It has generally been thought that Hannibal was a hostile individual and despised in Roman society because of his non-Roman status and his apparent tendency to be deceptive, cruel and savage. Yet, our understanding of Hannibal as a character is limited. This thesis attempts to address his characterisation through an examination of his night-time military exploits, and argue that our knowledge of Hannibal can be expanded upon by examining how Livy characterised Hannibal in his account of the Second Punic War. Furthermore, this thesis takes a fresh approach to Hannibal’s characterisation, considering Livy’s use of ‘the night’ in association with military activity, and revealing that Hannibal displayed traits that the Romans themselves valued. Thus, Hannibal’s character is developed through a nocturnal military setting, and he becomes comparable to Rome’s finest generals, including Fabius Maximus, Marcellus and Scipio Africanus. Similarly, it is also shown that he exhibited Roman military virtus in place of the traits traditionally thought to be synonymous with the non-Roman. By analysing the character of Hannibal in this manner, we reveal that in Roman thought he was an ambiguous character, whilst simultaneously highlighting how the Romans both perceived and used the night within the context of the army.

The Second Punic War, fought between the Romans and Carthaginians, lasted for seventeen years. During this time the Carthaginians inflicted several devastating defeats upon Roman armies. In addition to the cost in human lives, these defeats left a legacy of shame which the Romans were anxious to extirpate. An important part of this process lay in the public perception of these events, and the ones most responsible for shaping this perception were the historians who recorded and wrote about them. Historiography in Rome was in its infancy as the Second Punic War drew to an end, and none of the accounts written by men who lived through the war have survived intact. The fullest and most detailed account of these years is that of Livy who, writing two centuries later, inherited the fruits of two centuries of historiography on the subject. Yet contrary to the belief that has persisted too long, Livy was not merely a collator and copyist, but a moralist and an artist with a vision of his own. For Livy, the period of the Second Punic War represents the Romans at their greatest, before the evils of foreign immorality and luxury took root and led eventually to the excessive greed and intense rivalry which tore the state apart. Thus it is not only patriotism, but also nostalgia, that colours Livy’s memorable presentation of these events and the people involved. Nobody denies Livy’s literary artistry, but it is the choices he has made in his interpretation of people and events that are of more interest to me. It was Livy’s cherished belief that the Romans of old, exemplars of courage and strict morality, were well nigh unbeatable in a fair fight, which makes the presentation of episodes of defeat and disgrace so much more challenging for him. A close examination of the ancient evidence, and in some cases a re-evaluation of modern perceptions concerning episodes of defeat and disgrace and the people involved, has allowed me to better grasp the extent of Livy’s artistic licence and reinterpretation. The evidence and opinions of Polybius have played a crucial role in this process, not only because of his closer proximity to the events in question, but because Livy is known to have read and used his work. Polybius’ influence on Livy’s later decades concerning Rome’s involvement with Greek states is undeniable, but although Polybius wrote about the Second Punic War also, Livy has remained remarkably independent of Polybius’ account. A comparison of these accounts reveals the difference in the choices made by each author and serves to illuminate what makes Livy’s history his own.

The Second Punic War, fought between the Romans and Carthaginians, lasted for seventeen years. During this time the Carthaginians inflicted several devastating defeats upon Roman armies. In addition to the cost in human lives, these defeats left a legacy of shame which the Romans were anxious to extirpate. An important part of this process lay in the public perception of these events, and the ones most responsible for shaping this perception were the historians who recorded and wrote about them. Historiography in Rome was in its infancy as the Second Punic War drew to an end, and none of the accounts written by men who lived through the war have survived intact. The fullest and most detailed account of these years is that of Livy who, writing two centuries later, inherited the fruits of two centuries of historiography on the subject. Yet contrary to the belief that has persisted too long, Livy was not merely a collator and copyist, but a moralist and an artist with a vision of his own. For Livy, the period of the Second Punic War represents the Romans at their greatest, before the evils of foreign immorality and luxury took root and led eventually to the excessive greed and intense rivalry which tore the state apart. Thus it is not only patriotism, but also nostalgia, that colours Livy’s memorable presentation of these events and the people involved. Nobody denies Livy’s literary artistry, but it is the choices he has made in his interpretation of people and events that are of more interest to me. It was Livy’s cherished belief that the Romans of old, exemplars of courage and strict morality, were well nigh unbeatable in a fair fight, which makes the presentation of episodes of defeat and disgrace so much more challenging for him. A close examination of the ancient evidence, and in some cases a re-evaluation of modern perceptions concerning episodes of defeat and disgrace and the people involved, has allowed me to better grasp the extent of Livy’s artistic licence and reinterpretation. The evidence and opinions of Polybius have played a crucial role in this process, not only because of his closer proximity to the events in question, but because Livy is known to have read and used his work. Polybius’ influence on Livy’s later decades concerning Rome’s involvement with Greek states is undeniable, but although Polybius wrote about the Second Punic War also, Livy has remained remarkably independent of Polybius’ account. A comparison of these accounts reveals the difference in the choices made by each author and serves to illuminate what makes Livy’s history his own.

Thesis--Göttingen.

Thesis--Bonn. / Includes bibliographical references.

Programm--Königliches Katholisches Gymnasium zu Leobschütz, 1884. / Part I of a work that was originally issued as an inaugural dissertation, Breslau, 1863. "1884. Progr. Nr. 175." Includes bibliographical references.

The ancient city of Morgantina in Sicily was an important city during the Hellenistic age and probably member of a koinon (a union) under the leadership of Syracuse. Much research has been done on the city of Morgantina, but as far as I know, no study has had the aim to show what role Morgantina played in the Second Punic War. Therefore, this essay focuses on Morgantina during and after the Second Punic War (218–201 BCE). The main questions presented in this essay are what happened to the city after the war and what was the aftermath of the war? What happened to the people in the town and why were some houses abandoned and others not? To answer these questions archaeological evidence (numismatic material and buildings) as well as ancient historians’ narrations have been used (the historians used are Diodorus Siculus, Livy, Cicero and Strabo). The study argues that Morgantina might have been the last important free Greek town in Sicily (and possibly the very last) and that the city probably did not fight actively for either side, but might have provided Rome with grain and therefore taken Rome’s side.

M.A. (Latin) / I found the doctoral thesis of Pauw, "Karaktertekening by Ammianus Marcellinus", an interesting study. In particular I was fascinated by the table given in the appendix, in which the number of times both the positive and the negative characteristics in Ammianus 1's portrayal of four emperors, who reigned for a reasonable time, and four of the more important minor characters are indicated in the various devices of character portrayal open to the author. I wondered if such a wide variety and frequency of these direct and indirect methods of character depiction could be identified in the work of an historian like Livy, who is the first historiographer of the old annalistic tradition, whose work is extant in significant quantity (Lintott, p. 234)...

No description available.

This is a study of how late Republican and early Imperial authors recast different elements of episodes from the Struggle of the Orders (509-287 BCE) based on the events and circumstances of their own times and their authorial aims. The study is divided into two parts. Part I focuses on portrayals of Sp. Cassius’ third consulship in 486 BCE, when he sought to pass a lex agraria. Part II examines the treatments of Sp. Maelius’ private frumentary distributions, which purportedly occurred in 439 BCE. Both episodes seem to have been treated briefly by earlier sources; the main thread of the stories centred around Cassius’ and Maelius’ desire to acquire regnum, which led to their suppressions and deaths. Over time, the stories evolved and became more detailed. Elements were exaggerated, added, or omitted, which often spoke to what was happening during the time at which a certain author was writing. By means of a comparison of the primary sources I examine the contemporary Roman historical realities contained within our surviving narratives on the patricio-plebeian conflicts of the early period. Late Republican authors frequently recast the patrician-plebeian struggle in the context of the recent political conflicts between optimates and populares, using the political idiom of their own times to describe the Struggle of the Orders. Cassius and Maelius became embedded in the political controversy surrounding the suppression of men (reportedly) seeking kingship by the state that began with the institution of the SCU and continued long into the first century BCE. I analyze the changes that take place in the accounts of Cicero, Livy, and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, our main sources on the episodes involving Cassius and Maelius. Different authors reinterpret, emphasize, and omit various elements of the events of 486 and 439 BCE. A single author might, as is the case with Cicero, reimagine the episodes differently at different times based on his immediate aims. While the ways by which the sources reimagine elements of these episodes has led to harsh criticisms of these authors, especially Livy and Dionysius, I argue that our sources were engaging with the material at their disposal and shaping it in ways that were acceptable to ancient audiences. This historical interpretation helped the Romans to make sense of their own past and derive meaning from it, which, in turn, helped them to engage with and make sense of their present. / Thesis / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)