Scribd
Upload
89 views5 pages

Review - Scipio Africanus. Soldier and Politician

This review summarizes and critiques H. H. Scullard's book "Scipio Africanus: Soldier and Politician." The reviewer notes that over two-thirds of the book's content is directly copied or paraphrased from Scullard's previous works on Scipio Africanus from 40 years prior. While Scullard incorporates some new scholarly works, the analysis and conclusions are largely unchanged from his earlier writings. The reviewer agrees with some of Scullard's military analyses but raises doubts about his positive view of Polybius' account and interpretations of Roman politics during Scipio's time.

Uploaded by

Rubén Escorihuela
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
89 views5 pages

Review - Scipio Africanus. Soldier and Politician

This review summarizes and critiques H. H. Scullard's book "Scipio Africanus: Soldier and Politician." The reviewer notes that over two-thirds of the book's content is directly copied or paraphrased from Scullard's previous works on Scipio Africanus from 40 years prior. While Scullard incorporates some new scholarly works, the analysis and conclusions are largely unchanged from his earlier writings. The reviewer agrees with some of Scullard's military analyses but raises doubts about his positive view of Polybius' account and interpretations of Roman politics during Scipio's time.

Uploaded by

Rubén Escorihuela
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

Scipio Africanus: Soldier and Politician by H. H.

Scullard
Review by: Erich S. Gruen
The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 93, No. 2 (Apr., 1972), pp. 377-380
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/293271 .
Accessed: 09/05/2014 01:05

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
American Journal of Philology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Fri, 9 May 2014 01:05:40 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
REVIEWS. 377

This reviewer would like to plead that it would be more useful


to give a plate reference and a date as part of the heading of each
number, as used to be common practice in this series, rather than
the two pages devoted to List of Plates and Numbers and Plates as
part of the front matter.
LLOYDW. DLY.
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA.

H. H. SCULLARD. Scipio Africanus: Soldier and Politician. Ithaca,


Cornell University Press, 1970. Pp. 299. $6.95. (Aspects of
Greek and Roman Life.)
Forty years ago, Professor Scullard, then a young man but
already a mature scholar, published his Scipio Africanus in the
Second Punic War. It was a work of high distinction, a careful
and thorough analysis of Scipio's military genius. A strong argu-
ment could have been made for republication or a second edition
of that volume, now long out of print. Scullard chose a slightly
different vehicle. He produced another book, encompassing Scipio's
entire career (not just the years of the Hannibalic War) and
discussing his political, as well as his military, fortunes. But the
potential reader should be under no misapprehension. He will find
the impact of forty years barely perceptible. Scipio Africanus:
Soldier and Politician is not, in any significant sense, a " new book."
More than two thirds of its contents are close paraphrase or, indeed,
exact repetition of the earlier work (cf. pp. 2-288 of the first book
with pp. 11-161, 225-43 of the present volume). For the remaining
one third Scullard turned once again to Scullard: a summary and
rehearsal of his own views published two decades ago in the Roman
Politics, 220-150 BC (cf. pp. 168-224 with Roman Politics, pp.
75-152).
The author announces in his preface that he drew "very heavily
upon my earlier work." That is understatement. Chapter titles,
organization, conclusions, whole paragraphs, even pages on end are
lifted bodily from the previous two books, with the language or
punctuation changed only slightly-or not at all. Perhaps duplica-
tion on this large a scale is in some way justifiable; it required, at
the very least, a more forthright acknowledgment. Scullard, to be
sure, has not ignored scholarly contributions on the Scipionie era
which appeared since publication of his initial work. Footnotes
abound in references to modern articles and books on a variety of
military, political, and archaeological matters. And Scullard has
remained scrupulously up to date, consulting pieces published as late
as 1969 and making full use of Walbank's invaluable second volume
on Polybius. But changes in the text itself are few, confined
to alterations of style or minor shifts of emphasis. mostly
Seullard has, if anything, developed an even firmer confidence in
Polybius' narrative and opinions. Some may regard that as over-
credulity. The bald statement that Polybius "is not likely to have

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Fri, 9 May 2014 01:05:40 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
378 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.

been deceived by any supposed falsehood" (p. 17) will hardly win
universal assent. Patronage extended by the circle of Scipio
Aemilianus must have put a strain on objectivity. That Polybius
"made the fullest use of all oral sources" (p. 18) is unverifiable.
Even if it were so, however, the fact would not necessarily bolster
confidence. Self-interested oral informants may well lie behind
Polybius' rejection of the Carthaginian treaty recorded by Philinus-
to take but the most notorious example (Polyb., III, 26; cf., inter
alia, Toynbee, Hannibal's Legacy, I, pp. 540-55). Scullard inclines
to accept Polybius' romantic story about young Scipio's rescue of his
father at the Ticinus (p. 29). Laelius had conveyed the tale (Polyb.,
X, 3). But whether Laelius knew Scipio at the time of the alleged
episode is dubious. Polybius was certainly not above retailing
inaccuracies about Scipio's early career-as Scullard himself must
admit (pp. 30-1; Polyb., X, 4-a story that also seems to derive
from Laelius). The author, in general, shows an inclination towards
acceptance of most traditions on Scipio, even attempting a rational-
istic explanation of the watchdogs who never barked when Scipio
entered the Capitoline temple (pp. 20-1).
Since the views expressed in Scullard's current volume were
formulated long ago and are widely known, detailed criticism is
unnecessary. One may reread with profit his incisive and lucid
reconstructions of Scipio's campaigns in Spain and Africa. On
many of the more controversial questions he is eminently sane:
e. g., his explanation of the "ebb-tide " at New Carthage (pp. 52-
63), and his defense of Scipio against those who criticized him for
permitting Hasdrubal to slip across the Pyrenees (pp. 82-5). Less
satisfactory is his acceptance of Veith's theory on Zama: that
Hannibal's second line of Carthaginians failed to support the
mercenaries by design rather than out of cowardice (p. 151). If so,
then Hannibal does not seem to have let his mercenaries in on the
plan. On larger strategical matters some points call for dissent.
Scullard has no warrant for asserting that C. Claudius Nero's
appointment to Spain in 211 envisaged a purely defensive strategy
in that area (p. 38). Nero's previous service under Fabius Maximus
proves nothing. His most recent duty had been with Fulvius Flaccus
at the siege of Capua-not exactly a defensive maneuver. Of course,
Nero's policy in Spain was cautious; he could hardly be expected to
resume the offensive in the first year after the Scipios' severe defeat.
His purpose was to reorganize the survivors and consolidate the
Roman position north of the Ebro. Scullard, on the whole, draws
too sharp a distinction between the strategical philosophies of Fabius
and Scipio (pp. 109-11, 168). Delaying tactics in Italy and a
vigorous offensive in Spain were complementary, not opposing,
policies. Hannibal's strength was to be worn down in Italy, while
his source of reinforcements was eliminated in Spain. Nor is
Fabius to be identified simply with conservative hesitation. The
swift and firm Roman reaction in 215 to Carthaginian moves in
Sardinia and Sicily was headed by T. Manlius Torquatus and T.
Otacilius Crassus, both reckoned by Scullard himself as " Fabians"
(cf. Roman Politics, pp. 58-9).
Scullard's assessments of politics, often criticized, still provoke
many doubts. It is a mistake, for example, to lump the Servilii

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Fri, 9 May 2014 01:05:40 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
REVIEWS.. 379

together as enemies of Scipio (pp. 170-2). Caepio's attempt to


cross to Sicily in 203 was undoubtedly hostile. But he was checked
by Galba, a friend of the Servilii Gemini. And nothing shows that
C. and M. Geminus, the consuls of 203 and 202, were opposed to
Scipio; rather the reverse (see Cassola, I gruppi politici, pp. 412 ff.;
Scullard's reply, pp. 278-9, is weak and unpersuasive). Among
other things, Seullard's view requires him to make P. Aelius Paetus
switch back and forth between friendship and hostility to Scipio at
a dizzying pace (cf. p. 180). Even more tortured is his portrayal
of Scipio's relations with Flamininus. Scullard begins by conjectur-
ing that Scipio opposed the senate's decision to precipitate war with
Philip in 200 (pp. 177-8). In fact, not a particle of evidence attests
to Scipio's involvement-one way or the other. The war once
declared, however, Scipio in 199 approved and supported Flamini-
nus' appointment to take charge of it-or so, at least, Scullard
hypothesizes (pp. 182-3). Again not a particle of evidence (apart
from the very indirect remark of Plut., Flam., 3, 3, which says
nothing " about Scipio's attitude). And Scullard must imagine that
Scipio lacked sufficient support to win the command for himself "
(p. 182)-surely a paradoxical comment on the man fresh from
conquest of Hannibal and election to the censorship. We are not
through yet with Scipio's alleged shifts. In 198, so Scullard
postulates, he changed his mind once more: now he worked for the
supersession of Flamininus (p. 185). Unhappily, there is no more
evidence for this conjecture than for the others: i. e. none at all.
The entire reconstruction lacks substance and plausibility. Scipio's
absence from the testimony on these matters is still best explained
by the assumption that his interests lay in the west and that he had
not yet formulated any eastern policy (ef. Badian, Foreign Clien-
telae, pp. 65-6). It is noteworthy that his first recorded pronounce-
ment on eastern questions came in 194-after Hannibal had fled
to the court of Antiochus (Livy, XXXIV, 43). That his political
position had been in eclipse in previous years (p. 191) is un-
founded inference. Scipio attained the censorship in 199, was named
princeps senatus, and secured election to his second consulship for
194, immediately after the necessary ten year interval had passed.
There is no hint of an eclipse. Flamininus, according to Scullard,
eventually lands in the "middle bloc," halfway between the factions
of Cato and Scipio (pp. 211-13). Yet the censors of 189, one of
whom was Flamininus, reappointed Scipio as princeps senatus. The
artificial divisions are badly strained. Scullard retails once again
the distinction concocted by McDonald (J. R. S., 1938) between
Flamininus' adherence to Hellenic " autonomy" and Scipio's "Hel-
lenistic" policy of dealing with monarchies and leagues (p. 183).
The distinction is nowhere affirmed or even suggested by the sources.
In fact, neither Scipio nor Flamininus pursued doctrinaire policies
vis-a-vis eastern states; their actions were dictated by circumstances
and by the interests of Rome.
Scullard's admiration for Scipio is deep. The biography does not
descend to hagiography-but, at times, it comes perilously close.
Rome would never have destroyed Carthage had she retained
"Scipio's ideals" and " Scipio's vision" (p. 159). When he went
into virtual exile, it was "his ungrateful country that was dis-

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Fri, 9 May 2014 01:05:40 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
380 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.

honoured " (p. 224). Scipio was never cruel without a purpose: " he
struck to punish and deter" (p. 233). When he tore up his account
books to fend off a senatorial inquiry, it was "from a conscious
belief in himself and the rightness of his cause" (p. 235). " A noble
of the nobles, born into one of Rome's greatest families, he shone
forth like a star of hope in his country's darkest hour" (p. 241).
" He withdrew to voluntary exile, soon to die, having drunk deep of
the waters of success and power, but willing to forego the outward
show in a constitution which had no place for the outstanding in-
dividual" (p. 242). On questionable actions, Scipio usually receives
the benefit of the doubt. So, his willingness to treat with Carthage
in 203 was not out of personal ambition, but because " he saw that
the season was ripe" (p. 135). And the conclusion of peace after
Zama came not because Scipio feared supersession, but because
"Italy needed rest to heal her wounds" (p. 156). One would do
well to keep in mind indicators which point in other directions:
the brutal massacre which Scipio ordered at Ilurgia; the mutiny of
his soldiers, quelled only with difficulty; the (at best) dubious
behavior in the Pleminius affair; and, as the author himself admits,
Scipio's contributions to politics were of no significance (p. 238).
On balance, however, Scullard's admiration is not misplaced. His
subject naturally evokes it. And his general analysis of Scipio as
a man who combined both calculating rationalism and religious faith
is surely close to the truth.
Students of Roman history have long been in Professor Scullard's
debt. Not the least of his achievements is his current editorship of
the excellent series " Aspects of Greek and Roman Life," to which
he himself contributed a distinguished volume on Rome and the
Etruscan cities. The book presently under review is also part of
that series. It will certainly see widespread use. The collection of
Scullard's thoughts on Scipio within a single volume is a valuable
service. But one cannot blink the fact that it contains very little
which we have not heard before-from Scullard himself.
ERICH S. GRUEN.
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY.

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Fri, 9 May 2014 01:05:40 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy