Character

Scipio Africanus, Publius Cornelius, (The Elder) was one of Rome's greatest generals, but for most of the Second Punic War he was overshadowed by two of the many much senior generals and consuls, Marcus Claudius Marcellus (conqueror of Syracuse etc.) and Quintus Fabius Maximus (the dictator in 217, victor at Tarentum in 209, etc.). Both died before the war ended. He was not present at the decisive battle of the war on the Metaurus River, where the consuls C. Claudius Nero and M. Livius Salinator killed Hasdrubal Barca.

Skilful alike in strategy and tactics, Scipio also inspired his soldiers with confidence. F. E. Adcock comments that Scipio was "The first Roman commander, in fact, of whom it can be said with certainty that he added something to the art of war..." Adcock continues that as a strategist Scipio was "far more daring than any other Roman general of the middle Republic". But he notes that Scipio owed much of his success to the incompetence of his enemies and the superior quality of his troops and particularly faults him for failing to hold Hasdrubal Barca in Spain. He also notes that Scipio's advantage lay in the exceptionally long term of his command of one army and remarks that at Zama Scipio was longer in experience in war than Hannibal was at Cannae.

In addition to facing Hannibal in battle at Ticinus, Trebia, Cannae, and Zama; legends have it that Scipio may have had two personal meetings with the great Carthaginian. A meeting in the field just prior to Zama is mentioned in the primary sources, but Delbruch considers this a fable and literary artifice.

However, the other meeting, years later at the court of Antiochus in Syria, has more historical plausibility. At least Hannibal was present as advisor to Antiochus III during the campaign that ended at Magnesia. At the final meeting Scipio is said to have asked Hannibal to name the world's greatest general, to which the Carthaginian replied that first was Alexander. Scipio then asked who was second, to which Hannibal replied, Pyrrhus. Then who was third, Scipio persisted, to which Hannibal said, myself. At this Scipio asked, "What would you say if you had defeated me?" Hannibal responded, "Ah, in that case I should have placed myself first".

The legends about Scipio, which began growing during his lifetime, were confusing enough, and they were then compounded by Polybius. Some legends, such as the visit by a serpent, and Scipio's daily sojourn in the temple are late additions, in the time of Augustus. (Cassius Dio) All agree that he was an unusual person. The Greeks thought his luck a sign of favor by the divine goddess, Tyche. Perhaps his soldiers also saw him as specially favored of the gods - felicitas. He was a religious mystic, not just for public show. During the campaign to Asia, he waited before crossing the Hellespont, because of his priestly duties. He had an unusual sense of his personal destiny and extreme self-confidence, believing himself to be favored by heaven.

This trait appeals to some and not to others among the commentators. Obviously, he was highly ambitious. One commentator noted that his family tomb shows they were of Etruscan stock and Scipio may have evidenced Etruscan thinking as well. He was, of course, highly patriotic. (Although, Mommsen claims this was a sham.) He was an aristocrat of aristocrats. Even though he appealed to the masses, he was not a demagogue such as Flaminius or Varro. He is reported to have threatened the Senate once with an appeal to the people, but this may be questionable. He was able to instill loyalty in others and was loyal himself to friends, officers, and men.

He was generous also. (Again, Mommsen, says too generous, and for political reasons.) Polybius called him clever and calculating as a manipulator of men. Others say he merely knew the superstitious soldiers believed he was favored by the gods and he simply did nothing to hinder them in this opinion. The episode in which he captured New Carthage posed a particular problem for Polybius and other commentators in deciding if it was due to luck or skill, divine or natural in causation. Polybius had original sources including Laelius, and Scipio's own letter, and Silenus' account of the battle, (all lost now). And he also visited the place and talked with others in Spain. Appian also focused on the question of real or pretended divine assistance. (One aspect centered around the appearance that Scipio was able to predict the exceptional low tide that was instrumental in his success.)

Machiavelli says too generous, also, but too much for his own good. Nevertheless, Machiavelli takes Scipio as one of his model commanders and uses him in comparison with Hannibal. (See, Prince, 17; and Discourses III-21).

Machiavelli contrasts the two in remarking that Hannibal's severity and cruelty brought the same results as Scipio's humane treatment of friend and foe. But Machiavelli points out that Scipio had trouble dealing with a mutiny in Spain due to his own excessive kindness to disciplined citizen soldiers, while Hannibal never had any mutiny even among mercenaries and allied troops of highly doubtful character. Both were able to gain allies from among enemies - Scipio the Spanish and Hannibal some Italian cities. Liddel Hart excuses this mutiny, saying the troops were poor quality. Scullard makes note of it also, considering Scipio too lenient. Mommsen too considers this a black mark against Scipio.

Scipio was a devoted family man in contrast to the sexually licentious Caesar and the drunken and intemperate Alexander or the megalomaniac Napoleon. Scipio was conservative in political outlook, but moderate on social issues. He had great personal culture and wrote his own memoirs in Greek. He was a graceful orator. To political opponents he was arrogant and tough, but to others gracious and attentive.

Scullard sums up, "not merely a product of his age, but he was one of those outstanding personalities who stand like rocks in the stream of history and divert its course. He kindled a torch, which caused the shadow of Empire to fall athwart the Republic." And Liddel Hart remarks, "weighed solely by his character, apart from his achievements, Scipio has claims to be considered the highest embodiment of the Roman virtues, humanized and broadened by the culture of Greece, yet proof against its degenerate tendencies.

Ancient authorities state that his life was written by Plutarch, but, if so, the text has not survived.

Before undertaking an evaluation of any historical personality, we must concern ourselves with the questions of what sources are available to us from which we can gather information. How accurate are these sources? Are they biased in any special way?

Most of us are probably more familiar with American Civil War or Napoleonic history than Roman and may not consider the special problems involved in this field. Napoleon had hundreds of eyewitnesses on both sides. We can get a pretty good picture if we are careful to evaluate the sources accurately. But even so there is lots of argument. What about Scipio?

Our only primary sources for his career are the few fragmentary inscriptions, coins, and archeological remains, which have so far been uncovered. True, there were contemporary writers who recorded his exploits. His family also kept detailed records. Scipio himself wrote a celebrated letter to Philip V of Macedon, explaining his motives and strategy in the Hannibalic War. However, all of this is lost.

The closest we can come to Scipio is the writing of Polybius, the eminent Greek general and historian, who composed his history of Rome some 60 years after Scipio's active career. That it was Polybius who wrote at this time, we are fortunate, because he is one of the great historians of antiquity. However, he is not without his limitations. Polybius was a general, the son of a general, and follower of Greece's last great general, Philopomen. He was a hostage in Rome and tutor to Scipio Aemelius Africanus. He accompanied his pupil to Carthage in 146. He was eminently qualified to write a history of the Punic Wars. He maintained a high standard of accuracy and was critical of his own sources. He made it a point to visit all locations and to get a personal knowledge of the terrain. He was, however, a Stoic.

This philosophy insisted on the rationality of the universe and the existence of natural causes for historical events. This philosophy certainly helped him in comparison with the more mystic ideas held by others, but in Scipio's case it caused Polybius trouble.

Polybius' sources besides the Scipio family and Laelius, were Greeks, on both the Roman and Carthaginian side. These Greeks followed the school of thought of Alexander the Great - that of a mystic leader. They were perhaps the original "image makers". They liked to surround the idea of the leader with a divine glow. If they could not explain something, they said it was due to divine intervention. Hence, they developed the Legend of Scipio. Polybius was anxious to refute this legend. He admired Scipio as his Stoic HERO, so made him a supremely rational genius. The result was a kind of caricature, a cunning individual who purposely plays on the superstition of his followers and uses religion for his own ends. Polybius makes it seem the Scipio spread these ideas of his divinity himself, while disbelieving them.

The second remaining written source is Titus Livy's history, written 150 years later. Livy relied more on the annalists and on Polybius. His account is more literary than historical, more dramatic and careless. He was not very critical of sources. In his effort to promote Roman patriotism he reduces Roman strength and increases that of the enemy. As for his attitude toward Scipio, he did not assume the mystical religion bit was purely "a cloak and tool". But he was also a Stoic. His picture of Scipio is not very clear.

Unfortunately, Plutarch's life of Scipio is lost. Appian of Alexandria wrote in the time of Hadrian. Dio Cassius is incomplete.

Of modern commentators, Machiavelli, writing in the 16th century is an acute observer of Rome and Italy. He is especially interested in personalities and human character. He read all available classical authors, but relied most on Livy and Polybius.

Theodore Mommsen, the greatest of the 19th century German scholars was a classical liberal who favored the Republic. He opposed the trend to Empire, hence, he favored Cato and opposed Scipio. His is a fundamental work. But he perhaps was misled by Polybius, while strongly opposing the picture the later provided.

Theodore Dodge considered Hannibal his great hero, hence he down-played Scipio.

Liddell Hart reversed the pair and made Scipio the great hero. Scullard remarks of Hart charitably, "not very critical of sources". Hart says Polybius is one historian we can follow without fear. He accepts the legends, repeats the anecdotes, quotes verbatim speeches, somehow thinking Scipio's eloquence will rub off. Hart ignores Scipio's baser aspects and sees only evidence of careful planning and clear forecasting, and of good use of psychology. Hart is so objectionably polemical that he inserts long tirades at Scipio's detractors. (He compares the Celtiberians to American Colonials). But Scipio is merely a foil for Hart in promoting his own favorite theories (the strategy of the indirect approach). Hart cites the highest possible enemy strengths and lowest Roman strengths.

Scullard has a very scholarly approach. He says Scipio was both mystic and rational man of action. He notes that the existence of the Legend itself proves something, there had to be something behind it. He thinks that Polybius did not consider the possibility that the legend was started by others who did not understand Scipio.

Other modern writers focus more on the Roman army or on history in general and mention Scipio only in the larger context. These include Parker, Adcock, Frank, etc.

For classical sources see:

Livy, The War with Hannibal 1960. This is the translation by Aubrey de Selincourt of books xxi-xxx of The History of Rome from its Foundation, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England.

Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire 1979. Being the translation of most of the surviving books of his Histories by Ian Scott-Kilvert, Ed. F. Walbank. Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England.

Aulus Gellius, iv.18; Valerius Maximus, iii, 7;

Plutarch, "Life of Fabius Maximus" and "Life of Marcellus", in Plutarch's Lives. (n.d.) trans. John Dryden, New York, The Modern Library.

For modern sources see:

Adcock, F. E. 1960. The Roman Art of War Under the Republic, Barnes and Noble, New York.

De Beer, Gavin, 1969. Hannibal, Viking Press, New York.

Delbrück, Hans, 1990. Warfare in Antiquity, trans. by Walter J. Renfroe, Jr. Univ. of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Liddell Hart, B. H. 1926. A Greater than Napoleon - Scipio Africanus, London, England

Scullard, H. H. 1930. Scipio Africanus in the Second Punic War, Cambridge, England.

Scullard, H. H. 1961. A History of The Roman World, Methuen & Co. London, England.

Scipio Aemilianus Africanus, Publius Cornelius, the younger (185 - 129).

Bio of Scipio Africanus