- First, although Western Greek writers of Sicily often did cast the Carthaginians in a negative light, this seems to have stemmed mostly from the hysteria conjured up by the tyrants of Syracuse (particularly Dionysius I) in order to maintain their own grips on power rather than any inherent hostility between the two cultures. For instance, Hamilcar the Magonid (in reality the son of Hanno; Mago was more likely his grandfather) who fell at Himera in 480 B.C. actually had a Syracusan Greek mother, as Herodotus (7.166.1) mentions parenthetically. This same Hamilcar enjoyed ties of hospitality with the Greeks of Himera and Selinus. Indeed, the Carthaginians only intervened militarily in Sicilian affairs in the 480s to protect their Greek allies from other Greeks–and even then they proved reluctant to involve themselves. A new round of hostilities began in the 410s at the behest of an embattled Segesta, another Greek city. The Carthaginians were again reluctant, as they did not want to risk upsetting Syracuse (see Diodorus 13.43.4). They eventually sent a token force under a certain Hannibal (no relation to Hannibal Barca) who obtained the Syracusans’ promise to remain neutral; before that, he had even asked the Greeks to arbitrate the conflict! Tensions escalated only when Hermocrates of Syracuse raided Phoenician settlements in Western Sicily, which Carthage felt obligated to defend. Here we finally encounter a spike in anti-Carthaginian rhetoric, especially from the pen of Timaeus of Tauromenium. Yet Timaeus also had no qualms about consulting Phoenician documents; this must have taken place during his half-century Athenian exile and through the assistance of the Phoenician community at the Piraeus. Around this time, the Athenians also concluded an alliance with Carthage (after some unsuccessful attempts during the Sicilian Expedition), even putting up an honorary decree as a mark of gratitude to the aforementioned Hannibal and his nephew Himilco. We have since learned from a papyrus fragment of some unknown writer that, toward end of the fourth century, there existed a pro-Carthaginian (and anti-tyrant) faction in Syracuse. Far removed from the conflict, the philosopher Aristotle also spoke favorably about the Carthaginian constitution, the only “barbarians” he includes in his Politics.
- Now we reach the period of the Punic Wars. Our main sources, Polybius and especially Livy, are actually inconsistent and at times completely contradictory in their evaluation of the Carthaginians. As Polybius (1.14.1-3) himself relates near the beginning of his first book, his narrative of the First Punic War serves a response to both the pro-Carthaginian account of Philinus of Akragas (a Greek!) and the obviously pro-Roman account of Q. Fabius Pictor. This does not prevent Polybius from singing high praise for Hamilicar Barca, whom he rated as the most competent commander of the entire conflict (1.64.6), or criticizing the Romans for their heavy-handed behavior in its aftermath. (3.30.4) For the Second Punic War, Polybius balances his criticisms of Hannibal and the Carthaginians with equal levels of sympathy, again charging the Romans for pressuring the Carthaginians into war, or even excusing Hannibal for any atrocities committed in Italy as a product of his “circumstances.” (9.24.8) The Carthaginians themselves enjoyed favorable press throughout this period. I have already mentioned Philinus, a Sicilian Greek, who accused the Romans among other things of initiating hostilities in the First Punic War by violating a treaty with Carthage. As Polybius later demonstrated, this treaty did not actually exist–yet even Livy cited Philinus without question. Furthermore, two Greek historians, Sosylus of Sparta and Silenus of Kaleakte, accompanied Hannibal “so long as fortune allowed” (Cornelius Nepos Hannibal 13.3). To Polybius’ consternation, both authors wrote very favorably about their Carthaginian companion, apparently even embellishing their narratives with mythological overtones. It seems an enormous irony that the Roman historian Coelius Antipater, whom Livy drew upon extensively, apparently regarded Silenus as “a diligent follower of Hannibal’s career.” (Cicero Div. 1.49 = FGrH 175 T.3) Yet another Roman historian, Cincius Alimentus, had lived briefly in Hannibal’s camp as a prisoner of war, where he evidently learned details about the march across the Alps from Hannibal himself. Despite the heavy losses suffered at the hands the Carthaginians, the Romans do not appear to have been as vengeful as some modern writers portray. important Romans enjoyed ties of hospitality and guest-friendship with important Carthaginians, while others (including Scipio Africanus) stood up against the likes of Cato. In Plautus’ play Poenulus (“The Little Carthaginian”), an adaption of an earlier Greek work and likely produced for veterans of the Second Punic War, the sympathetic Carthaginian protagonist Hanno defies the ridicule thrown against him and emerges as the hero of tale; incidentally, Hanno’s Punic monologue, once regarded as gibberish, employs actual Punic.