No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Massinissa
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 September 2012
Abstract
In ancient historiography, characterization of leading statesmen was often the central preoccupation. A Berber prince was an irresistibly exotic subject, and the composite portrait of Massinissa, king of Numidia between 201 and 148 B.C., well exemplifies this focus of historia. There is abundant detail of personal attributes—his handsome bearing, his extraordinary strength, his unrivalled powers of endurance. We read how at the age of eighty-eight, sans teeth but with other faculties unimpaired, he led his troops on horseback to decisive victory over the Carthaginians. His love-life attracted admiring attention; his affair with Sophoniba, invested with a historical significance quite fictitious, was depicted by historians and painters of both the ancient world and the Renaissance. The achievements of his virility were enthusiastically recounted; he sired a son at eighty-six, and forty-four (? fifty-four) children are said to have survived him. Nor did his interest in children end with procreation. He reared his grandchildren in his own residence, and Ptolemy Euergetes cherished his query to the Greeks who sought to purchase Numidian monkeys as household pets: παρ΄ ὑμῖν, ὦ οὗτοι, αἱ γυναῖκες οὐ τίκτουσι παίδια; There is detail of the luxury of his court-life: δεῖπνα ΄Ρωμαϊκῶς ἦν κατεσκεσκευασμένα, with Greek musicians, golden baskets, silver tableware.
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © P. G. Walsh 1965. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies
References
1 On his strength and endurance, see Appian, Lib. 106; Polybius 36, 16. On his victory in old age, Livy, Per. 48. The basis of the Sophoniba story is that he was betrothed to her (Diodorus 27, 7, after Polybius and therefore reliable) presumably in 209, when he was at Carthage (L. 27, 5, 11). She was then a child, being marriageable only by 204–3 (L. 29, 23, 4; Pol. 14, 7, 6). Appian (Ib. 37; Lib. 10) and Dio (Zon. 9, 11 f.) claim that Massinissa's secession to Rome was motivated by her subsequent betrothal to Syphax. But that secession took place in 207–6, the marriage not till 204 (L. 29. 23, 3–5). Appian and Dio have followed the sensationalism of late annalistic sources. On the number of his children, see Pol. 36, 16; Epit. Liv. Oxy. p. 135 Rossbach; Eutr. 4, 11. The passages from Ptolemy are collected in Jacoby, , FGH IIB, 985.Google Scholar
2 First by U. Kahrstedt in Meltzer-Kahrstedt, , Gesch. d. Karth. III, 615.Google Scholar So also Hallward, , CAH VIII, 476Google Scholar; Gsell, , HAAN III, 329 ff.Google Scholar; Schur, , RE 14, 2163Google Scholar; Scullard, Roman World,3 304.
3 See, e.g., Frank, Roman Imperialism 223 ff.; Adcock, , CHJ 1946, 117 ff.Google Scholar; Badian, Foreign Clientelae 125 ff.; Romanelli, Storia delle Province romanedell' Africa 37; Camps, , Libyca 8 (1960), 195.Google Scholar
4 The recent study of G. Camps (see n. 3) uses Massinissa as the focus for a reconsideration of North African history before the Roman occupation. He is not primarily concerned with Massinissa's relations with Rome and Carthage.
5 App., Lib. 10.
6 On the location and extent of the Massylii, see Camps 175–83.
7 On whom see especially Gsell, , HAAN V, 161 f.Google Scholar For the coins bearing his portrait and legend, see now Mazard, J., Corpus Nummorum Numidiae Mauretaniaeque (Paris, 1955), 17.Google Scholar
8 This is the obvious explanation for the locality of the battles (L. 24, 49, 4–6). Syphax will hardly have lost his kingdom as a result of these, as Livy (and Hallward, , CAH VII, 70Google Scholar) suggests.
9 L. 25, 34, 1–6, 11–14.
10 He is not mentioned in reports of Spanish campaigning 210–209; in the spring of 209 he was at Carthage with 5,000 Numidians (L. 27, 5, 11).
11 On the chronology, De Sanctis, , S.d.R. 111, 2, 496, n. 84.Google Scholar
12 Gaia and his successor Oezalces had both died. Oezalces' son Capussa (the legal heir because oldest in the family) was challenged by a member of a rival family, Mazaetullus, and killed. Mazaetullus proclaimed the boy Lacumazes, brother of Capussa, as king, whilst he himself wielded effective power. See L. 29, 29, 6–13. On the chronology, Kahrstedt III, 544: on the family connexions, Camps 177.
13 Livy uncritically records two dissonant traditions: (a) Massinissa crossed to Africa after conversing with Silanus (28, 16, 11), i.e. in 207; (b) he waited a whole year in Spain after Ilipa on the chance of meeting Scipio (28, 35). Both traditions cannot be correct. The alleged interview with Scipio may have been invented for its characterizing purpose. Compare the Scipio-Hannibal meeting at L. 35, 14, 5 (similarly unlikely).
14 L. 29, 29, 6–13.
15 At this time he probably met Laelius, who in 205 landed at Hippo Regius to reconnoitre the Numidian princedoms for the invasion of the following year (L. 29, 3, 7). Weissenborn is incorrect in his suggestion that Livy should have written Hippo Diarrhytus here. Kahrstedt rejects the meeting, believing (after L. 29, 3, 10) that Massinissa was in what is now Tripolitania at the time of the landing.
16 De Sanctis 111, 2, 519, n. 112, claims that the two defeats by Bucar and Syphax were one and the same. Yet Polybius was Livy's source here, and perhaps Polybius' source was Massinissa himself. At any rate, the two battles are distinct in locality and personalities, and there is no chronological problem (as De Sanctis proposes) if Massinissa returned from Spain in 207 (see n. 13).
17 L. 29, 34, 10 ff. (204 B.C.); Pol. 14, 3, 7; 4, 7 (burning of the camps); Pol. 14, 8, 6 ff. (Great Plains).
18 Not that all the details of the Livian drama are credible. See De Sanctis 111, 2, 532, n. 137.
19 L. 30, 15, 11–12.
20 Pol. 15, 12; 15, 14, 7.
21 L. 30, 44, 12.
22 Livy purposefully distorts this relationship by placing Massinissa firmly in a subordinate place. Compare Pol. 14, 4, 2: 
with L. 30, 5, 4: ‘ibi Scipio partem copiarum Laelio Masinissamque ac Numidas attribuit … singulos deinde separatim Laelium ac Masinissam seductos obtestatur …’
23 Besides Scipio himself and Laelius (cos. 190), Massinissa knew L. Scipio (cos. 190), Q. Minucius Thermus (cos. 193), Veturius Philo (cos. 206), M. Marcius Ralla(pr. 204), Q. Fulvius Gillo (pr. 200), L. Baebius Dives (pr. 189). See L. 29, 25, 10; 30, 21, 12; 38, 4; 40, 2; App., Lib. 36; Broughton, MRR ad locc. Those who served on commissions included Cn. Octavius (pr. 205), Q. Terentius Culleo (L. 30, 41, 6; 43, 11).
24 As claimed e.g. by Schur, , RE XIV, 2154Google Scholar; Warmington, Carthage 199.
25 App., Lib. 106; Strabo 17, 4, 9.
26 It is clear from the fact that Syphax had a palace at Siga (Takembrît) that Syphax's kingdom extended to the Moulouya (see Pliny, , NH 5, 2Google Scholar, 19; Strabo 17, 3, 9; Scylax, , Periplous 1, 90Google Scholar (III Müller); Gsell, Atlas arch, de l'Alg., feuille 31, no. 1; Camps 167).
27 For Roman recognition of Vermina, L. 31, 19, 6. For the coins bearing the legend VRMND, see Mazard, nos. 13–16. Gsell and Camps needlessly think that they were struck in Syphax's lifetime, in spite of the subscription HMMLKT ( = king, prince). Note also that Artobarzanes, Syphacis nepos, brings an ingens Numidarum exercitus to support Carthage in the 150's (L., Per. 48).
28 L. 31, 11, 4.
29 An inscription from the great Kabylie, a dedication-stone reading TABLA DEO MASI … (CIL VIII, 20731) is reasonably certain evidence that Massinissa was acknowledged as king here. We know from an inscription at Dougga that Numidian kings were deified after death (Lidzbarski, M., Sitzungsb. der kön. preuss. Akad. (1913), 296–304).Google Scholar
30 The royal towns were Bulla, Hippo, Thirmida, Zama. Princes dwelt at Suthul, Thirmida, Calama (B.J. 12, 3; 37, 3; Oros. v, 15, 6).
31 See n. 43 below.
32 Marius' march (BJ 92) takes place after earlier fighting near Capsa. If Sallust's ‘Mulucca’ were the Moulouya, a total march of almost 1,400 miles would have been involved. On the whole question of the western border in Massinissa's time, see the useful article of Berthier-Juillet-Charlier, , RSAC (1950–1951), 3 ff.Google Scholar, who cite further evidence at B.J. 62, 7; 74, 1.
33 I am radically at odds here with the view of Camps, 191.
34 On which see Cic., 2 Verr. 4, 103.
35 So Gsell, AAA, f. 4, p. 3. The significance of this title (not ‘king of the Massylii and Masaesylii’) is perhaps worthy of emphasis. ‘Après la destruction du royaume de Syphax, le terme de Masaesyles disparaît du protocole’ (Camps 161).
36 On Cirta in general, see Gsell, AAA, f. 17, 9–21; Dessau, , RE III, 2586–8Google Scholar; Camps 168 (advancing arguments for Cirta's being originally Massylian). Massinissa is cited as king on stelae found at Constantine: see Berthier-Charlier, , Le Sanctuaire punique d'El Hofra à Constantine (Paris, 1955)Google Scholar, nos. 58, 59, 62. The attempt to identify Cirta with Sicca (Le Kef: see Charlier, , L'ant. Class. (1950), 289 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Berthier Juillet-Charlier, art. cit.) is eccentric. Sicca's full title under Roman occupation was ‘Colonia Iulia Veneria Cirta Nova Sicca’ (CIL VIII, 1632; cf. 1648). When did Sicca become Cirta Nova? Mommsen, (Ges. Schr. v, 470Google Scholar) believes that it was after the occupation of Cirta (Constantine) by Sittius; but possibly Syphax or Massinissa conferred on Sicca the status of a second capital. For Sallust's Cirta, see Schmidt, J., RhM (1890), 318–20Google Scholar, who aligns the evidence of the B.J. with the site of Constantine.
37 It could provide 10,000 cavalry and 20,000 infantry, and was 
(Strabo 17, 3, 13).
38 But Baal Hammon was given precedence over Tanit: see Berthier-Charlier, Le Sanctuaire, p. 13, no. 2; p. 26, no. 4, etc.
39 Pol. 36, 16: 
For the circumstances of Polybius' visit to Massinissa in 150 which may have influenced his judgment, see Camps 210–11.
40 App., Lib. 106; Strabo 17, 3, 15: 
41 Camps 57 ff., 210 analyses the evidence of Herodotus (see e.g. 4, 19, 1) and suggests that agriculture was practised not only in the east (modern Tunisia) but also further west.
42 Rostovtzeff, SEHRE 10.
43 On the Cereres, see Carcopino, , Aspects mystiques de la Rome païenne (Paris, 1942), 13 ff.Google Scholar So far as I know, this evidence has hitherto been used only for the analysis of cult-practices (so, e.g., by Camps).
44 Around Constantine and to the south: the district of Guelma (Calama): and the plains of the Medjerda and its tributaries.
45 See Audollent, , Mélanges Cagnat (Paris, 1912), 359 ff.Google Scholar; no. 50, Cereri Aug(ustae), was found at Cuicul; no. 51 at Saldae; no. 57 at Sétif; others (58, 59) at Aumale.
46 Theveste (‘hundred-gated Thebes’) is the Hekatompylos of Pol. 1, 73. See Walbank's Commentary, ad loc.
47 L. 31, 19, 4; 32, 27, 2; 36, 4, 8; 43, 6, 13. See Frank, , Economic Survey I, 158ff.Google Scholar (final figure inaccurate). Camps (p. 201) appears to think that Rome bought these supplies from Massinissa.
48 Below, n. 59.
49 Caes. 55.
50 Caesar had awarded it to Sittius.
51 So Haywood, , Economic Survey IV, 21.Google Scholar
52 Sall., BJ 17, 5; Pliny, , NH 15, 8.Google Scholar
53 Bell. Afr. 97, 3.
54 Julian, , Hist. de l' Afrique du nord 1, 98Google Scholar, fancifully assumes that there were 44 (? 54) such estates. Camps, 212, echoes this suggestion and bases it on the account of Diodorus (32, 16–17). But the evidence from Polybius is perfectly clear: he has just stated the figure ten, which is clearly to apply here.
55 Sall., BJ 90, 1; Strabo 17, 3, 7; cf. L. 29, 31, 8.
56 Donatus, Vita Ter. I: ‘nullo commercio inter Italicos et Afros nisi post deletam Carthaginem capto.’ For a modified challenge of this statement, see Frank, , AJP (1933), 269 ff.Google Scholar
57 See n. 69.
58 Strabo 17, 3, 13.
59 Inscr. de Delos 442A, 100–104; IG XI, 4, 1115–16; see Dittenberger, Syll. Inscr. Graec., nos. 652 ff.; Wachsmuth, , RhM (1879), 156.Google Scholar
60 Suid. s.v. θύον; Gsell III, 307.
61 Marble from Simitthu (Chemtou) was shipped to Rome in the first century.
62 See in general Gsell, , HAAN VI, ch. 3Google Scholar; Camps 197 (with bibliography).
63 L. 34, 62, 2.
64 Pol. 31, 21: discussion, Gsell, , HAAN III, 316.Google Scholar
65 App., Lib. 106.
66 For details, see Mazard, pp. 30–1, nos. 17–20 for coins minted by Massinissa; for the identification, Gandolphe, P., Cahiers de Byrsa I (Paris, 1951), 161 ff.Google Scholar; for coins minted by towns, Müller, , Num. de l'anc. Afr. III (1862).Google Scholar Those minted by the royal house bear the legends MN (Massinissan, Micipsan), AL (Adherbal), GN (Gulussan). Troussel, M., RSAC (1955–1956), 3 ff.Google Scholar unreasonably rejects these identifications: see further Camps 207–8.
67 See Gsell, , HAAN V, 152 ff.Google Scholar
68 Mazard, p. 30, no. 17; p. 31, no. 18.
69 IG XI, 4, 1115–16.
70 On this, see Momigliano, Istit. Stud. Rom.: Africa Romana 83 ff.; Romanelli 25 ff.
71 IG II, 2, 968, 41–4; Dittenberger, , RhM (1881), 145.Google Scholar
72 L., Per. 50; Diod. 34, 5.
73 The trend established by Kahrstedt III, 578 ff.
74 App., Lib. 105–6; Livy, Per. 50.
75 Camps 195: ‘le vieux guerrier… savait bien qu'il n' aurait jamais réussi à s'emparer par les armes de la grande cité, même si Rome y avait consenti.’ Cf. Sanctis, De, S.d.R. IV, 3, 6.Google Scholar
76 Pol. 15, 18: 
Professor Walbank suggests that, as Polybius is giving the terms of Scipio's proposals, the phrase ‘boundaries to be determined’ might mean before the actual swearing of the treaty by the Senate. Further, L. 34, 62, 9–10 speaks of ‘termini’ in connexion with the Emporia. But L. 30, 37, 2 suggests how vague these termini were; though the Emporia could justly be said by the Carthaginians to be ‘intra eos terminos’ (L. 34, 62, 9). The clinching argument, however, against a definite boundary is the history of the ensuing disputes between Massinissa and Carthage.
77 Lib. 54. Gsell believes that Appian merely specifies what Polybius had in mind, but to have left this unsaid would have been an incredible omission on Polybius' part. As Romanelli, 20, n. 2, well remarks: ‘la fonte da tenere e Polibio.’
78 So Hallward, , CAH VIII, 473Google Scholar; Romanelli 22 ff.
79 See Pol. (n. 76) and L. 30, 37, 4. Badian (FC 126, n. 1) is well justified in doubting whether the speech of L. at 42, 23 is to be preferred to the evidence of Polybius. The statement in that speech, ‘quamquam sciant (sc. Carthaginienses) in suis finibus si inde Numidas pellerent, se gestures bellum, illo haud ambiguo capite foederis deterreri, quo diserte vetentur cum sociis populi Romani bellum gerere’ is at odds with Polybius and should be construed as post hoc elaboration further justifying the barbaric policy against Carthage in 149–6.
80 On the ‘Great Plains’, see Gsell, , XIVe Congrès des Orientalistes (Algiers, 1905), 347 ff.Google Scholar
81 See n. 64; and in general Dessau, , RE 5, 2526–7.Google Scholar
82 See first Kahrstedt, , Gesch. d. Karth. 111, 4, 578 ff.Google Scholar; Gsell, , HAAN 111, 317 ff.Google Scholar; Badian, FC 125 ff.; P. Romanelli, Storia delle province 29; Rossetti, S., Par. del Pass. (1960), 336 ff.Google Scholar; De Sanctis, S.d.R. IV, 3, 9, n. 22.
83 S.d.R. IV, 3, 12, n. 25.
84 Against Klotz, Livius u.s. Vorgänger ad locc.
85 So Nissen, Untersuchungen 152–3, quoting 34, 61, 15 as an example of translation from Greek. Dr. A. H. McDonald suggests that Claudius Quadrigarius, drawing on Acilius who wrote in Greek, is the source.
86 For other occasions on which Livy supplements Polybius from the annalists, see Walsh, Livy 150, n. 3.
87 So Badian, De Sanctis and others.
88 Likewise McDonald, A. H., JRS 1938, 157.Google Scholar
89 I assume that these operations were against settlements to the south and west of the towns of the Emporia, familiar to Massinissa from his exile there in 205 (L. 29, 33, 9).
90 L. 34, 62. The other members of the commission, C. Cornelius Cethegus and M. Minucius Rufus, were Scipio's close associates.
91 In addition to cavalry and grain despatched to the Romans in the Second Macedonian War (L. 31, 19; 33, 27), 800 Numidian cavalry were in this very year (193) fighting against the Ligures (L. 35, 11). In 191 300 cavalry and 20 elephants were in Greece (33, 4, 8) and in 188 400 cavalry in Thrace (38, 41, 12).
92 See L. 36, 4; 38, 42, 7 (188 B.C.).
93 Livy's statement (40, 17 ff.) that Syphax had earlier driven Gaia from this territory, implies a site further west than the Emporia.
94 L. 40, 34.
95 At Lib. 68 Appian states that in the Celtiberian war, while Massinissa was fighting in Spain, Carthalo attacked the Numidians encamped on disputed territory. The attack is usually dated 153 (the Second Celtiberian War). But could Massinissa have been fighting in Spain then, at the age of 85 and at the height of his African incursions? The First Celtiberian War (181–79) is a more likely occasion for this episode if it is historical.
96 L. 41, 22 (June, 174).
97 Lib. 68; cp. Poinssot, C., Les ruines de Dougga (Tunis, 1958), 9.Google Scholar For an alternative view (Tusca = the area around mod. Tabarca) see Camps 194.
98 L. 42, 24, 6.
99 Livy (42, 29) here strikes a curiously hostile tone towards Massinissa. In complete opposition to such facts as we possess, he claims that the king had his plans ‘in omnem fortunam deposita’. If Rome were victorious his position would be unchanged, for Rome would protect Carthage. But if Rome lost, all Africa would be his. This is a simpliste view which ignores the war-potential of Carthage; and accordingly it may derive from a late annalist's lively recollection of Jugurtha.
100 L. 42, 62, 65–6; 43, 6.
101 L. 43, 3.
102 L. 45, 13–14. The Senate's kindly refusal of the offer of Massinissa himself to come to Rome and sacrifice is interpreted as a snub by Pais-Bayet, , Histoire romaine I, 598 ff.Google Scholar In fact, it set the king apart from his more adulatory Hellenistic contemporaries. Massinissa had never rushed to Rome for favours. The Senate may also have feared a domestic coup in the absence of the aged king.
103 Pol. 31, 21. The account of Appian (Lib. 72), dating the final evacuation in 150, illustrates that author's defective chronology through over-compression.
104 31, 21, 6; App., Lib. 68.
105 Most authorities believe he went in 153: see Broughton, MRR ad loc.; Gsell, , HAAN 111, 332Google Scholar; Scullard, Roman Politics 287.
106 Appian states that 32,000 Romans were lost in Spain in 155–1; see Frank, , Economic Survey 1, 109.Google Scholar
107 Pliny, , NH 15, 74Google Scholar: ‘perniciali odio Carthaginis flagrans …’
108 L., Per. 47; App., Lib. 69.
109 See Gelzer, M., Vom röm. Staat 1, 78 ff.Google Scholar An incisive analysis of Roman attitudes appears in Kienast, D., Cato der Zensor (Heidelberg, 1954), 125 ff.Google Scholar
110 Zon. 9, 26; L., Per. 48.
111 L., Per. 48.
112 ibid.
113 Lib. 70. Vaga lies just west of the boundary of the Roman province, which was the frontier of Carthage in 146.
114 L., Per. 48; App., Lib. 70 ff.
115 On the legality of the declaration of war, see Saumagne, Ch., Rev. Hist. 167 (1931), 227 ff.Google Scholar; 168 (1931), 1 ff.
116 App., Lib. 94.
117 The royal tomb found at le Khroub near Cirta (Gsell, , Mon. ant. de l'Alg. 1, 62Google Scholar) may possibly be Massinissa's.
118 The development is brilliantly sketched by Badian, FC 55 ff.
119 See Kienast 132.
120 See L. 34, 62; 41, 22; 43, 3; Per. 48.
121 I wish to thank Mr. John Bartholomew, who has drawn the map: Dr. A. H. McDonald and Professor F. W. Walbank, who criticized an earlier draft of this article: M. André Berthier, who kindly received me at Constantine and provided me with local bibliographical material: and the University of Edinburgh, for financial assistance enabling me to visit Carthage and Constantine.
- 13
- Cited by
