1, 21. The capture of Cornelius Asina is ascribed by Livy (Ep. 17) to an act of treachery, per fraudem velut in colloquium evocatus captus est. He is copied by Florus (2, 2) and Eutropius (2, 10). See also Valerius Max. 6, 6, 2. This is perhaps not incompatible with the narrative of Polybius, which, however, does not suggest it. He must have been released at the time of the entrance of Regulus into Africa, for being captured in B.C. 260, we find him Consul for B.C. 254, without any account of his release being preserved.

1, 32-36.—XANTHIPPUS THE LACEDAEMONIAN

The fate of Xanthippus has been variously reported. Polybius represents him as going away voluntarily, and Mommsen supposes him to have taken service in the Egyptian army. Appian, however, asserts that he and his men were drowned on their way home to Sparta by the Carthaginian captains who were conveying them, and who were acting on secret orders from home (8, 4). Mommsen also regards the account of Polybius of the reforms introduced in the Carthaginian tactics by Xanthippus as exaggerated: “The officers of Carthage can hardly have waited for foreigners to teach them that the light African cavalry can be more appropriately employed on the plain than among hills and forests.” The doubt had apparently occurred to others [Diodor. Sic. fr. bk. 23.] The mistake, however, was not an unnatural one. For other references to Xanthippus see Cicero de Off. 3, 26, 7; Valerius Max. 1, 1, 14; Dio Cassius, fr. 43, 24.

1, 34.—M. ATILIUS REGULUS

No more is told us of the fate of Regulus, and Mommsen says “nothing more is known with certainty.” Arnold, following Niebuhr, declared the story of his cruel death to be a fabrication. The tradition, however, of his mission home to propose peace, his subsequent return after advising against it, and his death under torture, was received undoubtingly by the Roman writers of the time of Cicero and afterwards. See Cicero, Off. 3, § 99; ad Att. 16, 11; de Sen. § 74; Paradox. 2, 16; Tusc. 5, § 14. Horace, Od. 3, 5; Livy, Ep. 18; Valerius Max. 1, 1, 14; Dio Cassius, fr. 43, 28. To Appian (8, 4) is due the additional particular of the barrel full of nails, ?a? a?t?? ?? ?a???d????? ?a?e???a?te? ?? ?a?e???? ???t?a p??t??e? ????s? d??f?e??a?. Against this uniformity of tradition is to be set the silence of Polybius. But on the other hand, in this introductory part of his history, Polybius does not profess to give full particulars (see note to 1, 21); and in the case of Regulus, he has not stated what we learn from Livy (Ep. 18) and Valerius Max. 4, 4, 6, that his stay in Africa for the second year was against his own express wish, his private business requiring, as he thought, his presence in Italy.

1, 60.—LUTATIUS

Lutatius is represented by Polybius as directing the operations at the battle of Aegusa; but it appears that he had received some hurt a few days before, and was confined to his lectica during the action (lectica claudum jucuisse). The chief direction therefore devolved upon the praetor, Q. Valerius Falto, who accordingly claimed to share his triumph, but was refused on the technical ground that the victory had not been won under his auspicia. Valerius Max. 2, 8, 2.

1, 76.—HAMILCAR

(Vol. i. p. 85.) Dr. Warre writes on the manoeuvre of Hamilcar as follows: “Hamilcar’s army is in column of route; elephants leading, then cavalry, then light-armed infantry, and heavy-armed infantry in the rear. He observes the enemy bearing down hastily; gives orders to his whole force to turn about, and then forms line (???tas??) by successive wheels of his heavy-armed troops. He would thus have changed his heavy-armed from column of route into line by wheeling them while retiring to the right (or left) about. The light-armed apparently passed through the intervals; the cavalry halted when they came to the line now formed up, and at once turned to their front and faced the enemy, and the remainder marched forward to meet them. Polybius does not tell us with what front Hamilcar was marching; but I think it is clear that he was in column of route and not in battle array (?? pa?at??e??). Thus the deployment of his columns, while retiring, by right (or left) about wheel into line by successive s??t??ata, or battalions, would be a very pretty manoeuvre, and only such as an able tactician would resort to.”

11, 22-23.—SCIPIO AND HASDRUBAL SON OF GESCO

(Vol. ii. p. 67.) Of this passage Dr. Warre has again favoured me with a note and a translation which I append: “The passage in Polybius is very interesting. It is a good tactical example of an attack on both flanks, refusing the centre, the effect being to keep the enemy from moving the troops in his centre to the assistance of his wings. The inversion of order, by which the right became the left in the case of those troops who had first orders ‘right turn, left wheel from line into column,’ and then ‘left wheel into line,’ is an ordinary instance of doing what might be called ‘clubbing’ a battalion or brigade. It is of course on parade a clumsy mistake to make; but Scipio rightly took no notice of it in battle, as Polybius, who sees the matter with a soldier’s eye, observes. Scipio’s army was inferior in numbers, and so he first moved his Romans outwards while still in line, and then formed for attack with the cavalry, light infantry, and three battalions (cohorts) on each flank.”

The following is Dr. Warre’s translation:—

“Polybius 11, 22.—On this occasion Scipio seems to have employed two stratagems. He observed that Hasdrubal was in the habit of marching out late in the day, of keeping his Libyan troops in the centre, and of posting his elephants in front of each wing. His own custom was to march out at the said hour to oppose him, and to set the Romans in his centre opposite to the Libyans, while he posted his Spanish troops upon his wings. On the day upon which he determined to decide matters he did the reverse of this, and thereby greatly assisted his forces towards gaining a victory, and placed the enemy at no small disadvantage. At daybreak he sent his aides and gave orders to all the tribunes and to the soldiers that they were first to get their breakfast, and then to arm and to parade in front of the ramparts. This was done. The soldiers obeyed eagerly, having an idea of his intention. He sent forward the cavalry and light infantry, giving them joint orders to approach the camp of the enemy, and to skirmish up to it boldly; but he himself took the heavy infantry, and at sunrise advanced, and when he had reached the middle of the plain formed line in just the opposite order to his previous formation. For he proceeded to deploy the Iberians on the centre and the Romans on the flanks.”

“For a while the Romans remained as usual silent, but after the day had worn, and the light infantry engagement was indecisive and on equal terms, since those who were hard pressed retired on their own heavy infantry and (?? eta???? ???d??e?e??), after retreating formed again for attack, then it was that Scipio withdrew his skirmishers through the intervals of the troops under the standards, and divided them on either wing in rear of his line, first the velites, and in succession to them his cavalry, and at first made his advance in line direct. But when distant (? five) furlongs from the enemy he directed the Iberians to advance in the same formation, but gave orders to the wings to turn outwards (to the right wing for the infantry to turn to their right, and to their left to the left). Then he himself took from the right and Lucius Marcius and Marcus Junius from the left the three leading squadrons of cavalry, and in front of these the usual number of velites, and three cohorts (for this is the Roman term), but the one body wheeled to the left and the other to the right, were led in column against the enemy, advancing at full speed, the troops in succession forming and following as they wheeled....

(They were in line, and the cavalry and velites got the word turn, left wheel, and the infantry right wheel and forward, i.e. the light troops and cavalry wheeled from their outer flank, and the heavy infantry from their inner flank.)

“And when these troops were not far off the enemy, and the Iberians in the line direct were still a considerable distance behind, as they were advancing slowly, they came in contact with either wing of the enemy, the Roman forces being in column according to his original intention.

“The subsequent movements by which the troops in rear of these columns came into line with those leading were exactly the reverse, generally, in the case of the right and the left wings, and particularly, in case of the light troops and cavalry and the heavy infantry. For the cavalry and velites on the right wing forming to the right into line were trying to outflank the enemy, but the infantry formed on the contrary to the left. On the left wing the cavalry and light infantry left formed into line, and the heavy infantry right formed into line. And so it came to pass that on both wings the cavalry and light troops were in inverted order, i.e. their proper right had become their left. The general took little heed of this, but cared only for that which was of greater importance, the outflanking of the enemy; and rightly so, for while a general ought to know what has happened, he should use the movements that are suitable to the circumstances.”

34, 5, 10.—PYTHEAS

The date of these voyages of Pytheas is uncertain beyond the fact that they were somewhere in the 4th century B.C. His Periplus, or notes of his voyage, was extant until the 5th century A.D. The fragments remaining have been published by Arvedson, Upsala, 1824. The objection raised by Polybius to the impossibility of a poor man making such voyages is sometimes answered by the supposition that he was sent officially by the Massilian merchants to survey the north of Europe and look out for places suitable for commerce. The northern sea, which he describes as “like a jellyfish through which one can neither walk nor sail,” is referred “to the rotten and spongy ice which sometimes fills those waters.” This is assuming Thule to be Iceland. Tacitus supposed it to be Shetland (Agr. 10), and described the waters there as sluggish, and not subject to the influence of the wind. See Elton (Origins of English History, pp. 73-74). Elton quotes Wallace (Concerning Thule, 31), who comments on Tacitus by saying, “This agrees with the sea in the north-east of Scotland, not for the reason given by Tacitus, but because of the contrary tides, which drive several ways, and stop not only boats with oars but ships under sail.”

34, 10.—THE SUBTERRANEAN FISH

Schweighaeuser in his note on this passage quotes Aristotle de Anim. 6, 15, who states that gudgeon thus hide themselves in the earth; and Seneca, Nat. Q., 3, 17 and 19, who refers to the fact piscem posse vivere sub terra et effodi, and quotes an instance as occurring in Caria. See also Livy, 42, 2, who, among other prodigies occurring in B.C. 173, says, in Gallico agro qua induceretur aratrum sub existentibus glebis pisces emersisse dicebantur. Eels and other fish have been found in the mud of ponds long after the ponds have been dried up. The truer account is given in Strabo (4, 1, 6): “There was a lake near Ruscino, and a swampy place a little above the sea, full of salt, and containing mullets (?est?e??), which are dug out; for if a man dig down two or three feet, and drive a trident into the muddy water, he may spear fish which is of considerable size, and which feeds on the mud like the eels.”