Hamilcar
- A general, son of Gisgo, slain in besieging Syracuse, Cic. Div. 1, 24, 50; Val. Max. 1, 7, ext. 8.—
- II Hamilcar Barca, the father of Hannibal, Cic. Off. 3, 26, 99; Nep. Ham.; Liv. 21, 2 sq.; Val. Max. 6, 6, 2; Sil. 1, 72 al.
(Ἁμίλκας and Ἀμίλχαρ, the latter form occurs in Appian only). The two last syllables of this name are considered by (Gesenius Linguae Phoeniciae Monumenta, pp. 399, 407) to be the same with Melcarth, the tutelary deity of the Tyrians, called by the Greeks Hercules, and that the signification of the name is "the gift of Melcarth." The name appears to have been one of common occurrence at Carthage, but, front the absence of family names, and even in most cases of patronymies, among the Carthaginians, it is often impossible to discriminate or identify with certainty the different persons that bore it, many of whom are only incidentally mentioned by the Greek or Roman historians.
1. The commander of the great Carthaginian expedition to Sicily B. C. 480. He is called by Herodotts (7.165) the son of Hanno, by a Syracusan mother: the same historian styles him king (Βασιλεύς) of the Carthaginians, a title by which the Greeks in general designate the two chief magistrates at Carthage, who are more properly styled suffetes or judges. There can be little doubt that this Hamilcar is the same as the person of that name mentioned by Justin (19.1, 2) as having served with great distinction both in Sardinia and Africa, and having been subsequently killed in the war in Sicily, though he is said by that author to have been the son of Mago. If this be so, it is probably to his exploits in those countries that Herodotus refers, when he says that Hamilcar had attained the dignity of king, as a reward for his warlike valour; and the same services may have caused him to be selected for the command of an expedition, undoubtedly the greatest which the Carthaginians had yet undertaken, although we cannot but suspect some exaggeration in the statement of Herodotus and Diodorus, that the army of Hamilcar amounted to 300,000 men. He lost several ships on the passage by a storm, but arrived with the greater part of the armament in safety at Panormus. From thence, after a few days' repose, he marched at once upon Himera, and laid siege to that city, which was defended by Theron of Agrigentum, who shut himself up within the walls, and did not venture to face the Carthaginians in the field. Gelon, however, who soon arrived to the assistance of his father-in-law, with a'considerable army, was bolder, and quickly brought on a general engagement, in which the Carthaginians, notwithstanding their great superiority of numbers, were utterly defeated, and their vast army annihilated, those who made their escape from the field of battle falling as prisoners into the hands of the Sicilians. (Hdt. 7.165_167; Diod. 11.20_22; Polyaen. 1.27.2.) Various accounts are given of the fate of Hamilcar himself, though all agree that he perished on this disastrous day. A story, in itself not very probable, is told by Diodorus, and, with some variation, by Polyaenus, that he was killed at the beginning of the action by a body of horsemen whom Gelon had contrived by stratagem to introduce into his camp. Herodotus, on the other hand, states that his body could not be found, and that the Carthaginians accounted for this circumstance by saying, that he had thrown himself, in despair, into a fire at which he was sacrificing, when he beheld the total rout of his army. A remarkable circumstance is added by the same historian (7.167), that the Carthaginians, after his death, used to sacrifice to him as a hero, and erected monuments to his memory not only at Carthage, but in all their colonial cities. Such honours, singular enough in any case as paid to an unsuccessful general, seem strangely at variance with the statement of Diodorus (13.43), that his son Gisco was driven into exile on account of his father's defeat. According to Justin (19.2), Hamilcar left three sons, Himilco, Hanno, and Gisco.
2. Brother of Gisco [Gisco, No. 2], is mentioned only by Polyaenus (5.11), who states that, after having distinguished himself greatly in the conduct of wars in Africa, he was accused of aiming at the tyranny, and put to death. There is, however, much reason to suspect Polyaenus of some mistake in this matter.
3. One of the commanders of the great Carthaginian army, which was defeated by Timoleon at the passage of the Crimissus, B. C. 339. (Plut. Tim. 25.) The fate of the generals in that action (for the particulars of which see Timoleon) is not mentioned; but it seems probable, from the terms in which Plutarch shortly after speaks of the appointment of Gisco to the command (Ibid. 30), that they both perished.
4. Surnamed Rhodanus, was sent by the Carthaginians to the court of Alexander after the fall of Tyre, B. C. 332. (Just. 21.6.) He was probably sent as ambassador to deprecate the wrath of the king for the assistance given to the Tyrians, or to ascertain the disposition of Alexander towards Carthage, in the same manner as we again find a Carthaginian embassy at his court just before his death. (Diod. 17.113.) Justin, however, represents Hamilcar as having no public capacity, but as worming himself into the king's favour, and then secretly reporting his designs to Carthage. Yet, according to the same author, when he returned home, after the death of Alexander, he was put to death by the Carthaginians for having betrayed their interests. (Just. 21.6; Orosius, 4.6.)
5. Carthaginian governor in Sicily at the time that Agathocles was first rising into power. The latter, having been driven into exile from Syracuse, had assembled a mercenary force at Morgantia, with which he carried on hostilities against the Syracusans. Hamilcar was at first induced to espouse the cause of the latter, and defend them against Agathocles; but was afterwards prevailed on to take up the interests of the exiles, and brought about a treaty, by which Agathocles was restored to his country, and, with the assistance of the Carthaginians, quickly made himself undisputed master of the city, B. C. 317. (Justin, 22.2, compared with Diod. 19.5-9.) Hamilcar appears to have reckoned on the devotion of the tyrant whom he had assisted in establishing, and who had sworn to be faithful to the interests of Carthage; and we find him soon after interposing as mediator, to terminate the war which the Agrigentines, in conjunction with the Geloans and Messenians, had commenced against Agathocles. (Diod. 19.71.) The Carthaginian allies even complained against him, as sacrificing their interests to those of the Syracusan tyrant; and the senate of Carthage determined upon his recal, but he died before his successor could arrive in Sicily. (Just. 22.3, 7.)
6. Son of Gisco [Gisco, No. 2], was appointed to succeed the preceding in the command of the Carthaginian province in Sicily. (Just. 22.3.) The government of Carthage having resolved to engage seriously in war with Agathocles, committed the conduct of it to Hamilcar,who was at that time, according to Diodorus, the most eminent among all their generals. The same writer elsewhere styles him king, that is, of course, suffete. (Diod. 19.106, 20.33.) Having assembled a large fleet and army, Hamilcar sailed for Sicily (B. C. 311); and though he lost sixty triremes and many transports on the passage, soon again restored his forces with fresh recruits, and advanced as far as the river Himera. Here he was met by Agathocles, and, after a short interval, a decisive action ensued. in which the Syracusans were totally defeated with great slaughter. Agathocles took refuge in Gela; but Hamilcar, instead of besieging him there, employed himself in gaining over or reducing the other cities of Sicily, most of which gladly forsook the alliance of the Syracusan tyrant and joined the Carthaginians. (Diod. 19.106_110; Just. 22.3.) It was now that Agathocles adopted the daring resolution of transferring the seat of war to Africa, whither he proceeded in person, leaving his brother Antander to withstand Hamilcar in Sicily. The latter does not appear to have laid siege to Syracuse itself, contenting himself with blockading it by sea, while he himself was engaged in reducing other parts of Sicily. On receiving intelligence from Carthage of the destruction of the fleet of Agathocles, he made an attempt to terrify the Syracusans into submission; but having been frustrated in this as well as in the attempt to carry the walls by surprise, he again withdrew from before the city. (Diod. 20.15, 16.) At length, having made himself master of almost all the rest of Sicily (B. C. 309), he determined to direct his efforts in earnest against Syracuse; but being misled by an ambiguous prophecy, he was induced to attempt to surprise the city by a night attack, in which his troops were thrown into disorder and repulsed. He himself, in the confusion, fell into the hands of the enemy, by whom he was put to death in the most ignominious manner, and his head sent to Agathocles in Africa as a token of their victory (Diod. 20.29, 30; Just. 22.7; Cic. de Div. 1.44; V. Max. 1.7, ext. § 8.)
7. A general of the Carthaginians in the first Punic War. We know nothing of his family or connections, but he must be carefully distinguished from the great Hamilcar Barca [No. 8], with whom he has been confounded by Zonaras (8.10), as well as by some modern writers. It was in the third year of the war (B. C. 262) that he was appointed to succeed Hanno in the command, when that general had failed in averting the fall of Agrigentum. (Diod. xxiii. Exc. Hoeschel. 9. p. 503; Zonar. l.c. See [Hanno, No. 5].) His first operations were very successful; and notwithstanding the great defeat of the Carthaginian fleet off Mylae by Duilius (B. C. 260), Hamilcar for a time maintained the superiority by land. Learning that the Roman allies were encamped near Therma, apart from the legionary troops, he fell suddenly upon them, surprised their camp, and put 4000 of them to the sword. (Plb. 1.24.) After this he appears to have traversed the island with his victorious army, as we find him making himself master of Enna and Camarina, both of which were betrayed to him by the inhabitants. He at the same time fortified the stronghold of Drepanum, which became in the latter part of the war one of the most important fortresses of the Carthaginians. (Diod. xxiii. p. 503; Zonar. 8.11.) In the year 257 he commanded the Punic fleet on the north coast of Sicily, and fought a naval action with the Roman consul C. Atilius, in which, according to Polybius, the victory was undecided, though the Roman commander was honoured with a triumph. (Plb. 1.25, 27; Zonar. 8.12; Fast. Capitol.) In the following year (256), we find him associated with Hanno in the command of the great Carthaginian fleet, which was designed to prevent the passage of the Roman expedition to Africa under the consuls M. Atilius Regulus and L. Manlius Vulso. The two fleets met off Ecnomus, on the south coast of Sicily: that of the Carthaginians consisted of 350 quinqueremes, while the Romans had 330 ships of war, besides transports. In the battle that ensued, Hamilcar, who commanded the left wing of the Carthaginiar. fleet, at first obtained some advantage, but the Romans ultimately gained a complete victory. Above 30 of the Carthaginian ships were sunk or destroyed, and 64 taken. (Plb. 1.25-28; Zonar. 8.12; Eutrop. 2.21; Oros. 4.8.) Hamilcar escaped with his remaining ships to Heraclea Minoa, where he soon after received orders to repair immediately to Carthage, now threatened by the Roman army, which had effected its landing in Africa. On his arrival, he was associated with Hasdrubal and Bostar in the command of the army, which was opposed to Regulus, and must consequently share with those generals the blame of the want of skill and judgment so conspicuous in the conduct of the campaign. [Bostar; Xanthippus.] This incapacity on their part led to the defeat of the Carthaginian army at Adis: we are not told by Polybius what became of the generals after this battle, but his expressions would seem to imply that they still retained their command; it appears at least probable that the Hamilcar mentioned by Orosius (4.1) as being sent immediately after the defeat of Regulus to subdue the revolted Numidians was the one of whom we are now treating. On the other hand, it is vaguely asserted by Florus (2.2) that the Carthaginian generals were either slain or taken prisoners; and it may perhaps be this Hamilcar of whom Diodorus relates (Exc. Vales. xxiv.) that he was given up, together with Bostar, to the kindred of Regulus, and tortured by them in a cruel manner, in revenge for the fate of their kinsman. It is not, however, clear whether in this story, which is at best but a doubtful one, Hamilcar and Bostar were represented as captives or as hostages. (See Niebuhr, Hist. of Rome, vol. iii. p. 300; Plb. 1.30, 31; Eutrop. 2.21; Oros. 4.8; Florus, 2.1.)
8. Surnamed Barca, an epithet supposed to be related to the Hebrew Barak, and to signify "lightning." (Gesenius, Ling. Phoenic. Monum. p. 403.) It was merely a personal appellation, and is not to be regarded as a family name, though from the great distinction that he obtained, we often find the name of Barcine applied either to his family or his party in the state. (Niebuhr, Lect. on Rom. Hist. vol. i. p. 134, not.) We know nothing of him previous to his appointment to the command of the Carthaginian forces in Sicily, in the eighteenth year of the first Punic War, B. C. 247. He was at this time quite a young man (ad modum adolescentulus, Corn. Nep. Hamilc. 1), but had already given proofs of his abilities in war, which led to his being named as the successor of Carthalo. His first operations fully justified the choice, and were characterised by the same energy and daring as distinguished the whole of his subsequent career. At the time that he arrived in Sicily the Romans were masters of the whole island, with the exception of the two fortresses of Drepanum and Lilybaeum, both of which were blockaded by them on the land side, and the Carthaginians had for some time past contented themselves with defending these two strongholds, and keeping open their communication with them by sea. But Hamilcar, after ravaging with his fleet the shores of Bruttium, suddenly landed on the north coast of Sicily, and established himself with his whole army on a mountain named Herctè (now called Monte Pellegrino). in the midst of the enemy's country, and in the immediate neighbourhood of Panormus, one of their most important cities. Here he succeeded in maintaining his ground, to the astonishment alike of friends and foes, for nearly three years. The natural strength of the position defied all the efforts of the enemy, and a small, but safe and convenient, harbour at the foot of the mountain enabled him not only to secure his own communications by sea, but to send out squadrons which plundered the coasts of Sicily and Italy even as far north as Cumae. By land, meanwhile, he was engaged in a succession of almost continual combats with the Romans, which did not, indeed, lead to any decisive result, but served him as the means of training up a body of infantry which should be a match for that of Rome, while he so completely paralysed the whole power of the enemy as to prevent their making any vigorous attempts against either Drepanum or Lilybaeum. So important did it appear to the Romans to expel him from his mountain fastness, that they are said to have at one time assembled a force of 40,000 men at the foot of the rock of Herctè. (Diod. Exc. Hoesch. xxiii. p. 506.) Yet Hamilcar still held out; and when, at length, he relinquished his position, it was only to occupy one still more extraordinary and still more galling to the enemy. In 244 he abruptly quitted Herctè, and, landing suddenly at the foot of Mount Eryx, seized on the town of that name, the inhabitants of which he removed to Drepanum, and converted it into a fortified camp for his army. The Romans still held the fort on the summit of the mountain, while one of their armies lay in a strongly intrenched camp at the foot of it. Yet in this still more confined arena did Hamilcar again defy all their exertions for two years more; during which period he had not only to contend against, the efforts of his enemies, but the disaffection and fickleness of the mercenary troops under his command, especially the Gauls. In order to retain them in obedience, he was obliged to make then large promises, the difficulty of fulfilling which was said to have been afterwards one of the main causes of the dreadful war in Africa. (Plb. 1.66, 2.7; Appian, App. Hisp. 4.) But while he thus continued to maintain his ground in spite of all obstacles, the Romans, despairing of effecting any thing against him by land, determined to make one great effort to recover the supremacy by sea. A powerful fleet was sent out under Lutatius Catulus, and the total defeat of the Carthaginian admiral Hanno off the Aegates, in B. C. 241, decided the fate of the war. [Hanno, No. 11; Catulus.] The Carthaginian government now referred it to Hamilcar to determine the question of war or peace; and seeing no longer any hopes of ultimate success, he reluctantly consented to the treaty, by which it was agreed that the Carthaginians should evacuate Sicily. Lutatius had at first insisted that the troops on Mount Eryx should lay down their arms; but this was peremptorily refused by Hamilcar, and the Roman consul was forced to, abandon the demand. Hamilcar descended with his army to Lilybaeum, where he immediately resigned the command, leaving it to Gisco to conduct the troops to Africa. (Poiyb. 1.56-62, 66; Diod. Exc. xxiv.; Zonar. 8.16, 17; Corn. Nep. Hamile. 1.)
He himself returned to Carthage, filled with implacable animosity against Rome, and broolding over plans for future vengeance under more favourable circumstances. (Plb. 3.9 ) But all such projects were for a time suspended by a danger nearer home. The great revolt of the mercenary troops, headed by Spendius and Matho, which broke out immediately after their return from Sicily, and in which they were quickly joined by almost all the native Africans, brought Carthage in a moment to the brink of ruin. Hamilcar was not at first employed against the insurgents; whether this arose from the predominance of the adverse party, or that he was looked upon as in some measure the author of the evils that had given rise to the insurrection, from the promises he had been compelled to make to the mercenaries under his command, and which there were now no means of fulfilling, we know not; but the incapacity of Hanno, who first took the field against the rebels, soon became so apparent. that all parties concurred in the appointment of Hamilcar to succeed him. He found affairs in a state apparently almost hopeless: Carthage itself was not actually besieged, but all the passes which secured its communications with the interior were in the hands of the insurgents, who were also masters of all the open country, and were actively engaged in besieging Utica and Hippo, the only towns that still remained faithful to the Carthaginians. The forces placed at the disposal of Hamilcar amounted to only 10,000 men and 70 elephants; but with thes he quickly changed the face of affairs, forced the passage of the river Bagradas, defeated the enemy with great slaughter, and re-opened the communications with the interior. He now traversed the open country unopposed, and reduced many towns again to the subjection of Carthage. On one occasion, indeed, lie seems to have been surprised and involved in a situation of much difficulty, but was saved by the opportune accession of Naravas, a Numidian chief, with whose assistance he totally defeated the rebels under Spendius and Autaritus. Many captives having fallen into his hands on this occasion, Hamilcar treated them with the utmost lenity, receiving into his army all that were willing to enlist, and dismissing the rest in safety to their homes, on condition of their not bearing arms against him again. But this clemency was so far from producing the desired effect, that it led Spendius and Matho, the leaders of the insurgents, from apprehension of the influence it might exercise upon their followers, to the most barbarous measures, and they put to death Gisco and all their other prisoners, in order, by this means, to put an end to all hopes of recnciliation or pardon. This atrocity drove Hamilcar to measures of retaliation, and he henceforth put to death, without mercy, all the prisoners that fell into his hands. (Plb. 1.75_81; Diod. Exc. Vales. 25.2.) The advantages hitherto gained by Barca were now almost counterbalanced by the defection of Utica and Hippo; and Hanno having been (for what reason we know not) associated with him in the command, the dissensions which broke out between the two generals effectually prevented their co-operating to any successful resullt. These disputes were at length terminated by the Carthaginian government leaving it to the army to decide which of the two generals should resign, and which should retain his command. The soldiers chose Hamilcar, who accordingly remained at his post, and Hannibal succeeded Hanno as his colleague. Matho and Spendius, the leaders of the insurgents, had taken advantage of the dissensions among their adversaries, and after many successes had even ventured to lay siege to Carthage itself; but Hamilcar, by laying waste the country behind them, and intercepting their supplies, reduced them to such distress, that they were compelled to raise the siege. Spendius now took the field against Hamilcar; but though his forces were greatly superior, he was no match for his adversary in generalship; and the latter succeeded in shutting him up, with his whole army, in a position from which there was no escape. Hence, after suffering the utmost extremities of hunger, Spendius himself, together with nine others of the leaders of the rebels, repaired to the camp of Hamilcar to sue for mercy. That general agreed to allow the army to depart in safety, but without arms or baggage, and retaining to himself the power of selecting for punishment ten of the ringleaders. These terms being agreed to, he immediately seized on Spendius and his companions as the ten whom he selected: the rebel army, deeming themselves betrayed, rushed to arms; but Hamilcar surrounded them with his elephants and troops, and put them all to the sword, to the number, it is said, of 40,000 men. (Plb. 1.82_85.) But even this fearful massacre was far from putting an end to the war: a large force still remained under the command of Matho, with which he held the important town of Tunis. Here Hamilcar and Hannibal proceeded to besiege him with their combined forces; but Matho took advantage of the negligence of the latter, to surprise his camp, cut to pieces great part of his army, aud take Hannibal himself prisoner. This disaster compelled Hamilcar to raise the siege of Tunis, and fall back to the river Bagradas. The Carthaginian senate, in great alarm, now exerted themselves to bring about a reconciliation between Hamilcar and Hanno; and this being at length effected, the two generals again took the field in concert. They soon succeeded in bringing matters to the decision of a general battle, in which the rebels were completely defeated, and Matho himself taken prisoner; after which almost all the revolted towns submitted to the Carthaginians. Utica and Hippo alone held out for a time, but they were soon reduced. the one by Hamilcar and the other by Hanno; and this sanguinary war at length brought to a successful close (B. C. 238), after it had lasted three years and four months. (Plb. 1.86_88; comp. Diod. Exc. Hoeschel. 25.1; and for the chronology see Clinton, F. H. vol. iii. n. 238.)
There is much obscurity with regard to the conduct of Hamilcar after the termination of the war of the mercenaries. Polybius states simply (2.1) that the Carthaginians immediately afterwards sent him with an army into Spain. Diodorus and Appian, on the contrary, represent him as engaging in intrigues with the popular party at Carthage against the aristocracy; and the latter author asserts that it was in order to escape a prosecution brought against him by the adverse party for his conduct in Sicily, that he sought and obtained employment in a war against the Numidians, in which Hanno was associated with him as his colleague; and on the latter being recalled to Carthage, Hamilcar crossed over into Spain. Both Appian and Zonaras expressly assert that he took this important step without any authority from the government at home, trusting to the popular influence at Carthage to ratify his measures subsequently; and it is said that he secured this confirmation not only by his brilliant successes, and by the influence of his son-in-law Hasdrubal, one of the chief leaders of the democratic party at Carthage, but by employing the treasures which he obtained in Spain in purchasing adherents at home. (Appian, App. Hisp. 4, 5, Annib. 2; Zonar. 8.17; Diod. Exc. Vales. xxv.) Whatever weight we may attach to these statements (which are probably derived from Fabius), it is certain that Hamilcar was supported by the popular or democratic party at Carthage, in opposition to the old aristocracy, of whom Hanno was the chief leader: and it was in order to strengthen this interest that he allied himself with Hasdrubal, who, both by his wealth and popular manners, had acquired a powerful body of adherents in the state. It seems probable also that we are to attribute to Hamilcar alone the project to which he henceforth devoted himself with so much energy, and which was so ably followed up after his death by Hasdrubal and Hannibal,--that of forming in Spain a new empire, which should not only be a source of strength and wealth to Carthage, and compensate for the loss of Sicily and Sardinia, but should be the point from whence he might at a subsequent period renew hostilities against Rome. (Plb. 3.9, 10.) His enmity to that state, and his long-cherished resentment for the loss of Sicily, had been aggravated by the flagrant injustice with which the Romans had taken advantage of the weakness of Carthage after the African war, to force from her the cession of Sardinia, one of her most valued possessions; and the intensity of this feeling may be inferred from the well-known story of his causing his son Hannibal, when a child of nine years old, to swear at the altar eternal hostility to Rome. (Plb. 3.11.) But his views were long-sighted, and he regarded the subjugation of Spain as a necessary preliminary to that contest for life or death, to which he looked forward as his ultimate end. The Carthaginians, whether or not they sanctioned his plans in the beginning, did not attempt to interfere with them afterwards, and left him the uncontrolled direction of affairs in Spain from his first arrival there till his death, a period of nearly nine years. But of all that he accomplished during this long interval we know, unfortunately, almost nothing. Previous to this time the Carthaginians do not appear to have had any dominion in the interior of Spain, though Gades and other Phoenician colonies gave them in some measure the command of the southern coasts; but Hamilcar carried his arms into the heart of the country, and while lie reduced some cities and tribes by force of arms. gained over others by negotiation, and availed himself of their services as allies or as mercenaries. The vast wealth he is said to have acquired by his victories was probably derived not only from the plunder and contributions of the vanquished nations, but from the rich silver mines in part of the country which he subdued. We are told also that he founded a great city, which he destined to be the capital of the Carthaginian empire in Spain, at a place called the White Promontory (Ἄκρα Λευκή), but this was probably superseded by New Carthage, and its situation is now unknown. The progress which the arms of Hamilcar had made in the peninsula may be in some measure estimated by the circumstance that the fatal battle in which he perished is stated to have been fought against the Vettones, a people who dwelt between the Tagus and the Guadiana. (Corn. Nep. Hamilc. 4; Strab. iii. p.139.) According to Livy (24.41), it occurred near a place called Castrum Album, but the exact site is unknown. The circumstances of his defeat and death are very differently told by Diodorus and by Appian. The account of the latter author is confirmed by Zonaras; but all writers agree that he displayed the utmost personal bravery in the fatal conflict, and that his death was not unworthy of his life. It took place in 229 B. C., about ten years before his son Hannibal was able to commence the realisation of the great designs in the midst of which he was thus himself cut off. (Plb. 2.1; Diod. Exc. Hoeschiel. 25.2; Zonar. 8.19; Corn. Nep. Hamilc. 4; Liv. 21.1, 2; Oros. iv, 13.)
We know very little concerning the private character of Hamilcar: an anecdote of him preserved by Diodorus (Exc. Val. 24.2, 3) represents in a favourable light his liberality and even generosity of spirit; and we have seen that he at first displayed much leniency towards the insurgents in the African war, though the atrocities of his opponents afterwards led him to acts of frightful cruelty by way of retaliation. His political relations are so obscure that it is difficult to form a judgment concerning his conduct in this respect; but there certainly seems reason to suppose that, like many other great men, the consciousness of his own superiority rendered him impatient of control; and it is not improbable that he sought in Spain greater freedom of action and a more independent career than existing institutions allowed him at home. An odious imputation cast on his relations with Hasdrubal was probably no more than a calumny of the opposite faction. (Corn. Nep. Hamilc. 3; Liv. 21.2, 3.) Of the military genius of Hamilcar our imperfect knowledge of the details of his campaigns scarcely qualifies us to judge, but the concurrent testimony of antiquity places him in this respect almost on a par with his son Hannibal. He left three sons, Hannibal, Hasdrubal, and Mago, all of whom bore a distinguished part in the second Punic war.
9. Son of Gisco, was the Carthaginian governor of Malta at the beginning of the second Punic war. He surrendered the island, together with his garrison of 2000 men, into the hands of the Roman consul, Ti. Sempronius Longus, B. C. 218. (Liv. 21.51.)
10. Son of Bomilcar (probably the Suffete of that name: see Bomilcar No. 2), is mentioned as one of the generals in Spain in B. C. 215, together with Hasdrubal and Mago, the two sons of Barca. The three generals, with their united armies, were besieging the city of Illiturgi, when the two Scipios came up to its relief; and notwithstanding the great inferiority of their forces, totally defeated the Carthaginians, and compelled them to raise the siege. (Liv. 23.49.) No other mention is found of this Hamilcar, unless he be the same that is named by Polybius (3.95) as commanding the fleet of Hasdrubal in 217. That officer is, however, called by Livy (22.19) Himilco. From the perpetual confusion between these two names it seems not impossible that the person of whom we are now speaking is the same as the Himilco whom Livy had previously mentioned (23.28) as being sent into Spain with a large force to support Hasdrubal. [Himilco, No. 7.]
11. A Carthaginian admiral, who commanded the fleet of observation which the Carthaginians kept up during the second Punic war, to watch the movements of the Romans in Sicily. (Plb. 8.3.8.) He is probably the same who in the summer of 210 ravaged the coasts of Sardinia with a fleet of 40 ships (Liv. 27.6); and whom we find holding the chief naval command at Carthage when the seat of war was transferred to Africa. (Appian, App. Pun. 24.) After the defeat of Hasdrubal and Syphax by Scipio in 203, Hamilcar made a sudden attack upon the Roman fleet as it lay at anchor before Utica. He had hoped to have taken it by surprise, and destroyed the whole; but the vigilance of Scipio anticipated his design, and after an obstinate combat he was only able to carry off six ships to Carthage. In a subsequent attack he effected still less. (Appian, App. Pun. 24, 25, 30; Liv. 30.10).
12. An officer in the army of Hannibal, in Italy, during the second Punic war. In 215 he was detached, together with Hanno, into Bruttium, where he succeeded in reducing the important town of Locri. (Liv. 24.1.) He appears to have been appointed governor of his new conquest, which he held with a Carthaginian garrison till the year 205, when the citadel was surprised by Q. Pleminius. Hamilcar still held out in another fort that commanded the town, and Hannibal himself advanced to his relief, but the unexpected arrival of Scipio disconcerted his plans, and he was compelled to abandon Locri to its fate. Hamilcar made his escape in the night, with the remains of his garrison. According to the Roman historians, his conduct during the period he had held the command at Locri was marked by every species of cruelty and extortion, which were however, according to their own admission, far exceeded by those of his Roman successor. (Liv. 29.6-8, 17.)
13. A Carthaginian, who had remained in Cisalpine Gaul after the defeat of Hasdrubal at the Metaurus (B. C. 207), or, according to others, had been left there by Mago when he quitted Italy. In 200, when the Romans were engaged in the Macedonian war, and had greatly diminished their forces in Gaul, Hamilcar succeeded in exciting a general revolt, not only of the Insubrians, Boians, and Cenomanni, but several of the Ligurian tribes also. By a sudden attack, he took the Roman colony of Placentia, which he plundered and burnt, and then laid siege to Cremona; but that place, though unprepared for defence, was able to hold out until the Roman praetor, L. Furius, arrived to its relief with an army from Ariminum. A pitched battle ensued, in which the Gauls were totally defeated, and in which, according to one account, Hamilcar was slain: but another, and a more probable statement, represents him as continuing to take part in the war of the Gallic tribes, not without frequent successes, until the year 197, when he was taken prisoner, in the great battle on the river Mincius, in which the Insubrians were overthrown by the consul Cethegus. He is said to have adorned the triumph celebrated by the victorious consul. (Liv. 31.10, 21, 32.30, 33.23; Zonar. 9.15, 16.) In these proceedings, it is clear that Hamilcar acted without any authority from Carthage; and, on the complaints of the Romans, the Carthaginian government passed sentence against him of banishment and confiscation of his property. (Liv. 31.19.)
14. Surnamed the Samnite, on what account we know not. He was one of the leaders of the democratic party at Carthage during the dissensions which divided that state after the close of the second Punic war; and one of those who instigated Carthalo to attack the troops of Masinissa. [Carthalo, No. 3.] At a subsequent period (B. C. 151 ), the democratic party having expelled from the city those who were considered to favour Masinissa, that monarch sent his two sons, Gulussa and Micipsa, to demand the restoration of the exiles; but the two princes were refused admission within the gates; and as they were retiring, Hamilcar attacked them, and killed many of the followers of Gulussa, who himself escaped with difficulty. This outrage was one of the immediate causes of the war with Masinissa, which ultimately led to the third Punic war. It is probable that Hamilcar, though not mentioned by name, was included in the proscription of Hasdrubal, Carthalo, and the other leaders of the war party, by which the Carthaginians sought to appease the anger of Rome, when the danger of war with that power became imminent. (Appian, App. Pun. 68, 70, 74.)
15. One of the five ambassadors sent by the Carthaginians to Rome at the beginning of the third Punic war, B. C. 149. They were furnished with full powers to act as they deemed best, in order to avert the impending danger; and finding, on their arrival at Rome, that the senate had already passed a decree for war, and would no longer enter into negotiation, they determined on offering unqualified submission. This declaration was favourably received, but 300 hostages were required, as a proof of the sincerity of their countrymen, and, with this demand, the ambassadors returned to Carthage. (Plb. 36.1, 2.)
16. There is a Carthaginian author, of the name of Hamilcar, mentioned (together with Mago) by Columella (12.4) as having written on the details of husbandry; but nothing more is known concerning him. [E.H.B]
(Ἀμίλκας). (1) A Carthaginian general, son of Mago, or, according to others, of Hanno , conquered by Gelon, in Sicily, the same day that Xerxes was defeated at Salamis. Herodotus (vii. 165) states that he was never seen either living or dead after the battle in which his army was defeated. According to Polyaenus, however (i. 27, 2), Gelon destroyed him by a stratagem while sacrificing.
(2) Surnamed Rhodănus, a Carthaginian general of considerable talent. Perceiving his fellow-citizens to be greatly disquieted at the projects of Alexander of Macedon (B.C. 332), he betook himself to that prince, in order, if possible, to penetrate his designs, and give his countrymen timely notice of them. After the death of Alexander he returned to Carthage, where he was put to death, on false accusations of treason, as the recompense of his devotion to his country (Just.xxi. 5).
(3) A Carthaginian general, in the time of Agathocles, tyrant of Sicily. He came to the succour of Syracuse when besieged by that usurper. Being gained over, however, by the gold of Agathocles, he prevailed on the Syracusans to make peace, and favoured by his inaction the schemes of the tyrant. The Carthaginian Senate condemned him to lose his head, but he died at Syracuse, B.C. 311, before the sentence could be made public (Just.xxii. 2).
(4) The son of Giscon; a Carthaginian general, sent into Sicily about B.C. 311, to oppose the progress of Agathocles. On his arrival he gained a victory, which opened to him the gates of several large cities. In attempting to make himself master of Syracuse, during the absence of Agathocles in Africa, he was taken prisoner and put to death, B.C. 309.
(5) Surnamed Barca, the leader of the popular party at Carthage, appointed in the eighteenth year of the First Punic War (B.C. 247) to the command of the Carthaginian armies. No particulars have been preserved respecting his early life or the time of his birth; but it is learned from Nepos (Hamil. 1) that he was very young when he obtained the command. He ravaged with his fleet the coast of the Bruttii and the Epizephyrian Locrians, and afterwards seized upon a strong fortress in Sicily, which was situated between Eryx and Panormus. In this place he continued for some years, with very little support from the Carthaginian government; and, although the Romans were masters of almost the whole of the island, they were unable to dislodge him. He frequently ravaged the southern coasts of Italy as far as Cumae, and defeated the Roman troops in Sicily. On one occasion he took Eryx, which he held till the conclusion of the war. The Romans at length fitted out a fleet to cut off all communication between Hamilcar and Carthage; the Carthaginian fleet sent to his assistance was defeated by the Roman consul Lutatius Catulus (B.C. 241), and the Carthaginians were obliged to sue for peace. This was granted by the Romans; and Hamilcar led his troops from Eryx to Lilybaeum, whence they were conveyed to Africa. But a new danger awaited Carthage. The Carthaginian treasury was exhausted; and it was proposed to the troops that they should relinquish a part of the pay which was due to them. The soldiers rejected the proposal, appointed two of their number, Spendius and Matho, commanders, and proceeded to enforce their demands. Being joined by many of the native tribes of Africa, they defeated Hanno , the Carthaginian general sent against them, and brought Carthage to the brink of ruin. In these desperate circumstances Hamilcar was appointed to the command, and at length succeeded in subduing them after the war had lasted three years and four months. After the end of this war Hamilcar was sent into Spain (B.C. 238). He remained in Spain nearly nine years, during which time he extended the dominion of Carthage over the southern and eastern parts of that country. He fell in a battle against the natives (B.C. 229), leaving three sons, Hasdrubal, Mago, and Hannibal.
The abilities of Hamilcar were of the highest order; and he directed all the energies of his mind to diminish the power of Rome. Polybius states his belief (Bk. iii.) that his administration would soon have produced another war with the Romans, if he had not been prevented by the disorders in which his country was involved through the war of the mercenaries. Hamilcar was succeeded in his command in Spain by his son-in-law Hasdrubal, who must not be confounded with Hasdrubal, the brother of Hannibal. See Polyb. i., ii.; Corn. Nep. Hamil. 3, and the striking picture given in Flaubert's novel, Salammbô.
(6) A Carthaginian general, son of Bomilcar, conquered by the Scipios (B.C. 215) when besieging Ilitingis, in Hispania Baetica, along with Hasdrubal and Mago. He is supposed by some to be the same with the Hamilcar who, fifteen years after, at the head of a body of Gauls, took and sacked Placentia, and was defeated and slain before Cremona. Others affirm that he was taken prisoner three years later in a battle fought near the Mincius, and served to grace the victory of the conqueror (Livy, xxiii. 49; xxxi. 10; xxxii. 23; Pliny , Pliny H. N. iii. 1).