We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
The battle of Panormus, in which L. Caecilius Metellus (cos. 251) decisively defeated the Carthaginian general Hasdrubal, was one of the major victories of the First Punic War. The year in which it took place, however, has long been matter for dispute, reasons being found for placing it in 251 or 250. There is now, it is true, a general preference for 250, so that there may seem to be little need to traverse this ground yet again. But there is also Polybius' reputation to consider. Whichever dating scholars prefer, they invariably maintain that Polybius' account of the years 253–250 (1. 39. 7–41. 4) is more or less disfigured by confusion, contradiction, and inaccuracy; on either view he is accused, expressly or by implication, of making remarks which point to the wrong year.
page 121 note 1 Broughton, T.R.S., The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, i. 213,Google Scholar reserves judgement. Though the chronology of the war and the date of this battle were much discussed at the beginning of the present century, I have Comlimited references to the fullest or most forceful statements of the different views then offered. (All dates are B.C.)
page 121 note 2 Flor. I. 18. 27; Eutrop. 2. 24; Oros. 4. 9. 14; Frontin. Strat. 2. 5. 4; Diod. 23. 21. The point was stressed by Reuss, F. (Philologus, 1x [1901], 115).Google Scholar Zonaras 8. 14. 8 says neither more nor less about Metellus' status than does Polybius, and nothing can be made of Plin. NH 8. 16; whether this refers to the battle or (as I think more probable) to Metellus' triumph, the numeral serving to date the incident is corrupt, and one of emendation is no more plausible than another.
page 121 note 3 Polyb. I. 40. I; cf. Reuss, F., ‘Der erste punische Krieg’, Philologus, lxviii (1909), 419–21;Google ScholarWalbank, F.W., A Historical Comlimited mentary on Polybius, i. 102.Google Scholar For the harvest see Nissen, H., Italische Landeskunde, i. 400;Google ScholarOlck, , RE vi (1909), 479.Google Scholar
page 121 note 4 The correspondence of the Roman and Julian Years was well argued by Soltau, W., Römische Chronologie (1889), 207–11,Google Scholar and De Sanctis, G., Storia dei Romani, iii. 1 (1916), 248–50Google Scholar and 254–68. There is a useful survey of other views in Leuze, O., ‘Die Schlacht bei Panormus’, Philologus, lxvi (1907), 139–42.Google Scholar For the official year (this is secure) see Soltau, W., Dierömische Amtsjahre (1888),Google Scholar 12 ff., especially 16 f.; De Sanctis, op. cit. 248.
page 122 note 1 I hope to discuss the matter of the calendars further elsewhere.
page 122 note 2 De Sanctis, op. cit. 262. On Diodorus see also Pédech, P., ‘Sur les sources de Polybe: Polybe et Philinos’, REA liv (1952), 247–8.Google Scholar
page 122 note 3 Triumph: Broughton, loc. cit.
page 122 note 4 Of the consuls of 251 C. Furius Pacilus returned first (Polyb. 1. 40. 1) and Metellus triumphed in early September 250; their successors must have arrived in Sicily before Metellus left, some time in August.
page 122 note 5 So Reuss, F., ‘Zur Geschichte des ersten punischen Krieges’, Philologus, lx (1901),Google Scholar 114f.
page 122 note 6 Cf. Lippold, A., Consules (1963), 108, n. 129.Google Scholar
page 123 note 1 Cf. Leuze, op. cit. 138. That the seas were far from completely closed in winter is shown by de Saint-Denis, E., ‘Mare Clausum’, REL xxv (1947), 196–214.Google Scholar
page 123 note 2 Since it was possible to travel between Rome and Carthage in three days (Plin. NH 15. 75; 19. 4), we may very reasonably allow one week for the news of Metellus' victory to travel from Sicily to Carthage, one week for the Carthaginians to appoint and brief their embassy, one week for the am-bassadors to travel to Rome, and one week for the negotiations to start and break down.
page 123 note 3 Walbank, Commentary, i. 93 f. and 102. For full discussion see Klebs, RE ii (1896), 2088 ff.; Blattler, P. Pirmin, Studien zur Regulusgeschichte (Diss., Freiburg [Switzer-land], 1945),Google Scholar 34 ff. Nothing is added by Mix, E.R., Marcus Atilius Regulus: Exemplum Historicum (1970).Google Scholar
page 123 note 4 Phrases placed within quotation marks in this summary will be discussed further below.
page 124 note 1 Reuss, , Philologus, Ixviii (1909),Google Scholar 422 f.; Bung, P., Q. Fabius Pictor: der erste römische Annalist (Diss., Cologne, 1950), 122 n. 4;Google ScholarLa Bua, V., Filino-Polibio Sileno-Diodoro (Palermo, 1966), 108–9.Google Scholar
page 124 note 2 On the uses of καιρός in Hellenistic prose see Palm, J., Über Sprache und Stil des Diodoros von Sizilien (1955), 163.Google Scholar The expres-sion 
at Polyb. I. 19. I refers not to Hiero, named at I. 18. II, but to Hanno, named at I. 18. 8; further examples will be found in Kaelker, F., ‘Quaestiones de elocutione Polibiana’, Leipziger Stud. zur class. Philologie, iii (1880),Google Scholar 269 f.
page 124 note 3 Cf. Leuze, op. cit. 149, n. 30; De Sanctis, op. cit. i64n. 46. Walbank, Though, Commentary, i. 101,Google Scholar rejects De Sanctis's view rb'mische that consular years are meant, he does so only on the ground that the source here is Philinus; which is far from certain (cf. La Bua, op. cit. 107 n. 16).
page 124 note 4 Cf. La Bua, op. cit. 108.
page 124 note 5 Orosius 4. 9. 13 is clearly tendentious, as has been remarked by Lippold, (RhM xcvii [1954], 273Google Scholar and 286) and by Thiel, (A History of Roman Sea-Power before the Second Punic War [1954],Google Scholar 253 f.).
page 124 note 6 Walbank, F.W., ‘Polybius, Philinus and the First Punic War’, CQ. xxxix (1945), 3;Google ScholarKlotz, A., ‘Studien zu Polybios’, Hermes, lxxx (1952), 334.Google Scholar
page 125 note 1 Reuss, , Philologus, lxviii (1909), 424.Google Scholar Though Polyb. 1. 39. 8 records that the Carthaginians regained sea-supremacy after 253, there is nothing to suggest that the ambitious naval plans they had formed earlier (I. 38. 1–3) were put into effect until late 250, after Panormus (I. 41. 6; 44. I ff.; cf. Thiel, op. cit. 252 f.).
page 125 note 2 Cf. Leuze, op. cit. 137 f. Heavy weather was made of this by Reuss, (Philologus, lx [1901], 114),Google Scholar since he failed to recognize that 
at 39. 15 refers only to the election of the consuls for 250, not to their entry into office (similarly De Sanctis, op. cit. 263; La Bua, op. cit. 114; for the correct view see Walbank, , Commentary, i. 101;Google ScholarMauersberger, A., Polybios-Lexicon, i. 3. 1204).Google Scholar
page 125 note 3 Polyb. I. 16. 2; 6. 19. 5–7.
page 125 note 4 In a small way this confirms the findings of K.-E. Petzold (Studien zur Methode des Polybios, 141), that in the prokataskeue Polybius is more interested in causal than in chrono-logical links.
page 125 note 5 In addition to the works cited during the following discussion see Reuss, op. cit. 15 114; Leuze, op. cit. 138 f. and 151; Bung, Fabius Pictor, 123 f.; La Bua, op. cit. 109 and 113 f.
page 126 note 1 The original plan of 261 will be described in more detail below.
page 126 note 2 Cf. De Sanctis, op. cit. 166; Thiel, op. cit. 260 f.; van Ooteghem, J., Les Caecilii Metelli de la république (Brussels, 1967), 10.Google Scholar
page 126 note 3 Cf. Polyb. 1. 13. 7. On the character of the prokataskeue there is much of value in Errington, R.M., ‘The Chronology of Polybius' Histories, Books I and II’, JBS (1967), 96–108,Google Scholar and in Petzold, op. cit.
page 126 note 4 Cf. Eisen, K.F., Polybiosinterpretationen (1966),Google Scholar 176 f.
page 126 note 5 Polyb. I. 14–15.
page 127 note 1 Pédech's, remark (Latomus, xxvi [1967], 862)Google Scholar is well illustrated by La Bua, op. cit.107, n. 16.
page 127 note 2 Salutary protests against Quellenforschung of this kind have been made by Walbank, (CQ xxxix [1945],Google Scholar 1 ff.) and by Badian, (RFIC xcvi [1968],Google Scholar 203 ff.); so far they seem to have had little effect.
page 127 note 3 Walbank, , Commentary, i. 103.Google Scholar
page 127 note 4 Cf. Thiel, op. cit. 255.
page 128 note 1 Polyb. 1. 20. 1–8.
page 128 note 2 Cf. Bung, Fabins Pictor, 49 f.
page 128 note 3 Polyb. I. 21. 4; 22. I; 23. I.
page 128 note 4 This emerges most clearly from 41. 2. When Polybius says that the Romans were encouraged 
he does not mean that they were encouraged to send out the consuls for 250, but to send out the consuls (of 250, as it happened) just as they had been encouraged to send out the consuls in other years. And though the ‘original plan’ implies the participation of the legions, that is made explicit only at 41. 4. Nor is this delay altogether excused by the lengthy account of land warfare which has preceded (39. 8–40. 16), since the legions which joined the consuls at Lilybaeum must have been newly raised, as was remarked by Luterbacher, (Philologus, lxvi [1907], 417)Google Scholar and by Thiel (op. cit. 262 n. 653).
page 129 note 5 There is no difficulty in the different numbers of warships recorded at 39. 8, 3g. 15, and 41. 3: see Walbank, , Commentary, i. 101Google Scholar and 103. Nor is it an obstacle that Polybius terms 250 the fourteenth year of the war at 41. 4: see Walbank, loc. cit., and Werner, R., Der Beginn der römischen Republik (1963),Google Scholar 64 ff.
page 129 note 1 I wish to thank Professors E. Badian, T. S. Brown, and G. Sifakis for reading and commenting, most cogently, on drafts of this paper. Which is not to say that they share my views.
