus (‘famous men), which consisted of at least 16 volumes, presaged the concept of Greco-Roman cultural unity that characterized the Augustan period; portions of these volumes still exist; they represent the first ancient collection of biographies known today [1].

N. linked the Hellenistic tradition of writings Περὶ ἐνδόξων ἀνδρῶν (Perì endóxōn andrôn, ‘on famous men) - Varro'sImagines, among others, was a model that was available to N. - with political biography. In so doing, he continued a practice that had already been used in the Chronicle, which was to link the depiction of cultural and political achievements: this documents the changing intellectual climate in Rome. He appears always to have sought a comparison between Greece and Rome, and for each volume on Roman personages there was one on their Greek counterparts. The volume De excellentibus ducibus exterarum gentium on ‘outstanding commanders from foreign nations has been preserved, containing biographies of 20 Greek army commanders as well as of the Carian Datames(14) and the Carthaginians Hamilcar [3] (22) and Hannibal [4] (23). The chapter De regibus on ‘kings (21) may be the product of later editorial efforts. Descriptions of the lives of Cato [1] Censorius and T. Pomponius Atticus (cf. [2]), which have also been preserved, are probably from his volume on historians. In addition, important fragments such as the so-called Cornelia fragment (an excerpt from a letter by Cornelia [I 1] to C. Sempronius Gracchus) are still in existence.

[4] Carthaginian general, end 3rd cent. BC

Son of  Hamilcar [3] Barkas, the  Barcid, 247/46-183 BC. Most famous Carthaginian, brilliant commander, and lifelong enemy of Rome, after whom the 2nd Punic War was called H.'s War. In 237, while accompanying his father to Iberia, H. is said to have sworn relentless hatred of Rome (Liv. 35,19; App. Hisp. 9,34). Until 224, H. appears to have lived at times in Spain, at times in Carthage. After that, he became a subcommander of his brother-in-law  Hasdrubal [2] (Liv. 21,3,2-4,2), and following the latter's death (221), the troops proclaimed H. the succeeding strategos for Libya and Iberia, the appointment also being confirmed in Carthage (Pol. 3,13,3f.; Liv. 21,3,1; Diod. Sic. 25,15; App. Hisp. 8,29). After conducting successful campaigns against Celtiberian tribes ( Carpetani,  Olcades,  Vaccaei), H. aimed at breaking the resistance of Saguntum, an effort that a Roman representation tried to prevent in Carthago Nova in 220/19 and subsequently in Carthage (Pol. 3,13-15; Liv. 21,5-6; 9,3). The Carthaginian Senate rejected the Romans, granting H. free rein (App. Hisp. 10,37). The conflict surrounding the capture of the city, which H. achieved after a siege of eight months (Pol. 3,17), gave rise to the 2nd Punic War (218-201 BC): the Romans had unsuccessfully demanded H.'s extradition in Carthage ─ H. having captured the area north of the Ebro in the spring of 218 ─ and declared war. H. then thwarted the Roman strategic plans by swiftly and boldly advancing across the Pyrenees and the Alps into Upper Italy, where he arrived in October. The crossing of the Alps with 38,000 troops, 8,000 cavalrymen, and elephants incurred heavy losses and is much discussed in its topographical details. H.'s triumphal march, marked by the Roman defeats of P.  Cornelius [I 68] Scipio on the Ticinus and Ti. Sempronius Longus on the Trebia (218), then of C. Flaminius [1] on Lake Trasimene (217) and L.  Aemilius [I 31] Paullus at Cannae (216) did, however, end up in inglorious positional warfare in Southern Italy because the Romans refused to engage in negotiations and H. refused to besiege Rome. H., who had hoped to dismantle the Roman confederation system with his call for freedom, managed in 216-213 to win over cities such as Capua, Locri, Tarentium, even entering alliances with the Macedon King  Philippus Vand with Syracuse (Stv 3,524; 525; 527-529; 531), but in the end he failed to succeed. Beginning with the recapture of Syracuse, Capua, etc. (212-209), the victory over  Hasdrubal [3] (207), and the successes of P.  Cornelius [I 71] Scipioin Spain (209-206), the Romans clearly were gaining the upper hand. Although H. returned undefeated to North Africa in 203 in order ─ now as omnipotentiary strategos ─ to fight against the Roman invasion led by Scipio, whose invading troops had been successful since 204 and were allied with  Massinissa, H.'s defeat at Zama (autumn 202) resulted in the capitulation of Carthage (Stv 3,548).

H., recalled from his supreme command due to Roman pressure in 200/199, did not emerge again until 196. As elected suffete, he cut back the membership of the court of justice of the one hundred and four with a constitutional reform and stabilized state revenues through strict enforcement of taxation (Liv. 33,45,6-47,3). Following this, his political enemies instigated the Romans to intervene in Carthage's interior affairs by raising suspicions that H. was part of an anti-Roman conspiracy along with  Antiochus [5] III the Great. H., outlawed in Carthage and with his house destroyed (Liv. 33,47-49; Nep. Hann. 7; Iust. 31,1-2), evaded a Roman investigative delegation in 195 by fleeing to the Seleucid kingdom. H. gained access to the royal council in Ephesus as a competent informant against the Romans on the eve of the war, but was not regarded as a serious advisor and was left to operate without much luck as commander over a small fleet in the southern Aegean (Liv. 37,23-24; App. Syr. 22,108-109; Iust. 31,6,7-10). Because the Romans demanded H.'s extradition in 189/88 from defeated Antioch, the exiled Carthaginian fled via Crete and Armenia ─ where he is claimed to have organized the founding of Artaxata ─ to Bithynia (Nep. Hann. 9-10; Plut. Lucullus 31,4-5; Iust. 32,4-5). There, H. served king  Prusias I as admiral in the war against  Eumenes [3] II (186-183) of Pergamum, a friend of the Romans, and assisted in the founding of Prusa (Plin. HN 5,148). At the end of the war, when a Roman delegation under Ti.  Quinctius Flamininus demanded H.'s extradition from Prusias, H. poisoned himself in  Libyssa(Pol. 23,5,1; App. Syr. 11,43; Plut. Flamininus 20; Liv. 39,51; Nep. Hann. 12). In AD 200, Septimius Severus, Roman emperor from North Africa, ordered the building of a monumental tomb for H. near the place of the latter's death in Bithynia (Hdn. 4,8,5). In more recent times, Ataturk ordered the construction of a memorial for H. above the coast near Gebze.

H.'spersonality and military/political achievements were already described by the historiographers  Silenus and Sosylus who had accompanied H.'s army. These works, although no longer extant, were the sources for later authors (e.g. Polybius, Livy, Nepos). The ancient image of H. either as brilliant commander reminiscent of Alexander the Great or an incarnation of a Carthage forever hostile to Rome has become more differentiated in recent times. Regardless of the continuing discussions whether H. failed as a statesman in situations when he should have gained politically from his victories, or whether H. was not primarily a loyal representative of Carthage, but rather an independent political agent following the Hellenistic model, H.'s historical importance lies in the fact that he brought to light to his contemporaries and to later generations the relentlessness of Rome's politics of alliances and expansion, which proved fatal to its enemies.